http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/trophy-bucks/top-20-diy-whitetail-hunting-states/

Why are some complaining If It aint Broke dont fix it Hats off to Chad and The Indiana DNR They must be doing something right... not must, ARE... On a per hunter basis," Indiana has produced more Boone & Crockett bucks than Illinois, Ohio and even Wisconsin. "

Good read......I'm proud to be hunting deer in the Hoosier state!!!

Cost and ease of acquiring a license played part in that. Our licenses are cheap and easy to obtain compaired to some of our neighbors.... Not saying there aren't big deer here, but seems like it wast all about the deer.

Three words....Private Deer Management

Originally Posted by DawnPatrol:
Yes, and me too!

I wonder where they got that population estimate???

pulled it from their ARSE! low outfitters? try contacting landowners.......... Cheap license...... yea......... and what does that have to do with big antlers?


Pav has it correct.......... "PRIVATE" deer management. We do it on "OUR" ground....... you don't get the same chance or experience on public ground. Good story, like Texas says...... "Big hat no cattle".

When was the last time you hunted public ground Joe??? to be able to make such a statement
Big antlers are the main reason land owners will not allow access to their ground unless you have deep pockets. 20 years ago getting permission usually only cost you a hand shake and a couple packages of tender loins that today will cost you a grand. Killing does and little bucks has nothing to do with this change.

I believe you are helping to drive the point home...whether that was your intention or not.

Twenty years ago, Indiana was a mere blip on the B&C map. Killing does and little bucks was the norm. Back then, 2/3rds of the antlered bucks in the annual harvest were yearlings. The idea of a "one buck rule" was proposed and overwhelmingly dismissed.

Deer hunter attitudes changed quickly though...and by the turn of the century, the "quality over quantity" movement was building steam. Two years later, despite objections from the IDNR, the one buck rule was implemented.

Since then, I cannot think of one new rule change implemented by the IDNR which even remotely addresses growing bigger deer? Maybe I'm forgetting something?...but for the most part, our deer regulation changes since OBR have gone in the opposite direction.

What has changed is hunter attitude and level of commitment. People got tired of waiting for the IDNR to change...so they took it upon themselves to manage their own deer hunting grounds.

I hunt an 800 acre farm that experiences more general firearm hunting pressure than most public ground. BUT...that property is surrounded by three other farms totaling over 3,400 acres...all of which is being managed for big whitetails. That keeps things interesting on the farm I hunt, especially during the rut. Last year alone, I know of three B&C bucks taken from those three properties...and we had a "near miss" killed opening day of firearms season on the farm.

While I don't share the optimism of the author on a statewide basis...there is no question Indiana is producing bigger deer than twenty years ago. But at least give credit where credit is due....that being private deer management.

In a way do you think the regs we have in place could have had a sort of Collateral damage result, that being bigger bucks,, Maybe that wasnt the intent but it happened .

How many people before the obr actually killed two bucks per year? I dont think our Dnr had a single thing to do with the turn our state has taken. Now once they move gun season out of the rut, they will make a bigger difference than the obr in my opinion.

I beleive the number is close to 5000. h.h.

I would agree the implementation of OBR accelerated the "quality" movement curve.
Since then, I can't envision any regulation
changes having a positive affect on quality?

IMO, there are several things that have helped Indiana along the way.

1. Getting/allowing people to kill does has been huge. When I started hunting, people were told not to kill does and it's taken years to change that attitude. I know there are people who say we are killing too many does now, but I think the DNR is doing a good job lowering bonus antlerless permits and pulling counties out of the late antlerless season.

2. Another obvious, major change has been hunter attitudes towards bucks. If you want big bucks, you can't kill little ones. And while I fully support the right of hunters to to kill whatever buck they choose to, I personally don't shoot buttons or young bucks.

3. Food. Whether it's leaving a corn/bean field standing, planting specialized food plots, planting mast and fruit trees, etc, I think it's definitely been a plus.

4. The obr gets a lot of credit and I'm not denying that it has had an impact, but as HH's number above illustrates...we're only talking about hunters killing an additonal 5,000 bucks a year before it's implementation.

What I feel the obr has done more than anything is make more people think about the buck they are willing to harvest as (for most) it will be their only one for the season. I know I've let bucks walk that I might have taken before the change occurred.

And while others don't agree, I think the IDNR has done a very good job of managing the resource, while trying to strike a good balance for ALL hunters and residents of the state in addition to generating income in the process. We have plenty of opportunity, varied seasons/equipment choices, good numbers of deer and good numbers of trophy deer.

And quite frankly, I see all of that as a positive.

The growing aspect of the sport that probably has had the biggest influence is money and Indiana has a ways to go on that yet. Private land management only takes on the role that is being talked about when you apply the money factor. Once money comes even stronger into the equation, OBR becomes less and less a factor on properties where big bucks will become the norm. This fascination about B&C is mostly a fascination by a lot of people but not an expectation or reality that most really wish to apply to their hunting experience. I just spent a weekend in Kentucky at one of the premier outfitters, I didn't hunt, and while I doubt if I am anywhere close to actually understanding that business, I believe I have a pretty good assessment of the outfitting world, the hunters who hunt those situations and what management is all about. They would say it's about producing big bucks, but it's not. It's about money, and that money comes solely from managing inventory, access and marketing, marketing, marketing. The deer themselves are nothing more then a unique loaf of bread on the shelf. These operations could care less about OBR and these operations are producing a lot of the 160 range deer and the B&C deer in that State, although certainly many nice deer come from private landowners who aren't outfitters. It was a fascinating weekend to watch from a distance, analyze and assess. If Indiana goes to high powered rifles and were to ever allow baiting, someone find about 15,000 acres to manage/lease and the business model is quite attractive. The DNR's only control point is season length for the non managed properties and everything else is just fluff.

Yes, +1 on this.

Plenty of opportunity for a buck in Indiana with our regulations right now. I can kill 5 bucks between the urban, regular, park hunts, and military hunts.

I agree. B&C entries are being used as a yardstick...much more than an expectation. I've been deer hunting for 35 years, and been selective for more than two decades of that time. I have seen exactly three "no doubt" B&C bucks on the hoof in my lifetime. Two of those sightings happened the same day in Iowa. If a B&C buck is one's expectation...that person best be prepared to eat ALOT of buck tags.

I see many, many outfitters now seeking to define the experience of hunting a "mature" buck, not a big buck, not a P&Y, not a B&C. Of course, that word leaves a lot open to opinionated interpretation. The camp this weekend that I had exposure to had a 168, in velvet as a top score and somewhere near a 115 in velvet at the other end of the spectrum with a few in between those numbers. Everyone was happy with what they shot regardless of size and certainly considered them "mature".

Indiana's DNR is going a pretty darn good job, in combination with private management, with the balancing act of serving it's customers.

Now THAT is a comment open to many interpretations!

Blackoak:

I don't need to physically hunt a public property to know what it holds, talking to people who do hunt there ,reading on forums their experiences and monitoring the Hoosier Record Book gives a broad picture. And then there is the management of those properties.

Are you aware of any Fish&Wildlife property that allows the use of bonus antlerless permits? I'm not.... they are trying to keep enough does to reproduce a antlered buck to shoot. State forests and the Hoosier allows bonus permits to help with deer populations on "PRIVATE PROPERTIES" that IDNR can not control.

I look at where Hoosier Record Book bucks are coming from constantly(lucky I have access to all the records of deer scored) less than one percent come from public land! I admire those who are successful, but the honest truth is they were in the right spot at the right time....LUCKY! Property that protects bucks and manages the doe population is the answer to the Indiana surge in record book deer without a doubt.

Several years ago there was a proposal to take 3 Fish&wildlife properties(1 north, 1 central and 1 south) and divide them into 2 areas, one you could kill any deer and another area with some sort of antler restriction and see what happened over three years. IDNR would not do it, why? IMO it would show restrictions on harvest WILL improve antler size.

For years I have told people they need to buy hunting land, soon they will only have three choices, own lease or hunt public land. now we see leasing is exploding and the handshake with a property owner is about to disapear. The property next door to me(200 acres) never made it to a listing by the realator, it sold for $400,000.00 cash! the person purchasing the property already owns 1200 acres in the next county over, it was bought to deer hunt. His reasoning was the "potential" for big bucks, and yes, I have known him for years. Fescue fields killed and food plots added, habitat improvements galore, and a neighbor who said, "We will be the best neighbor you have." More competition for the mature bucks roaming my little piece of paradice,but......... In the long run a better experience for all of us. I found many years ago, to kill a mature buck, a mature buck has to live where you hunt. Public land IS NOT a safe enviroment for any deer with antlers.

PRIVATE deer management has pushed Indiana to the number 2 spot, not IDNR.

Heck, this weekend I had a guy from New Jersey show me trail camera pictures he said came from the old Newport property. He has joined a group that is leasing the property. It tells you how far people will travel just to deer hunt. This guy was hunting in Kentucky at the outfitter's place on a paid hunt. The point is, with the cost of leasing and then the work that goes along with leasing and making the property a good deer habitat property, a lot of guys are just taking 4 to 5 thousand and taking a 5 day deer hunting vacation instead of hunting in their home state. And, its really not about truly big bucks, but instead about decent bucks.

You are correct Delaney.

People from the East/Southeast are thrilled to kill a buck over 130 inches. They have the dollars to spend and are happy for that "oppotunity". Think about it guys, Newport has been leased to an outfitter....... just a sign of the times a coming......

That's what happen at JPG at the very south end..... The new owner leased the land to and Outfitter!!

I Believe all them hunters come from the south and southeast.

As far as leasing and out of state hunters goes, that's going to happen. We all knew it was coming. It was an inevitable as the leaves falling off the trees in the fall. Once a state gets a reputation for producing big bucks the flood gates open.

Big bucks = big bucks.....

And the only thing the IDNR can do @ this point is charge tag prices similar to what other states in the midwest are charging and limit the number of tags for sale.

And it still won't stop it....it's coming.

I know of lots of former FWA land (actually owned by a coal company) sold off and now leased by a company that does that sort of thing...

Sad to hear about newport. That place was cool to hunt.

this ranking (which got this thread rolling) seems to be good news only for those selling a lease or hunting property.

I see only downside for us working class folks who hunt public and some small private parcels we don't own.

And what about Newport? I hardly heard anything about that but I guess it's all lease basis now. That is one of the few times i can remember a public hunting area going private. Kind of scary. I depend on public ground and the high ranking may bring in more out of state hunter, but I do take pride in hunting areas that I know have produced some real nice bucks and hold them right now. From a competitive nature it's nice to be recognized with the traditional bigs.

1. Really JB?
Every hunter who kills a buck on public land got "lucky?" Jeremy French is just "Lucky" every year? How about Fullrut? Lucky every year?
Come on Dude. You know better than that.
I know you probably don't mean it that way but that's disrespectful.

2. Anybody here think it's NOT private land management driving the success in ALL the Big Buck States?
Numbers/stats can be twisted many ways to prove a theory...happens in business everyday.
I'm saying that Indiana's poor management practices landing us at #2 among the states listed in the article means that reducing tags,charging triple what we do and having the "short" gun season "outside of the rut" gained them What exactly?

I've been to Iowa. I know how it's been for years. I know that in Illinois public land hunting is good. But it appears to me that shutting most people out(Buying up land and leasing)and shooting ONLY mature whitetails will work ANYWHERE... including Indiana.

I mean seriously...what difference do the regulations make if the trend is what JB and PAV described? And they are right! JB HAS been saying for years to buy land.
I'm tired of fighting. People can lease till their hearts are content. I really don't care anymore. But why do we even have a DNR anymore? To manage the wildlife on public land? If that's the case, why do private landowners even care? You want shorter gun seasons outside of the rut? You and those who lease can make that rule on your land, Right?
This is easy.

HS, your private land comment is very true. Seasons length and weapon use can be meaningless if private management wants it to be.

You both are absolutely correct...People can (and should) manage their ground, their way (within the game laws of course). They should hunt with the legal equipment of their choice and take part in the seasons they choose.

But, what many hunters seem to forget is that deer aren't managed in this state just for hunters. Here's number one of the 10 common myths of deer management from Chad Stewart....

DEER MANAGEMENT IN INDIANA

10 COMMON MYTHS

By Chad Stewart


Myth 1: The DNR manages deer for deer hunters only.

Indiana law mandates that the DNR manage
deer and all wildlife for everyone in Indiana.
The goal of the white-tailed deer management
and research program is to maximize hunting
and viewing opportunities while maintaining
a deer population at a level consistent with
ecological, social, and economic values of all
Indiana citizens.


It seems pretty clear to me....

Very true if they didnt Manage deer on private land to some degree we wouldnt have Any Deer there are probably just as many land owners out there who would Kill Every deer they see as the ones that like deer and in my area the Amish would kill deer year round more than they do now and there are a lot of Deer hating Farmers and deer eating amish around here

Atleast the Amish will legally be able to use rifles in the future. Haha isn't slowing em down now however.

I hear that wall mart day before season 243 30/30 harder to find than 22 and store is FULL I have seen it

Agree with the public land sentiment. There are some bruisers out there and we see big woods bucks every year. If you can take a mature buck on public, you have accomplished something my friend. I pay too much in taxes not to enjoy our natural resources. Plus the scenery is top notch. It's not for everyone but it can be very rewarding.

I'm sad to say the JB is correct. My family has leased ground longer than anyone else I know in an effort to hunt our way, but in doing so we put many other hunters out. The future here is just like Europe, only the rich can afford to hunt. Buy any land you can. 10 acres is better than none. I'm saddened to think about my son's hunting future in Indiana and the whole US.

Your comment about Europe is absolutely correct. Some will say it will never happen, but it will and has been progressing in that manner for many years. And, the situation is not about big deer, but about many other species as well.

We have way more public land open to hunting than europe and much more lenient firearms laws. Not saying private land is not becoming harder to gain access to in our country, it is.

But comparing US to Europe here is an apples to oranges comparison.

Lots of good public hunting in Indiana still. I've got a couple buddies from Michigan that come down here every fall to hunt some public stuff and absolutely love it. They kill some nice deer too.

If you are willing to travel out west, your opportunties on public land are darned near limitless. Millions of acres at your disposal.

Yeah, it's getting tougher, but the comparison to Europe is pretty far off base.

Some of you older guys might remember, but back when I was a kid, guys my dads age would travel to deer hunt the public fish and game areas around the state because they were the only places that had many deer. We didn't start seeing many deer on the private ground around here until the early 70's.