2015 Deer Season Bonus County Numbers

Quotas have been reduced in eight counties and increased in one. As a result, 60 counties will be included in the special antlerless season compared to 63 in 2014-15.

In addition to basic bag limits, hunters can purchase bonus licenses to take additional antlerless deer based on the quota assigned to the county in which they hunt. Bonus antlerless licenses can be used in any season, except the Reduction Zone Season, using the equipment that is legal for that season.

Bonus licenses may be used in any county, but hunters may not take more than the county quota for bonus antlerless deer in any specific county.

County quotas range from A to 8. For counties designated as an “A,” a bonus antlerless license can be used to take one antlerless deer from Nov. 26 through Jan. 3, 2016 (the last four days of the regular firearms season, plus muzzleloader and archery seasons). Bonus antlerless licenses cannot be used in an “A” county prior to Nov. 26.

Since 2011, the number of counties with a bonus quota of 8 has dropped from 45 to 23 this coming season.

They should have dropped a bunch of those 4's to 3's and do away with that dam antlerless gun season...

Considering that...

1. A hunter can kill a deer with a bow, a crossbow, a muzzleloader and a firearm in any county for a total of 4 deer. No bonus antlerless permit required.

2. According to the 2010 data that breaks it down, only 2.2% of all hunters killed more than 4 deer.

3. In 2014, 4,200 deer were taken in the late season in the 64 counties that were eligible. That averages out to 65 deer per county.

So other than maybe saving the 4,200 deer, what other benefits do you think we would see from the DNR dropping the bonus antlerless permits statewide to a 3?

Even with a 3 in any particular county and assuming that any given hunter stays in that one county, that is still a total of up to 7 deer he/she could take. And again, the last data available I could find shows 2.2% of hunters killed more than 4 deer. And .8% of hunters killed 7 or more deer.

So what do you think would change?

meh .... I still stand by what I said... but yet the deer kill numbers continue to drop. When is enough enough ?...the DNR still hasnt given a number they want to reach.... I hope more hunters continue to wise up and pass on antlerless deer...I know I do and will continue to do so....

FWIW, I agree with you about hunters passing antlerless deer in counties with low deer numbers.

My point is, lowering bonus antlerless numbers won't change much (if anything).

Sorry, double post.

If they just did away with the use of antlerless tags during gun season that would greatly reduce the number of does killed since most ate killed during gun season.

MOST people loved the antlerless season when there was an abundance of deer. I and others warned of this day and were ignored.

Now it comes and people want to complain to IDNR?????

As the bible says........ "you reap what you sow".

Or if you aint religious........ KARMA BAYYYBEEE!

Let's just add another weapon..... That'll fix it. LOL!!!

...... Or better yet, jump on board with "Being a Guardian of the current gun season". That'll SURELY help fix it.....

LMAO....

Just friggin hilarious what "boat people jumped on" years ago...... Their "leader" wants no responsibility for this mess now.... And they point to articles written from the 1970's and 80's about coyote fawn kill as something that has contributed heavily to our current rapid decline.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know what I'm doing ..... I know what I'm not changing ..... I know everyone wants to hunt my properties now worse than EVER...... And I know they didn't listen to me and those that tried to put this state in MUCH LESS of a mess as reduction was being discussed. So to those that experienced that route.......

....... Careful who you listen to "next round".

Adding another weapon, and "guarding gun season" just isn't as grand as some were swayed to believe........

A few points....

1. The late antlerless season was included in both proposals so like it or not, it was going to happen.

2. Based on 2010's data (which is the last I've seen this broken down this way) only 4.8 % of hunters killed more than 3 deer and only 2.2% of hunters killed more than 4 deer.

3. Do I think there are areas that have been overhunted, had too many deer killed with depredation permits, had a couple of rough winters and bouts of EHD? Sure. Do I think that statewide the herd is in trouble? No, I don't.

Point being...according to the DNR, since 2011 the number of counties with a bonus quota of 8 has dropped from 45 to 23 (as of this coming season) and they lowered the counties eligible to participate in the late antlerless season to 60 (I believe).

So knowing all of this, plus the fact that herd reduction has been going on, it begs the question.....For those who aren't happy, just what would you have had the DNR do for this season?

1 point.....

I would have let the IDNR keep Proposal #1 which was THEIR FIRST CHOICE on how to reduce the herd so we wouldn't have such a mess on our hands now. But that was taken away from them and a choice was forced upon them by the likes of people like jjas.......the perfect recipe for a disastrous mess was born.

Now... People like jjas stand back and say "good job" IDNR, we've got more people complaining about the situation we are all in than ever before. And also at the same time have the audacity to ask "for those that aren't happy, what would you have the IDNR do different".

Typical jjas and Woody mentality.......Screw the IDNR out of their first choice..... And then years later attempt to try to lead the way on how to fix it for us all...... LMAO!!!!!!

Great job dudes..... LOL!!!

1. The original late antlerless season proposal was a replacement for...not an ADDITION to... general firearms days. Big difference.

2. I keep reading about the old 2010 data. Since the current regs ARE the concern...I would like to see how that 2010 data compares to the first few years of crossbows, added firearms days, and bundle licensing.

3. Statewide? So, if you are not seeing deer where you live, but a guy 60 miles away has plenty of deer....that's OK? I'll go out on a limb here and say...if it were not for ever increasing private deer management practices, the herd would be in much worse shape...statewide.

The DNR tell me that I can kill legally kill 20 deer off the farm this year...and that does NOT include any depredation permits. I'm more than happy to say "thanks, but no thanks".

The two responses were about what I expected....

The first was typical...full of personal attacks and foolishness and I won't waste my time responding to it.

As for the other...

PAV 1. I've seen the failure of 1.0 passing (depending upon who is speaking) blamed on everything from a couple of people,the DNR, NRC, state politicians, the Governor and the local dog catcher... In reality, 1.0 met with resistance on many levels and ultimately failed.

Funny thing is...IMO, it may very well have passed if crossbow inclusion had been a part of it. But it wasn't and 2.0 took it's place.

As far as the late antlerless season goes....

Do I think that the season is necessary? Not in some areas, but herd reduction was going to happen and the late antlerless season was/is the tool for the DNR to help make it happen and to help manage the herd down the road without having to go through another 1.0/2.0 debacle.

One last point...1.0 was pushing for a shortened gun and muzzle loader season, but since the overwhelming bulk of the deer are killed in the first nine days of those seasons, one has to wonder if the difference in numbers would have been significant or not.

2. If you can find newer data broken down the way 2010's was, I would love to see it. Regardless, the late antlerless season harvest numbers are dropping. Fewer counties are involved in it this year and more counties have had their bonus antlerless permit numbers dropped. Is that enough to satisfy some? Obviously not, but the numbers are dropping.

3. There was/is and always will be pockets in this state that don't hold the deer people think they should. Some of that is due to habitat, the number of hunters, some of it is weather related and obviously there have been outbreaks of EHD. The other side of that coin is that there are places in this state that hold too many deer and whether it's because the habitat is better, it lies around protected areas like subdivisions or tracts being managed, or maybe hunting just isn't allowed...it's just the way it is and always has been.

Finally...I have said (and still think), that after herd reduction (and if archery hunters show the ability to consistently take a larger share of the harvest), the gun season will be altered.

And it very well may have happened a few years ago, if the first proposal had been more reasonable.......

Sorry...double post.

This is exactly where the argument of 1.0 versus 2.0 falls apart. Stewards of the resource will tell you proposal 1.0 was indeed the more reasonable approach...and proposal 2.0 was/is entirely too aggressive.

---------------------------------------------
What if the late antlerless season had replaced the last seven days of general firearms season? We don't know for sure, but we do know more firearms days equals more dead deer, right?

Last year's numbers look like this:

Last seven days of general firearms: nearly 16,800 total deer harvested, 11,700 of which were antlerless

Late antlerless season: Less than 4,200 deer harvested.

That's roughly 21,000 total animals. Would the late antlerless season have produced such numbers if combined with seven fewer days in November? Count me as skeptical on that....

---------------------------------------------

As for weapons, there are two choices on the rise despite declining harvest totals...those being rifle and crossbow.

The rifle percentage is basically replacing a shrinking shotgun percentage. The combination of the two percentages are holding steady since 2009 (three years before 2.0 and three years after).

The crossbow percentage is climbing quickly, but the archery percentage is holding relatively firm.
The combination of those two percentages from the same time frame results in roughly a 50% harvest increase...more than 10,000 animals...all crossbow.

------------------------------------------------

I don't have any data on bundle licensing, but would be shocked if bundle licenses do not represent the majority of license sales. This means more tags in more pockets. I'll leave it at that.

----------------------------------------------

Deer hunting generates millions of dollars in this state, yet money spent on deer research is a joke. We can't even keep a deer biologist. Chad was not the first professional to bail on Indiana. Like it or not, politicians are running the IDNR. Our deer herd is ultimately being "managed" by people that care more about money and votes than the resource. Not a good recipe for success if you ask me....

Going to climb off the soapbox now. Right now, I consider myself very fortunate to be hunting a large tract of land in the company of... and surrounded by... like minded individuals. If that ever changes, I'll find somewhere else to spend November vacation time....probably beyond the state lines.

Not one time was proposal 2 ever referred to as the more "aggressive" proposal untill now.... If anything proposal 2 was referred as being watered down and wouldn't work!!

Interesting that now some are referring it to be the "Aggressive"

Theeee most absurd and false post on this thread.

You are always asking everyone to back up their "claims" Brew with links..... Let's see you back up this claim with "past concerns it was a watered down down approach". Prop 2 ADDED CROSSBOWS FOR EVERYONE and ADDED ANY WEAPONS SEASON FOR ANTLERLESS between Christmas and New Years.

NOW you call that "watered down" and say there were others calling that approach "watered down"....????

Show us!!!

And for those of you watching this debate..... The jjas's, Woody's and Brew's of this site wanted 2 things years ago...... They wanted Crossbows for ALL (more aggression towards the herd) and they wanted to continue with the longest gun season in the midwest so they could have as many days to hunt BUCKS with a gun that they could.....

This was not about managing the herd in a thoughtful way for them.... It was to selfishly add another weapon, and selfishly keep as many days possible to hunt their beloved BUCK with a gun. They snuffed out the IDNR's first choice of Prop 1.0 that had a reasonable approach to crossbows and the IDNR's first choice to reduce our gun season to hunt bucks so those that just focused days with a gun were forced to think about something else to hunt besides JUST BUCKS.

And now they want us to pity their selfish logic and motives.....

The result of their selfishness has broken apart the hunting ranks of this state like never before, increased leasing like never before because now people are not only leasing for Trophies... THEY ARE NOW LEASING TO JUST BE ABLE TO SEE A DEER!!! They are also responsible for the largest crash in our deer population that we have seen yet.... And it's not over.

....and they still want to act "innocent"..... And want us to believe the Prop 2.0 they forced the IDNR to move to was "less aggressive"..... LMAO!!!!!!!

As far as the firearms season goes, let's look @ numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.


Now let's look @ crossbow numbers.....

In 2009, crossbows accounted for 1% of the total harvest.

In 2014, crossbows accounted for 10% of the total harvest.

Where did the 9% increase come from? Is it in addition to, or did it replace kills from different equipment?

In 2009, vertical archery accounted for 21% of the total harvest.

In 2014, vertical archery accounted for 19% of the total harvest.

In 2009, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 25% of the total harvest.

In 2014, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 20% of the total harvest.

So 7% of the 9% increase in crossbows kills can be accounted for in the drop of vertical archery and muzzleloader percentages.


Now let's look @ archery totals as a whole.....

In 2009, vertical archery hunters accounted for 21% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 1% of the total harvest for a total of 22%.

In 2014, vertical archery hunters accounted for 19% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 10% of the total harvest for a total of 29%.


So what does that tell us.....

Archery hunters took a larger share of the total harvest (29%), while firearms hunters (even with the addition of the late antlerless season) took a smaller percentage (69%) of the total harvest when comparing 2009 to 2014. BTW, the other 2% is the youth season percentage.

So what is happening is what many predicted would happen....

Archery is becoming more of a management tool while firearms hunters are taking a lower share of the total harvest.

Iam sure you have edited all your post that said that by now...just like you did with the "Bojangles" deer thread when the Trail Cam thread was brought up!!

BTW..... Post up where someone had said proposal 2 was going to be to "Aggressive" and would kill to many deer in the end (or edit a post to show that)....

YOU brought it up Brew..... So now "show us the money".....

All my comments are out there in "unedited fashion".... Check with the administrator here if I have altered any of my comments on Prop1.0 and 2.0 discussion....

Got another BB in that gun that "appears to be a 12 guage Bud"????? Keep firin' blanks Bro'........ The Truth is out.... And you just don't like it.

Lay as many "distractions" out as you want..... It's your ankle that's locked in this messy trap you now can't explain your way out of...... Sorry for your self imposed luck on that one.... LOL!!

Lol.... Theee most Honest guy on the Internet.... We know you wouldn't edit or delate anything .... LMAO

That's correct.... No editing of any Prop 1.0 and 2.0 discussion on my part that lends authenticity to your claim earlier in this thread which was false..... And I'm instructing you to verify such with this Site Administrator. Scared you might find the TRUTH if you ask and verify??? Might have to change your story of lies Brew???

Kinda' ouchy to get called to the carpet in public isn't it Brew..... And who did that to yourself?

False!

Did a quick search on this website and found a thread I started prior to the end of the 2013 season. Here is a direct copy/paste...and FYI BREW, you own Post #3 on that thread. I did BOLD the word "aggresive" for clarity here...used three times in one paragraph. Here you go:

"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 aggresive 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 am kind of wondering when the focus and discussion can move to forward thinking instead of historical "this and that". There is no perfect plan, no satisfying everyone and no one has "the answer". Just hoping that the rhetoric and any name calling or insinuations are kept toned down and/or totally eliminated.

So are you saying that is my post pav???? Or are saying that's your post?? Which is it ... And what thread???

BTW.... the search here only goes back to January 03, 2013 in the Deer forum

I wouldn't expect the name calling to stop .... Just look at the other thread where Dew refers to all others as "MORONS"!!

That pretty much the pot calling the kettle black if I ever seen it !!! SMH

Interesting data/numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.

Seems all this "panic" so many of them (1.0 guys) are pushing now is nothing more than another attempt to convince hunters that the gun and muzzleloader seasons should be shortened/moved. This time to "save" the herd from the evil DNR....and Woody.

That's all they want again it appears ......

The guys that weren't happy before aren't happy now and the ones that were still are. The arguments still continue, until they manage on a smaller scale there is no way to make everyone happy. The southern half of the state has a large population and a ton of public land. The northern half is the opposite, we all hunt different types of land in different areas so we can't really agree on a best practice since our areas are so different.

"Shorten gun/ML seasons" .... works for me...BTW, reduce the AL counties some more too ;0)

SOooooo......How long did it take for jjas and Woody to send you this ^^^^ response that you copied and pasted up for them....

LOL!!!!!

Some things are just so transparent.


Oh my goodness Brew....... the situations you get yourself into. LOL!!!!!

And to correct your "false spin" again...... we aren't trying to save anyone from the "evil DNR". We are just making others aware of what the DNR wanted as their FIRST CHOICE.

That EXACT complaint was cited by DNR Brass in a Senators office after 1.0 was forced off the table.

So.........Brew......... who are we labeling as evil???

.....we are simply now NAMING those that forced them to not be able to do what they (IDNR) wanted....... forced a more AGGRESSIVE approach.......and now has this state in a large messy tail spin.......AND STILL WORRIED THEIR 30+ DAY GUN SEASON SO THEY CAN JUST HUNT BUCKS WILL BE SHORTENED in the very near future!!

Tell ya what.......... Brew, jjas, Woody.... post up your Doe picks over the last 3 years. I'd like to see YOUR contribution to reducing the herd that you were so positively for. You got the Crossbows you wanted to do that with.....you got a season for any weapon you wanted to kill Antlerless..........let's see you posing with your contribution to what you wanted.

Make sure you post doe pics that will match up with check in records too.......wouldn't want you to go through any "trouble" explaining doe pics from WAAY back.... with no current check in records.

Let us see what your contribution to what you "say" you wanted was.........or did you little devils just buck hunt with all those "gun days" and THREE new months of Crossbow you knew you were just going to use to buck hunt only.....and don't want anyone to know that..

Let's see those Antlerless pics over the last 3 years Brew, jjas and Woody. Make us proud..... (cough)

Hey Brew.

My thread, my post. Just saying you were the second person to respond to that thread. Name of the thread was "2.0 Too Much...Too Fast?", started on January 4th, 2014....a couple days before the 2013 season ended.

Point is, I don't make this stuff up as I go. Proposal 2.0 was/is significantly more aggressive than the first proposal. They ADDED double digit firearms days. They ADDED 3+ months of crossbows.
The sad part is...alot of people looked at 2.0 as the better proposal (better for them, not the deer herd). Originally, we were fighting against the threat of political control. Before it was over, we (the vocal majority) gift wrapped and delivered control to the politicians. Can't help but wonder if they are still laughing at us?

As far as the firearms season goes, let's look @ numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader [b]AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.


Now let's look @ crossbow numbers.....

In 2009, crossbows accounted for 1% of the total harvest.

In 2014, crossbows accounted for 10% of the total harvest.

Where did the 9% increase come from? Is it in addition to, or did it replace kills from different equipment?

In 2009, vertical archery accounted for 21% of the total harvest.

In 2014, vertical archery accounted for 19% of the total harvest.

In 2009, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 25% of the total harvest.

In 2014, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 20% of the total harvest.

So 7% of the 9% increase in crossbows kills can be accounted for in the drop of vertical archery and muzzleloader percentages.


Now let's look @ archery totals as a whole.....

In 2009, vertical archery hunters accounted for 21% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 1% of the total harvest for a total of 22%.

In 2014, vertical archery hunters accounted for 19% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 10% of the total harvest for a total of 29%.


So what does that tell us.....

Archery hunters took a larger share of the total harvest (29%), while firearms hunters (even with the addition of the late antlerless season) took a smaller percentage (69%) of the total harvest when comparing 2009 to 2014. BTW, the other 2% is the youth season percentage.

So what is happening is what many predicted would happen....

Archery is becoming more of a management tool while firearms hunters are taking a lower share of the total harvest. [/b][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how your explanation of "how" we're killing too many deer helps the situation?

Of course the percentages are going to change. A double digit variable was introduced in the 2014 numbers which was virtually non-existent in 2009.
Still working off 100%...just splitting it more ways.

Just out of curiosity, I removed the 4200 late antlerless deer from the 2014 firearms harvest and all but 1,000 deer from the 2014 crossbow harvest. Adjusted the total harvest accordingly, figured percentages for archery, firearms and ML and compared those to 2009. This is what turns up:

Archery - 2009: 21% 2014: 21%

Firearms - 2009: 53% 2014: 55%

MLoader - 2009: 25% 2014: 23%

Not much of a difference when you remove the changes, huh? Not sure what that proves, if anything? I just found it interesting.

Hey Brew.

My thread, my post. Just saying you were the second person to respond to that thread. Name of the thread was "2.0 Too Much...Too Fast?", started on January 4th, 2014....a couple days before the 2013 season ended.

Point is, I don't make this stuff up as I go. Proposal 2.0 was/is significantly more aggressive than the first proposal. They ADDED double digit firearms days. They ADDED 3+ months of crossbows.
The sad part is...alot of people looked at 2.0 as the better proposal (better for them, not the deer herd). Originally, we were fighting against the threat of political control. Before it was over, we (the vocal majority) gift wrapped and delivered control to the politicians. Can't help but wonder if they are still laughing at us? [/QUOTE]


Hey Pav...

Yes I remember that thread but my point of "NOW" was/is now that we have the Proposal 2.0 in place is the ONLY time it is or has been referred to as "AGRESSIVE". I understand you don't make stuff up I don't also and wasn't trying to say you where.My point was and still is that until Proposal 2.0 was placed in action no one was saying it was going to be the "AGRESSIVE" Proposal.....If anything it was just the opposite!!! Watered down, wont work and so on....

I respect your thoughts on the subject Pav.... Your one of the few Proposal 1 proponent's that don't GRAB a GUN when gun/muzzleloader seasons comes in and goes Deer Hunting!! you seem to be a die in the wool Bow Hunter.

Pav Breaking down the information in a way it hasn't (to my knowledge) been presented, shows several things.

As a percentage of total harvest, deer killed with firearms has dropped by 8% when comparing the 2009 season (pre reg changes) to the 2014 season (post reg changes). And remember, the firearms figures include the late antlerless season.

As a percentage of total harvest, deer killed with archery equipment has risen 7% when comparing the 2009 season (pre reg changes) to 2014 season (post reg changes).

In other words, since 2.0 passed, hunters are beginning to utilize the archery season more as a management tool instead of relying primarily on firearms to manage the herd.

And this has happened not only without changing the present firearms/muzzleloader season structure but while ADDING the late antlerless season TO the firearms season structure.

Brew.....That is the second time you have claimed before 2.0 was put in place people were saying it was "watered down, won't work and so on". Where are you seeing this? What is the link that would show this? Are you talking about just a few insignificant voices or are you talking masses that were saying this? Please point us to some validation to your claim.

........And... when comparing Prop 1.0 to 2.0 are you saying the common person couldn't tell that 2.0 wasn't MUCH more agressive than Prop 1.0? I mean for God's sake....the common hunter couldn't see adding crossbows for 3 months for all to use and adding special any weapons antlerless season, while retaining 30+ days of gun hunting wasn't more aggressive than Prop 1.0 which had none of that in it ??

And you want us to all sit around and thank the Brew's, jjas's and Woody's of the State for yanking the less aggressive Prop 1.0 out from under the IDNR??......just so you could save as many days and have as many weapons to hunt a buck that ya'll selfishly wanted...

I'll say it again just like I did on page 2 of this thread......... Brew, jjas, Woody..Cough up your antlerless kill pics over the last three years. Show us you fought for something that was worth participating in...and you not only backed up the validity of 2.0 by your words, but you backed it up by your actions. Please don't tell us that you just used 2.0 to have another weapon (Crossbow) and retainment of your 30+ days of gun season just so you could selfishly hunt your bucks better and more often....

There were several that said if 2.0 passed it would just increase the number of days people used to hunt bucks and there was no way it would have the intended goal of increasing the ratio of antlerless to antlered kill and reducing the herd. Dew was not one of them he has been pretty consistent throughout the process. The stated goal of 1.0 was to reduce the herd 2.0 has been very effective at that goal. The other part of 1.0 was to reduce and move gun season which is more for trophy deer management.

As to how much the DNR supported 1.0 is debatable, there were several including myself that spoke with DNR personnel and they sstated that it was pushed by some powerful people and was not what they wanted. The same people told me that years ago in a meeting with the DNR the leader of one of those groups made it clear that there was enough money and power in the group to push their agenda with or without the support of the biologist.

I'm not sure where, when or who might have said that there was enough money and power to push any agenda through, but I can safely assure that there is no truth to that, not by an organization or for that matter individuals who are involved in the daily hunting debate. This is what is so pathetic about all of this. So much misinformation, folks saying things that are largely baseless and people letting emotions get the best of them.

The biologist only has certain influence. The DNR director only has certain influence. Sporting groups have a little influence. Individuals themselves have a little influence. The legislature as a whole or a select few of them have a lot of influence. Insurance companies have a lot of influence. Believe maybe 5% of what you hear and ignore the other 95%. Forget listening to anyone who pounds their chest and says they know what is going on because those directly involved don't know what's going on.

The sporting groups, the old ones, don't have any real influence anymore and haven't for some time. They did a LOT of good things and some things a lot of folks didn't like. Now, there needs to be new sporting groups evolving to replace the old ones and hopefully those new organizations will be able to structure in a way to have an impact on things. That said, no one organization will ever make everyone happy or satisfied. But, this whizzing stuff that is evolving in this thread is just worthless.

I am just repeating what was told to me by a DNR employee that claimed to be in the room when it was said. I have no reason to not believe them and I have no reason not to believe you. This was when the obr happened. Same person said 1.0 was not what the biologist or DNR wanted.

Certainly understand that it might have been said by someone in some meeting with the DNR. I'm just making sure folks understand the reality. I too talked with Chad and other DNR folks throughout that process and there were differing positions/opinions in the DNR about what those folks believed should be implemented. That's part of the problem. No one speaks for everyone within an organizations or agency in regard to each individuals personal thoughts, beliefs or wishes. People should be communicating to the DNR year round on what they want or are experiencing where they hunt. Forget the conspiracy theories, the theories that any organization is influencing very much or that one person in the DNR speaks for every person in the DNR in regard to what they think needs to happen.

Agreed, you are someone I respect, same as Joe and some of the others. We don't always agree on things but you and Joe work hard and do a lot for hunters.

Breaking down information can be extremely subjective. If they add an early ML season next...or maybe an air gun season...the numbers get tossed around like salad all over again.

BTW, one correction....the archery harvest did not rise, it went down a couple percentage points. Crossbows are not legal on an archery license in this state.
Crossbow harvest increased 10%.

But we aren't talking about something subjective here. We are talking about the harvest numbers the DNR posted in their 2014 Indiana Deer Season Summary which I posted just as they did.

And while I understand the license side of the archery vs crossbow issue, on page 7 of the summary, you will find where I pulled the data I posted from table one. And within table one you will also see where the DNR combined the archery/crossbow harvest data together. So I did as well.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2014deerharvestreport.pdf

Have a nice evening.

But we aren't talking about something subjective here. We are talking about the harvest numbers the DNR posted in their 2014 Indiana Deer Season Summary which I posted just as they did.

And while I understand the license side of the archery vs crossbow issue, on page 7 of the summary, you will find where I pulled the data I posted from table one. And within table one you will also see where the DNR combined the archery/crossbow harvest data together. So I did as well.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2014deerharvestreport.pdf

Have a nice evening.[/QUOTE]

The data may not be subjective, but how one interprets the data is absolutely subjective. For instance, I could say the 2014 harvest would have been 105,000 animals under the 2009 regs. I don't necessarily believe that to be true...but that is what the data suggests.

Regarding archery versus crossbow data...Table 3 on page 10 tells the real story.

pav We could "what if" the data all day by taking or adding things from it that don't exist.

And we could spit/spat all day long about whether the archery/crossbow totals should/should not be included together, but in the table I referenced the dnr did so, so I did the same.

Regardless, even if you split the data, my original point still is valid. Bowhunters are taking a larger share of the harvest while firearms hunters are taking a lower share and that's happening without moving/shortening the gun seasons and adding the late antlerless season in as well.

Have a good day.

EXACTY.....

In essence, all you saying is...more deer are being killed with crossbows during a 3+ month long statewide, either sex season than are being killed during a late December, non-statewide, 10 day, antlerless only firearms season.

That's quite the revelation....

I get that you see what you see, but my point has been and continues to be.....

Since 2.0 passed, Bowhunters are taking a larger share of the harvest while firearms hunters are taking a lower share and that's happening WITHOUT moving and/or shortening the present gun seasons, while ADDING a late December, non-statewide, 10 day, antlerless only firearms season.

Why does it seem that these discussions almost always end up a weapons issue? It seems that at times the "deer" herd becomes secondary to weapons. The big picture, in my opinion, should be about how many deer are being harvested, what the average harvest per hunter is, how to limit harvest when needed and what the intended number of deer per habitat mile is targeted by the DNR. Forget the weapon issue for a while because at some point, hunting is hunting. I'm not really sure that the vast majority of hunters even acknowledge or take into any considerations this thing of "management". I believe the problem is hunter density, unwillingness to not pull the trigger or release the bow, or the vast lack of the majority of those who hunt deer to really give a crap about the deer herd except when they are wanting to shoot one.

The existing hunting organizations have become vastly ineffective in influencing anything because the game has changed with how politics and management is handled. The emerging social media organization will have a good opportunity to see if hunters can have an influence based upon the number of those who hunt deer becoming socially engaged. Now, again, no organization is going to satisfy everyone and if they get caught up in a weapons focus instead of looking at the bigger issue of harvest and herd size, they too will get drawn down into the abyss of being discounted by the agency. There are more then a few in the DNR that often have felt that we are at a point where most who are engaged year round are more focus on the weapon use issue then the status of the deer herd itself.

Dave... are you talking about "IWDHM" on FB when you say "emerging social media organization" ???

If you are BEWARE ....If anyone doesn't tow there line so to say you are banned from even comment within the group!!! That's what we need Hmmm???

Delaney First of all for me, this thread isn't as much about equipment as it is, how that equipment is being used to harvest deer.

You want data? I've posted data that shows....

What percentage of hunters are killing how many deer. See page 28 of this report. http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/IN_Deer_Report.pdf

That (as a percentage of harvest) bowhunters are harvesting more deer during the season, while firearms hunters are harvesting fewer deer since the new regs were implemented.

You want data that shows hunter density? Here you go.... web pagehttps://www.qdma.com/articles/hunter-density-across-the-u.s

Indiana is listed as having 10.8 hunters per square mile, while Iowa is listed as having 0-4 per square mile while Illinois and Kentucky are shown as having 5-8 hunters per square mile.

That's a lot of hunters in Indiana, and as I've pointed out several times, even if there were ZERO bonus antlerless permits, with the present license structure, every hunter in this state could still kill 4 deer per season.

You want to know what the intended number of deer per habitat mile targeted by the DNR is?

I wish they (the DNR) would...

Give us that number, tell us where we are now, and let us when we reach that number.

As far as taking the "politics" out of the posts on the forum, I can't see a way to make that happen. There will always be hunters who favor certain pieces of equipment and see their views as correct. And that means debate is going to happen.

What I would like to see...is less tolerance for the personal attacks and foolishness that seems to crop up every, single time subjects such as those you listed above, are discussed/debated.

It might not lead to more agreement, but it would certainly lead to fewer derailed threads.

And there we have it. I don't think there is a truer statement on this thread. Nobody cares about the herd……

Glad someone else sees that. I don't pay much attention to all the stats….but I think I read that on average, a deer hunter kills less than, or right at two deer per year. And if the "average deer killed per hunter" is two or less…..WHY even have the ridiculous bonus numbers above 3 or 4….or ANY above the 4 we can kill without the bonus for that matter??? For the very small % of hunters that just like to kill deer to be killing?? We are obviously in a era of deer decline (by design). If that in fact is the case….WHO is killing all the deer????? Or is it…just maybe we don't have all the deer that the powers to be THINK we have…...

With all due respect, I think it shows the opposite.

Sure people may disagree about how to manage the herd, but if they didn't care about the deer, they wouldn't frequent these forums, or start a facebook page, or contact the DNR, NRC, the Governor and their lawmakers.

Take me for example....before a few years ago, I wasn't really involved in the debate. But now, I want my voice heard and am not satisfied with just a certain group (or groups) having the ear of the powers that be.

And with the internet, our voices not only can be heard, they can be heard in real time by those who ultimately help make the decisions...

According to Chad Stewart's Ten myths of deer hunting....

Indiana historically has had high antlerless
limits available to all hunters. Hunters have
been allowed to harvest eight antlerless deer
in many counties. These limits are high to
allow individuals experiencing deer problems
the opportunity to solve their problems in the
hunting season. It is not meant to be a limit
that is reached by all hunters, and it rarely is
reached. Despite high quotas in some counties,

Surveys repeatedly show the vast majority of
hunters (85 percent) take three or fewer deer,
and less than 1 percent ever take eight deer in
a season.

The chart showing this data is on page 28 of the link below...

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_1034_2010_Deer_Hunter_Survey.pdf

jjas,

You obviously have a more positive outlook on this than I do. I have grown weary of how every single post on every single site about deer/deer numbers/proposals/etc turns into "he said-she said's", "they banned me from their site because I said this", and "its this groups fault", its "because we have allowed this weapon"……….That does not do US, as a group, of deer hunters any good. I REALLY hope you are right, and people can look down the road, and not just what's in front of their noses right now...

youd have better luck hoping for world peace

Ding Ding - we have a winner.

For now, that new entity is engaging via social media. Certainly they might ban folks that don't agree but maybe that isn't all bad because at some point the arguments become pointless and detract from accomplishing anything. If they can make it work, regardless of whether I agree with all their views, good for them. I can go on and on as to what I believe the IDHA and the IBA have done in the past and good that it has produced. That said, there needs to be new energy and new involvement. The IDHA and the IBA has a lot of baggage with many deer hunters, be it warranted or not. So, there needs to be other organizations with other views and goals. My hope would be that all organizations put the deer herd first and foremost. We need more involvement, not less. And as I have said before, no organization is all right or all wrong and no organization can be all things to all people.

If the "IWDHM" wants to put the Deer Herd first they need to stake a firm stance against HIGH FENCE KILLING of Deer and CWD, then move in the right direction to end it!!!

There stance of NOT being AGAINST it is SAD...

Brew You hit the Nail on the Head ..If you are going to sit at a table with Partners and EVERY ONE of those Partners, State and National have Taken a FIRM stance against Canned Hunting and the very root of CWD deer farming. If you want to accomplish anything you had better stand side by side with your partners, if you want there support.. and its not happening.

I still want a Spring squirrel season.

Ditto

Exactly.....

I agree that this is a major issue and am disappointed with their current position on it if they are not against it. That alone though does not mean that their organization alone and working with others on other issues isn't without merit. Don't forget that there are a lot of big national organizations that haven't become actively involved with the canned hunting issue. Folks have to find common ground and work towards successful conclusions and while I agree that canned hunting is something that all organizations should be against, there are a lot of other issues that also need attention.

The big national organizations won't pitch their tent because of places like South Texas and South Africa....where high fence facilities are measured in square miles, not square acres, and contain self sustaining resident herds. For most, "high fence hunting " and "canned hunting" are synonymous...and until that changes, don't expect the big boys to take the hard line.

That said, it is completely ridiculous for a deer hunting organization in Indiana to take a neutral stand on this issue! High fence operations in this state only offer canned hunting. Indiana has small tracts, often sub-divided, and the pens require artificial stocking with farm raised animals. THAT is 100% canned hunting IMO.

Unfortunately, that "IMO" is where the train gets derailed on the national/world stage. Opinions are like a**holes...everybody has one.

Paul, those organizations could take a stance based upon acreage and such, but still they seldom will take a stance. They get no excuse in my opinion.

I agree 100% Dave. Problem would be defining minimum acreage for different species and types of terrain.

The way I see it, if the facility is not large enough to sustain a resident herd....and must be artificially stocked with game farm animals...the acreage is a moot point.

Exactly Pav..... If it has a ear tag or farm raised it not free range!!!

The Sad part with IWDHM is they didnt poll there member/ followers about the issue.They just made a position on there own behind the scene !!!

For sake of debate, the term farm raised is an interesting term. Arguably cattle ranchers out west that let their cattle free range on government lands don't raise wild cattle but instead those are farmed or ranched cattle. The ear tag I get. And, I do understand the intent of farm raised in the context of Indiana. But, the term itself could be applied differently in some circumstances.

Yeah, but in most western locations, those cattle (and sheep) only "free range" on government land a few months out of the year. They live in private pasture and feed lots the majority of their lives.
I don't think that practice clouds the definition of "farm raised".

Paul, not sure the word majority is fair but I do understand your point. At this point though the issue appears to be more so in the legislative arena then DNR. The organizations, all if them, will have to decide whether they wish to engage, support or oppose these activities In the meantime, it could be argued that there are numerous other issues that need attention and the more organizations working together the better off the resource will likely be. I've not always been fond of some of the positions of the IBA but to publicly try to diminish their value or discredit them publicly wasn't warranted. This public stuff between sporting groups is detrimental to the big picture. We have to understand that most organizations don't represent the average deer hunter and might not even want to. So, the needs to be continuos private dialogue seeking common ground and then rules of process for that which folks disagree on. I remember when QDMA wouldn't help with the birth control issue because it wasn't their mission. Do be it. Doesn't mean they are a bad organization or not worth working with. Until, and I would hope it happens, the longtime leaders of the existing groups sit down and talk with the new folks we will not know how there can be added value of more people at the table.

I'm going to comment on IDHWM Facebook page as President of the IDHA and a member of the FWCC.

IDHWM came to the FWCC wanting to be a member with NO/ZERO group structure, their only claim was that the "net" was the future of communication. That might be but today we use a network of interested parties with a structure. Let me also add that IDNR has a Facebook page. People can comment as they wish with no fear of being censored, that can not be said of IDWHM.

The IDHA learned long ago that polls can be manipulated by how the questions are asked,IDWHM has not learned that the questions they asked are loaded in their favor or they do not care. You as a member are either "for" their agenda or you are banned.

IDWHM seems to be against IDNR's deer management plan....... Two of the three representatives at the FWCC meeting actively participated in the liberal deer harvest of the 80's, 90's and even into 2000's! There was ample bragging of deer harvests per season in the "family" of more than 20 deer harvested,the "kill number" was justified as the family consumed the deer, now today the IDNR is the problem? I can't comment on the 3rd person as he, to my knowledge was never an IDHA member.

Anyone can check the IDHA's position on herd reduction, even back when there were county quotas, the IDHA warned of over harvest and the result. We were told and I quote....... "We built the deer herd once and we can do it again." Search my quotes on this site and others and you will find this in my history many times.

CWD,EHD,Deer farming/Deer rehab, canned hunting, mean nothing to the Facebook page ownership, membership was not involved.

The IDHA will support ANY group that has filed as a group with the State of Indiana or the Federal Government and meets tax recording requirements...... At this time the IDWHM does not meet the standard required for membership in the FWCC.

Joe Bacon

President IDHA

Thanks for your input.....

Looks like the same view I have of them also!!!

BTW...Your spot on about censorship on the "IWDHM" site.

I'm hoping that everyone can take a step back and be focused on their individual organization and the deer herd itself. There needs to be an effort for everyone to look forward and not look back. All of us have likely gone through various stages of deer hunting and deer harvesting. What happened in the past probably is best served in the past.

I'm not sure what all the criteria is that the DNR established for participation on FWCC and I'm happy to see that the IDHA is supportive of any group that meets that criteria. Each organization, be it the IBA, the IDHA , QDMA or the IDWHM all likely having differing views on various issues but each likely has value to be added to supporting the DNR and to input and ideas as to how the future of deer management in Indiana is best served. The best approach in my opinion is for the various individuals in all of these organizations to sit down and talk about common interest and goals. There is no doubt in my mind that each organization has individuals with a lot of passion and energy concerning deer and deer management and what would likely best serve the DNR and the deer herd generally is for all those individuals to work together. Heck, I even think a guy named Woody Williams should be at the table also because he has a lot of passion and energy as well, even though many on here have not always met eye to eye with him on issues. There is no value in exclusion and if folks are really interested in the deer herd we have to be able to work through any barriers to working together. Personally, I don't believe the FWCC is worth the time that is spent on it and that a better format by the DNR is probably warranted.

This stuff reminds me why this nations founding fathers created a "Republic" and not a "democracy."
In a democracy, majority rules. Basically if it's 50-50, you talk enough people into voting with you so it's 51-49 and you get what you want. This sucks because the 49% group will talk a couple back to their side and back the other way we go.
In a "republic" we elect people we trust to act on our behalf...to do whats best, even if it isn't always what we "wanted." If those elected aren't doing what's best, we vote them out...(which we don't seem to do anymore)
In this case, it sounds like the people making all these decisions aren't elected officials? I don't know who's making all these new rules. Too many abreviations...I don't know what all of them stand for.

Anyway, I think Delaney really makes a lot of sense here. A dead deer is a dead deer regardless of what weapon was used to kill it. I realize that some make the job easier.
I've said before and stand by it: The difference between Indiana and the states so many love is that hunters in those other states aren't shooting little bucks and aren't killing as many does as they can. You could make the rules more liberal in Illinois and Iowa and it wouldn't change a thing. They have what they have because they CHOOSE to do what's right.
Those states are about the same size as we are and they kill as many deer in archery as we do with guns!!

All depends on your definition of Right And what the management plan is Stable across the boards herd stability Or Big Buck Management

My definition? You missed the point. In Iowa, the "Managemant Plan" is what each individual decides it is...Like I said, Iowa could adopt the same management plan Indiana has, and it would have little effect because the hunters/guy with the weapon would continue to manage themselves. They let little bucks walk. Period. I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but that's what's going on. That's what will ALWAYS happen. They have antlerless season and they have a "Plan" every fall on how many does they will take from their farm,lease etc...
In my opinion, we fix all of our problems by managing ourselves. Not by legislating it.

Does Iowa have a Big Rock Candy Mountain too?

In Iowa, they don't hunt deer with firearms during the rut. That is a HUGE factor for growing big deer. Iowa residents are used to seeing big deer, which makes many hunters more selective by default. Hunter attitudes in Iowa are a reflection of their management plan.

Same could be said anywhere, including Indiana. Whether you supported OBR or not, it is undeniable that OBR affected hunter attitudes when it comes to notching their buck tag. The regulations definitely make a difference in hunter attitudes.

I read an interesting piece talking about regulation versus conservation. Said for many years, conservation was the primary consideration when determining regulations. Not so much these days. Conservation has taken a back seat to politics and hunter preference.

That article speaks an unfortunate truth IMO.

IMO true as well.

Grant Woods said it well in a series of emails we had a couple years ago, "Most states manage based on the local deer hunting culture. Dog hunting, baiting, long rifle season, late rifle season, etc., are cultural decisions – not based on biology"

I also quote an NRC member at a meeting I went to when the Reg #1 was being shot down. The quote is, " Good deer biology doesn't make for good public policy."

Management of the deer herd hasn't been about biology for a long time. This deer herd hasn't been in biological trouble for a long time, maybe ever. The entire management, once the whitetails were well established in Indiana, has been about social management. The farming interests, insurance industry and even folks in suburbia have gained more and more influence over the management plan. This is because those who hunt deer won't get engaged, they want to fight amongst themselves and frankly, most don't care about deer except for a few weeks in the fall. Of course, I am speaking about the majority, not those who post here and on other sites.

I would agree with that Dave...to an extent. The social aspect has always been present, but you and I can both recall a time when there was more of a balance between sound conservation principles and social management. It wasn't that long ago, although it feels like forever.

I'm not going to throw the man under the bus on a public forum, but roughly fifteen years ago, a well known Hoosier conservationist told me the internet will spell the end of conservation as we know it. He sure hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Whitetail hunting got too good, too easy. Whenever stuff gets that way it tends to lose the unique aspect, the special aspect and often it brings on a lot of apathy from those who engage in whatever the activity is. Then different aspects of the activity cause those engaged to want "tweaks" for their attitude or approach vs. others attitude or approach. Then, often "it" becomes more about the individuals and their way then the value of the activity itself. Times change. Times have changed. I don't believe the internet will spell the end of conservation but instead will cause a lot of distractions regarding conservation. The internet is a tool and one that has not been used wisely by sportsmen and conservationists. Most sportsmen want it the old way, the comfortable way.

The "internet tool" works great when you post Mis-Information then CENSOR/BAN those that try to state the Truth/Facts....Hence the IWDHM FB group!!!

I'm going to ask that folks try to refrain from addressing the IWDMA because I don't believe they are allowed to post on this site. I might be wrong about that but there isn't any value in being critical of other groups and doing such is counter productive. What needs to happen is dialogue between the groups because each group brings value to the table. Im not caught up in any assessment of information correctness or the like and from what I know do far, that group has initially started to address, or at least try to address, some issues that are supportive of the DNR needs and of course some aspects of the deer management process that other groups have had issues with in the past as well. They apparently are also looking to set up a state wide representative structure, something that the older groups have done or tried to do in the past as well. The older groups have frankly lost momentum and new energy and effort should be welcomed, even if no one agrees on all the issues. This site should not be an avenue for comment about other sporting groups but instead should be a site to state ones own thoughts and comments. Sorry for the mild rant but it is what it is.

Why would the IWDHM not be allowed to post here????

This is not a closed forum as they are claiming .... Actually there the one's spreading the BS about this forum on there page!!!!How productive is that ???

How are they(IWDHM)being productive by asking/telling folks to BOYCOT the IDNR... ? Explain that...

It seems at this point there is a "back and forth" going on that is of no value. I'm sure most can remember the debacle from a couple of years where there was comment, counter comment about Woody's site and his comments and positions. Nothing gets accomplished by it and that is no point in it. I'm unsure of what the reference is in regard to comments on their facebook about this site as I haven't been sitting at the computer day in, day out. And actually, IF any other site, anywhere is making comments about this site or the IDHA , let them say what they wish. But, I know this, this "in the public" stuff isn't doing anyone any good and is probably counter productive to deer management or deer issues.

So, I'm not sure whether their leadership can post on here or on the IDHA facebook page. Regardless, there is no reason for folks that post on this site to make critical comments about any other organization. I honestly respect everyone who visits this site and would hope that all of us can rise above name calling, insinuation, bashing or other forms of such. I"ll say it again, the leadership of the deer groups, and IWDHM Is a deer group, period, should seek to sit down and talk amongst themselves and quite any type of crap on any website or facebook page or other media. I don't know every one of the leaders all that well, but I know they have energy and while they will differ on issues, if they could work together on certain issue they could possibly make some things happen.

I too remember when deer hunting wasn't so easy. I appreciate how good we have it.

PAV, I'd much rather discuss this stuff over a beer in a Colorado deer camp...And I'm only responding to defend my statement, not to make this go on forever...
I think what you are saying is that Iowa hunters "are the way they are" because they've had guns out of the rut and therefore have seen more mature deer as a result? And because of this, they've naturally become more selective?
If that's the point, I get it. You're 100% correct about the OBR doing that here. I admit I HATED the OBR in it's inception. But I went out the next couple seasons and passed youg bucks in Bow season and saw more big deer than I could've ever imagined were there...all because I didn't drop the string on the first buck. Changed my attitude forever.
It wouldn't bother me a bit if Indiana moved firearms out of the rut.
But I'm not as optimistic as others are, that the guys shooting the first deer they see aren't going to be successful in december. My problem with guns out of the rut theory is that when you put 2 hunters per acre in the woods on ANY WEEKEND... lots of deer are gonna die. Maybe I'm wrong? I believe if we had opening weekend of firearms this July, we'd kill a TON of deer. Would we kill fewer mature deer? Maybe. But I personally don't get mad if a kid on his first hunt kills a booner either. Good for the kid.

I don't participate much in these running point-counterpoint type of threads. But I do want to mention, just for clarification, that as of right now, no one is being prevented from joining or posting on this forum. Actually I've never at any time been asked to do that by the owner of this site. About the only way to get banned is to break the rules in the user agreement. THAT has certainly happened in years past.

Carry on!

Hey Mike, can we change that beer to Wyoming elk camp?

Good Morning Fellow Hunters:

Finally found a way into your site. Been wanting to reply to some of your posts on this forum for awhile. However when I attempted it came up with a login or register screen. When I clicked on register to reply I was given the message, "We are not accepting registrations at this time." I have posted a screen shot of this on the IWDHM Group FB page, just so you know. I searched your homepage and the forum site for a way to register and kept coming up empty. When I finally clicked on a General Information Thread, within the body of a message was a "click here" link that finally allowed me to register. Very very difficult. Most would have given up after receiving the first message of "We are not accepting registrations at this time." However, I did feel it was important to respond to some of your posts, especially from your President Joe Bacon. Be looking for that response to come shortly.

Gary Walters, RN Board Member IWDHM Group, Hoosier Deer Hunter

Appreciate the explanation on the registration process. I think I've said it a few times in posts already, but while there is always a lot of emotions around deer hunting and deer management, there needs to be a way for all the groups to work together even in the face of differences. All groups bring something to the table I'm looking forward to a broader understanding of your groups goals and while I'm sure there will be some from this site that don't agree with every goal, as evidenced by hundreds of other topics here over the years, I do believe there is good and meaningful input that can be provided by those who visit this site.

Let's see how productive and Truthful this gets.......

I will just take Mr. Bacon's comments as they come one paragraph at a time.

First: We did come to the FWCC as a group, organized with a STAFF of 8 Individuals, that facilitate a voice for the individuals concerned with the health of the Whitetail Deer Herd in Indiana and our hunting heritage. Please refer to our mission statement. The Facebook format allows for free and easy communication by individuals on their thoughts and perspective of our mission statement. We have in excess of 11,000 followers, of which as many as 9,000 are actively engaged in the conversation weekly. All of these individual's concerns and ideas are available to not only the DNR, IDHA, Hoosier Hunting, but anyone that wants to go to our page and look for themselves. We are not a representative group, rather facilitate actual concerns and ideas to get heard.

As far as banning, we addressed this from your forum once on our page: https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1025059857505696 please refer to this post.

So of the over 11,100 followers/members we currently have, we have banned a number less than 30. So about 1/3 of 1%; 0.0031 to be exact. Pretty insignificant in the big picture statistically. First, most have been people using vulgar language or threatening comments repeatedly. Secondly, many of these are people not in Indiana so do not have a dog in this fight. Thirdly, some of those "banned" followers do not exist as real people, rather fake Facebook accounts. Lastly, we have a clear mission statement, and we have a specific agenda and goals that fall under that mission statement. Therefore we are not going to tolerate one or two individuals that want to continually come onto our page and promote disharmony to those missions and goals. We believe if all one wants to do is continually argue their point about other issues, weapon type, domestic deer farming, continual there are plenty of places to do that. In the very few cases we have banned someone for this last reason, we have reached out to them first, many times giving them second, third, . . . chances. After all else fails we have 8 members on the Board of Directors. We consider all the evidence, document it, and then vote on whether to ban or not for the general welfare of the group and our mission and goals. This is something we do not take lightly. However, as you can see from this thread many times they become just a back and forth argument on who can one up the other. This does no good for the benefit of our mission statement and we will not tolerate or participate in such repeatedly. We are going to positively move forward to get the grassroots deer enthusiast viewpoint heard.

As for the IDNR Facebook page, they do in fact censor. There was a very good post about nuisance deer that generated a lot of public comment from not just us but many non related individuals. However, the IDNR chose to delete that post and censor scores of citizens.


Second: Of course our polls are going to ask about the questions we are concerned about. Can any question or comment be manipulated? Of course. Even the Devil can use the Bible for his purposes. Are we professional pollsters, of course not. We are working class citizens, that are attempting to address a concern that thousands of other citizens are recognizing in the management of OUR property and resources. That is why the Facebook forum and social media is a good format. Anyone can look at the posts, comments, and directly firsthand get a feeling for what the followers of our page are saying. Not just the eight of us as staff/board members. As far as the banning issue again I responded in response to your first paragraph.

Third: Of course we are against the current management plan. Do we feel there is a overharvesting of the resource taking place, of course. We are not attempting to hide that fact. Does that me we are anti-DNR, of course not. We KNOW, that most individuals within the agency do what they do for the love of the resource, it is obviously not to get rich or famous. However, we also know they are hamstringed more times than not, due to politics and finances. Currently, there are only 8 of 22 biologists on staff, there is not a deer biologist, unless that has changed in recent days. They have a mandate by law to perform their duties. It is up to us as citizens, when we see them being hamstringed to speak out and get them the funding and resources they need to do their job. We are as PRO DNR as you can be. The second half of this paragraph attacking us personally for our success as deer hunters, is just plain unprofessional and out of line. We have killed a lot of deer, did our job as management tools when there were an abundance of deer. However we did this in moderation. Now that the abundance is gone in many areas, we are practicing moderation in our harvest strategies. His numbers are also misleading. As far as the Walters, there are 13 of us that at one time or another actively hunt, and many more that participate on a non consumptive level. We never have taken an excessive amount of deer out of any given area, ever. We will not apologize for doing our job in managing the herd, as we are attempting to do now in moderation as the conservationists we have always been. We have actively pursued conservation both in season and out of season. https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1028877693790579

Fourth: If the IDHA seen this over reduction going on, why haven't they been shouting to the top of their lungs to conserve the resource and protect our hunting tradition. This overharvest has amounted in dead deer in the hundreds of thousands. This ties into his fifth paragraph: CWD has not killed one wild deer in Indiana, nor is there consistent research that deer FARMING, contributes to the spread of this disease. Why was the IDHA not proactive in attempting to reducing the overharvest of does when the EHD epidemics hit Indiana, and continue too. Actually fighting these actual 4 +/- canned hunting operations you now have a ruling from the supreme court that has taken all overseeing of domestic wild animals out of the authority of the DNR, and made it more easy for a person or corporation to abuse our resources. What was a small problem or insignificant is now a hornets nest. How many deer has the crossbow really killed, in excess of what would have been killed without it? How many days of any season has been lost due to allowing crossbow hunting? Are we against canned hunting, as staff and a board, absolutely; totally unethical and against what every hunter should believe; however, we do not think it is of direct significant consequences to the wild deer herd. Therefore we do not think that clouding "the fight" with these more minor issues, does anything to promote our larger mission statement. Forest for the trees. We have recently sent a letter to the governor that outlines our goals as a GROUP. These Goals are:

1. To develop dialog with State government and the agencies thereof entrusted to manage the resources of the citizens of Indiana.
2. Help develop a statewide, but county by county, deer advisory board consisting of members from the hunting, farming, insurance, tourism, and non-consumptive users communities. Similar to Wisconsin’s newly enacted system that in its first year reduced the doe harvest in many counties, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdac.html , or a wildlife or deer congress as other states have, that receives input for all users of the resource.
3. Express our concerns, that in areas with hunting access, the whitetail doe herd is being overharvested to the detriment of the resource, and there needs to be an immediate reduction in the use of bonus county antlerless permits. While we believe this is a management tool, we believe it should be used as designed to manage overpopulated areas, of which are mostly societal issues, not true overpopulation. True overpopulation by exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat has been very isolated occurrences in this state. Originally this allowed hunters to draw an extra tag for one antlerless deer, not the extreme of eight, and only in problem counties. We feel this tool has been exploited beyond its intended purpose to eliminate too many antlerless deer, and its intended purpose has been taken over by the deer reduction zone, that again does not use moderation, rather extremes in limits that can be in the very short term damaging to our resource and have long term consequences. The DNR does not have adequate staff or a system in place to address the current populations and management thereof. The DNR cannot currently tell us how many deer are in each county. Would be hard to manage anything, for example money, if one did not know how much one had. The DNR used these extreme measures of total deer elimination in the State Parks instead of managing in moderation, and acting on habitat destruction prior to its decimation, and now one is hard pressed to see a deer in said parks. The DNR by using these extreme numbers are promoting the same consequences in all the counties as well. They do understand this; otherwise what is the reason for not allowing the use of bonus county permits in the Fish and Wildlife areas? People expect to see deer in these areas, as well do citizen owners of the resource in the counties.
4. Express our concerns over the depredation permit system. One that promotes the harvest of does during the fawning season in the summer, in affect killing the un-weaned fawns through inhuman starvation or worse, and in cases tripling or more the reduction effect on the herd. While wantonly wasting our resources. The DNR does not have staff to adequately assess the damage requirement. Legislation brought this program about and we will be seeking to have this legislation changed in the near future.
5. Express our concerns that the DNR is currently not staffed in such a manner as to fulfill their obligation under law to manage the resource properly. With EHD and other diseases, our current system and staffing does not allow for timely management decisions that must be made to conserve our resources. Not to mention the everyday duties of biologists to manage our resources. Currently there are only 8 of the 22 current biologist positions filled, and we still do not have a state deer biologist.
a. Statute: Indiana statute defines the authority and responsibilities of the DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife: “ The [Division of Fish and Wildlife] shall . . . provide for the protection, reproduction, care, management, survival and regulation of wild animal populations regardless of whether the wild animals are present on public or private property . . . [and) Organize and pursue a program of research and management of wild animals that will serve the best interests of the resources and the people of Indiana.” (Indiana Code Title 14, Article 22, Chapter 2, Section 3)
b. With this decreased staffing level it would be impossible to manage the depredation claims, assess the wildlife assets of the state, nor manage those assets with due diligence.
6. Promote the idea of sustainable harvest of our state forests and lands to promote wildlife, healthy forest and lands, and the resources and citizens of the State.
7. Promote the procurement of available funding from the Federal Government for further state land acquisition within the state boundaries.
8. Promote ideas for hunter access to CRP ground to assist farmers with deer management.
9. Promote ideas to improve watershed habitat for all wildlife, and water quality, by supporting Clean Water Indiana, and federally funded grants.
10. Work with the DNR to implement funding options that ensure we gain the maximum federal matching dollars to support wildlife in Indiana.

We have also sent a petition to the IGA Natural Resource Committee Summer Study Group to look into funding for the DNR, being proactive in unlocking funds for fish and wildlife resources.

https://www.facebook.com/Indianadee...907232132621803/1030217320323283/?type=1

So can you or any of your members find one single fault in the goals we are attempting to reach? Are these not goals that benefit, the resource, all consumptive and non-consumptive users of the resource, and the boots on the ground staff of the DNR?

Sixth: Just to appease the IDHA< IBA< and IWF, we have formed bylaws, officers, a membership list, and are going to register with the state. As far as the tax reporting. There is none, as all the money to promote our cause is coming out of our own pockets. We are not asking the membership for one single penny. Are we saying that is forever, who knows, but we are attempting to give everyone a FREE unencumbered voice and membership. As staff we believe in this cause to the extent of putting our money where our mouth is. This formation of bylaws and a membership list has caused a considerable amount of work on our parts, that really does not accomplish anything towards our mission statement, other than bureaucratic paperwork trail. It does not change the way we are operating. We are also setting up regional directors and county managers to get input from the grassroots deer enthusiasts.

So Mr. Bacon, if you wanted to work with us, why did you fight so hard to keep us from just having a say on the committee and telling the DNR what we think? Who is trying to impede the VOICE or "Banning" others? We want to work with the membership of the all organizations on the FWCC and those that are not as well. We want to work with all consumptive and non consumptive users of the resources, and even have dialog with the farming lobby and insurance companies, to see how we can come to some middle ground in moderation of management of our resources instead of an all or nothing approach. We feel the IDHA has done a lot for the resource. I personally, was involved for many years, my father still is in a significant way that benefits handicapped hunters and the image of the IDHA. I am grateful for your forethought in 1983 in founding the IDHA. We are not here to take it over, cause its demise, we would hope, that our focus is more direct, and would free up your diminishing resources to partner on other issues you are passionate about.

I believe this addresses all your issues, as well as other negative comments on this thread. We pray that there can now be some positive dialog at actually accomplishing something, as we will with or without your support, but we prefer the former. God bless.

Gary A Walters, RN, Staff and Member of Board of Directors, IWDHM Group

Thank you for taking the time for the long explanation. I also very much appreciate the tone of the post and approach to welcoming a working relationship with other groups. Your compliment of the IDHAs efforts over the years is also appreciated. Your questions as to the issues and the IDHAs response and interaction to the DNR policies are fair and generally have explanation that Joe can address. Sadly, as you know, we all have been bloodied over the years either fighting against certain management plans and/or fighting in behalf of the DNR, often with little accomplishment. Everyone has to recognize their differences and find a way to get the big picture addressed. Be there no mistake, the sportsmen and the DNR have been losing the battle over all management issues in recent years to many outside interests and influences. That, in my opinion, is pretty much job one and the old groups sometimes get worn down and have lost energy. New groups are always good because they big energy and momentum. So, I hope the dialogue moves forward effectively and respectfully and no group stands in the way of the success of the other groups and the big picture.

How is the IWDHM being productive by asking/telling folks to BOYCOT the IDNR... ? Explain that...

BTW.... How is your post about the IDHA on the FB page not slanderous ... Gary? Thought you didn't allow that type of post!!


https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1028877693790579

I did forget one issue. We did meet the requirements for membership into the FWCC. We were given a copy prior to date of petition, and no where does it say that the GROUP must have a certain structure as alluded to by Mr. Bacon.

Mr. Brew,

I know of you; and you have mentioned you know me and my father, though we don't know you. I will not get into a back and forth with you as it is counterproductive. However, I will answer your question, taken out of context in regard to our post, of which you could have freely asked on our page for everyone to see and gotten the same response. https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1025094057502276

In being proactive we are attempting to educate hunters that despite quotas or limits, it is ultimately us that manage the heard by the pull of the trigger or the release of the arrow. If one is not seeing deer or a significant reduction in his/her hunting area, just don't pull the trigger. Also, if one feels like the DNR is being politically pressured by the farm and insurance lobbies to promote more dep tags, doe/antlerless permits/reduction zone tags, stop buying them. If we show them we are an economic force then they too will listen to us. Money talks, and as the post in its entirety includes: "As conservationists in the past, practice conservation, and we will get you the money." So now Brew, enjoy your beer, we are going to attempt to ensure we have a huntable herd for generations to come. I will respectfully ask you to participate in our Facebook conversation; however attempt to remain in a positive light and promote ideas, rather than a non stop back and forth that accomplishes nothing. Thank you sir.

Gary

You left it on Facebook, Brew. Don't bring it here.

Don't like it don't read it Weed!! You a self appointed mod now?

BTW....I haven't left anything !

Weed, I like your thought. A lot of this can be addressed via private messaging.

To be fair that route has no destination for some.

Wonder why Gary didn't do that when joined up???

In all fairness to Gary, a lot of what he had to said needed to be in the open for transparency (which is a good thing). I saw nothing wrong with him airing all he did in the open and not privately.

Likewise I think so long as respectful it is a good thing to ask questions to him or the IDHA in the open as well.

My suspicion is he wanted to address a brought audience that was addressed in previous posts before he joined. Let's try to not get into the "he said she said".

Here is a nice article to read from a popular bow hunting magazine:

http://www.petersenshunting.com/con... manchannel&utm_content=petersonshunting

Quoted directly from the article:

“We would go three or four days without seeing a single deer. I’ve seen numbers go up and down before, but not like this. They just weren’t there,” says Hicks, a 40-year-old heating and air conditioning mechanic from Goochland, Virginia. “We would go three or four days without seeing a single deer. I’ve seen numbers go up and down before, but not like this. They just weren’t there,” says Hicks, a 40-year-old heating and air conditioning mechanic from Goochland, Virginia. “We normally kill 30 to 40 deer, but we only killed eight this year. I didn’t shoot a buck all season.”

He’s not alone. Hunters throughout whitetail country are experiencing the same thing: hours in a stand with little to show for their efforts. Like Hicks, many spent days in the woods without seeing a single deer.

Get used to it. Lower deer numbers are likely the new normal.

South Carolina’s deer population has been trending downward for nearly 20 years, dropping from 1.2 million animals in 1996 to 800,000. The decline is even more dramatic in Iowa, where 550,000 deer roamed the state in 2006. It’s close to half that now. Ohio’s deer kill was also down to the lowest level in 14 years. Other states like Michigan, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kansas, and Missouri are experiencing similar declines.

Hicks is no biologist, but he has a pretty good idea what’s going on where he hunts.

“We are just killing too many deer,” he says.

--------------

Love how Hicks in the write up says we used to kill 30 to 40 deer now only 8.....then state the problem is "We are killing too many deer".....


Pretty good read once you get by that and they bring up some valid points about predidation and it's impact.

I would like to tell a story. In the late 80's early 90's I was on the board of the IDHA as Editor. Had a conversation with then Chief of Wildlife Wayne Faatz and Deer Biologist John Olsen. Believe it was Olsen that said, prophetically, at the time., "Deer Management is more of a social issue. Deer for the most part will never be overpopulated in Indiana in regards to carrying capacity of the habitat. However, right now farmers and insurance companies are bit---ng. Hunters are happy, seeing and killing deer and more opportunities are being presented. So we will react to the authority above us and address their (farming/insurance) concerns. At some point the pendulum will swing and hunters will stop seeing deer and they will start to complain." Swear on my life true story. So we can wait to complain when it is back like the 50's-70's, and then take decades to swing the pendulum back in our favor, or start complaining now and attempt to moderate a sustainable huntable herd that provides enjoyment for both consumptive and non consumptive users. Hopefully with some positive communication we can get that pendulum barely swinging and in moderation keep everyone happy within reason, the herd healthy, and I can go to heaven knowing my grandkids will have similar opportunities as I did. But I will admit, I believe the good old days are gone forever, and I was lucky enough to teach my son to hunt during the best times to be a Hoosier Deer Hunter. Hope as organizations and individuals we all work together to slow that pendulum down. God Bless.

Gary, I don't fear there will be no deer for our grandkids to hunt, partly due to far too many of us care far too much for this sport known as hunting to allow it (proven by groups and forums like your's, IDHA, IBA, Hunting-Indiana and various others) I also feel the DNR wants to keep things getting like they were in the 50's-70's because they need the deer for financial stability (we are their biggest funding source...no deer less licenses...).

I know first hand how fast a place can go from not having many deer to having an abundance as well...sometimes this is accomplished through habitat improvement (as we did), local landowner cooperatives (always a good thing if possible) and as some of our state needs now trigger control....whether taught or forced with legislation.

The new quotas not going up in nearly all counties (more down) shows even the DNR is catching onto this...I do respect it isn't enough in some opinions though and many think they should have changed more....however the bonus season truly makes barely any impact in the overall numbers harvested...and will continue to play less and less of a role as fewer and fewer counties are part of it.

A lot of us talked with the John Olsen, Wayne Bivens, Glen Lange, and numerous other DNR guys and they all acknowledged that the "orders" came from the top or beyond. But at least back then, the sportsmen had some voice and some influence. A lot of that changed when the Daniels administration took over in my opinion. Where there once was an interest in the folks in fish and wildlife to meet with sportsmen and try to get things done, they came under the influence of cost reductions and more so do as they are told then getting input from sportsmen, all sportsmen. For a lot of us who spent a good deal of time trying to influence things or support the DNR, we were pretty much told "those days are over". For a while now, and not to say these guys are bad guys, the directors of the DNR aren't even biologist types.

That closing line is just sad, and I know that is something ALL of us can agree on.

EXACTLY! Or pick up the phone and call one of these guys. I have, more than once! Do I agree with 100% of everything they have to say…NO. Do I applaud the individuals for at least trying to do something productive….YES.

Bottom line is NOBODY is going to agree 100% within any group membership. Then again…nobody at IWDHM is twisting anybody's arm to join. If you don't like what they have to say…DON'T JOIN. But don't keep bashing and picking apart every single sentence somebody with that group has to say!!!!! Look at the BIG picture for a change.

I know the great things the established groups like the IBA, and the IDHA have done for deer hunting, and hunting in general in the state. But, like Delany has said, it seems they are worn out and beat down.

Not to put words in his mouth, but Joe has admitted several times that "he don't care what they DNR, ect. does any more….he has his own place and will manage as he sees fit". I'm sure he is tired of the fight. He should be. I thank Joe and the IDHA, and the other groups for what they have done. But if they are not going to fight, at least step back and let some people that are willing to try to do something productive, be productive, and get the HUNTERS voice back, and the some of the politics out of deer management in this state.

Give these guys a chance……

Now we are getting somewhere gentlemen. It is time we all get a voice back. Agree!

I agree to a point.... But the past history and some untruthfulness with some of there Board members is hard to put aside for some !!!

Why have a formed group then censor what is being said when it comes to input..... Sad really!!!

Brew, couldn't agree more bud. Censoring inappropriate words or actions is one thing, but respectful opinions should always be welcomed.

Addressed and answered, not he said she said, back and forth. Will not get us anywhere.

Will not pick a fight here, or bait me into your arguements, because, believe it or not, I do believe in what the IDHA once was. And surely believe in IWDHM is now.

LOL, Brew maybe you do know me. My word is of the utmost importance to me, and I have taught my children that as well, and as adults they have remained honest and truthful as I. All of us Walters would rather you hit us in the mouth than call us a liar. But with age also comes wisdom, and my character and integrity speaks for itself to those that matter. So good luck with whatever you are attempting to succeed at. Haven't heard one positive idea from you yet.

Don't be scared Gary..... Where just stating facts as you did!!

Thanks Brew for making my point. Have a nice day sir.

Got it Weedhopper, your mailbox full so couldn't reply. Thanks, love your quote, one and only reason I even attempting to do any of this brother. God Bless

My exact thoughts also....

Great post ... And very forthcoming

Administrator, can you please remove my quote post from 4:07 pm today. I did not post that, must have clicked on the quote button when reading comments. Sorry for the mistake.

Gary.... I appreciate your efforts. They are genuine and an attempt to better a horrible situation going on with our current deer herd. Please disregard Brew's antics as nothing to worry about. They are known antics and rhetoric that has been applied on all Forums/Blogs and such that he frequents.

Wish you well in your quest to make the common hunters voice heard with our IDNR.... But as you know.... They are "hamstrung" at this point by NRC Members and Political entities. When IDNR Brass says in a meeting I was in with a sitting Senator and states "what they WANTED to do with the herd was taken from them"..... You know they are frustrated with direction things have headed.

Individuals like jjas and Brew on this site fought to take away the power of what the IDNR wanted to do..... And now they get VERY upset at those that 1) Remind them of their hand in that. 2) Try to establish reconstruction of this mess with ideas about shortening days to hunt bucks with a gun.

They are full of ideas for "self fullfilment".... And to heck with the resource as long as it does not effect them or the number of days they have to hunt a buck with a gun.

Feel free to PM me and I can discuss tactics that we now find helpful that we are following through with that we do not post on public Forums. And yes.... Those tactics foster "haters".... But I and others are more worried about the current resource than some "haters" that commend "azz whippings to keep the planets aligned".

Tim

Gary,

I watched a couple of the videos on facebook and there are some things I agree with your group about (and a few things that some of your members have espoused that I don't).

Regardless, good luck with it.

Good evening to all....

That' pretty much the Pot calling the Kettle BLACK....Being how you been banned on about all public forums but this one and the one you own...

BTW...Dew you should sign up with the group you and ShoulderNuke(Ed Hunt) will pair up great...Old AcheryTalk buddies...LMAO

Let there be calm.

So you ran those sights? I was banned...or did I just leave and it sounds better to you to say I was banned.


Spin it how you like Brew......... I know it makes you feel like something.

Have a good eve.....

Before the Jerry Springer show starts all I will say is,

The DNR asked for hunter input. Phil Bloom IDNR public relations head had a article online and in many newspapers asking for hunter input on PROP#1 and listed the website to do so. Somewhere around 3000-3500 did just that with a vast majority opposing Prop#1.


Most of them are the average Indiana deer hunter, not guys who live and die hunting antlered deer and surfing deer hunting sites.

Simple put the majority of Indiana deer hunters did not want Prop#1 and a few guys just cant handle that and wont let it go.

My advise to everyone is manage your property the way you want, I do and that yielded a nice 154 6/8" 8 pointer with a handgun last year. If I could figure out how to post the picture so its not sideways I show you what managing will do. h.h.

FYI, I personally banned you on one. h.h.

That is correct....... I was on a site that wanted nothing to do with voices of reason. I felt proud to stand up to the tyranny in that forum. Your leadership has banned many known good voices in our deer community including the leaders of good deer organizations in this state including reps of the IDHA.

Proud to be part of those that were banned for speaking up to the tyrant Woody.

We found a good home many different places including here and our own sites.

Good reminder to what you represent Hornharvester...

Amen... Great post... Spot on!

Amen to that.

Manage your property within the confines of the law. I am stating this only for anyone else viewing this thread that may take that as avoid/ignore any and all regulations and do as you may on your hunting grounds.

Just not working in the big picture HornHunter, glad it is for you, but leasors around farm I own, kill everything they see, and say they move on to another lease when gone, they getting their moneys worth. I own my farm and have long term goals and investments. Co-oping and QDMA not working in most areas of Indiana with landholdings small, and human nature of Greed.

For sake of not infringing on a trademark, "The Jerry Springer Show", I would respectfully ask that we try to focus on the topic (s) at hand and not others personal status or standing on other sites. Just no relevance here because otherwise, yes, we could once again simulate the said "Springer Show". I love the meaningful input and do appreciate the fact that even haven't fallen all the way into the outhouse yet, although we seem to be sliding a little.

This ^^^^

Wasn't that what you and your family did for 20+ years Gary,shooting everything you could?..... Shooting double digit numbers most every year!!!

But now it the DNR's fault or the guy next door .... SMH

Gary,

We have (according to QDMA data) 10.8 hunters per square mile in the state of Indiana. Iowa has 0-4 hunters per square mile and Illinois has 4-8 hunters per square mile. If this data is correct, the only way I can see to substantially reduce the harvest is to limit tags.

Without purchasing a single bonus tag, one could kill 3 antlerless and one antlered deer with a bow tag, crossbow tag, firearms tag and muzzleloader tag.

So how do you lower the harvest? Do you just sell a "deer tag", leave the obr in effect and limit sales to two tags per hunter?

And if you do that, how would it affect the DNR's revenue stream, LTL holders and landowners?

Just curious....

Not sure why you didn't spell my user name right but I suspect its to try and degrade me and my comment which is only the truth.

Basically I manage my 127 acres the way I want because I can. There is a nice herd of around 20 or so deer that stay on my property because I provide them with habitat and food. And the nice thing about that is the government pays me to do so.

I could care less what my neighbors do as that is out of my hands. I have no right to tell them how manage their property or what to kill since I don't pay their property taxes. As long as its legal, hunt/kill whatever you want on your own property, works for me. h.h.

If its not legal than its poaching not hunting. h.h.

Here's HH's 2014 buck...



Dang nice buck, Mike!

That's a fine buck for sure.

Thanks for posting it Weed! h.h.

Yer welcome, sir!

One time does not make a trend.... Nore does it prove your success was the production of YOUR singular management on just 120ish acres surrounded by neighbors you don't even care what they do...... And attempt to sway others they can have the same experience by just "doin' things your own way".

I do admire your efforts on your property though .....

And yes..... That's a dang nice buck. Congrats to you.

How do you know they shot double digit #'s of deer off their farm Brew? Just asking.

I would agree it would be difficult to point finger at IDNR for them choosing to kill that many...... if your information is correct.

Read joes post in this thread......Plus Gary has said so !!!


"I'm going to comment on IDHWM Facebook page as President of the IDHA and a member of the FWCC.

IDHWM came to the FWCC wanting to be a member with NO/ZERO group structure, their only claim was that the "net" was the future of communication. That might be but today we use a network of interested parties with a structure. Let me also add that IDNR has a Facebook page. People can comment as they wish with no fear of being censored, that can not be said of IDWHM.

The IDHA learned long ago that polls can be manipulated by how the questions are asked,IDWHM has not learned that the questions they asked are loaded in their favor or they do not care. You as a member are either "for" their agenda or you are banned.

IDWHM seems to be against IDNR's deer management plan....... Two of the three representatives at the FWCC meeting actively participated in the liberal deer harvest of the 80's, 90's and even into 2000's! There was ample bragging of deer harvests per season in the "family" of more than 20 deer harvested,the "kill number" was justified as the family consumed the deer, now today the IDNR is the problem? I can't comment on the 3rd person as he, to my knowledge was never an IDHA member.

Anyone can check the IDHA's position on herd reduction, even back when there were county quotas, the IDHA warned of over harvest and the result. We were told and I quote....... "We built the deer herd once and we can do it again." Search my quotes on this site and others and you will find this in my history many times.

CWD,EHD,Deer farming/Deer rehab, canned hunting, mean nothing to the Facebook page ownership, membership was not involved.

The IDHA will support ANY group that has filed as a group with the State of Indiana or the Federal Government and meets tax recording requirements...... At this time the IDWHM does not meet the standard required for membership in the FWCC."

Joe Bacon

President IDHA

--------------------

HornHarvester, no disrespect intended at all. Just misread the username, apologize. Nor was I diminishing what you have or have accomplished, that is great. I was just pointing out that it is not the norm in the state. I have 145 acres and it is very hard to keep the deer on MY property, that I spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on every year in management and habitat improvement. However what about the average Joe hunter that just doesn't have the resources to own their own farm, but want to enjoy the citizen owned resource? The average Joe that wants to take his boy to say Yellowwood and just see some deer and harvest one, shouldn't he have that opportunity, or should it be taken away because a few greedy individuals killed 8 apiece for a couple years and moved on?

Brew, you seem to know me better than I do myself, sure don't know you, nor does my family. Seems you may be a stalker of some degree? However, no your information is absolutely incorrect. Me and MY FAMILY, for decades worked to maintain permission all over the state, hunting in double digit counties and other states annually, put in for special/military/park hunts. We have never taken more than 1-3 does off any given farm in any given area ever. Even when we are fortunate to hunt Military areas together we are spread out all over the base in the different areas. Not DNR's FAULT, rather a management plan forced upon them by some that may not be as concerned for the resource as we are, IE: farming/insurance. Did we wrong you in a past life or something? Just wondering? Sorry we are successful deer hunters and great management tools, maybe you can be too when you grow up.

JJAS, this is the dialog we are promoting at IWDHM Group. What is the answer? Seems the regular tags allow sufficient harvest to manage herds. Do we even need bonus permits and extra winter antlerless season? Of course if you mention doing away with all bonus permits there would be a enormous uproar, and the DNR should have this tool where needed. We are just promoting moderation in using them. Especially not in excess. Dialog is needed how we work all this out to find a happy median and not this all or nothing, too many or not enough. I think most sportspersons are conservationists. Our licenses are such a small part of the cost incurred deer hunting. Maybe if there is not as many tags, there could be an increase in cost/funding for the DNR. Indiana has always been one of the cheapest places to hunt license wise in as long as I remember. Maybe we need to step up that cost/funding. I think most would pay more for a more enjoyable experience. Just my thoughts. Conservationists have historically put their money where their mouths were, as well as action. Keep sharing yours. We would welcome it on the Facebook page to keep it more condensed for all to see what sportspersons that are looking for solutions and answers are actually saying. That is what we want to accomplish streamline the communication between all parties interested in the Whitetail Deer.

Also, I cannot see pics on her, just box's w/ x in them. Does anyone have suggestions on how to see these pics. I like any other hunter like to see deer pics.

How many unique licensed hunters do we have each year? Including those who hunt using landowner and lifetime licenses .... is it 250,000 or so?

And we kill 120-130,000 deer a year?

Even if we only allowed each hunter a single "deer" license we would have to hope that over 50% of the hunters are not successful in order to shrink our kill numbers.

I have pondered the following questions many times .... how many deer do we have. How many deer do we want. How did we arrive at those two numbers.

I pondered those three questions when the DNR was supposedly wanting to reduce our herd.

I ponder those three questions when a group wants to increase our herd.

Like that information myself S_Wilk. Wonder how we get it?

We dont ... not officially anyway.

I own property in Gibson County .... 150 acres of prime habitat surrounded by other prime habitat. Good neighbors and low(er) hunting pressure. The density on and around my farm is very, very high with a balanced buck to doe ratio.

I know my farm and my area very well.

I also know that Gibson County is 526 square miles .... and that just 2 miles south of my little chunk of heaven the situation might be totally different let alone 15 miles south.

How many deer are in Gibson County? How many deer should there be in Gibson County? Dont we need to know those two things before we can lobby for quota changes?

We kind of go year by year ..... kill what we think is necessary and encourage those around us to do the same.

S_Wilk, you hit it on the head, shouldn't we know and shouldn't we manage the deer that are there. Sounds like you do have a slice of heaven there. That is great for you, but in the bigger picture that is not for everyone. That is what we are addressing. The DNR should have an estimate and manage annually off those estimates. Not everyone is the sportsmen we are and attempt to manage ourselves. Since 2011 we have not been able to kill even one doe for my grandkids off my big farm, because they are getting hammered around us. The does that stay on our property have actually made the buck hunting better. Where they going to go, where the does are, that simple secret to success, most overlook, lol. But again we can only ethically kill so many bucks as well. I do monitor my neighbors best I can. But again IWDHM Group is looking at the bigger picture. Some of our members up north are reporting seeing an abundance of deer on their areas for years, now sit for a week all day in the rut and not seeing any. See that is what we are promoting, for the DNR to be able to manage an do their job. Here is their mandate by law:

Statute

Indiana statute defines the authority and responsibilities of the DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife:

The [Division of Fish and Wildlife] shall . . . provide for the protection, reproduction, care, management, survival and regulation of wild animal populations regardless of whether the wild animals are present on public or private property . . . [and) Organize and pursue a program of research and management of wild animals that will serve the best interests of the resources and the people of Indiana.

(Indiana CodeTitle 14, Article 22, Chapter 2, Section 3)


That means research or inventory what you have and manage accordingly. That way the herd get managed consistently all over the state, not just where the few like yourself care to do the right thing no matter what is legal.

So where does it say the DNR has to count all Game&Fish.... ????

According to Chad Stewart....

Myth 4: The DNR needs an accurate count of deer to effectively manage
them across the state.

Wildlife biologists and statisticians have
recognized that population estimates are not
necessary for effective deer management. Many
states do not conduct population estimates for
their deer herds. Rather, the DNR manages
deer by evaluating trends over time. From those
trends we’re able to estimate whether the deer
herd is increasing, stable, or decreasing. These
trends, along with public surveys, are used to
determine deer management objectives.


Agree or disagree, that is the method being used and I don't see the DNR changing that.

Lets take Gibson County just for the sake of conversation .... what is your plan to do an inventory of that county? How would you even begin to try and get a number when dealing with 526 square miles? Over 336,000 acres.

Its a monumental task .... but in order to ask for a change in the quota we need to know the number. If a strong case cant be presented to the DNR they will likely continue as they have been .... tweaking quotas year to year based on what they are seeing.

Gary Walters As has been pointed out, we have a lot of hunters in the state. More than enough that @ a 50% success rate, the harvest numbers would roughly stay @ the levels they are.

And doing away with the bonus antlerless system and late antlerless season is (IMHO) off the table. The DNR wants a method of trying to raise/lower the harvest numbers without having to go through a reg change to do so.

I wish you guys the best in searching for ways to change the system, but I still don't see how you get around the fact that we have a lot of hunters in this state and very few (on a percentage basis) kill more than 2, maybe 3 deer.

And those three deer can be killed by purchasing the bundle or bow/crossbow/firearms/muzzleloader tags without ever purchasing a bonus antlerless tag.

There are biological models the DNR can use on a big scale. Suggest you got to Southeastern Deer Study Group and research. Been doing them for years all over the world on many species.

They tend to be very accurate as well.

Assuming this was part of our conversation ... Im not trying to figure out how the DNR can find the number. Im trying to figure out the IWDHM plan to find the numbers so they can lobby for changes to the quotas.

FYI Dew, Three of the last 4 years Ive killed 2 bucks just under 150 and one over......pretty much a trend in my opinion.

I usually don't kill a buck until mid week of the gun season. By that time all the doe in the area have come to my property seeking refuge and the big bucks follow.


And you are right I don't care how my neighbors hunt or what they shoot......its flatly none of my business....h.h.

That is why biologist go to school for all those years to learn this stuff. But we only have 8 out of 22 for the whole state, so how can they get done. Who setting quota's now, and how are they determined? That is what we are advocating brother.

We are not lobbying for any specific numbers as yet. We are lobbying to get the biologist hired, let them do their job, and set accurate quotas for sound management. We are also advocating for deer advisory councils to help them.

You guys are missing the point, by a mile. You are talking specific areas, specific situation. Not the bigger picture of the whole state. What is on or off the table. Annually all is on the table. It is all a dynamic process.

Gary - would it be safe to say that there is no plan for IWDHM to find the numbers and is instead going to go with another method to determine what the quotas should be?

Nothing is static in nature. Heck it all changes why we sit around talking about it. Lets start acting before the fact with education instead of being reactionary, that includes attempting to dissect every sentence and argue this point or that point, in the big picture doesn't matter. We need to work on big picture first, and that is getting biologist hired and inventorying our herd, and manage accordingly.

My mistake. I thought that you were looking for lower quotas.

If your goal is get them to change, I wish you the best. I've talked to people @ the IDNR over the last few years, and was told they are satisfied with the methods they are using.

Absolutely not s_wilk, we are saying flat out we want those population numbers. It does appear in all honesty that too many are worried about what they are going to lose, instead of what we are going to gain for ourselves and future generations as conservationists.

yes S-Wilk, we do think in most areas with hunter access the quotas need lowered per grassroots deer hunter reports, but see you assumed that we just want to randomly lower them without science, and that is just not the case.

Point is JJAS we are not satisfied and they manage OUR resources. Citizens own the resources, and unless we speak out we will lose them, that I can guarantee you. How long would you have your house or your family if you just let someone else manage them for you without your overseeing that management and giving input. Think about it.

How in the world did some folks, including myself, get the impression you fellas wanted lower quotas and that you felt there were too many antlerless deer being killed each year during season and during the depredation process?

If all you are wanting is the DNR fully staffed and then to re-evaluate I agree with that 100%. That would be a great place to start ..... figure out where we are before determining where we want to be.

I support the IWDHA goal of getting the DNR to back off the does. I have even joined the group and asked my hunting friends and family to do so. That being said I think some of their leaders have some bad blood with some other groups including this one. They in my opinion should make their friends list on Facebook public as A way to connect hunters. They need to have a plan to keep these guys engaged after this goal is reached. We need a voice, but every group that I have ever joined loses steam. See quail unlimited as example A. I know have to drive 3 hours south to hunt the way I want to because DNR put my ground in the urban slaughter zone. I will stand with anyone who wants higher game numbers. I'm too young to rember the good old days on pheasant, quail, or grouse, but did hunt in the good old days for deer. I want to pass this to my kids.

You know fellows, we are just attempting to secure what we have for everyone and future generations. Some are so scared they will as an individual lose one little thing they cant see the forest for their one tree. We should all be on the same side on this one guys. We are wasting energy arguing here, that can be better spent.

Amen family tradition. I think if you like our page you can see all the friends list.

Cannot. Only the ones I'm already friends with.

Your opinion on what is arguing and my opinion on what is arguing seems to be very different. This seems like a very civil conversation to me .... and it has helped clear some stuff up.

Filling the open positions before doing anything else or lobbying for any changes is a great idea.

With herd reduction, high hunter density numbers, and revenue demands all factoring in, I don't see the DNR changing much of anything in the near future.

Regardless, while I think you guys are up against a brick wall, I wish you luck in your quest.

Everyone, just remember, I am just a working stiff like the rest of you. I will not always say every word correctly, or always be politically correct. I guess I just saying this back and forth on the details can be redundant, and really doesn't accomplish much in the bigger picture. Sometimes just saying we have to prioritize and do the best we can, and not attempt to fix every little thing at once. But for clarification we think the quota's need reduced now in certain areas and cannot or should not wait. Attempting to live life and work, and help others, and do the best I believe for the herd. I would suggest you all place this energy in going to meetings, hearings, sending letters and emails, and stop so much back and forth on emails, some discussion does at time become redundant. I am a RN and if a person comes in with a heart attack we are going to treat that, then worry about their hemorrhoids latter on down the road. Believe me they don't care about the specifics then. Not to feel sorry for me, I am doing it out of love, but I spend hours every day on this, going to a meeting with other conservationists tonight to talk about his, guys that DO.... Written to DNR, Governor, Legislators, just this month. Look at the positive you want and do the same guys, that all I saying.

JJAS, I agree it is hard, but isn't anything worth doing. We aren't deer hunters because it is easy. If I wanted easy I would get me an 80 inch screen TV and become a football fan. We do it because it is worth doing. thanks for your well wishes.

Now gosh darn it ... I just went and watched the video and it said you were going to start attacking the license structure and the amount of tags per hunter per year.

Im all kind of confused now .... are you going to wait until after the biologists positions are filled before asking for those changes?

Not sure?

While I was typing my above message you were posting this one ... so I didnt see it.

So you are going to ask for changes now. Not wait until the positions are filled.

What science are you going to base those requests on? You indicated earlier that you werent going to ask they be randomly lowered without science ....

Just a thought guys Gary Is saying that IWDHM Group is for the HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE WILD DEER HERD FIRST and to INSURE HUNTING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS PERIOD. And if you don't Agree with that Mission Statement I FEEL SORRY for ALL OF YOU.

S-wilk, frankly I am tired, WE DO THINK THE ANTLERLESS DEER ARE BEING OVERHARVESTED AND WANT A REDUCTION IN QUOTA's, BUT WE WANT THAT BASED ON WHAT THE HERD IS DOING SCIENTIFICALLY. WE don't want the entire state managed like the state parks have been and that is what is going on in a nutshell. We what the biologists hired and we want them free to do their job, and I can guarantee you if they are honest would have the same goals as we do at IWDHMA>

Thanks Quincy

Grass roots deer hunters reports are part of science S-Wilk. My Goodness.

Gotta go to a meeting now guys and attempt to get something done for the herd, suggest you do the same in some fashion for yourselves and your decedents. S-Wilk I will ask one question if I may. Do you have an outfitting business, a deer management or land management business, no matter how big or how small. Would like the truth.

One more thing, lol. If we at the IWDHM Group, have it wrong, and the DNR is doing it all so correctly, how is it every national and regional publication and organization is talking about the severe downtrend in the herd across the Midwest and northeast and west, and how come almost all state DNR's are acting accordingly except Indiana? Just a thought to ponder.

Gary - No to all 3. Why do you ask? I always try and tell the truth....its just easier and I don't have to worry about backtracking nearly as often.

If the last question was to me as well I would ask where you got the idea I think the DNR is doing it all correctly? I have wondered the same 3 questions from above of our DNR for years and dont see how they, or anyone else, can try and establish desired quotas without them.

I am also always against any weapon changes. No crossbow. No rifles. No additional seasons.

I dont like those sort of changes Gary.

If you want to know anything else about me ... dont guess ... just ask. Ill be happy to tell ya.

I've read and only posted limited times here for a reason...Gary I like S_wilk had not realized the desire to find biologists FIRST and then re-evaluate...granted you then later stated that wasn't necessarily completely true....but I'd beg you to reconsider that though. Continue gathering all of your data and yes I concur grassroot surveys and such are measurements which are worth something, granted small but worth something!

However, if you took the stance and push for filling the biologist vacancies oh my word that is the best thing EVER!!! That is precisely what we need in this state...in my opinion at least.

I'd be curious to know what everyone would think should they say we are okay, in a bad state or a good state...

Gary don't tire of discussion, with every moment you take to actually respond it builds your credibility (whether you feel it needs to be done or not) and in turn that helps build the credibility of IWDHM (which IMHO needs it somewhat).

I too like many here wish you guys well and look forward to updates and further discussion here or anywhere else!


Also why the inquire though to swilk about whether he (no matter how small or large) is involved in any form of whitetail industry? You asked me the same thing at one time...find it odd and just like s_wilk am curious as to the reasoning for why that would matter? Ed Hunt runs an outdoor page/show/product sales place...and yet is part of IWDHM no?

HOLY COW! Its like we have another Dew here now. lol

Indiana is One of the FEW states in a Deer Reduction Mode...And FYI they have also been acting...Read first post in this thread!

The DNR is continuing to lower the bonus permits numbers. 8 more counties had their numbers lowered from last year. 4 of the counties dropped out of the late “special antlerlerless season".

Only 1 county (Martin ) went up. It went from a 3 to a 4.

Reduced tags…

LaGrange – 4 to a 3
Steuben 4 to a 3
Marshal 4 to a 3
Sullivan 4 to a3
Jackson 8 to a 4
Whitley 3 to a 1
Benton 1 to an A
Switzerland 8 to a 4

Added tags…

Martin 3 to a 4

Gary, welcome to the site. I know nothing about your group but what is on this thread. It seems to me you've answered questions asked openly and honestly. I'd just recommend ignoring any of the personal posts as you've mostly done. I used to get involved in some of them and it never produced a good outcome on any public forum. Not everybody is gonna agree with every idea but it seems like you are trying to do what you feel is right and I respect that. Good luck in your ventures.

Sure is nice tonight up on Maxi. More fishing in the summer equals less arguing! h.h.

Envy you, HH! You're in my old stomping grounds!

The more fresh air in here the better.....

I used to think the same way. My favorite saying used to be "a good fence makes a good neighbor". Now my favorite saying is "a good handshake makes a better neighbor". And those good handshakes have led to an area that was once just 121 acres of management to 1,250 acres that is all adjoining and cooperatively managed by all us neighbors involved........since 1993 this "neighborhood" has put in 28 record book entries..........compared to none in that area prior to us cooperating.

May want to think twice about your approach to your views of your neighbors. And remember........to have great friends and neighbors YOU have to be a GREAT friend and neighbor FIRST!!

Just curious Dew or the new guys or anybody for that matter since everbody is in a good mood, how does management in counties made up of all farms and leases differ from the counties making up the HOOSIER NF with a lot of state ground as well. Same regs and rules different ballgame with unlimited access. Call me crazy but I'm a public land hunting nut and my glass is half full. It's what I enjoy and the views are nice. But cooperation is at best a short term affair. Thoughts?

As Andy Griffith used to say....

"this just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser".

It shore looks like a tough job to me Ope.

My views on this may rattle some feathers......but what's new about that... LOL!!

Here is the difference in that scenario in my mind...

1)Most hunters now attracted to hunting public land do so because they didn't and don't think far out into the future and it has bit them. They had farms to hunt.......erased most of the resource since they used it like public land, had a shallow relationship with the farmer just like they would have had with a Public Land Employee and had conversations with the farmer only when they had to, and treated the farm as a resource that would "self heal" from their purging of wildlife and neglect of the relationship of the land owner. They had "public land" mentality that is laced with "just take from the resource, and don't invest back". This type of attitude just doesn't stop usually in hunting either.... it is a "life script" that permeates everything they do, often leading to poor goals in life, poor education, poor job, poor finances, etc, etc. And then they wake up too late when someone that cares more about the resource, cares more about the relationship with the landowner, has more finances to lease it up and take care of it better since they have more foresight into what it takes to "have a better life" shows up. Harsh words.....but real words. So if you live in a county full of public land....you literally are attracting MORE these days of the ones that have lost farms and " $100 dollar leases" due to their own self inflicted demise. You are in an area that short sighted people will flock to since it is all they have left........and have NO INSIGHT WHATSOEVER in the gains of changing their ways. They are governed by the rules you put in front of them only...... it's easier that way........and then "can be someone else's fault" when things don't go how they want.

2) Areas that are full of farms and leases these days are starting to be filled by those that want to take care of the resource.....they want to work with their neighbors since they know the value of a good relationship.......they invest in the resource and hobby year round since it is valuable to them...... THEY CARE. They also have a "life script" that cares more than just about hunting and deer, they care about goals, the future, relationships, having a good job, taking care of finances, and know that INVESTMENT usually has REWARDS ..... and what we get out of life, hunting, anything in life that is super rewarding isn't going to be experienced by "just following government made regulations". So.... in these areas it is becoming more widespread to find those "like minded deer hunting goal driven" people as your neighbor.....AND THEY ARE ADVERTISING THEMSELVES AS THOSE THAT WANT TO BE A BETTER NEIGHBOR AND NOT ADVERTISING THEMSELVES AS "I DONT CARE WHAT MY NEIGHBOR DOES".


In short......... "birds of a feather are flocking together" and if you are in a county laced with public ground... the birds you are attracting are now being FORCED to flock in your neighborhood...and their habits don't leave them.

Fellas,
we have to do this ourselves. You cannot legislate good deer hunting anymore than you can legislate jobs, closed borders, healthcare...we have to do it ourselves. If we just quit taking too many deer in area's we see less and take a few more if we're seeing plenty...we take all control from this run-away-train. I'm doing my part. I love having deer in the freezer but I haven't taken a deer the last 2 seasons because I've seen so few! I sit there for a couple days seeing zero deer in stands that I used to see maybe 8 deer in one sit...then I see a couple does or a small buck and I'm thinking AWESOME! But if I shoot it, then what?
This doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out. BTW, I'm hunting a county that allows 4 antlerless deer. EHD hit hard a couple years ago in our area and the DNR KNOWS IT TOO...still allowing 4 antlerless. Just proves my point:You can't legislate this crap.
One more story, last summer I took my son to a private lake we hadn't fished in quite a while. In the past we have never caught much there so we didn't expect much. We started pounding bluegills so big you couldn't get your hand around them. We were icing them down and licking our chops. We got about 20 in the cooler and I said " Hey Kid, this is a blast! Lets keep 20 and release the rest? We'll come back another day and catch some more." He agreed. I've seen pictures on here of guys ice fishing and it looked like they cleaned 100 panfish... It's legal, but is it smart? Even if you're going to eat every one of them, we need to leave some for another day.

That is true. I believe the surveys asking for hunter feedback the DNR does are scientific. I think it is great that you are planning on doing a scientific survey ... most groups will not attempt such a thing because of the cost associated.

When will your survey be sent out? I assume it will be a random process to include all hunters of the state? Of course it will ... what am I thinking ... It couldnt be a scientific survey and only go to members of the IWDHM.

Look forward to seeing the survey and the results.

Double B great point. There is a big difference. The big issue is hunter access. If anywhere there is hunter access, and you basically have unlimited antlerless harvest, there is going to be some bad apples that are going to overharvest in a given area. If there is not hunter access, it doesn't matter the amount of tags that are allowed, make it 100, if no one can hunt the deer will still overpopulate whether that be true overpopulation above carrying capacity of the habitat, which is very rare in Indiana, or social overpopulation, where the deer are costing someone a buck ($). So we have to guard against those that will without any kind of management plan kill every doe they can in a specific area. If a guy hunts 10 different counties and goes out of state and only kills one in each place, not a problem. However the guy that only has one farm, goes out opening day of gun season and kills four deer, and it happens more than being stated, then he goes home and remains apathetic to what is actually going on with the herd until next year, then that is a problem. If we just have one of those guys, or worse a couple every square mile, then you can see the exponential factor involved. So even if everyone within a couple miles does practice sound management, these bad apples can decimate the herd. I believe someone mentioned earlier there are 10 +/- per square mile. So if just one every other square mile killed every deer they could legally in a 8 bonus county, wouldn't take very many years before there is a severe reduction in the herd for everyone, hunters, wildlife watchers, managers, everyone.

Exactly...and all GOOD surveys show the numbers and how folks voted...Not some guys reading results on a video and never posting the hard numbers!!! There's No creditability in that method.

Let's try to move past the survey issue if we can. Organizations and groups try to get input in whatever form possible and that input is always subject to questioning and second guessing. No one, probably not even the DNR has an absolute ability to get a perfect, all encompassing survey. So, everything is always left to a bit of interpretation. I've seen this before. The IDHA's surveys were no good, the IBA surveys were biased, other website surveys were biased some governmental agency surveys were biased. Certainly we all recognize the limitations of such things, so is it possible to try to find one or two issues that almost everyone, because it will never be everyone, can agree on and work towards accomplishing something. Picking apart everything is just what is wrong with hunters, its detrimental to the resources and to the heritage itself.

So, if all the groups were to identify a couple of issues like a wish to have less pressure on the deer herd or getting something accomplished to enable the DNR to fill their vacancies or retain the control over the deer management plan that we all know is being effected more and more every day by the legislature and non hunting special interests.

Of course there can be and usually are questions surrounding every survey ..... but if a survey qualifies as scientific or not is not one of them.

They either are .... or they arent.

I thought it was a great idea to try and get the DNR to fill the positions prior to lobbying for quota changes ..... but that bubble was quickly burst.

Now that I know the idea is to get a scientific survey and feedback of the grassroots deer hunters across our fine state before lobbying for changes I think that is a pretty decent idea. Not as good as filling the positions first but not terrible.

Looking forward to seeing the survey and the results.

We are not trying to take away your hunting days, or change your seasons, really it wouldn't take drastic change to fix the main problem. However, we are getting push back from hunters that just want to argue and attempt by twisting every single word or statement to discredit us. Some are just afraid of what they may lose individually, some have financial motives, as they have a deer related business and want to use the crisis to their advantage to say if they improve the habitat on you farm the deer will magically thrive. Guys, I have planted the best cover and food for quail on my farm, but you know what, there is not a quail. Without mommy and daddy quail, never will be any no matter how good the habitat. All wildlife in Indiana is in danger guys, times are changing. Like the conservationists of the past, if we don't have the foresight to see the forest for the trees and care about more than just our own egos and self-gratification, we will lose what we have and future generations will never experience it.

I came to this site to attempt to bridge the gap with the IDHA and IBA to hopefully work together on the aforementioned issues. I think some see that and will spread the word. However, as I have said before, we in leadership at the IWDHM Group are spending hours on this every day without getting one red cent or kick back in any way. We are doing it for our own future generations and yours. I swear on my own life. That is it. However, with my own limited time resources, we cannot keep up with this back and forth on every little detail, and arguing or detailed discussion on this narrow point of view or that one. We are sorry if you are scared your are going to lose something, but if you just take off your blinders for a minute and see the forest guys, please. So with that I am going to leave you all to hash it out. I AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO CONCENTRATE ON OUR MISSION. I would pray, that all of you take the time and energy you are expending here to just write or email your state legislature reps and the Governor, and express: you are seeing less deer, if you are, and your are concerned about the management of the resource and you want them to look into DNR funding and you want the overharvest to stop. We can be a powerful force together. IF WE CAN JUST AGREE ON SOME VERY BASIC IDEAS. If we keep up the petty details, the people that make the decisions just look at us (all sportsmen and organizations) and laugh, and say they are not a voice to be heard, but Farm Bureau is collective and strong and vote and saying we want one thing. DEER REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION. Think about it guys. Good luck, Good hunting, and God Bless. Gary A Walters, RN, Staff/Board of Directors IWDHM Group.

Sorry I was attempting to cut and past a post, and your forum is making it difficult so only the second half portion came through. I am going to attempt to post in two pieces.

I have been a proponent of non electronic mailed surveys from the start. These need to be generated by the IDNR since they have the addresses and such of the hunting public that are purchasing licenses.

It was proven last go round in the last collection of surveys by the IDNR; a Purdue Survey Analyst that looked over the electronic data indicated that respondents were responding to the survey more than once... And one individual responded in excess of 500 times. <<<<