Pav has it correct on "political influence" as he and I were present in the "stakeholder meetings". We were told to meet one evening in the office of one of the NRC members, three NRC members were present(not even a quorun). When the meeting started The Chief of F&W was asked if Prop 1 would work and was supported by the department, the answer was yes. The NRC member then said a new proposal was going to be introduced and prop 1 pulled, the three NRC members then laid out prop 2. This was BEFORE the public comment period was complete.

Brew, you can keep telling a "story long enough until the general public believes it to be true, which you continue to do, but that does not make it factual or the truth.

I learned a lesson from that experience, government of any kind is not the will of the people, it is the will of those in charge. IDNR can not make ANY decision without approval of the NRC and the Governor, they are puppets. The IDHA will NEVER be put in the position they were with the deer management plan again. We will report on what IDNR is "trying to do", but supporting any idea they have, not going to happen.

Personally...... I've got mine and I will protect that....

Maybe you should jump on the canned hunting fight, it appears it is greased to go thru this year. As I said before in that post, the IDHA wont waste resources.......

Hope this helps you understand who really runs the "show". It isn't you or I.

The IDNR simply have a job to do, much like all of us, and they have people they report to. Can't argue what happened but the citizens of Indiana elect the officials and it is those officials who are the bosses. I'd hate to think that sportsmen don't understand the realities of how things work and I'd find it counter productive for sportsmen to not support the IDNR. Regardless of outcomes, if there is any agency that is there trying to make sportsmen happy and protect their interests, it's the IDNR. I'd actually suggest that we are where we are because sportsmen in general haven't supported the IDNR enough. But the aspect of support too often eventually comes with an idealism of getting something in return or in favor, and understandably so. But even NRC members are likely caught in a difficult situation and I won't want to be in their seat either. But I believe without the IDNR, Indiana wildlife would be in a much worse and risky situation then it is today, although in many cases today appears to be pretty bad.

What is the stance of the IDHA??

Not to hijack the thread but Wisconsin made some changes to their deer hunting...


http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/241535691.html

And kept their gun and muzzy season at 9 days.

While we need 30+ gun/muzzy days..... :rolleyes:

Actually they have more days than us to hunt with a gun.
Season dates and application deadlines


Deer
season 2014
Youth deer hunt Oct. 5 - 6
Gun Nov. 23 - Dec. 1
Muzzleloader Dec. 2 - Dec. 11
December antlerless hunt Dec. 12 - Dec. 15
CWD holiday hunt Dec. 24 - Jan. 5, 2014
Gun hunt for hunters with disabilities Oct. 5 - 13

blackoak So Wisconsin starts their gun season in November and it runs (in some form) for the next 23 straight days, plus a holiday hunt that starts 9 days later and runs for another 13 days. So altogether that's 36 days of firearms hunting.

Add in the 2 days for youth in early October and another 9 days for disabled hunters in early/mid October..and that = 47 days of firearms hunting (in one form or another). Unless I did my math wrong.

It's interesting how if you really take the time to look @ the number of days of firearms season(s), many states have more days that what some assume them to have.

Thanks for the data.

I think what it really shows is there is no real way to compare one state to another. Just to many unique differences in habitat, hunter numbers, season positioning and so forth.

YEP.......

Yup

Excluding Dave...the last four posts are perfect examples of the old saying..."People only see what they want to see."

And with the long gun seasons in Wisc....many are also saying their herd population is nose diving....

Yep.....

And PROUD of the blinders they wear.

I think we all see what we want to see, to some degree, especially when something is not an exact science. Counting days is pretty straight forward. I still believe that comparing states doesn't add much because the intangibles for each are so different. In that context, maybe the discussion here would be more valuable if everyone stated their view and the ideology behind it instead of critisizing someone else's view or assessment of something. It might encourage some to post up the views instead of the few of us who do.

And how is Wisc...fixing the problem???

How about KY how are they doing???

BTW ....how did we grow the BIG herd that the IDNR now wants to "reduce"???

By letting the IDNR do what they wanted with their FIRST choices and recommendations when it came to our deer herd for years......and not letting LOUD small groups of people dictate what they did/do/forced to do.

Was a formula that worked.........and WILL work again......whether it be for deer reduction, deer growth,.........or revenue that the IDNR will need once the "cash cow" is reduced and not as enticing anymore from a "herd number" standpoint to sell tags.

Hmmmmmm.........wonder what they will come up with as a plan to keep hunters interested in deer hunting, and buying tags if the #'s are lower. LOL!!!

Get ready.............

Delaney While I agree with you to some extent...there is one constant in all of these comparisons....

Right now in (enter name of state here) the reality is....herd reduction. It's not just Indiana. And there is no other way to manage a deer herd more effectively than with firearms. That's why the when/how long of firearms seasons in (enter name of state here) are germane to the conversation.

And while I agree with many on this forum that there are very likely areas that have been over hunted, in the end hunters are going to have to get over the fact that deer herds are going to be smaller. It's what's happening everywhere.

Ultimately what will make a difference is to analyze the data from this season and the next few. Couple that with the DNR hopefully being more proactive and lowering bonus antler less quota permits (as necessary) and thus lowering the number of counties that participate in the late antler less season next season and beyond.

And while that likely won't placate some on this forum, that's what's likely to happen in the near term.

Weedhopper:

You asked the IDHA position......... financially better than any other sportsmen group in Indiana!

As far as the deer herd , rules, proposals, license fees ect....... We have no position. Learned our lesson last go round!

Delaney you are correct........

The last 9 years we have seen a stunning turn around in how IDNR interacts with the public as well as state government. IDNR can not talk to the legislature unless invited, they can't talk to the Governor, they need to talk to his "Liason"(sp?). No longer do they come out to "meet the people", hide behind the computer. The NRC is appointed by the Governor, not the people.

Now they get to hear from the "people".... another chance to get beat up.

What iritates me the most is the lack of backbone by the proffesionals inside IDNR, but that is what we get by all people in goverment today.

Deer Hunters........ YOU asked for more "opportunity" be it weapons or season lengths, you got it, now reap the reward! no one thought EHD was a big problem, until it hit their area. now many years running it has taken its' toll (and will continue to do so). The "perfect storm", more opportunity and a dwindling resource. This will not be a quick recovery, no matter the story line from IDNR.

Lowering the antlerless quota will not be a remedy,82% of hunters take 2 or less deer total. Hunters have one thing in mind, buy a tag and fill it!

What IDNR gives is never taken away....

Thanks Joe......understood.

[/qb][/QUOTE] and not letting LOUD small groups of people dictate what they did/do/forced to do.


[/QB][/QUOTE]
Anybody else notice the irony here

Again, I think any of us who were put in the role of the DNR folks would have a really hard time dealing with the situation. Can you imagine having to stand in front of "bosses" that have their own viewpoint and be in a position of recommending something that is in no way going to make hunters in general happy because as we all know, almost no hunters agree on anything. I mean seriously, they in essence are there to serve the "people", full well knowing that no matter what they say, propose or implement, they are going to be hammered by some vocal group of hunters. If most of us on here were in the DNR position we'd probably be telling us to go to heck. Then you add the necessity of trying to figure out how to financially fund that agency with a possible decline in deer license collections. Again, sportsmen want more from the DNR but that can't happen if there is significant reduction in revenue. That's why I look at them and suggest that all things considered, they're doing a pretty darn good job even if I don't like things they way they are.

And Joe makes a really good point that hasn't gotten much attention. It's not going to be easy for the DNR to take anything away. If they reduce anything, there will be an outcry that is unbelievable by hunters, in my opinion. Most want more without giving up anything. And it is going to be a long journey to bring back deer numbers, if they are ever brought back to the highs of years past.

Delaney With all due respect, that's the point that keeps getting lost in these posts......

The DNR wants the herd reduced and based on that fact, it would seem that the likely hood of numbers being brought back to the highs of years past would seem to me to be about zero.

delaney how long do you feel is a long journey??
In 2007 Pike county was the hardest hit county in the state with EHD. It was said we lost 50% of our herd in three months. I believed it. There was dead deer in every thing that held water. You could not drive any county road and not smell the rotten stench of dead deer. 2008 was bad, 2009 was better, 2010 was good, 20011 I was seeing the numbers close to what it was prior 2007. The DNR dropped Pike in 2008 from an 8 to a 3 bonuse antlerless county we have no late antlerlss season as it's still at 3. The deer herd can rebound rather quickly if allowed.

If allowed .... if

A rebound in deer numbers could be quick with the right circumstances. I'm just not sure that hunters will allow the necessary actions it might take. Just as comparing states is difficult, comparing farm country in Indiana to areas like Parker County is very hard. Parke with its habitat could rebound quick but counties like White or the poor habitat counties could take years. Your point though is a good one and a lot depends on the localized hunter attitude.

While we need 30+ gun/muzzy days..... [Roll Eyes]
WE DONT NEED IT,, WE GET TO ENJOY IT BIG DIFFERENCE If the management of the Herd can be accomplished in 30 days without compromising the Goals of that plan. Why would any one want to take time afield away from any of us?? Other than selfish reasons for their Idea of Enjoyment

I'm just a rough neck so spelling and wordmanship stinks but that being said myself the reason for buying the bundle was to hunt longer not the amount of harvest per tag I could hunt all season to harvest none . One is all I need or even wanted my feelings r there are a lot of folks that are the same.when I do harvest a doe it is just for the freezer. My 12 year old shot his first deer (doe) so the rest of the season was just for a buck for the both of us we have only taken one doe from our property per year for the last 7 years due to the fact we are not in a heavy populated area thanks for everyone's input on this whole site

I'm just a rough neck so spelling and wordmanship stinks but that being said myself the reason for buying the bundle was to hunt longer not the amount of harvest per tag I could hunt all season to harvest none . One is all I need or even wanted my feelings r there are a lot of folks that are the same.when I do harvest a doe it is just for the freezer. My 12 year old shot his first deer (doe) so the rest of the season was just for a buck for the both of us we have only taken one doe from our property per year for the last 7 years due to the fact we are not in a heavy populated area thanks for everyone's input on this whole site

Well said....

I am curious. Can anybody tell me what was the length of the general firearms season, and the ML season's….say back in the early 80's, when the herd was still being "expanded". I cannot remember back that far.

Sorry Yaz.....I can't remember what I had for dinner last night.

Who are you??? Have we met??? :p

I think so???

^^^^^^sorry I am no help to you old timers ^^^^^^^^ yaz .....maybe you could go to the library and find it on microfiche??????? :p

Awww man....now you started it....

The greatest threat to our Hoosier Hunting is the ignorant legislature who listens to special interest groups that are not looking out for hunters or hunting but to gain something for their group or members. These special interest groups are not hunting groups as sportsmen shoot at one another and the DNR but not legislators and politicions. This thread is a perfect example of wasting time doing nothing productive. There are several bills in the legislature this year tha harm you as a sportsmen as well as the DNR and Conservation. Bills like the canned hunting bill or the one to lower crimes and fines against people who break wildlife laws. Steele has a bill to make poaching a deer $250 and it's only an infraction. Pay your ticket and be on your way. It is disappointing to come on this site and still see hunters BSing and doing nothing. The DNR is just horrible in they keep hunters going at one another so they never come together for the good of anything. It is that same thing going on in our nation. Keep the people focused on BS differences so they do nothing about real problems.

A person on another site contacted Steele about his bill and here is his response....

His reply:

Thank you for taking the time to right me regarding SB 52. As an avid hunter and outdoorsman let me start by saying that if any legislator knows the importance of the laws regarding Indiana’s laws regarding wildlife it is me. I’d like to point out that SB 52 does not change trespassing and hunting without a permission laws nor a number of other title 14 laws.

The current problem with the ones we did change is that many of the prosecutors will refuse to use their time to prosecute hunting and fishing violations. They are within their rights of prosecutor discretion to not prosecute same. In addition, the majority of cases they decide to prosecute are almost certainly pled down or deferred. So I decided to bring a bill that changed e some of the misdemeanors to infractions. In layman terms this makes the offender prove that he did not commit the offense rather than making the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender committed the offense. The end result I believe is that more individuals that break wildlife regulations will actually be held accountable and be punished at or above current levels.
Thanks again for writing-I hope If I can ever be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Brent


Thoughts....????

Interesting point he makes but it is an example of what I believe is the constant erosion of willingness for the judicial system to fulfill it's duties within the structure of our society. That said, if I was a judge or a prosector I'd find it hard to spend time of dealing with a poached deer as compared to what it likely a huge court backlog of violent crimes waiting to be dealt with. It's just too bad that the value of the infraction isn't more, like $5,000 instead of $250 (yep, it's been a long day so it's reflected in my number). So, if I hunt on property that I own or have permission to be on and decide to shoot a nice velvet buck next year I only get an infraction and a $250 fine. Sad and ridiculous, especially if the law would allow the individual to keep the poached deer. But again, why does this happen? Because society doesn't value wildlife, sportsmen don't speak up enough to make the court system take these situations serious enough and instead sportsmen are focused more on themselves then the wildlife, in general. Not meant to point fingers at folks here because I firmly believe that guys here are outliers in that you do care, but "we" are in the vast, vast minority.

I would say for almost a half century we have been hunting deer for 16 days with the general firearms season......

Hope this helped your memory!