2.0...Too Much, Too fast?

The days are winding down on season two of proposal 2.0. We will know more once the harvest numbers are released….but it certainly feels like there are a lot more unhappy deer hunters than just a year ago. The ultimate question looms…was 2.0 too much….too fast?

To be honest, my personal experience does not provide a good feel. I have a good situation. I don’t feel guilty about that… because it is not by accident. Unless the state takes this to the next level, and starts infringing on private property rights (which I can’t fathom happening), my situation should remain relatively constant. The one wild card in the equation is trespassing. The farm is already experiencing increased trespassing issues and I fear that will get worse as deer hunting success declines on surrounding properties.

The DNR is once again asking for input. I’m going to skip the process again this year (did the same last year). As mentioned above, whatever path the DNR chooses will have little effect on the farm. If I’m wrong and deer hunting in Indiana gets to the point I don’t enjoy it….there are other places to hunt….been there….done that.

I do, however, have something to get off my chest….that being the difference between proposals 1.0 and 2.0. I’m seeing posts surfacing that are apparent attempts to draw similarities between the two proposals…even though the proposals were night and day different. Comments like “both proposals addressed deer reduction”…or “both proposals included late antlerless firearms seasons” are misleading and intended or not…manipulative to the uninformed. Supporters of 1.0 were accused of being “agenda driven”, but I would offer the feedback provided in support of 2.0 was worse. Many supported 2.0 out of fear of losing firearms opportunity if it didn’t pass. Others used 2.0 as a vehicle to promote crossbow liberalization. Agenda driven? You bet your ***.

Proposal 1.0 was not driven by the DNR, but by lawmakers (happy Dave?). The DNR was being forced to come up with something to prove a deer reduction effort was underway. Findings concluded the ratio of buck harvest to doe harvest needed to be addressed. Changes were proposed to firearms season structures to take some of the focus off antlered deer harvest…..which in turn should have had a positive effect on the harvest ratio. The point being, we didn’t necessarily need to kill more deer to take the legislative pressure off….just different deer. Basically, that was 1.0 in a nutshell.

Due to the outcry from the non-agenda driven folks (yeah right)….it was back to the drawing board for the DNR. This time tasked to come up with something different…and by the way…don’t touch gun season. How’s that for a set of handcuffs? Next up….2.0…..an aggressive deer killing proposal if there ever was one. Compared to 1.0….the second proposal increased general firearm/ML opportunity by roughly 40% (I used 28/40 to get there. I can’t recall the final 1.0 number, but 28 is close, the 2.0 number was 43 this year, but varies annually). In addition to that, 2.0 added roughly two full months of crossbow pressure that had never existed. By adding more potential focus on antlered deer (instead of less, 1.0)….it required very aggressive measures to address that antlerless harvest ratio mentioned earlier. It is what it is….and is nothing remotely comparable to 1.0. To be clear, I’m not certain 1.0 would have produced the desired results? Just pointing out it was a much less aggressive approach.

I apologize for the long post, but it will be my last…at least for awhile. I’ve accepted that I’m a minority here….and I just don’t have the patience or the energy any more. A big part of it likely stems from the fact I was intimately involved with the DNR regarding deer management for quite some time. Back then, decisions were made by people sitting down at a table and hashing out the issues. It wasn’t always a bed of roses…but it was a far cry better than deer management based on who can submit the most emails.

Good Post .... as for those that pushed the crossbow crap...they need a good kick in the nads .....multiple times......

So much for 2.0 being a watered down proposal and not going to work!!!

The Deer herds all over the Midwest are down!!!

Just out of curiosity, why?...


Alot of people made a big deal and hoopla about crossbows for really no good reason (other then they didn't want other hunters in the woods because they may shoot "their buck")... Crossbows only had 6% harvest for 2012/2013 season... Hardly made a dent in the total harvest...

Much ado about nothing IMO...

Let's get a few facts straight.....

1. 1.0 and 2.0 both included the late antler less season.

2. The main difference in the deer harvest data from 2011 and 2012 (the first year of the late antlerless season) is the late antler less season totals (10,000). So it's not surprising total harvest numbers were up last year.....

Which leads us to our next fact(s).

3. THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF BOTH PROPOSALS WAS HERD REDUCTION. And as has been pointed out this isn't just an Indiana thing...This is a goal set by many states throughout the country.

4. If necessary, the DNR can reduce bonus antler less permits (as they did in 20 counties for the 2012/2013 season). Not only that, (and a point I had forgotten) is that the DNR can lower the bonus antler less quotas to 3 or less, thus effectively putting an end to the late antlerless season, without changing any regs. So there are tools in place to protect the herd from dropping too low.

Contact the DNR and others involved in the process and voice your concerns. That's what I've done and will continue to do and the DNR makes it easy. Over the last few years I've been very happy with the responses I've received when I contacted the powers that be.

And while some would have us believe otherwise, I hardly think any hunter in this state, nor the DNR wants to wipe out the deer herd. Deer hunting is the cash cow that drives the financial bus and provides all of us with enjoyment.

And while I think we are going to have to get used to seeing fewer deer, I think the quality of deer will continue to rise.

And ultimately, that's the goal.........

Paul, yes, I'm happy. JJAS, I will simply say that any deer is a "quality" deer in my opinion, or at least should be considered such by any hunter in the field. Jeff, I don't think for one minute the crossbow is the culprit of any of this herd reduction issue. In fact, considering the many smiling faces of youth from this year in archery, I'd say crossbow was a huge success and since the real big picture is not about deer numbers or size of bucks but instead how do we assure the youth of today somehow get engaged for the benefit of the future.

2013 and the new rules aren't really the issue that caused this situation. 2013 is merely an outcome of years of harvesting, liberalization of the deer bonus tags and lack of sportsmen giving a crap and engaging about the overall deer herd because they had plenty of resource to shoot at. Now, the current season structure and liberal tags becomes the issue of the future. To start with reducing season lengths, while admirable, is ridiculous because it immediately brings in the gun vs bow issue. The first and foremost issue should be tags, tags, tags. Secondly, it should also an issue of worrying about the other guy, which of course will never happen unfortunately because in general sportsmenship in deer hunting is largely dead. Eventually, season length (all seasons) should also be addressed but again, it is not the season length that is the issue but instead the ability to harvest numerous does. Any argument of gun vs. bow vs. crossbow is totally without merit because all can be maintained as is if doe harvest numbers are reduced dramatically via available tags.

And yes Paul, the process years ago when there were a few representing the groups at the table was a better process in my opinion, if not a good overall representative situation. But back then I will suggest there was less "me" in the equation although the bow vs gun issue was always a shadow in the room that had to be dealt with. But when things are good and resource is plentiful and everyone is getting more, it's easy for a process to work well. Today is a different day for sure.

Delaney,

By quality, I mean a well balanced, healthy herd.

And ultimately, I think that's the goal.

JJJAS, agreed.

In 2011 the muzzleloader season accounted for 15% of the harvest, a total of 19,000 deer. In 2012, the muzzleloader and late antlerless season accounted for 16% of the harvest, a total of 22,000 deer. A pretty good argument can be made that most of the 10,000 deer killed in the late antlerless season in 2012 were simply shifted from muzzleloader season.

More than 7,000 fewer deer were killed in the 2012 muzzleloader season as compared with the 2011 season.

There were nearly 10,000 more deer killed with "archery" equipment in 2012. About 7,400 of those can likely be attributed to the increased use of crossbows. The total increase from 2011 to 2012 was 7,000.

Until the harvest stats are out, we are all just guessing as to the effects on the current season. And we are certainly guessing as to what might have happened with the other options for season structure.

Personally, I saw about the same number of deer in Parke and Morgan counties and more in Jackson county. However, my family killed 4 deer this year v. 5 last year. So I guess the population is down 20%

Byran, that has been "discussed" multiple times on here....they aint vertical....simply put......to put it a nut shell....I'm a BOWhunter first and foremost....if I wanted to hunt with something that has a stock, monte carlo cheek piece and a 3-9 scope...I'll pick up my slug gun or ML.... I'm done with the crossgun rant....

and as for a "healthy herd".... at what cost to the herd and hunters and what deer herd level's ?? beside the 25% reduction levels that has been mentioned.....

got to go to work and get ready for the "blizzard" and negative zero temps...ya all have fun and play nice..... carry on ....

You can only kill one buck so what makes the difference what season or weapon you use?

The DNR can control the herd size and health with anterless bonus tags. If you think there are less deer then lobby the DNR to decrease the county doe limit. h.h.

So you want to kick people in the nads repeatedly because you don't like a crossbows?... Don't like em, then don't use them... But using the threat of violence against fellow hunters makes your case against them weak and childish... 6% harvest for last year just tells me that crossbows are not that much of a factor that you guys make it out to be... How many times this year or last year did you go out during bow season and saw someone using a crossbow?

You call yourself a BOWhunter first and foremost... Alright, I respect that and also anyone else who has that feeling.... However, I am a HUNTER first and foremost... A bow is just a tool just like a gun...

+1

Spot on Delany, especially about kids and crossbows...

Hunters are their own worst enemy... Sad that some can't see past their own prejudice and think they may never be part of the problem and that everyone else is...

x2

And, the DNR can reduce those county bonus antlerless permits without going through another rule-making process. Any county that they reduce the number of antlerless permits to 3 or less automatically loses their Special Late Antlerless Season. No long, involved, hassle of a rule change needed.

Bingo.

I fought like crazy to keep the things out of archery seasons ... youth and handicapped were fine... I remember the IBA fighting against them as most state archery organizations did and many "deer" hunting organizations... the lobbying for them won out, in other words...MONEY....still dosnt mean I like 'em in archery....they should still be in the gun seasons IMO.... if YOU dont like that I dont like 'em....I'll still sleep good tonight....

Well I don't care what you like or don't like that is your prerogative cause it doesn't bother me any and I do hope you get a good nights sleep... I hope everyone sleeps good at night...

Still didn't answer my question though... Since they have been legalized in archery season, have you seen anyone using one?

But like I said earlier 6% harvest tells me that most hunters still are not using crossbows and they are really a non factor... Kind of reminds me of when handguns were allowed in State Parks... The anti-gun community whined and cried about "wildwest shootouts" and the parks will "run red with blood" turned to be not true and much ado about nothing...

I remember reading where the IBA also complained and fought tooth and nail when the compound bow first came on the scene saying "it was going to ruin archery hunting"... Turned out to be not true and the best thing that could have happened for them because most hunters went to using them... Otherwise the organization would have faded away along time ago...

I don't own a crossbow and don't plan on buying one in the foreseeable future, but, I do know that I am not getting any younger and that one day I may not be able to pull back my bow and may have to switch to due aging and I will be thankful that crossbows were legal so that I can get out and still hunt in October... And I'm pretty sure the people that don't like them today will be thankful too...

"For wildlife managers trying to kill as many deer as possible, crossbows have become a necessary tool.”

-Dave Risley, Executive Administrator for Wildlife Management and Research, Ohio DNR

My brother and I have been deer hunting ever since there have been deer in Indiana. We always bad mouthed crossbows and fought to keep them out of archery season. In 2006 my brother got hurt in an accident and lost one of his legs and mangeled the other one. He was confined to a wheel chair for the rest of his life. It took him about a year to heal up, then he got a handicaped minnivan and was ready to deer hunt again. One of our hunting spots had a lane going through it and he would park in the lane, open both side doors and hunt. The first year he hunted with a ML, but he wanted to bow hunt. In 2008 I bought him the best crossbow I could find a 10 Point Pro Fusion with all the bells and whistles. When I gave it to him he laughed and said "I didn't think we would ever hunt with one of these things". He managed to shoot a couple of deer with it. In 2010 he passed away and I got the crossbow back. Then the DNR made it legal for everyone to hunt with one. I'm 64 years old and had just about given up on climbing trees and bow hunting. This year I changed my hunting style and hunted more out of ground blinds with the crossbow. Its not the same, but I'm still out there hunting. I'm pretty hard headed, but now I realize there is a place for the crossbow

Statistically speaking, a 6% impact is pretty significant. Not saying good or bad, but certainly significant. It can't be downplayed.

Yes...I have seen them in use...the guy that normally was a gun hunter that hunts across the creek next to me.....normally he would only have hunted the gun/ml seasons...now he is out in archery/urban...ok, his right to do so...even though I would rather see him with archery gear....he had killed two does with it that crossed the creek that came off of my lease...that is two does I 'prolly passed that he killed. I'm sure this happens in many areas of the state....with many different weapons....but, isnt the idea to try to save does in areas where the numbers have plummeted? There are BOWhunters that dont like guns....there are gun hunters that dont like bows....I believe they(crossbows) are a tool and an effective one, but dont tell me they are the same as a bow....they are way to easy for joe blow to use....we could go on for ever on this..I'm done with the crossbow crap....lets concentrate on the DNR/the loss of deer mumbers and educating people that deer are not a endless commodity even though they are a renewable resource....now there is a conundrum....

Per Jeff V: "lets concentrate on the DNR/the loss of deer mumbers and educating people that deer are not a endless commodity even though they are a renewable resource....now there is a conundrum...."

This is what it should all be about, not necessarily season lengths, weapons or otherwise.

I agree as we all have a vested interest in the resource.

Having said that, I still want to see the data from this season (and next), where the numbers are headed (when comparing this seasons data to last seasons data), the DNR's response (to this seasons harvest numbers) and what happens with bonus antlerless quota numbers on a per county basis based on harvest numbers from the last two seasons.

Don't forget about depredation permits! They are another game changer.......I know from experience! Nothing like a neighbor bragging about a big buck they shot before bow season with a firearm.......makes me sick!

+ EHD & other diseases

What other diseases.......bro?

Herpes? Lol

one of those guys :rolleyes:

•Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD)
•Deer Fibroma
•Chronic Wasting Diseases(CWD)
•Deer Nasal Bots
•Lyme Disease

Learned from the best!

As someone who has lost a brother also I am very sorry about the loss of yours... But I do want to thank you for proving my point about crossbows...

You're right but it hasn't been the slaughter that some made it out to be either...

Comparing crossbow use before they were allowed and after the fact yes it was a huge increase, but, included in overall harvest, its not all that much...

I'm going to echo Delany's sentiments and add to it and say he is right that it isn't so much the seasons or weapons but the lack of hunter education and self entitlement...

I've been reading this site long before I started posting and I've noticed that same people who consistently complain every year the most about not seeing deer everytime they go out shoot multiple deer a then complain when their neighbors and everyone else does it too... All I can say is don't shoot multiple deer then complain about others doing it or not seeing deer because that is biggest problem I see with the herd being decimated like it has because everybody thinks everyone else is the problem and not themselves...

My buddy saw 8 deer the other night and one was the doe that I let walk one the fourth day of gun season and she had her fawn with her... I can't begin to say how excited I was to hear that because now we might have up to four more deer added to the herd in the area...

Another issue that is not reported and I think the DNR should make it mandatory to report and that is deer that were shot and lost... This is my major issue with bow hunting and why I am not a major proponent of it... It seems every year guys post on her that they shot multiple deer and for whatever reason couldn't recover it... One poster posted that he shot three or four bucks and lost all but one and another shot 6 deer and only recovered four of them... That is another major issue with our herd being decimated, the lack of responsibility when hunting.... I understand things can happen but doesn't mean one should go out and continue shooting deer every chance they get...

If you set a goal of 2 deer for the year and shoot and injure one can't recover it for whatever reason, then you should only shoot one more deer and not hurt future seasons for yourself...

Jeff V pointed out that his neighbor shot two does with his crossbow and that he preferred he would have done it with a bow... To me this makes no sense because two dead does is two dead does regardless of the means to take them... I would have been more happy if would have let them walk or just taken one instead...

Guys we have a responsibility to manage our herd responsibly and we need to take a good long look at ourselves and change are own habits and if everyone would do that, then our herd will be better off...

Dangit!!! about spit coffee all over my keyboard!!!!

Problem is people aren't going to change their habits. Some will shoot as many as they are legally allowed. It will take a rule change. Need to reduce the bag limit big time in many areas.

Wow...

Some of us might not take that well, even once... Originally posted by Jeff Valovich:
Good Post .... as for those that pushed the crossbow crap...they need a good kick in the nads .....multiple times......

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you guys are having a problem with. I had a better season this year than many of my hunting buddy's. This is in a county that doesn't have a late antlerless firearms seasons. So if you are complaining about not having deer out there to hunt getting rid of the crossbows is not going to do a thing being they only account for about 2%(previous stated)of the bow take. I think the real problem is the owners of the private property are setting up deer sanctuaries so the deer have no reason to come to public land or other private property. I think this is due to the high price of hunting leases is luring property owners to chase the hunting dollar instead of farming their property. Just my 2 cents worth!

"I would rather see him with archery gear"!!! Are you kidding me?!?!? I hope it was ME that you saw! I dare you tell me to my face "what you'd RATHER me hunt with!" I'll tell you I'd "rather" you move out of my "wheelhouse" before I break my hand on your face. If you don't like something fine. Don't tell anyone what they "should" do unless they ask or are on your property!

This argument is what is wrong with hunting! I've shot deer with every legal weapon type in Indiana. I am a DEER hunter. You Monday morning quarterbacks and wanna be biologist think you know more than anyone about anything! YOUR way is not the ONLY way! Your opinion is fine but don't be so arrogant to think Everyone else is for it.

Lets hear some more lame excuses as to why YOU aren't killing deer. Obviously it's not YOUR fault. Lets see, we have...Xbows, insurance companies, 8 limit counties, Sasquatch, state park hunts, gun season is in November, youth season, my neighbor doesn't use a bow like I'd rather he do, cougars, non resident hunters, the license "bundle", urban hunters get to start hunting 15 days sooner, etc, blah, blah, blah!

Adjust or keeping whining.

And "gun hunters" have no issues with bows, most just don't or can't set aside the time to practice and become effective with a bow or to sit and wait for a deer to come to with 30 yards or less. I have never heard ONE gun only hunter complain about Bowhunters. But some hardcore bow whackos bad mouth everything. Even tho most of these "traditionalists" use every modern, god damned mass produced product out there except a gun! Please. Spare us the BS.

AMEN....preach it brother

Crossbows accounted for 8,452 of the 36,033 deer harvested during the "archery" season in 2012. That's 23% of the "bow" take.

+1....AMEN....preach it brother

Well yeah comparing that to just archery gear... But comparing to the total harvest it drops off considerably...

I would like to know how many deer were taken from Sept.15th through Nov.30 using a crossbow....

You can rest assured that it wasn't you he saw because he lives on the other end of the state from you (if you hunt only Clark County that is)...

Pav had it correct,but again it morphs into a this or that weapon argument . OH, that was what the rule changed moved too.....

I and most of my neighbors will just continue our management plan,IDNR can not screw that up!

I know it wasn't me. I don't own or use an Xbow...yet. But with two kids, playing every sport, a bad work schedule, and limited time to hunt, let alone shoot my bow regularly I can see the appeal of an Xbow. I would rather hunt with my bow more but there aren't enough hours in the day. Plus I love a good shotgun/muzzleloader blast to wake up the woods up! LOL.

I rarely comment on this forum but have been reading for years and some of the ridiculous one sided comments here finally hit a nerve. Sorry for the rants.

This is the kind of "arm chair biologist" comment I'm talking about.

Teach us please....

I was just correcting this. Crossbows accounted for 6% of the total harvest in 2012.

"I would rather see him with archery gear"!!! Are you kidding me?!?!? I hope it was ME that you saw! I dare you tell me to my face "what you'd RATHER me hunt with!" I'll tell you I'd "rather" you move out of my "wheelhouse" before I break my hand on your face. If you don't like something fine. Don't tell anyone what they "should" do unless they ask or are on your property!

This argument is what is wrong with hunting! I've shot deer with every legal weapon type in Indiana. I am a DEER hunter. You Monday morning quarterbacks and wanna be biologist think you know more than anyone about anything! YOUR way is not the ONLY way! Your opinion is fine but don't be so arrogant to think Everyone else is for it. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Could not agree more! It's about how I do things and if u don't do it like me then YOUR wrong...as I pull out my modern compound bow with carbon arrows and fiber optic sights tipped with steel broad head but how dare u use a crossbow.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MKFrench78:
I know it wasn't me. I don't own or use an Xbow...yet. But with two kids, playing every sport, a bad work schedule, and limited time to hunt, let alone shoot my bow regularly I can see the appeal of an Xbow. I would rather hunt with my bow more but there aren't enough hours in the day. Plus I love a good shotgun/muzzleloader blast to wake up the woods up!
I rarely comment on this forum but have been reading for years and some of the ridiculous one sided comments here finally hit a nerve. Sorry for the rants.

Don't be sorry about anything u hit the nail on the head.

Ok even at 6% that is not enough to account for much of a loss in the deer herd.
Like I stated I had a decent season, why you ask, SCOUTING! In the area I hunt, I watched the deer through the summer they were staying on the private property sanctuaries. I watched one small property extra close because it was close to an area that I have hunted before & knew fairly well. As more & more deer filled the small patch of woods the undergrowth got thinner & thinner up to about as high as the deer could reach. I watched a few times deer running through the corn field next to it to get to the woods I hunted, so I knew where they were feeding & I knew that they had eaten almost every thing in their woods.
They had eaten so much that as you drove by (if you had seen the woods in spring)you would realize that you could see all the way through the woods now, where you couldn't see 10yd through in the spring. So I knew that come gun season my stand was going to be on the main run in the woods on the other side of the corn field. Sure enough as gun season approached more & more deer were running to my woods to eat. The farmer even left a long patch of corn standing to try to give them cover as the ran from one woods to the other.
The night before opening day I got my stand in place in this public woods, hung a few scent wicks.
Opening morning when I got to my stand I saw a big rub on a tree not more than 20 yds from my stand. It wasn't 15 min after sun up that a good sized 8 point walked right by that tree with the rub on it. I let him walk a ways until he got into a clearing then I pulled the trigger on him.
So that is were the deer are in those private woods or at least until the food runs out.
You just need to do some scouting to find these hot spots & work a way to getting to the deer(or getting to deer to you) without trespassing.

I'll be glad when the crybabies quit worrying about what their neighbors hunt with. Some of you compounders really crack me up with your inflated egos. As if a crossbow is any more lethal then your compounds...or my trad bows. I killed my buck with a crossbow this year. He'd be just as dead if I carried my self bow that day. Get over yourselves. You AINT all that with your 80% let off, trigger release, fiber sights and every deer hunting gimmick sold at gander

Perhaps an inume would help?....

Posey,

The total increase in deer harvest from 2011 to 2012 was 7000 deer. The total crossbow take increased over 7000 more deer after their use was liberalized. So when we are discussing the increased deer take and it can be attributed to a single change in policy, then 6% is significant.

I don't have a problem with crossbows but the liberalization of their use cannot be discounted so easily.

It is much easier to see their impact v. the late antlerless season which likely only shifted doe harvest from muzzleloader season. If you combine late antlerless harvest with muzzleloader harvest, the increase from 2011-2012 was from 15% of the total harvest to 16% of the total harvest, a net 1% increase.

We will have to see what happened this year when the deer harvest report comes out in a couple months. The anecdotal reports certainly are louder this year so it is probably reasonable to expect a harvest decline. But don't expect major policy changes without a couple years of trending data.

Jeff,

You just (unknowingly?) proved the points the DNR was making when they allowed crossbows to archery season.

1.) crossbows are effective deer harvest tools
2.) crossbows are easy to use
3.) crossbows allow hunters who might otherwise not harvest antlerless deer the opportunity and tool to do so.

Crossbows are here to stay also, you might try to get used to them.

Wow!

Curiosity got the best of me….and I just had to check on the direction of this thread. My mistake!

Last thing I intended was for this to turn into a weapons clash. People are going to be submitting feedback…and I didn’t like the fact some are publically dismissing a significant disparity between 1.0 and 2.0.

Call me a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to try …one more approach.

First, and this is KEY to what I’m about to say, a rising antlered harvest is an indicator of a rising deer population. Declining antlered harvest is an indicator of a deer herd in decline.

I’ll say it again…. a rising antlered harvest is an indicator of a rising deer population. Declining antlered harvest is an indicator of a deer herd in decline.

Killing bucks has minimal effect on actual deer reduction. The does are going to get bred and fawn…even if they have to cycle two, three or even four times to achieve pregnancy. Because of this, the reduction target ratio of doe harvest to buck harvest used by most states….Indiana included…. is 60/40.

Proposal 1.0 lowered the number of potential antlered deer hunting days using long range weapons. Logic would indicate….less days to kill bucks with long range weapons should equate into a lower percentage of antlered harvest….a deer reduction indicator. The other side of that equation is…a lower antlered harvest percentage means it doesn’t take as many dead does to close the gap on that 60/40 ratio. There was confidence these two targets would get the lawmakers off the DNR’s back…and by reducing the overall number of days to kill deer using long range weapons….would reduce the potential of over harvest in lower deer density regions.

Proposal 2.0 threw caution to the wind. The number of antlered deer hunting days with long range weapons was not allowed to move or decrease. Because of that, a significant number of additional long range weapons days, and a lot more dead does, are needed in order to have any chance of closing the 60/40 gap. Long range weapon days increased somewhere between 40-50% compared to 1.0…depending on the calendar. The lower deer density regions have been left to the mercy of a broken quota system. This proposal, compared to the first, is simply much more aggressive.

I’m purposefully leaving crossbows out of the equation….primarily because crossbow liberalization was coming with 1.0. It was just going to take another annual window of opportunity….to create the license…before that happened. I probably violated more than one confidence by saying that publically, but I’m tired of every discussion on this subject going down that same road.

Deer hunters got what they asked for. Yes, the lawmakers made the initial push…but it was deer hunters that that convinced the NRC to throw a lower impact DNR proposal out the window and then supported a much more aggressive alternative…..all for the sake of “opportunity”. Yeah, we had/have 3+ months of opportunity….for anyone who chooses to use it.

Indications are….2.0 is NOT working….at least not as hoped. Lots of complaints are coming in from folks in low deer density regions that have been hammered. The pockets of high deer density that created this fiasco in the first place are apparently still a problem? I’m basing that on the new proposals for baiting, increasing the bag limit and increasing the size of urban deer zones.

The wheels on the bus go round and round……

Did archery minus crossbows change or just a shift to crossbows??

Wow, Waaay to many crazies on here any more....sheesh !! ....As for the Does killed "across the creek"...I'd have rather him NOT take them at all...that is why I passed on 'em....but still, I'd rather have prefered him to use a bow....lets just get back to the deer management....my fault for opening up a stinky box of worms....

pav Indiana hunters have been killing antlered vs antlerless deer in the 60/40 range since 2006.

In the last four years, let's look @ the data.....

Year Total Harvest Antlered % Antlerless %
2009 132,000 53,000 40 79,000 60
2010 134,000 53,000 40 81,000 60
2011 129,000 51,000 39 78,000 61
2012 136,000 46,000 34 90,000 66

So in the first year of the new regs (aimed @ herd reduction) you see exactly what was designed to happen, happen.

FEWER antlered deer (by both number and percentage of total harvest) were killed and MORE antlerless deer (by both number and percentage of total harvest) were killed.

And by your own yardstick After one year of the new regs being in place, the number of antlered deer harvested dropped, and the number of antlerless deer harvested rose.

So it would appear the herd is being reduced......and wasn't that the goal?

Now that's funny! Did he do anything illegal? If no, you are the "crazy". Why would you rather him not shoot the does? Get ready folks this "guy" is about to enlighten us all on why his years of schooling and work as a deer biologist lead him to believe the DNR doesn't want you to spend any more money on tags, gas, hunting equipment, taxes, lodging, food, etc to go deer hunting. YES that is what Mr. Jeff is saying...excuse me if or the "Mr., I'm sure it's probably "professor" or "Dr." Jeff. Right?? Come on, inform us all on how we should hunt.

No name calling! Period.

If I remember correctly, 1.0 moved the gun season out of the rut. That's why it failed. DNR should have known that it was a stacked deck against it. They probably did. It was like having an election with one clear loser just to give the impression of having an election.

Now they (and 1.0 proponents) can say they gave us what we wanted so we need to live with the results.

Again, this is all speculation until the harvest reports come out. Then we can use data to discuss this.

Got to admit that I got a kick out of this post and got one helluva good laugh from it, but, I do agree with Hanes though... No need for name calling as we are all adults here and everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it doesn't make any sense to you...

Bryan...you and I have more in common than you may think ;0) .... BTW, Mr. French, some on here have more knowledge of deer and management than you may think ..... some need a time out .....

So are are you not not going to tell us why you'd rather him not shoot the does or how "we" should hunt? You're changing the subject.

John, I believe the harvest data from this season will show a further decline in the Buck kills which show the declining numbers ....It is more evident in some areas than others....I do agree wanting to see the numbers. I believe Stewart is just getting a head of those numbers. I understand there are already quite a few upset deer hunters mad at him and the DNR. There will always be some that refuse to see what is happening around them. It took me a while as I was playing right into the DNR's hand. Same for those around me, some are starting to wise up after saying "where'd all the deer go"... look at other states where the exact same thing is happening...Illinois is a prime example...I just dont want us to get that far gone..... One season of passing does just wont cut it, it will take several or more for those that have had drastic drops. We'll have to see where this leads and where the DNR takes the state....but as some have said, get used to the lower numbers.....BTW Frenchy, I'm not changing the subject...just getting back on it....

Jeff, I've heard this a few times now. Can you elaborate on it? I don't think I understand it. Thanks.

Well, after last season Chad Steward himself said in a Newspaper article that one way they gauge a herd rising/declining is by looking at the buck kill and he confirmed the buck kill has been dropping and and that means the herd is on a decline.....he said, "its easier to track 'cause of less variables...year to year hunter efforts dont change much, so hunters all of a sudden arnt taking 3 bucks or eight bucks, they are locked into one buck(noting the OBR). If there are fewer bucks to kill with the same amount of hunter effort, not as many bucks get killed, this tells us the overall population is down", Goshen news Outdoor column, March 17, 2013.... many other states use the same analysis.....

This has been pretty much the same ideology as used by the previous deer biologist as well.

First, thanks for responding with something other than crossbow banter. That arguement seems to still be going full bore on this thread.

Actually, the data you provided only works *IF* you consider buck fawns as female deer. The pre-2012 harvest ratio was pretty consistently in the 50/50 range......female/male.

The changes implemented in 2012 cut the gap to almost 55/45....so the ratio did improve. But my point is...at what cost? Are we being too aggressive, too fast?

The antlered kill dropped 5,000 animals in spite of more antlered opportunity being introduced. This would seem to indicate a herd in decline, correct? Yet we killed 12,000 more antlerless deer than the year before. How long can this go on?

What if the 1.0 reg had been in place in 2012? What would the antlered harvest number been? Minus 6,000?....minus 8,000?....minus 10,000? Hard to say for sure, but removing 14 days from GF and ML season lengths would have surely made a significant dent.

The lower the antlered kill....the fewer dead does it takes to improve the ratio. This is the point I'm trying to make. We could have gone with a much less aggressive approach, proposed by the DNR...but deer hunters did not let that happen. Yes, 2.0 was a DNR proposal too...but it wasn't what they wanted...and their hands were tied by the NRC.

Actually, the fact we introduced more antlered opportunity and the antlered harvest actually fell in the very first year....would indicate the herd was already in decline. Yes?

What exactly was "the goal" anyway? I would offer "the goal" was to get lawmakers off the DNR's back. The travesty of the entire ordeal dates back to the reason the lawmakers started making noise in the first place.

This entire mess can be traced back to one individual. One Representative that is no "Friend" to deer hunters or the DNR. This guy tried for years to legalize high fence shooting pens in Indiana. The DNR, with support from the deer hunting groups fought him tooth and nail. I'm one of many that believes his "deer reduction" ultimatum was nothing more than payback for his high fence failures in the Legislature.

I believe 1.0 was a low impact response that would have produced data implying deer reduction...by lowering the antlered harvest via season structure and improving the doe/buck harvest ratio by default.

It didn't fly....so now we are left with killing more deer. The question remains...did we really need to?

pav First of all, antlerless deer are factored into the data as that is how the state counts buttons and always has. But even with buttons counted as bucks, the numbers are still better that the 50/50 ratio in the past @ 46% bucks and 54% does.

Next..we could play the "what if" game all day. I wanted the firearms tags made either sex (like the archery and m/l tags) and wonder what would have happened if that had been implemented. But...it didn't happen. So while "what iffing" may be interesting, it truly serves no constructive point @ this point as the regs are what the regs are.

While I share your concerns about the numbers of antler less deer being taken, until the data shows the herd numbers lowered, I doubt we see much change. It (the bonus antlerless season) will likely be adjusted by lowering bonus antler less quota permits to 3 or under in some counties), but I don't see the DNR permanently giving up a management tool by doing away with the season. Especially since the season has only been in place two years. And as I've stated (along with many others) countless times..herd reduction isn't just an Indiana thing. It's happening in many states.

Finally, just how did 2.0 pass?

Is it the "fault" of deer hunters who didn't want 1.0? Is it the NRC's "fault"? Representative Friend's "fault"? Is it the DNR's "fault"? A combination of all of the above? I've heard all of these opinions from people who supported 1.0. Perhaps it's no one's "fault". Perhaps it's just the result of the process of negotiation. You start with one plan and it morphs into something else. And just like 2.0 ultimately was adopted, it too will morph into something else in a few years.

Now onto your second post.....

pav Let's look @ antlered harvest data. From 2004/2011 the average antlered harvest was 51,000 antlered bucks. During the three seasons prior to the reg change season of 2012, the antlered harvest averaged 52,000 antlered bucks.

So using your own yardstick of antlered buck harvest numbers as an indicator of herd decline, the numbers don't show that over the previous 8 years. It's only in 2012 after the regs changes occurred that antlered harvest numbers dropped.

BTW, I fully expect harvest numbers to drop for this season. Between higher numbers of does killed in 2012, EHD and lousy weather for many the opening weekend of gun, I don't see how they couldn't drop. How much totals drop (if they do) remains to be seen and IMHO that figure doesn't matter as much as if they continue to drop or level out over the next couple of years.

Then and only then, can you see the true impact of the new regs.

If the DNR simply factors buck fawns into the antlerless harvest...then why does every pie chart in the harvest summary separate buck fawns into their own category? (The question is rhetorical....I know the answer.)

Yes, a long standing 50/50 ratio jumped to 55/45 the first season of the 2.0 regs. Partially because the antlered harvest went down 5,000 animals in year one. I'll address that later.

No offense, but there always seems to be a point where your logic leaves me shaking my head in wonder. We've reached that point with the comments above.

I'm very curious to hear....what you think happened as a direct result of the 2.0 rules changes in 2012 that drove the antlered harvest down by 5,000+ animals in 2012?

Antlered deer hunting opportunity actually increased in 2012 versus 2011, but thousands fewer antlered deer were killed.

I look at that and it tells me the herd was in decline before the 2.0 rules ever went into effect. i.e There were fewer bucks available following the 2011 season.

You apprently see something totally different?

Uh....the weather ??(Isnt that what the DNR always says)....lol....

First of all, I don't think the new regs in 2012 had much to do with the decline in the antlered harvest, but I do think the new regs played a signficant role in the antler less harvest numbers.

So what do I think caused the drop in antlered deer numbers harvested in 2012?

EHD....

In 2011, EHD was suspected or identified in 9 counties. In 2012, EHD was suspected or identified in 67 counties.

Now, I suspect that you're going to say that if EHD was such a factor in the antlered deer poulation, how could the antler less harvest numbers be higher than the previous years totals?

And yes, the antler less numbers were higher. In 2011, there were 78,000 antler less deer harvested. In 2012, there were 89,000 antler less deer harvested. A difference of about 11,000 deer. So what could help explain an increased antler less harvest in 2012?


I can think of a couple of things....

1. During the archery season(s) the antler less total rose by 7,000 above the totals from 2011. I would suspect that crossbow usage and the new bundle tag contributed to this.

2. This was also the first year of the late antler less season and 10,000 antler less deer were harvested.

So the DNR wanted herd reduction and it appears they got it on the antler less side of the ledger. And based on that fact, it now begs the question as to how this will effect the harvest numbers for this season and beyond.

That's the million dollar question and why I look forward to the data from 2013 and beyond.

One last point to remember. If the DNR thinks the numbers demand it, bonus antler less permits can be reduced to the point that the bonus antler less season can all but be eliminated as anything 3 or below doesn't qualify for that season.

And if harvest numbers drop significantly, I could see that happening.

You bet jjas will see "something different"..... LOL!!

pav.....you are correct......there was a herd decline beginning before 2.0 went into effect.

I think that's a bit of the point unfortunately. Just because the harvest wasn't going down dramatically didn't mean that the deer herd wasn't going down. But, the legislators, certain towns like Bloomington that has deer problems, auto insurance companies and some others screamed louder then hunters, who apparently had seen a little affect but were seeing enough deer to keep them happy. Actually, I would guess that there are many on here who are seeing enough deer to keep them happy and satisfied, not taking into account the size of antlers available.

I see I've missed nothing.................................

Nope. Didn't miss a thing

So…which is it?

Never mind. :rolleyes:

You guys are absolutely right.

Some people never learn.(In reference to the guy looking back at me in the mirror!)

I'll stop now.

Been there done that Pav...

I know where the confusion came from.....Here's my quote from a previous post.

After reading it again, I agree it's confusing. What I meant to say was that the new regs did what they were designed to do, which was increase the antler less harvest. The bonus was that this happened without increasing the antlered harvest. And not only did the antlered harvest numbers not increase in the first year of new regs they actually dropped.

It obviously came out clear as mud and that's my fault and I'll own it.

But that doesn't change the fact the antlered harvest numbers dropped by 5,000 when many people assumed that with crossbow inclusion those numbers would go up.

So how can that be?

The one thing I see that would have led to the lower antlered buck harvest drop in year one of the new regs was the EHD outbreak that occured in the vast majority of counties in 2012.

Obviously you feel I'm mistaken, and I'd like to hear how you think the antlered herd numbers dropped by 5,000 deer in the first year of the new regs after those numbers had remained steady over the previous 8 seasons.


The antler less herd took the hit in 2012 (as designed) and based on that I would expect the numbers across the board for this season to drop. And I would also expect that if those numbers do drop substantially that the DNR will make changes to the bonus antlerless quota permits available.

Regardless, I look forward to seeing the data.