www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/files/sp-DeerRMRR.pdf

increase of 471 deer....21 parks vs 14 in 2012

Thanks .....

I don't believe these numbers...all I read online is how the herd is being hunted to extinction. I am going to leave my nasty feedback with the DNR. Right. Now.

(note the sarcasm font)

Why dosnt the DNR do what the parks do....have a hunt every other year....then the herd will have a slight chance to rebuild its self..... (sarcasm intended)......

Psshh! No way! IDNR has obviously falsified those numbers to prove their management practices are effective. I mean, some those parks are in "8 limit counties" and are, surely, in or near counties that Jeff V, JBwhitewad, PAV, and a few other conspiracy theorist on here live in and we all know there "ain't no deer 'round them" because the herd has been blasted and shot out by Xbow-ers and the like. No way those results are right....UNLESS of course, DNR consulted withthe afore mentioned folks and took their EXPERT advise on deer management.

Someone needs to explain to me...how the state park deer harvest, compiled within sanctuaries that only get hunted four days per year, relates to what is happening outside of the parks.

My initial thought would be...the higher the hunting pressure outside the parks...the more likely for deer to take refuge within the parks.

I could be wrong? You know me, probably some sort of conspiracy theory hidden in that logic. LOL!

"JBwhitewad" ...Seriously?

Seems like enough to me Joe. Clearly there seems to be an inability to post without personally directed name calling. I'm not a moderator though.

Well IDNR hates deer and was duped by the deer blasting, meat hunting, Xbow shooting, lobbiest right? Why wouldn't they falsify SP hunt results also??

If you think Clifty No.s are wrong you have obliviously never hunted there I don't see how they got that many all the park hunts are after the deer have been run in to the parks FYI

I certainly find it hard to believe that the DNR would purposefully incorrectly state harvest numbers. To suggest such, without evidence, is a big stretch and really unwarranted.

Sarcasm

No, just my honest opinion.

One thing to remember is that most of these Parks and preserves are not hunted every year...some are hunted every other or every three years....plus on the first session is right after the opening of gun season and many of the deer use these parks as a refuge looking to escape....The parks hunt have been a huge success in reducing the damage done by years of over browsing and super high deer numbers....heck, some of these parks had deer in excess of 100-150 per sq. mile at the beginning of their first reduction period....

It looks like to me about 75% are hunted every year!!!

Table 1. Number of State
Parks and Deer Harvested
1993-2013
Year-Number of Parks-Total Deer
1993 1 392
1994 0 0
1995 5 1,422
1996 7 2,027
1997 9 2,430
1998 10 1,735
1999 10 1,599
2000 15 1,697
2001 13 1,483
2002 14 1,609
2003 20 2,121
2004 15 1,253
2005 16 1,336
2006 17 2,213
2007 18 1,300
2008 17 1,468
2009 17 1,334
2010 16 1,689
2011 21 1,546
2012 14 1,292
2013 21 1,763
Total Deer:31,709

I can't speak for the other parks,but I grew up around and still live within 2 miles of Versailles Park.I was off work a lot in late December-mid January with the holidays and vacation.I would say I drove thru and around the park at least 25 of the last 30 days.I saw squirrels,beavers,otters,raccoons,coyotes,one mink,and as many as 5 bald eagles at one time.The one animal that I saw absolutely zero of was the overpopulated whitetail deer!
IMO,the DNR is in the insurance lobby's pocket and are destroying our deer herd,and doing it with the blessing of hunters"doing their part".

I don't think the parks have anything to do with insurance companies... Most speed limits are 15 to 20 MPH so hitting a deer would do little damage... The park hunts came around because deer were overpopulated and doing damage to the environment in the parks...

Comparing state park hunt results to the status of the deer herd statewide is laughable at best.

If you want to see enviromental damage to the park,drive up to the saddle barn area in VSP-they have cut at least 300 mature trees(oak,hickory,ash,gum and others)...way more damage than the deer ever done.

The 14 state parks hunted in 2012 experienced a 20% drop in harvest (251 animals) in 2013.

There were 21 parks hunted in both 2011 and 2013. The 2013 harvest reflected an increase of 217 animals versus 2011.

It was the "maintenance hunts" (every other year) that picked up the slack and drove the overall increase...with 60% of those animals coming from Brown County SP.

In 2013 a total of 1,763 deer were harvested with 6,552 hunter efforts across two, 2- day reduction.
The mean 2013 H/E was 0.28, which is slightly higher than the 2011 H/E of 0.25. Twenty one parks were also hunted in 2011 with a similar number of hunter efforts.

The cumulative five year average mean H/Mi² is currently eight deer/Mi² above target levels (Figure 2). 16 of the 22 properties participating in 2013 remain above the target H/Mi² threshold after the 2013 effort.

Its does not SEEM like a lot of deer being taken in these hunts. Some of these parks USED to be every other year if I remember right. But is seems like most are every year now. I think a lot of guys use the park hunts now to take antler less deer so they do not have to take one or more off their own hunting grounds. Thats what I'd do If I ran out of deer meat.

Many years ago when the state park hunting and habitat issue first came up, there were a couple of questions/issues, one of which might still be an issue today. One was the health of the deer themselves. At Brown County, studies were done showing fetal health and bone marrow "health" and I believe the study showed an improved health of the deer after a couple of years. The other issue was the health of the habitat. Certainly at many parks like Brown County the question was how long, if ever, the forest floor would recover because even a few deer would likely continue to destroy the new growth due to browsing. My point is only that if the goal continues to be restoration of the forest floor, certain parks likely need to have almost no deer for a number of years for the habitat to recover as suggested by some at the start of the initial hunts. I do think that a lot of guys have counted on these hunts for "guaranteed" deer but obviously that was not ever intended from a management standpoint or a hunting standpoint.

Hunting was never in the "use" plans for the parks...same as here with the Nat. Lakeshore....never in the original plans....heck, in many of these parks when they were formed, there wasnt deer or very few....Now, it would take an act of congress to change that in regards to the Nat. LS....that is why they use their own sharpshooters....Our state parks were easier to get the management plans changed once the parks showed damage from over browsing.... I can say that the Dunes State Park is showing recovery, but we have plants that are unique to this area and they still show some damage, but now we have oaks that are growing in locations they were absent and the ground cover and damage to the dunesides are now minimal. Gone are the distinct browse lines ....

I couldn't agree more Jim!