Was your county one that was reduced or one that was increased?
Sorry to the losers & congrats to the winners.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...mation_id=14472&type&syndicate=syndicate

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

.....

I see Tippecanoe was reduced from last year.

4 is still about 3 too many for me.

Thanks for posting! Huntington county is being dropped to a 3 so bye bye late antler less season......yeah

laughable. looks like our dnr really put their heads together to come up with such a "dramatic" change to our regs

It could be 1 or 100.
Wildlife management is not controlled by DNR.. Its controlled by the hunter when they make they choose to snap the trigger.

It's good to see the DNR make reductions in 19 counties for this year. Many hunters have wanted that. Especially hunters in the northern part of the state..

And Gundude is 100% correct. Regardless of reg changes, ultimately it's up to hunters to manage the resource.

And if you aren't seeing deer in the numbers you think you should, then don't kill multiple deer in your area.

you guys are right..as long as we still have 40 days to gun hunt nothing will change. though technically IT IS up to the dnr to manage our regs..if not then why are they are there. the dnr can manage our herd but a change like this does nothing and still leaves it up to the hunter. dnr can only affect outcome if serious changes are made. at least we sort of agree. hope that bottom line of your comment wasn't a tip for me jj..I only killed one deer on my Indiana lease last year.

or they could completely get rid of doe permits..course the chances of that happening are probably equal to changing the gun season

Gotta remember that the DNRs primary goal is protecting and managing the resource. I believe that technically the whitetail resource in Indiana is not threatened or at significant risk. And the DNR manages for all citizens which included farmers and other landowners who believe there continues to be too many deer. I could suggest that the DNR provids hunters plenty off opportunity, which apparently the majority wishes to have.

Glad to see they dropped my home county to 3 does and no more late season. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to drop it down to 1 or 2 bonus tags.

Blah blah dude. Then I guess ohios dnr has diff goals than us ha

Blah blah dude. Then I guess ohios dnr has diff goals than us

Yes, remember about 6% of Hoosiers hunt

the IDNR works for the other 94% too.

I don't see at all how it's irrelevant. We've got a date next door that knows how to manage a herd for quantity and quality. Not looking at what they're doing right would be and is ignorant. I don't see how anybody can negate this. Not arguing just saying that we CAN learn from others. Our dnr knows this but has a different goal in mind and it does not include great hunting..that's the frustrating part

They allow baiting and crossbows in archery season for the past 30 years too. You in favor of those??

I think the DNR watches other states and assesses. But, each state has it's own goals and objectives and that creates the irrelevance aspect because what works for one state may be totally wrong for another state. And, whether I like it or not, I believe surveys have shown that Indiana deer hunters in general are satisfied.

I'm in favor of their quality of hunting. 76 we just have diff goals when it comes to hunting..nothin wrong with that. I have lots of family that shoots immature deer and are happy with it. Diff strokes for diff folks

Gills are at about 12 feet... Yawn.. Summer time

+1..... Gonna be a Good year for Sweet corn.

Mosquitoes are bad in the woods with working on tree stands!

Dude........sounds like you have been on the gills! yum!

and blackberries are looking great also!

I still dont believe they dropped the quotas numbers enough...if it is a 4 or more bonus county, you still have that crappy late Doe gun season.... so yea, they dropped Porter to 4, IMO. that is still to high of a quota.....they needed to drop the late Doe gun season too... on top of that, unless they change the urban zone regs, they still will consider the whole county an urban zone, which is still an additional 4 deer....Glad to see they kept Wabash at 3 so no late Doe gun there...

Can anyone reference a source that tells how many hunters in Indiana actually kill more than one or two deer a year?

I remember reading it in the past, but can't remember where.

Never mind, I found it....

Here's a link to a survey taken in 2010. www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/IN_Deer_Report.pdf


Hunter success rates for 2010

Percentage of Hunters who killed....

0 deer - 43.5 %
1 deer - 30.00 %
2 deer - 12.2 %
3 deer - 5.6 %
4 deer - 2.4 %
5 deer - .9 %
6 deer - .5 %
7 deer - .2 %
8+deer - .6 %

If anyone has the comparable data from the last two seasons, please post a link.

Thanks

I used to take up to 5...one year 7 !! regular tags/bonus and urban...I did this for multiple years.... then I wised up!..... IF I killed every deer that was in range, I could kill 4 easily every year....like I said there are those that wised up and wont do it any longer, and there are guys like I USED to be and try and kill every Doe they can 'cause they are lead to believe that is what is needed....it isnt, it is time to re-educate todays hunter....

You get that figured out and I'll buy you dinner

I've had it figured out for the past several years, it isn't anything to do with management.....


It is GOVERMENT and the need to grow and control....


It is YOUR dollars! They need it to continue to grow and control.

Folks, realize, IDNR is interested in one thing........REVENUE.


Deer hunters ARE the cash cow of all DNR's in the midwest....As Jon Olson once told me, "We can always rebuild the deer herd if needed, we have shown we can do it ........" It is all about your expendable dollars.

But Joe, do you really think the DNR would seek to destroy the well being of the deer herd for the sake of revenue? I don't think they would. I don't believe at all that the late doe season had anything to do with money. And, in some regards we continue to say the hunters are the problem because they pull the trigger and on the other hand at times we say the government is the problem because they don't manage the way a subset of society wishes them to manage. It does take revenue to run the agency and the agency hasn't grown in the recent past so I do think they are trying hard to control expenses. We had even argued in the past the Indiana's DNR staff is woefully underpaid as compared to other states. If that is true, then it would appear that they are not overspending, maybe underspending a bit. And even in those other states that pay their staff more, there is great divides between hunters over what should and shouldn't be done with the deer herd. So, in the end are we saying that they we don't want the government involved and we would prefer to privatize the deer herd? That doesn't work either very well. It's a vicious circle. As evidenced by society throughout America, there is constant criticism of government, all agencies, and yet I doubt it anyone could take a government role and make even 80% of the people they serve happy. And lastly, when compared to other forms of recreation, a hunting license is still pretty darn cheap.

Delaney Exactly...

Just three or four years ago, there was talk about hunters needing to kill more does. There were discussions about a late antler less season, an early antler less season and even earn a buck.

Now....we are screaming about too many does being killed because of "insert reason here"......

I gain new respect for the DNR every day. To have to try to manage the resource, while trying to appease not only hunters, but the non-hunting population, the politicians, special interest groups, farmers and the insurance companies would have to drive you to the edge of insanity.

What a thankless job......

There are two kinds of revenue generation for our Midwestern DNR's.......Quantity Revenue Generation.......and........Quality Revenue Generation.

We are in the transition period where Quantity once drove revenue.........and when the "Quantity" lure does not exist any more.........Quality will be the only lure left on the table for our DNR for revenue generation and continued "lure" into the field for our hunters.

We will have pain to let go of the "old revenue" generation scheme..........but a new one will erupt.

Bank on it..........

Before my stomach "erupts" reading this continuing dribble, how about defining this "quality" thing of which you write, that is seemingly consuming some peoples constant way of thinking.

Quality versus quantity is the reason Iowa, Kansas and Illinois are able to charge $500+, $400+ and $400+ respectively for limited numbers of NR deer tags....and Indiana still charges $150 for unlimited NR deer tags.

Those high dollar tags are a simple matter of supply and demand. Indiana offers an unlimited supply, but a fraction of the demand dictates a fraction of the cost.

While true Paul, if you follow those states, and I'm sure you do, their residents are not overly happy about the NR access and the management of their deer herds. Those DNR agencies have been under recent pressure. The point is, no matter what state it is, someone is unhappy and the DNR agencies are always under attack and there appears to be no perfect plan.

And while you look @ that like it's a bad thing, I see the upside of it.

Go to Illinois and ask many of the residents there how much they've loved being part of the whitetail capital of the Midwest. Ask how many of them have been just about priced out of hunting by leasing and outfitting. Many of those that are still hunting are doing so on over crowded, over hunted public ground (if they can find some) or on small private parcels that leasing hasn't swallowed up. And when you hunt tiny parcels or over crowded public ground what happens? You tend to be a bit less choosy about what you kill.

I think Indiana has struck a nice balance with the deer herd. Bucks and does are being taken on nearly a 1/1 ratio and there are opportunities for ALL hunters in ALL seasons.

Seems pretty good to me....

Wonder why Kentucky wasn't on the list???

Hmmm......

Which brings me back to the point I made in an earlier post...

I gain new respect for the DNR every day. To have to try to manage the resource, while trying to appease not only hunters, but the non-hunting population, the politicians, special interest groups, farmers and the insurance companies would have to drive you to the edge of insanity.

What a thankless job......

Yes Dave, I don't just "follow" those states, I have actually hunted whitetails in each state mentioned on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, first hand knowledge tends to get ignored when it doesn't align with some folks' perception.

I posted the cost differences and, in my opinion/experience, those differences are justified. If you really want to hear some resident screaming...shove Indiana's deer management plan down the throat of the good folks in Iowa, Kansas or Illinois. They may not have it as good as they once did...which gives them reason to complain...but they have NEVER had to put up with the Indiana deer model.

THANK YOU!!!!

Omg I just shake my head at this Quantity vs. Quality BS dribble...

"Quality" hunting is what the hunter makes of it... I can go out and not see one deer but it doesn't mean I didn't have a quality hunting experience...

But yet some on here think if we adopted Ohio (or insert other state) regs that our deer will grow to some gargantuan beasts which probably will not happen... Buck sizes are not determined by hunting seasons, but rather by habitat and genes...

Paul, the point is simply that there are already many in those states you reference that are unhappy with the deer regulations and those particular states DNR approach. There is no right or wrong. I can certainly appreciate your perspective and experience, but that doesn't take into account many of live in those states who appear to very, very unhappy about the management philosophy that supposedly led to less access for the average hunter and forced many out of their sport on private lands. There are just too many variables and personal preferences to suggest that one management approach is better or worse then another approach. That's why anyone who professes that this approach or that approach is "the right approach" is simply goofy. Now, if they were to profess that this is the right approach for "me", then I fully understand that. Remember, I'm a guy who could live with a 15 early archery season and a five day gun season and call it quits. Sure as the heck doesn't make me right but it sure as the heck would probably produce the "quality" deer herd some want but who don't want to give up any of their season to get there. Again, my only point is Iowa, Illinois, Ohio Kentucky and so on, don't have it "right". They just have chosen a different path and in doing so they have a lot of unhappy hunters who are residents of those states.

Well Dave, I thought we were discussing quality versus quantity. I was simply offering my take on why some quality management states can charge four and five times the money for a buck tag versus Indiana...and still leave people lining up to get in.

I'd be willing to bet, the state of Iowa pulls in more revenue from NR deer preference point sales than Indiana generates in NR deer tag sales. Why do you think that is?...and why would the powers that be in Indiana not want to emulate that system? I think that is the point of Dew's post.

Joe keeps preaching the deer herd is the IDNR's cash cow. How long before they figure out a better means to capitalize on that resource?