Joe is absolutely correct... This is what happens when you give one party all the power... Pence is the worst Governor I have seen in my lifetime...

Having sat several years on the Indiana Deer Advisory Committee and a short stint on the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Committee....I believe these folks are in for one rude awakening.

Besides, don't they realize politicians are running the show now?

They said they didn't want on the FWCC In a Quote from Them ... I saw it ,,so Why waste any ones time ??just to disrupt the rest ,they seem to be good at that .they don't like anyone and don't miss a chance to tell you about that dislike .. That attitude would be disruptive to all on the board and nothing would be accomplished IMO

And I'm told to not let the idiots win... :rolleyes: They won a long time ago.

Lol

I rest my case...

I get this post, and personally I do feel any increase in open dialogue between hunters and the DNR is a good thing however here are some concerns some have with the plan:

#1 How are these people vetted and chosen? What qualifies them for a county position? Simply being a hunter? Do they have to be a member of the IWDHM to be in the running?

#2 How do they collect unbias data from within their counties? Do they somehow get list of all known hunters with license numbers and send out surveys? Host open meetings? Set up social media pages? All the above? Cost?

#3 Assuming #2 is done, how are these county advisors supposed to go about filtering and weighting responses for their report to the DNR? Example...I hunt a 70 acre farm (25 acre woods rest tillable) but only can bow hunt it. Come gun, owner and someone else trounces around. My father and I this year saw greater movement on the farm than any years past...they saw next to nothing...as in like 2 deer all gun season. Who is right, and who is wrong about that exact same property?

#4 What hard data outside of opinion or emotional responses will signify to the county leader that a recommended change is needed?


I like the concept of a more county by county approach...but in all honesty we have that in the localized DNR officers/biologists of areas (could use more I know) and the county by county quotas. I just am not sure I see a way to better the system in the approach mentioned and pushed for by the IWDHM, not because I think the idea is bad; but because I don't know a way to capture, vet and authenticate a weighted value on opinion responses.

The DNR won't set quotas based on statements or opinions is my guess and in the end even if these form harvest data will still be the driving force behind quotas.

Did anyone here attend the rally? Does anyone know the number of people who attended....300 was suppose to be the minimum and up to 1000 according to the release....just wondered if that many showed up? h.h.

I didn't attend the Rally but 20 give or take

15,000 likes/members and 20 or so folks show up.... Go firgure!!!

Those "likes" are just people enjoying the train wreck

I don't have a laid out plan for managing by county. I'm sure I could come up with one? Why would it be better? Ever call an area biologist? No disrespect intended but these guys are too bust planting fauna on a hillside in a state forest or whatever it is they do. They rarely come across as someone to gain info from about hunting an area. I've called them umpteen times to get info about an area I'm thinking of trying...see if they can steer me towards a decent area or away from a boatload of hunters...they've been very very little help to me. Seriously, not slamming them...just pointing out they are in charge of a LOT of area.
So what if they appaointed county reps? Put their number or email in hunting regulation book. A point man for each county or maybe a couple, that hunters could call and tell them what they're seeing? Is it perfect? Of course not. But I'm all in favor of managing wildlife AND government at the LOCAL level. The LOCAL LEVEL is ALWAYS the best place to make change.
These guys/gals could report to district biologists and help them get a better idea what the deer in the area are doing. Do we have that now? I don't know? Doesn't sound like it.
All I know is different areas of the state can vary quite a bit, and whatever model they're using now that allows 4 antlerless deer in my area is FLAWED.

Again though how do you weigh the responses gathered? I get it and outlined I don't see it as a bad thing I just don't see a system to weigh and measure input based on opinions and emotions of hunters.