[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Scifres:
[QB] In 2012 the ML season accounted for 9% of the harvest. The late antlerless season took 7% for a combined 16% of the harvest.

In 2011 the ML accounted for 15% of the harvest.

In 2010 13%.

It seems to me that some of the folks who shot does in the ML season are now holding out for the late antlerless season instead.

In other words, much of the harvest of the late antlerless season would have been killed in the ML season anyway. Therefore elimination of that season will only have a partial reduction in the harvest.

I would disagree that many were "holding out", if I remember right the first real snow of the year, at least in my area, in 2012, hit during the new late antlerless season, making the deer that had survived the other seasons much more vulnerable. Thus I believe the vast majority of the deer taken in the late antlerless season in 2012 would have lived another year without that season.

What I want, what he wants, what I think .... sitting here babbling back and forth dosnt do squat...getting the DNR to get off their butt's is what is needed...some here think that as long as they "see" deer on their places all is fine, go down the road 5 miles and even though the habitat is there or is better than it used to be, the deer are not not like they used to be, cause they have been killed off by those with no restraint....dropping the antlerless tags from 8 to 4 wont do squat either. They must go lower than that and drop the late antlerless and in my county reorganize the "urban zone"....now they want to include baiting, or did you guys not see that, it went right over the heads of those on here.... Baiting...heck, why not include 30-06's too ....I'm done babbling, for now....

Including this link again in here for feedback..........keep hammerin' them with it.

Please...do keep "hammerin' them" and telling them to "get off their butts"......

Nothing like publicly berating the very people you want/need to sway....

So what did you do...blow 'em a kiss... ;0).... see the smiley, that was tongue in cheek 'cause some may not see the sarcasm...

I wrote to them what "I" thought they should do last week....I am sure they are getting an ear full from many others and then there are those who will sit back and kiss the dnr's behind saying all is well... there are many pissed off deer hunters in this state right now.... Indiana isnt the only State...Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, pretty much all of the midwest...it seems that there is a war on deer thru the Midwest right now.... will the DNR's listen or will they continue with their onslaught on the herds....

Not berating them at all.....not even close.....

Just creating awareness here and feedback there that let's them know people like jjas that pulled the rug out from under the IDNR in the Prop 1.0 and Prop 2.0 era.....are now pretending to be their best buddies for selfish reasons again.

They kinda like that people can see that.....

Keep the feedback flowing with link above .......

They are listening....

Nothing like being subjected to the constant barrage of complaints and being berated publicly (by a select few) like they (the IDNR) have been over the last few years....

I suggested they keep true and stay the course, adjust bonus permits accordingly. h.h.

As did I.......

I Imagine the DNR like me when they see certain peoples posts they pretty much consider the source Ignore Him and go to the next one,

Will the feedback be available to the public for all who commented?... Interested in what others are saying...

I Have seen feedback before

Yes it is available on request. You will see the same people that cut the knees out from the IDNR as they hated their first choice (Prop 1.0) with their comments....... now supporting them (IDNR) to keep what they were FORCED to do with their comments. LOL!!!

Good luck with that.......

In the past, the comments were made public...and if you looked closely, you'd see multiple comments made by the same people under different names.... :rolleyes:

Happens every time......

Just like people here that post under different names/multiple names/aliases/and multiple aliases here.....and on Forums they administrate.

Pretty flippin hilarious to see the same guy with aliases talking/posting to himself on his own forum using those aliases to make it look like others agree with him......LMAO!!!

Reminds me of the survey that was put out by the IDNR a few years ago and the results that were tabulated by the Survey Entity stated "and one person/IP address entered their feedback over 500 times"

This is why I'm a proponent of sending hard copy surveys to our homes. Ya got one shot at it....no way to manipulate.....but proponents of Prop 2.0 don't like that idea.....

......Hmmmmmm

Grasping at straws, just like the last go around.

Too costly Dew. The DNR should consider selling, and I know it would take legislative approval, a sportsmens license which is a one time license that then provides a dedicated identification number that is then used for all purposes like surveys. Now, a person could still submit their family members number and then comment more then once but it would create a more reliable data base that would scrub duplicates and only count when it matched up with an existing lifetime number. That way, surveys and comments to the NRC could use the same system and identifier. Could still be manipulated but it would be less costly over the long haul and still reasonably reliable.

would expect any less???

I would gladly add my driver's license number to the survey to keep it on the up and up.

That would keep people from making multiple posting(s) under different names and different IPs thus trying to negatively influence the process.

I like your idea. Anything that gets correct/truthful data.....I'm all in ..........no matter what the outcome.

That in itself created quite the angst in allot during Prop 1.0 and 2.0......validity of electronic responses cast.

Again........I like the idea of what you say D.

How would a non-Hunter or land owner give input under this system ?

If they wanted to provide input through the system they would have to buy the sportsmen license or such. The cost of the one time license could be just enough to cover direct cost of producing the license. Or, they could continue to influence in any manner they wish otherwise. Today if the DNR pursues input from them, they contribute nothing to the cost so I don't feel they shouldn't cover some costs related to having their voice heard. Non of their taxpayers dollars goes to Fish and Wildlife, or very, very little.

Dave,

or just use a driver's license #.

It would verify state (IN or not) residency, verify one user comments, and (nearly) everyone has one so no additional investment is needed by our DNR to develop a new identifier.

That would work Dustin.

Most hunt on private land so IMO the landowner,s contribute the most Its been thrown arounda landowner licence structured as a youth licence with the same price range and then the DNR would be able to pick up the PR monies then every one has a licence no.

As far as I know Indiana landowners have never been required to buy a hunting license (migratory waterfowl excluded) to hunt on their own property (as long as they obey the game laws regarding seasons, bag limits, etc.). To require them to buy any kind of hunting license (migratory waterfowl excluded) would mean a change in Indiana law. IMHO, that would be a VERY tough battle to win. After all, it is the private landowners that provide the overwhelming amount of food and habitat that sustain our wildlife. I believe we hunters have more productive uses of our time and money than to fight for that.

Also, all Indiana residents have the opportunity to express their opinions about wildlife management, whether they are hunters, landowners, or apartment renters, etc. And they can express their opinions many different ways, not just through an online survey. Surveying can be a complicated thing. Along that line, would we hunters want to see the results of a survey of HUNTERS severely “diluted” with lots of input from non-hunters or non-hunting license holders?

The wildlife of Indiana is held in trust by the state for benefit of all the people of Indiana.

ALL people -- not just those who hunt, buy a hunting license, etc.

We hunters may not like it at times, but we are not the ONLY citizens influencing wildlife policy decisions.

Without added expense, the only viable way I can see for the state to "ID" anyone would be to use your driver's license number as I (and 76Chevy) have already suggested.

The main problem I could see with doing that is that the IDNR would have to provide security so that those numbers aren't seen and are secure. And I would have no idea if their present software used for commenting has that capability.

I know you all are probably tired of hearing this B.S., but thought I'd share what a local guy was telling me today. He hunts about two miles from me.

He started off complaining about not seeing many deer this season and I shared my views on how I thought antlerless tags should be reduced, and how I wasn't too keen on the late antlerless season. He agreed, saying hunters were killing too many does, and had some unconfirmed complaints about depredation tags being issued in the area (which I don't believe to be true), also said he thought there was a lot of EHD this year also, which I disagree with, most was the year prior during drought.

I told him how a guy down the road told me he and his buddies butchered 23 this year, then he chimes in as a point of bragging saying he and his buddies butchered 42 this year. Quizzed him about how many he shot, turns out his family killed 6 "but they eat them all" so that is OK.

As politely as possible I explained that we hunters better lay off the trigger and start eating pork and beef if we want many deer to hunt the near future. Don't suspect I made much of an impression because there is just an entitlement atmosphere out there with many hunters that feel they should kill as many deer as they can get tags for.

With this stuff going on, the only possible way to stop the reduction is to severely curtail the antlerless licenses to about (1) per customer in our area. Another year or two of this kind of killing and the deer herd around here is going to be pretty sad.

I'm lucky as I can just leave and hunt another state, however it's pretty sad to see what was once a bountiful resource in the area wiped out to a state of generally pretty crummy hunting.

I agree. I didn't think the number allowed was that big of deal but some guys have made good points... A county allowing 4-8 antlerless could lead some to believe that deer are over populated and can take plenty without hurting the herd.

I did not kill a deer this year, by choice. Only deer I took last year was in a state park. I haven't been seeing many deer the last 2-3 years so I'm making the decision to back off.

Steiny, you see that in some that come on here....sad, very sad ...

+1 Steiny.

That has been my point all along. Hunters trust the DNR to do their job. They see the DNR extending seasons and offering basically unlimited deer tags...and they automatically assume there are too many deer. Why not shoot all you want/can?

Yes, before you say it Dave, I know HOW we got here....don't shoot the messenger (DNR). But the facts are... hunter reaction is a product of approved DNR regulations and quotas.

Agreed Paul. But up to this point the agency has basically responded to what it has been asked to do by hunters and non hunters alike, generally speaking.

The hunters that frequent websites such as this, attempt to stay informed, provide feedback, etc... represents a very small percentage of the overall deer hunting population.

The majority don't know what is behind the regs. They simply see what gets printed in the hunting guide each summer....and go with that.

Who were the people suggesting the Indiana deer herd needs reduced in the first place??? When prop 1 first came out in that disguise I have never thought the herd needed reduced except in some state parks. Something about two birds with one stone comes to mind regarding prop 1.

Prop 1 was the result of the initial efforts of ONE legislator. IMO, he was less concerned the about deer population...and more concerned with kicking the DNR and the state hunting orgs in the teeth for fighting all of the high fence bills he introduced.

Prop 1 got canned by hunters. Prop 2 replaced it. Both props had the exact same roots.

Prop 1 had "STAKEHOLER" influence...Prop 2 didn't!!! :rolleyes:

Prop 1 had limited stakeholder (by DNR invite) influence.

Prop 2 had broad stakeholder (by political demand) control.

Yep..........