PRESS RELEASE:

We are the Indiana Whitetail Deer Herd Management (IWDHM) Group. We will be holding a rally at Atterbury Fish and Wildlife Area outside the office on 2/13 Saturday Morning at 8am. This will be just prior to the 9am Indiana Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife's Fish and Wildlife Conservation committee. The Committee will be voting on allowing us membership on the committee. We have asked for the agenda to include reducing the antlerless deer quotas, as well as forming County Deer Advisory Councils, in a model similar to Wisconsin's CDAC. This rally at the very minimum will include at least 300 sportsmen and women, but may reach up to 1,000, that will be rallying to decrease the overharvest of the whitetail deer in Indiana, after just ending the fourth year of a 5 year reduction management plan by the DNR. Hunters and deer enthusiasts from all 92 counties are complaining that the deer herd has been reduced too far.

The DNR reacting to pressure from the farming lobby and urban deer concentrations implemented this reduction plan in 2012, which happened to also be the same year an outbreak of the disease EHD hit large parts of the state, with continued outbreaks occurring annually to varying degrees. Along with this, there has been a large drop in fawn recruitment due to the increase in predators such as the bobcat and coyote, as well as this last year unseasonably wet summer causing some loss due to pneumonia. However with these exacerbating factors, the DNR has not responded by reducing the amount of deer hunters may take. In some counties one hunter may take in excess of 12 deer and if they have the time could take over 300 deer statewide in a given year. ONE PERSON!

The DNR claims less than 5% of deer hunters take 4 or more deer; however by their own statistics this accounted to more than 38,000 deer in 2011 for example. So this 5% is not as insignificant as it sounds. With these almost unlimited bag limits, it does not control the overpopulated areas such as Bloomington or some farms; whereas hunters are not allowed access as the only viable management tool to control populations. However, in the surrounding areas these excessive bag limits are decimating a stressed herd where hunters have access. We feel the DNR is not listening to its constituency; though they are mandated by statue to research and protect the resources for the citizens of Indiana. Many hunters rely on the DNR for guidance, and trust they set bag limits to manage the herd reliably to ensure conservation of the herd, while controlling populations to reduce crop damage, car/deer collisions, and other social complaints. This has just not been the case, they are reacting to social pressure. One State Representative referred to this overreaction as a "boogieman" effect; whereas the farmers and insurance companies have not brought up the deer as being a problem in the last three sessions of the IGA; however, the DNR is still reacting to past pressure. As well, they are not listening to the hunters in all 92 counties that are worried as conservationists about the resource. Hunters have always paid for and been the true manager of the resource with the modern conservation movement. It is also up to hunters and all deer enthusiasts to call out the DNR when they are overreaching in decimating the herd. The DNR is currently managing off of survey statistics based on harvest figures. They have no idea, nor will give a population estimate of the resource, nor have any goals in any counties on what population numbers they desire to reduce the herd to. That is why we are calling for establishments of County Deer Advisory Councils such as was implemented in Wisconsin in 2014, after that state has similar problems with resource management.

County Deer Advisory Councils, include: hunters, deer enthusiasts, farmers, tourism, transportation, forestry, and business leaders in all counties to be included in county council's, to meet three times a year, listen to boots on the ground stakeholders in each county, and develop a plan for county management of the resource, as to reduce, maintain, or increase current population levels. This allows all stakeholders a voice to come away from the table at least satisfied if maybe not happy, that the deer harvest is moderated up or down to protect all interests, but at the same time conserve the resource for future generations. Then those recommendations from all counties may be submitted to the Deer Biologist, of which we do not currently have one, as through attrition the DNR has not back filled the job. The deer biologist may then use those recommendations, in conjunction with scientific models, in presenting harvest quota recommendations to the Natural Resource Commission appointed by the Governor.

Hunters always have been in modern history the conservationists of the resource. Now is no different. Too many deer are being killed and it is effecting all the stakeholders of the resource. We want to see reasonable change and moderation in bag limits to ensure a resource that future generations may enjoy, just as we have been blessed to by those conservationists that came before us.

You may contact us on our Facebook page by PM at Indiana Whitetail Deer Herd Management.

Oregon doesn't have all the bullies do they are they on the agenda?

Yes, they are on the agenda.


Always room for different ideas by the IDNR, there are far bigger issues each year than just deer, I hope that this does not become just a deer management meeting twice a year.

Exactly.... They look to have plenty of Fair Chase deer groups onboard already!

Fair Case????

Yeah....... Every group now onboard are fair chase!

That could change soon ....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Glad we got your true feelings about fair chase :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

yea they are pro deer farm and canned hunting No doubt!!

Fair C A S E??? Proofread your posts, Brew.

Reed whut u type bru... LOL!!

I am sure most knew what I meant....but there always the one or two internet school teachers!! :rolleyes:

I am NOT pro deer farming and canned deer hunting. As a matter of fact I could care less about deer hunting. I gave that up due to idiots ruining the sport.

I am just about there myself Weedy I understand compleatly

Never.

The idiots don't affect my hunt.

don't let the idiots win! =)

True Dave but unfortunately your judged by the company you keep and if at some time all people see and are exposed to is that we'll get the picture ? Most people don't hunt and I have tried to present a good image to the non hunting public what we are about

Then I guess you can stay a "Crocodile" if you want Brew.....

But I think you're better than that...

Enjoy your super bowl Sunday....

We have the chance to watch the GREASTEST of Great's today with one guy (Peyton)that has his Heart and Soul rooted Deep within the Hoosier State....

Go Denver many Colt fans are pulling for you!!!

Agreed!! It's gonna be a tough one.... I just hope Peyton can pull it off...

Mission accomplished!!!

Amen...

This group is asking for support and while I can admire their tenacity, I've yet to see a whole lot of specifics. It's easy to say, we want to lower the number of bonus antlerless permits and form a cdac, but how about specific answers to questions such as.....

What number would they want the bonus antlerless permit number to be per county? And who decides the number? They don't seem to trust the DNR to do it, so how would they be set? Would they want the CDAC to have a significant say in setting those numbers?

Do they want to limit the number of permits a hunter can use per year? For example...If I hunt in Clark, Floyd and Washington counties, and each county is an 8, what limit would they want implemented for a hunter in that situation?

I've seen the number 3 mentioned as a max for bonus antlerless permits in any given county. Even if I hunted in 1 county that was set @ 3 bonus antlerless permits, I could still kill 7 deer. So how is that significantly different from what they say is happening now?

Plus, if you limit the sale of antlerless permits, how is that revenue going to be replaced?

Specifics answers would be a good thing....

Good points...

Lowering the bonus permits from say 8 to 4 is meaningless and will do nothing to address the problem... Very few hunters kill 4 or more in a giving county so lowering the number is nothing more than a "feel good" measure...

The only way you can make an impact is to change the whole structure... Set a limit like they do in the State Park hunts but you cannot take more than one doe in a county... For example: You are allowed 1 Buck and 3 Does or 4 Does and you are done for the season (except draw hunts)...

This way you spread out the harvest a little bit more and help counties with a lower deer herd to bounce back and help control other counties with larger herds a little better...

I see what you are saying, but I've yet to read anything as specific as what you outlined in your post from this group.

Like I said before....I'd like to hear their specific ideas and how they plan on making up any revenue shortfalls that may come from implementing those ideas.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN ACOMPLISHING ANYTHING IS FIRST YOU DEVELOP A PARTNERSHIP that's rule no. One No 2 you study a great length on how things work , No3 you and your partners decide on what is achievable Together Go for it and like it or not the but you kick today you might have to kiss tommorow .Dont Burn Bridges Look at all this and you decide

Can't disagree with what you posted, but in the end just like with a politician, I need to see specific ideas (and how to finance those ideas) before I could/would offer my support.

so this group is trying to tell me how many deer I should be killing and how what weapons I should and should not be using??

Near record harvest this year and I am watching 8+ does around home every night. Son killed one in firearms season and I killed a buck in bow season... Herd is doing just fine here... =)

At this time, it doesn't seem like equipment choices are an issue with this group. They apparently think that there are too many antlerless deer being killed, and that the DNR isn't reducing the permits enough to suit them. They want herd reduction shut off now instead of being reviewed after the upcoming 5th season.

In the end, it would appear that they feel they should have a "seat @ the table" and have input via a CDAC.

What I've yet to hear from them is where they think the permit numbers should be set, how the permit numbers would be set, and how the loss of revenue from selling fewer bonus antlerless permits would be covered.

Hahaha...Let me know how this works out for ya...

I don't know who these guys are but I don't know how anybody would be AGAINST having county representatives/manage the deer by county?
That's why we have guys like 76chevy seeing all kinds of deer and me not taking one the last couple years because I rarely see any. Neither of us are wrong. We are hunting different areas.
To me it's a no-brainer that we should, if possible, manage a little closer at the county level

I thought we did have county limits or are you talking even more restrictive?? Problem I see with that you will be just pushing hunters into areas not previously hunted , instead of staying closer to home creating a new set of problems

There are always going to be parts of counties that have higher numbers of deer than other parts.

Are you suggesting trying to micromanage the deer herd by splitting counties into sections? If so, how would that work?

county by county makes sense to me...big difference from Switzerland co to say tipton...

Also, not all of the areas of the state do have or will have the same levels of deer. Big differences in habitat and carrying capacity.

Part of being a good hunter is being willing to get up and go to where the good places to hunt are, instead of complaining about how bad it is where you are.

Part of being a good hunter is being willing to get up and go to where the good places to hunt are, instead of complaining about how bad it is where you are.

This ^

Great post, and I believe is the thing not everyone realizes or understands. The middle lines about habitat and carrying capacity I think at times is a foreign language to some folks.

Double B has it correct as Does 76 Chevy....

"Part of being a good hunter is being willing to get up and go to where the good places to hunt are, instead of complaining about how bad it is where you are."

What these folks want is "their" particular hunting spot repaired to "their" standard. I know SEVERAL of these folks and they harvested deer like there was no tomorrow!

Now they want the IDNR to repair the damage THEY created. One family bragged to the IDHA how they killed 28 deer in one season, now they say they never "over harvested" an area. Maybe not but they sure as heck contributed.

We have a CDAC, it is made up of conservation officer, district biologist, accident reports and previous years harvest reports.

What I can tell you with certainty is.......... As long as we have Pence as Governor and a Republican House and Senate there will not be ANY ADHOC committees established. As a Republican I am sorry to say, Our leaders do not want our input!

The above paragraph is the opinion of Joe Bacon, it does not reflect the view of the IDHA.

I have to add disclaimer, as the IDHWM is claiming the IDHA is violating our 501c3 rule. Sad State that a new fledgling social media group would attack a 25year+ Association.