December 29, 2013
MARTINO: Indiana’s deer herd — a 'tail' of two sides
Kokomo Tribune

“I am just not seeing the deer I used to,” Jeff Pearsall said as he pulled the cap off his muzzleloader before placing it back in the case after a recent morning hunt. “I think the state is going overboard with their reduction efforts,” he lamented.

He is not alone in his thoughts. It was a theme echoed over and over during this year’s deer hunting seasons.

But not everyone feels the same as Pearsall.

“I wish they would let hunters take even more deer,” said Pam Gibson, who recently spent thousands to repair her car after colliding with a deer on Kokomo’s new bypass around the old bypass.

Indiana’s white-tailed deer are a valuable resource. They lure thousands each year to our state parks and nature reserves. They also draw hordes of hunters to woodlots and forests throughout the state. The economic impact they provide is staggering. But controversy is brewing.

There was a period of time when deer were nearly nonexistent in the Hoosier State, meeting their demise through unregulated hunting and loss of habitat. Then, in 1934 they were reintroduced with animals taken from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and North Carolina. In 1951, Indiana opened selected areas to regulated hunting. Although some believe our state’s white-tailed deer herd is proof positive of a wildlife management success story, others feel it has gone somewhat awry.

The species, once gone from Indiana’s landscape, has grown to such abundance that state officials began a program to help reduce the growing population and they are using the most reliable form of game management to do it — hunters.

Some state officials believe it’s a balancing act. Each year hunters collected record numbers of deer, to the tune of more than 130,000. Yet they flourished as did the reports of crop damage, conflicts with humans and the increase of car-deer accidents. In areas throughout Indiana, biologists believe they exceed what experts call their “social carrying capacity.” Basically that means there are too many deer for what the land can support.

This was especially evident several years back in many of our state parks. Visitors could easily see the damage. Ravenous deer were creating visible browse lines by eating understory vegetation, which not only provides necessary habitat for them, but other wildlife as well. Experts remedied the problem by hosting controlled hunts to thin the population and it worked. But now they also have taken this statewide.

This year the urban deer hunting season saw a noticeable extension, running from Sept. 15 to Jan. 31. Hunters also had the “earn a buck” rule which required hunters to collect a doe before legally harvesting any deer sporting antlers.

Sportsmen and women also can now use crossbows during every season. And who can blame them? These horizontal bows do not require the large amount of practice and sacrifice associated with their vertical counterparts. The state also instituted a special late antlerless season open to firearms. Compound this with localized outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) and many are convinced our herd is substantially down.

Frank Simpson, owner of Simpson’s Deer Processing, has noticed a drop in the number of deer taken to his business for packaging.

“I think the answer is simple,” he explained. “We just don’t have the number of deer we’ve had in previous years.”

But hunters and stewards of Indiana’s outdoor resources likely will recall the IDNR and Indiana’s Natural Resources Commission’s move last year when they took our most liberal deer hunting seasons in the Midwest and made them even more liberal.

The IDNR calls this a “strategic approach” that balances the ecological, recreational and economic needs of the state.

“We try to manage our wildlife species for the benefit of the species,” said DNR spokesman Phil Bloom. “But there are social aspects to wildlife management as well. There is human tolerance for the species that’s important to consider, too.”

But the philosophy in curtailing our state’s deer herd shouldn’t come as a surprise. Wildlife officials began explaining back in 2011 that they were going to move from a deer “maintenance” program to “reduction” efforts, hoping to drop the herd by 25 percent. They even provided numerous opportunities for the public to express their concerns, either through open style meetings or online.

Interestingly enough, no one, not even our state’s experts, knows how many white-tailed deer are in Indiana. Reducing the herd may not rest solely with our wildlife biologists. You can bet it is being fueled by insurance companies, agricultural groups and INDOT, to name a few.

I personally believe deer may be a problem in some localized areas, but not statewide. In the past several years, while some counties have seen an increase in deer destruction, others reported a drop in harvest numbers and a decrease in deer-vehicle collisions.

There is no doubt the deer debate will continue. If you happen to be one of the many concerned about the future of our state’s deer herd, regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, the answer is simple: Stay informed and make your opinion known when given the opportunity.

John Martino is the Tribune’s outdoors columnist. He may be reached by email at jmartinooutdoors@att.net.

They have it wrong on the social carrying capacity...social carrying capacity is what humans can tolerate....it is BIOLOGICAL carrying capacity where the habitat is effected...

the author hit the nail on the head of why many hunters are seeing fewer deer. Only thing he missed is that generations of deer hunters have been trained "we have too many deer". It will take decades to to reverse this attitude.

Also "donating deer to feed the hungry" is a factor. While it is a noble cause it promotes killing deer for pleasure. That was a hard sentence to type but is true! Deer hunting for recreation is a fact, we all do it. But to kill deer without regard to population density in a given area is foolish.

there was an old cartoon called Pogo, he said "we have found the enemy.... and it is us". We as deer hunters are our own worst enemy, IDNR can set rules any way they please, we are the ones who (should)manage the deer herd.

Thanks for sharing. This seems like a fair piece of journalism.

+1

+2.....

Deer numbers are down all over the Midwest !!!


http://www.kansascity.com/2013/12/28/4717636/goodbye-and-good-riddance-to-2013.html

http://host.madison.com/sports/recr...64b2fcf-a549-53f4-a2b3-a719a2c7b56d.html

http://www.saukvalley.com/2013/12/17/far-fewer-deer-killed-this-year/a6h77af/

http://dailyjournalonline.com/sport...29ccd28-6f57-11e3-8d6c-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.radioiowa.com/2013/12/27/number-of-licenses-sold-for-late-deer-seasons-is-down/

http://www.marionstar.com/article/20131225/SPORTS/312250001/Ohio-hunters-bagging-fewer-deer

.....and when deer numbers go down....hunter participation goes down.....and license sales go down.......and revenue for our IDNR goes down.

Let me also point out that the "IDNR revenue plan/financial forecast" on their spreadsheet is based on "volume of deer" in the field. Their profit will be based on hunters "buying" due to enough "volume" being experienced in the field.

As that "volume" plan gets smaller and smaller......so goes the revenue stream based on a "volume" plan.

The IDNR will then be forced to do something different. Most know that with reduced volume of deer....."quality" deer will still put interest and hunters in the field. This would be a logical next "profit/revenue" stream move for our IDNR in the near future. Regs structure that would promote "quality" deer hunting to keep hunters in the field since the "volume" deer hunting is no longer a leg to stand on for the profit needs of our IDNR.

Trust me......they WILL switch "profit/revenue" tactics when this "current deer reduction well" runs dry.

+1

I'm going to add another point about hunter attitude that is also a problem... What I'm about to say may miff some people, but I offer no apologies nor excuses... It is what it is and it is just my opinion of it all...


I think the biggest issue with hunters is the taking of baby deer because they "taste better"... Nothing infuriates me more when hunters make this BS comment... I've shot big deer and small deer in my time hunting and when it comes to the taste, I can't taste the difference... Shooting a baby deer because they taste better in IMO, shows to me that you have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the deer you hunted nor the deer herd overall...

I have always maintain the conviction that you hunt the way you seem fit and I will stand by that conviction, but in all honesty, I don't like to see anyone shoot a baby deer period (even kids) just to so they can say they got one for the year (except for reduction hunts)...

I let a two year old walk this year and I feel better about myself for doing it... We as adults, need to preach this to the next generation so we can change this attitude towards our deer herd so they will let them go so they will grow....

I also agree with you Joe about "We have too many deer" mentality and we do need to address this... Just because a hunter can hunt in a bonus county of 8 doesn't mean they need to take that many... I have never heard of anyone doing this but we as hunters should never take more than what we need to feed our families for a year... One guy posted that he and his sons took five deer this year... While I offer my congratulations to them on a very successful season but did they really need five deer to feed the family with... If the area they hunt in is overpopulated then ok I can see the argument, but if not, then the success they had this year is going to hurt them next year and the next few years after that...


Joe I also wholeheartedly agree with you about donating deer to feeding the hungry... Though it is a noble cause, it does have a damaging effect on our herd... I believe in the adage that "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day... Teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."... If people can get off their butts and get around then they can go buy the licenses and gear and go hunt themselves.... If they can't for some physical limitations then they should be required to buy a license that has both the purchaser and hunter's name on it so they can legally harvest a deer for them...

Joe you were also right about "We have found the enemy,... and it is us!" Whatever the season structure is is meaningless... Hunters need to change their attidude if they want better deer quality and numbers...

False ......

If we did not have regs structure......hunters/people will not police themselves. Our history books prove that over and over again.

You cannot meld "lack of foresight" into "behavior improvement" .....and have it "magically" happen without reg structure.......ESPECIALLY into a group that is as apathetic as hunters are.

You are not that way Bryan78......but your passion/insights are NOT the "average Joe SixPack " deer hunter.

That's good you have those qualities.....but good luck "wishing" that into "joe six pack" without regs to "keep him in line". Won't happen without those regs......and those that preach that it can just are blind to the truth as they use those words of "false hope" that we can regulate ourselves ......just to get "more opportunity" on the table....

...... And look now where that line of Bullzhit has taken all those that bought into that line of crap claim.

Bryan78
I agree with most of what U write except the baby deer part-interesting though each individual's phylosophy. I am a bambi killer-don't hunt down a bunch of them or anything, but I strive to put 1 fawn in the freezer every year. Taste might be similar to older deer, but they are sure enough more tender. I like to steak out the hind leg (ham) meat off a youngen and grill a mess of those tender steaks every couple weeks throughout the year. What I do NOT do, and this is just my personal phylosophy, is kill mature does. I figure they are already proven survivors and reproducers that have the best potential to increase or maintain the deer herd. I also disagree with the hunter that doesn't utalize what he kills and have never been much of a fan of the deer donation programs, or the guys that go looking for someone to give their deer to after they kill one. Interesting this topic has been steered clear of in the past on here. I do consider myself a deer manager, not just a taker. 1 buck and 1 fawn is an ideal season for me and what I typically utalize for deer meat in a year. Unfortunatly my management practices (food plots, building bedding areas and letting the does walk) have primarily helped the neighbors as I have a bunch of brown and down fans running rampant on nearby properties and the deer herd is now way down in my area too and it is very frustrating to still be seeing a bunch of guys (who don't work) hunting these 2 month pregnant does everyday even though they are complaining they aren't seeing any deer.

Who is Joe six pack?

Whats the problem with shooting a small doe? I kinda like them. If there's a good reason I shouldn't be taking them I'd be willing to change my ways, but for now, as long as I can tell it isn't a button... I prefer shooting the small ones. I thought mature does were more likely to have twins? Hence better chance of one of the twins being a buck?

Yep! That is FALSE. In deer hunting, like life in general, there will be those people that will take full advantage of, and ABUSE a situation, regardless of how it impacts others, just because they can. The DNR knows this, and thats what they expect to happen to reduce the herd. No matter how much QDM, let em go to let em grow, manage your "own" deer, you preach, its NOT going to happen without regs. With this current set of regs, and season structure, its a pretty easy "fix" just back off the doe permits. Deer populations rebound quickly. I will say this…..as the population continues to drop, as it will, it is going to get interesting.

Any hunter who doesn't hunt or believe like them. h.h.

X2.....h.h.

I was a "Joe six pack" when I was 20 and in shape! Thats "Joe couple of cases" now!

Certainly agree that we need regulations. But still, when the harvest numbers go down and the harvest average per hunter goes down, with a reasonably stable number of licenses, the message will be sent to the DNR that adjustment to the regs needs to be done. Maybe this is the year that such will happen. Now, lets use some examples. If we had a one week gun season, those three antlerless deer that were shot on opening morning of gun season would still have done down (referenced in an earlier post by someone). It has been reasonably demonstrated that a lot of the deer hunters don't hunt many days throughout the year anyhow. If they only average a little over 2 deer per hunter, even with a shortened firearms (all firearms) season, they are likely to still harvest their 2 plus, on average, deer. So, it is eventually an issue of how you get guys to reduce their average take of antlerless deer. Simply reducing the firearms season has a strong possibility of having no success unless it reduces the number of guys in the field or the average take per hunter. How best to do that? Years ago when you had to draw for an antlerless tag, you could have had a six month firearms season and it wouldn't have matter because you still couldn't shoot a doe unless you got drawn. My point is that this season length issue, all seasons, is only a very minor contributor to the problem that deer hunters are potentially facing.

Surveyor,
What's the difference in shooting a doe before it's pregnant or after?

well said honest view point...

If a average "hunter" see's that a county has a bonus of 8 plus the whole county being urban(stupid Idea, IMO), they are going to assume that the county has a overpopulation of deer and kill accordingly...They may not kill the 8 themselves, but put in friends/family, it adds up quickly...I was one who in many years back bought into the kill as many Does as you can theory...as did the neighboring properties, We stopped doing that several years back when we noticed the herd disappearing. As for the neighbors, some continue with their "if its brown its down" crap.....I was at the time fighting AR activists and trying to get bowhunting(urban zone) into Beverly Shores which was over run with deer....that is no longer the case....you can drive the streets there and NEVER see a deer now...a few are still killed by a handful that bowhunt there, but not many....get away from the Lakeshore where the Nat. Lakeshore started sharpshooting and in many areas that is the case....while there are a few pockets of deer here and there, guys have continued to kill off the breeding Doe populations and will continue to do so....there are some greedy SOB's out there who believe the deer herd is endless. I hope I do get the property back this year Ive hunted for 17 years, 'cause there is no way in **** I'm killing but 1(or none)Doe(s) off of it, depends on what the herd/trailcams show....I can remember the days of drawing for a Doe tag and I liked it....I wish we'd go back to that...but that isnt ever going to happen....

Well stated and I agree. I just want to see the numbers from this season and the next couple to see how many antlerless deer are being taken and what the overall harvest data looks like.

A lot to me-don't most game animal seasons revolve around the pregnancy\birthing cycle of the animal? Besides just seeming morely wrong to me to kill a 2 month pregnant doe, that doe is one who survived the regular seasons and was well on its way to repopulating the herd. Again just my personal philosophy, I don't expect everyone to agree, just like with killing a fawn, oh which made me think of 1 more thing I also like a mess or 2 of deer liver a year-try that from an old deer!

Exactly... And that is part of the point I was making... Season structure isn't as important as hunters policing themselves and I understand that hunters for the most part will not do that...

I'm not against regulations, cause we do need them, but I would like to see the special antlerless season done away with and leave the firearm season where it's at with 16 days but would like to see the muzzleloader and firearm season combined into one season since you can use both at the same time...

Ya gotta love it.............


One more time...

Back in the 70s and 80s when the DNR wanted to grow the herd they only issued so many antlerless permits per county. It was very restricted. The DNR grew the herd didn't they? In fact they grew the herd a little too much in some places as the legislature got involved, right? Now, if a deer hunter had time, money and places to hunt they could go county to county and kill close to 400 antlerless deer. IF the DNR wants the herd to grow again all they need to do is cut back on antlerless permits again. As I posted earlier IF you want YOUR area herd to grow cut back on killing does and try to get the neighbors on board with that.

But you know what? maybe the DNR isn't where they would like to be herd population wise. They really have never stated a goal, just that the herd needed reducing. They just might want more deer killed in select counties/areas.

The absolute easiest way to start to grow the herd again, IF THE DNR SEES THE NEED, is cancel the "special antlerless season". It has been titled "special" for a reason. In 2012 the reported harvest during that "special antlerless season" was 10,091, with 82% of the harvest reported as does. That is 8,275 does saved who will drop one to two fawns the next year.

One more thing - The trappers tried to warn the organized groups not to get on board the banning of live trapping of coyotes but the hierarchy of the groups knew better. Now a lot of trappers have quit trapping coyotes and the coyotes are now enjoying fawns for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

The deer herds may be down, but the coyotes packs aren't.

The above was posted on another site by Woody Williams. Read the last portion twice!

It is AGAIN the "special interest groups" who limited the ability to catch and sell out of season coyotes, those sold to high fence hunting operations. Because a coyote MUST be killed within 24 hours of capture out of season we now have a reduced deer population! does anyone REALLY believe coyotes are a problem for deer?

Place the blaim at those who work hard on conservation of resources, and leave the people who have agendas for opporunity and a specific products....

A piece of work....... Woody William's, same guy who was going on a deer reduction hunt. Kill antlerless deer just to donate as he doesn't eat deer, just donates! there is no regard to the neighbors hunting opportunities, kill does so it improves "my sons lease".View this crap at.....

http://huntingindiana.proboards.com/

Just look at posts under deer hunting,

I have to add......

Woody says coyotes are having fawns for "breakfast, lunch and dinner". An educated person would ask how a coyote eats after fawns are able to move freely(2 weeks), how many fawns can a coyote consume in one day? Do coyotes act as other predators such as cats and"kill for the thril"?

I think there would be some data for just how many fawns in the miwest fall victim to coyotes. Compare that number to how many fall to hunters.

Coyotes aint the problem we are!

I don't know how many deer get eaten by coyotes... I really have no idea. BUT, There was a guy on here recently(don't remember who it was) that said he had trail cam pics of the opening to a coyote den and he said he had on tape, pics of a coyote dragging something like 7 fawns into that den in 2 weeks. Basically one every other day.

IF you saw this with your own eyes, would it change your mind on coyotes effect on the deer herd?
Since I don't know one way or another, it wouldn't change my mind... but IF I saw these pics with my own eyes, I would believe they are a problem, even if they can only eat them for the 1st 2 weeks after they're born. That would be like an official "open seaason"

Deer steaks are at their prime at about 6 months old.

I will leave the old tough ones for you guys!

A study I posted on here showed 73% of fawns over 2 year period were killed by coyotes or bobcats.

Not disputing you 76Chevy do you remember where that study was done? that would be disaterous to any herd.

I've seen high numbers in the southwest, Texas I believe in drought years. I guess I need to see if I can find some recent numbers in a google search.

Joe,

Here you go.

The Study was done in Department of
Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS), a
300 square mile, forested area in western South Carolina.

Not quite like Indiana and we can all poke holes in their methods and conclusions...but it is some real data not just internet conjecture.

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_kilgo013.pdf

Of 60 fawns
monitored over the course of the work,
only 16 have survived until autumn,
when they are old enough to be safe
from predation and can be considered
part of the huntable population. That
means that 44 fawns, or 73 percent, did not survive.

Predation by bobcats and coyotes has accounted for all but one of the deaths.

here is Pennsylvania data


According to most published material about the animals, coyotes feed primarily on small mammals such as mice, squirrels, and rabbits, etc. A fawn survival study conducted by the Pennsylvania Game Commission in 2001-02 showed that predation is responsible for about 46% of fawn mortality during the first eight months of life. Coyotes were responsible for 36.7% of the deaths, while black bears accounted for 32.7% of deaths. Another 27% of the fawn population succumbed to diseases and other natural causes. Source: Survival rates, mortality causes, and habitats of Pennsylvania white-tailed deer fawns Justin K. Vreeland, Duane R. Diefenbach, and Bret D. Wallingford

In this study the numbers are not the fawn loss of a given year but the percentage of fawns dead that were attributed to coyotes

WoW...

JB, next time you see Kenny H. ask him about Hoogie's trail cam of a couple years ago and the number of fawns that supposedly got brought to the den by coyotes. Certainly not scientific but at least you know Kenny well enough to question him on the deal. Anyhow, I do think a lot depends on habitat and availability of other food sources in regard to the coyote affect.

Grant Woods had a former student of his do a new study on this in the past year or so. I remember him saying it was ground breaking and that coyotes really had MORE of an impact than people thought. I have emailed him and asked him to send me the study. I will pass it along when I get it.

His viewpoint on this is that coyotes do have an impact and is based on recent research. Now I understand different states, different topo areas, etc all have their places in the studies.

Will pass study along when I get it.

Thanks Bean!

As I set here reading different studies I am also finding that depredation of fawns by coyotes rise in relationship to habitat/cover. Closed canopy woods, large tracts of open ground with no escape cover are major contibuting factors also.

Numbers are also scewed when deer density is already low and predators are not managed by trapping or hunting.

What I'm trying to say is, the overharvest or what some percieve as overharvest of antlerless deer in a given area far outweighs what coyotes are taking.

I agree Joe with your comment. I think though that once the deer numbers fall it does become a numbers game and then the coyotes may have a bigger impact. Unfortunately, in many areas I think the tipping point had been reached where numbers are so low that the coyotes likely are having a significant impact. In some areas hunters are just going to have to stop shooting does, for a few years, if they want a local herd rebound.

It appears the thread this is taken from, is locked as I was going to go to it and post a clarification as to rules and regulations on trapping and possessing coyotes. The author is misinformed as to the roll "organized groups" played in this issue. Coyotes are still allowed to be trapped live in season as well as out(special permit) The issue the DNR addressed had to do with possession of live coyotes and the sale of live coyotes. There was illegal activity going on before any proposed rule change and arrests were made. It was a multi state operation. Rule changes were proposed by the DNR. to address possession issues and clarify the law. To the best of my knowledge the only conservation or sportsmen group to testify at hearings were the IWF in support of the DNR after being asked by the DNR. There were several animal rights groups wanting to ban all trapping etc. of coyotes live or dead but they still wanted for they to be allowed to keep them as pets. They also sued the State to shut down the running pen and won a default judgment as the facility never showed up or presented a defense.

There is much more to this story and it appears that the person from the other site is implying that some "organized" sportsmen groups were out to stop trapping of coyotes and that is just totally inaccurate. It would also be inaccurate to imply that something has changed that has lead to less trapping of coyotes and as a result they have killed more deer. The IDHA never testified on this matter. The bulk of this issue focused on trapping of nuisance wildlife in urban areas where little to no hunting is taking place. So those coyotes are not going to effect the states deer herd one way or the other I can tell you that although I was there through much of the issue, the only thing I said as an individual was that possession of live wildlife should be prohibited. That is the basis of the North American Wildlife model from which our game management and laws come from. That means no deer farms, running pens, wild pets, like skunks, coyotes, deer, raccoons, and on and on. You would not believe the problems DHR LE has with people keeping wildlife as pets. No Dani the Deer or
the Coyote lady keeping them as pets and no selling animals for bait or live targets.

People need to get their facts straight and when they misspeak allow clarification by others with a greater knowledge or a different perspective than theirs.

the thread in question is not locked!!!!

I just looked.....

Grant sent me the study and if you want a copy, you will have to email me and I will forward it to you.

beansbeat10@aol.com

Thats what I have been trying to tell you Joe! I'm not blind, and I'm not a dummy! I see it happening! I agree over harvest IS the main factor. But, when you have low densities to begin with, and EVERY SINGLE fawn counts, they DO have an impact!

AND I will agree with what you or somebody on here posted about the live trap market. I didn't know the explosion of the coyote population happened till later on. Didn't realize why either. But, other farmers on the block allowed a guy to trap them, and he did do it for the live market. Once that ceased, the occasional coyote that got shot or trapped didn't cut it. With this open country, and lack of suitable fawning places, they are easy pickings for coyotes.

When the S.O.B.s are brazen enough to stand down in the bottom pasture, and size up 150 lb. calves, and look up you 60 yards away, with no fear, and go back to looking for calves, deer fawns don't stand a chance! That day flipped my switch on them!