Deer numbers have been declining, especially in the Midwest.
Here are the Top-5 reasons why. http://t.co/jnPuedQkbi

Well written article.

RE #4 QDMA has cited many studies which shows how destructive coyotes are to fawns and deer populations.

https://www.qdma.com/articles/who-controls-your-fawn-supply

Let’s look at some studies:
(Blanton et al. 1989) found, “MS, AL, KY and TN, fawning deer were the most frequent (74%) major food of coyotes”.
(Wooding et al. 1984) found, “MS, AL (71.4%) fawn deer are the major food of coyotes, predation could potentially impact white-tail deer recruitment.”
(Bartush et al. 1981) “Fawn loss by predators commonly exceeded 70%”
(Cook et al. 1971) found, “coyote predation accounted for 79% of fawn mortalities”
(Epstein et al. Roberts 2007) found, “bobcats were responsible for 57%-82% of fawn mortalities”
(Stout et al. 1982) found, “154% increase in fawn recruitment following 2 years of predator control”
(Bartush & Lewis 1981) “fawn mortality of 90% has been reported, due to coyote predation”

I agree, the lack of fawn recruitment can be a factor of coyotes for sure....I also agree on the over use of antlerless tags....and EHD took its toll in many areas a few years back..... I did see signs of a heavier winter kill two winters back, esp. up in the Nat. Lakeshore and surrounding areas when we had that really nasty winter...we'll see what this season brings...

Hit it on the head Valovich, some things we can change and some we can't. We working on the things we can. Come help us, you seem to get it brother.

Gary IWDHM Group.

I just can't believe coyotes are that big a problem if they killed the deer some seem to believe there would be NODeer no.s just dont add up .. You loose x no. Deer depridation permits so many from harvest so many from cats so many from poaching things just dont make sense to me there's a lot more deer than people think to be able to sustain all those losses and still see deer

You are correct..... And notice the articles in the info Brew puts up are from the 1970's - 1980's. We grew deer herds all over the Midwest during and after those articles. And today the finger pointing is still at Coyotes???? LOL!!

In all fairness, there seems to be a lot of areas that habitat loss is fairly significant and for not only fawns but also for upland production, the predator issue is probably more significant in many areas today then it was back then. Certainly not everywhere though.

Back in the '80's/'90's coyotes were scarce...fox were still plentiful as were the deer....now the deer are in low numbers and fox are almost non-existent in many places and coyotes are super plentiful....fox were never much of a problem to deer, coyotes are..... so is the over abundance of antlerless tags ;0)..... habitat was also more plentiful....developers and farmers have taken much of that now... CRP ?...whats that ...lol......fence rows are a dirty word to many farmers now as are CRP fields.....

And it isn't just loss of habitat as the only big factor that is habitat. Far too much maturity occurring in a lot of woods...people no longer log timber in a plan...park like woods with no understory provide very little food for deer.

Interesting that there is actually quite a bit of cutting the last couple of years on public lands in my area. Selective timber harvest, cutting out pines planted by the ccc long ago, controlled burns, etc. And Jeff, I had a red fox run across in front of the truck while on evening deer cruise last night!

Double B that is great news! More public and parks should do it more.

Back on topic, do bobcats have much of an impact on deer? My hunch is they are munching turkey poults right and left down here and maybe they are increasingly taking a slice of the (fawn) pie too. I know they are very efficient hunters and are increasing in numbers.

Here is what coyotes doing to newborns.

https://www.facebook.com/gawalters1/posts/10153519409119233

One of does on farm lost fawn this week. At feeder I got for my elderly neighbors to see we border them on two sides. Doe and fawn coming in every evening and also eating leaves off her chinease maple 20 yards out their window with hummingbird feeders. The fawn has stopped coming for a week. ? What happened but appears it gone for good.

Yotes aren't dumb, feeders can become like drive thru's for them.

reminds me of a peta add IMO

I assure you throback I am far from PETA AND WILL CONTEND killed more animals all over this country than most on this forum. However, my love for the resource has never wained for a moment. Nor doing what is right and humane.

Throbak, because I care about the resource and its future and being humane does not make me an endorser of PETA. I VENTURE TO DAY I have killed more animals humanely all over this great country than most on this forum.

However, the mine bigger than yours does not matter. Fact is I as well as our most primitive ansestors worked to ensure they had food to hunt another day after today. Because I teach my grandchildren to care as well is a fact any HUNTER should be proud of.

Sorry thought first one did not post. Apologize for redundency.

Its just playing on emotions and most will agree very Peta like. Killing a female coyote with a den full of pups is not something I want to be a part of any more than depridation hunts they are the same and again IMO .they both leave suffering young

Gary, you are though fairly consistent in any discussion good at bringing up how you're "better" "more accomplished" or "done more" than others....kinda creates disharmony in a discussion.

Don't disagree with him you will be banned from posting on the FB page.lol

I wouldn't bother replying to him.

Gary:

You will quickly find out that "bravado" wont gain you any friends here or on other sites, the "i'm a better hunter than you" doesn't work. Killing more critters "all over the country" just means you had more opportunity than others. What people would be interested in was where and how your hunt went in another state.Now to my points..........

1. you will get no further resistance from the IDHA. Just remember that when an anti hunting Facebook page wants a seat at the table, you can't oppose.

2. You will find that IDNR really does not react to your comments at the FWCC, they are there to TELL you what they are doing. The Natural Resource Department is run by the Governor's office. It has been that way for 10 years and will not change as long as there is a Republican in that office, and yes I have voted for the past two Governors.

3. Your premise that Facebook matters is flawed, questions can be manipulated to get a response the poster wants,example......"Would you like to see more deer where you hunt?" Who as a deer hunter is going to say less? Ask a farmer who depends on his crop if he wants more deer? Or a guy who just totaled his vehicle on a deer.

4. You want folks to contact their legislators. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! I saw where you typed a letter and urged people to copy and paste it to legislators......you might as well used a poll, they value both equally........lol. Next time ask your Facebook members to go to their district town hall meeting and ask their legislators face to face why can't IDNR have our license fees to spend. No one will go.....except maybe your Board of Directors. Been there done that.

5. You blast IDNR for THEIR deer management plan yet you want to be on the FWCC and work with them? Gary they have a person who reads ALL of these sites and reports to the administration, after beating them up do you really believe they are going to work with/for you?

6.After 30 plus years of working with IDNR and several times against them I know my place. You will soon get a taste of it. IDNR is part of government and as such it NEVER has enough money.It needs more of the citizen dollar,it perpetuates itself at our expense.There is no difference between any of our elected politicians in Indiana today except for the (R) or (D) after their names. The Governor appoints IDNR leadership, we don't elect them. So WHO do you think they listen to??

7. IDNR had nothing to do with your lack of deer or anyone else's! YOU and every other legal deer hunter did it to yourself. You did it as conservation, you did it as food for your family, you did it to donate to needy people. when I was saying that this would lead to a drastic reduction in some areas I was told by a Indiana Deer Biologist, "we built a deer herd once we can do it again". Looks like one day they will have to do it again..... Not going to be my problem, been there done that and know the support of sportsmen is not there.

Enjoy your time here and on the FWCC, it wont be long.....you don't have the patience.

Interesting points....

Certainly sportsman engagement has always been an issue and "keeping it going" can and will wear even the most dedicated person down. I certainly hope that influence for sportsmen can be gained somehow. It's been a downhill slide for a few years now.

Joe,

Was that an apology, what? Seem to say you won't resist us any longer, then go on to do just that? That is one of the most divisive discouraging letters I ever read. Very too little, way too late. Guess the history of talking out both sides of your mouth continues. As far as friends, and BRAVADO, I am not attempting to make friends, or lead anything, rather to expand a movement that is already going strong that feels we are overharvesting deer. I have no agenda for personal recognition or power. Nor do I have an agenda to limit any voice from any citizen.

I was only responding to a post that basically was stating my post was a PETA advertisement. What hunter would promote a practice that starves fawns to death. I was clarifying I do not qualify for membership in PETA. Never said I was a better hunter than anyone. I will say though, the opportunities you speak of come from hard back breaking work year round freeing up time in the fall and winter to travel and hunt, as well as back breaking work on education, sacrifice, discomfort, and teamwork in the actual hunting process. All things the "FAMILY" as you call us do to be successful. Not on the backs of others, as some do; I as well have a memory. That is the beauty of being an American, if you want it bad enough you can have it. Karma also has a way for rewarding those that work for it, and not so much those that take advantage of others for it.

In response to your bullet points:

1. This post in itself is resistance and personal attacks. No professionalism at all. And yes we welcome anyone at the table. I would rather look my enemy in the eye and debate them with science, than ignore them, and let them go to the legislature behind our back and push their agenda. Just as Farm Bureau has for the thirty years under your watch. All while you argue really insignificant meaningless issues that really do nothing to protect the resource or our hunting heritage in the big picture.
The model we are promoting for a Deer Advisory Council does just that, brings all stakeholders to the table, and releases legislative demands allowing the biologists and trained scientist to do their job.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdac.html

Look at the map on Wisconsin's plan. Almost all counties are at a maintain or increase level. They are reacting to the council in big ways.

2. I agree after attending a year's worth of meetings, that the FWCC is a defunct committee that obviously has run its course. Not one wild deer issue was brought up. But another thing we noticed is that issues that would benefit deer and deer hunters were not even commented on by the DEER GROUPS, let alone supported. For example asking the legislature to look into dispersement of funding, we paid for, for the DNR to manage our resources. Not one deer group signature on that petition. Or attempting to gain more public land, or access. Resources we just let go, because the deer groups and others wouldn't get on board. Specifically, Newport, grant programs, etc. Resources that were already owned by the citizen's. My goodness.

If you have the negative attitude it will not change, then it won't. One can have a positive attitude and raise enough heck that something will change and give. One way to do that is not get bogged down in the BS divisive issues and concentrate on the elephant in the room, habitat, hunter access, resource research and PROPER management. That is across the board, because the waterways, forests, grouse, deer, and all other natural resources are not an entity in themselves but part of the circle.

3. This just doesn't make any sense. Any political issue is going to have manipulations, opinions, facts pointed out that promote a cause being represented. A Presidential campaign, a local school board redistricting plan, a deer herd management plan. I would not make sense for a PRO LIFE group to not use the video's that are currently in the media, which play on emotion, but at the heart reveal a problem that exists. The crops and the car accidents are a fact of life. If not deer, will be and is caused by many other factors. Life is not in a vacuum.

The problem here is bigger than just a crossbow, or cwd, or whatever. The problem is budgets that play shell games with our money to hamstring agencies from doing their job to show a false surplus. Start revealing those things and see how things change. Then it not just a deer issue, but one every non consumptive user can agree on and get involved in as well. Facebook does promote spreading all these ideas, and gaining support in a quick an efficient manner. That is why it is popular not only as social media, but in business, and in the government as well. Why would the agency use it if not a beneficial tool?

4. Again negativity. Of course, apathy is human nature. Until we lose something, most don't bother with it. The whole point of a movement is awareness. When people become aware of losses, aware of the shell game, then they will lose their apathy, then it becomes personal. Some say their area is still in good shape. Great, but lets make them aware, a large part of people thoughout the state said the same thing before the excessive harvests and EHD, not to mention hundreds of other environmental factors.

The great conservationists of the past, had the foresight, to see what was being lost, prior to it all being gone. Then had the desire to motivate apathetic people to realize what they were losing.

5. I am glad the DNR has someone reading all our posts and this page as well. We will keep raising heck until someone reading them will take them seriously. We have made perfectly clear we believe the everyday DNR employee's perform their job out of love for the resources, not for the pay or fame. That is obvious. However, politicians, and leadership is hamstringing their efforts. If we do not complain, how will anything ever change.

You are forgetting an important aspect to this picture. The Government and their agencies work for us. In this case, they are mandated by law to conserve, research, and protect the citizen's resources. We have no obligation to mince words, or to talk them into working with us as citizens. It is their responsibility and duty under law. This is not a good old boys club. That is the problem, the hunting groups have become complacent in pleasing the DNR to work on their PET issues, instead of insisting they manage the resources for us as citizen's. That has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth and lost you all your credibility an influence. That is why we do not stand for or against these statistically insignificant issues, and are advocating for the resource, not just as hunters, but as non consumptive users, uniting all for the common purpose, that benefits the resource and all citizens.

That is why our government is set up in three different branches. Government 101, if the agencies of the executive branches are not fulfilling the execution of legislative mandate, and the citizen's interests are not followed, there is a Judicial Branch to call them on it, and also the legislative branch to oversee spending and so forth. See you have to fight the big picture. No one really cares about a crossbow, just for one example.

6. The above addresses that. However, if you are familiar the rules of a non for profit agency, as an officer you cannot mention partisan politics as you did here and in #2 of your post.

7. Of course every hunter pulled the trigger or released the arrow; however, they were given misleading information by the very agency that is mandated by law to research, and protect the resource for all citizens. The average hunter is not a biologist. Most assume, their biologists are setting these limits for a reason. Hard to do, when there is not even a proper number of biologists to do the job, because of the shell game of budgeting and appropriations, for a false sense of surplus.`

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR EXISTENCE IS TO RAISE AWARENESS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The DNR DFW continues to promote this idea of the whitetail deer being an unlimited natural resource with the liberalized bag limits, depredation tags, end of year reduction seasons, and bag limits in State Parks. There is no such thing as an unlimited natural resource, and if not conserved, any generation can use it all up for their own needs, budgetary or otherwise. If the citizen's do not stand up, why should they (government/politicians) look past today, and the success or failure of only their term. The great ones did, but how many are considered great.

As someone posted on here, when they go fishing they catch the bag limit. Most do. Most believe if they only catch the bag limit the resource is safe. Now we all now if everyone did that would be very incorrect. With 8 doe counties, and 10 deer reduction limits, on top of what is one of the most liberal bag limits in the Midwest at the cheapest rate, the DNR is misleading the citizen's they are representing. National and regional media has picked up on the downtrend. Your own beloved QDMA has even stated Indiana is the ONLY STATE that continues to be in the reduction mode. True there was a few decreases in the bonus county system, but again statistically insignificant.

Lastly, thanks for your BLESSING, however I don't think we really need it in this divisive fashion. And will go on record here and now, we are a new group, we are going to make waves. We are going to raise heck, and draw awareness, to the issue of overzealous herd reduction, and more specifically the shell game of the finances behind it. We attempted to start out with common decency of just talking and getting our movement a voice. You personally in representing a great organization, attempted to circumvent that voice.

After looking over tax records and public records, it would seem your interference was really hypocritical as well. You continue to state criteria that don't exist, and continue to maybe even believe the illusion that we need your permission. According to tax records, I venture to say we exponentially exceed your membership, with our TRUE MEMBERSHIP, not just our Facebook page followers. So in a few short months the movement has had positive growth. So now instead of asking to be heard we will be. But thanks for you concern and interest. I wish the IDHA the best of luck in all their endeavors, from the bottom of my heart. What once was a buzzing hive, just trying to live and be heard, has been shaken from its slumber to an aggravated opened up hornets nest.

Am I the only one that saw little or no malice in the post that Gary responds to? Bluntly honest with all the struggles IDHA has felt/been through sure, but don't see the "attacks" as they seemingly were taken as.

And just for the record I followed and was even going to join the IWDHM before they banned me for some bull "disharmony" thing for simply discussions. I am not a member of the IDHA...so I have no biasness towards either side.

Good Luck Gary............

Thank you.

Was the EAB program part of herd reduction?

The stakeholder groups represented on these councils include:
•a hunting and/or sporting group;
•agriculture;
•forestry;
•local government;
•transportation;
•tourism; and
•the Deer Management Assistance Program.


EAB? Educational Approval Board

GaryWalters EAB....earn a buck....

Was the earn a buck program part of herd reduction?

If so, do you know when it started and do you also know when Wisconsin upped their antler less permit numbers?

History of deer hunting in Wisconsin...not sure what they miss though:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/bernier/pressreleases/Pages/Deer%20Hunt%20History.aspx

1987 first year with bonus antlerless permits


1996 - EAB start if I interpretted it right.

IWDHM does not know that IDNR has its own plan for deer management, it does not follow any other state. IDNR had meetings for hunter input on quotas before, now they don't feel the need to include our input.

IWDHM probably will be getting the Legislature involved in deer management, our Legislators are all experts in this field also.

I'm going to enjoy watching this side show!

+1....

Me too Joe

Which 2 board members resigned Gary? How many does that leave?

Ok, before we all get cranked up again, is it possible to focus on deer issues, management issues and not one organization vs. another organization. S_wilk, is it possible to private message Gary and ask that question? There is no relevance to this topic.

If IWDHM can make a difference, good for them. Will it be difficult, yes. Impossible, I don't know. The IDHA tried to make a difference and for a while, under different DNR management and government attitude, might have made some difference. Is there apathy in the existing groups and those who have beat their heads against the wall for year, yes. Does that mean they don't care any longer, no. But, does that mean the IWDHM or any other new group doesn't have a chance to change the course of things, no. So, why this constant discourse? Hey, whichever the new group is or how many there may be, give them a chance and leave the rhetoric behind. Maybe, sooner or later, some new group will somehow find a way to have an affect and help the DNR. This is ridiculous.