Ok, the regular seasons are about done...only Urban will be left till Jan. 31st ....lets see the predictions for the 2014 season ...BTW, my county I lease in, Wabash had kill of 1700 in 2012, 2013 it dropped -515 to only 1185....wont break the grand mark this year....

I say less than 120,000 .... what say you ....

Harrison County slight increase and still top in the state. Total harvest within 3% of last year.

129,247

The same or not enough to worry about if not the ssm EF as slight decrease

130,123

128k

My prediction is that whether the overall numbers are higher, lower or about the same, people are going to complain........

My predictions on the 2014 harvest is that the ones we shot will taste great on the grill all Summer long... and the ones fried next week... then the deerbq I will make, oh yeah can't forget about the canned venison.

It will be what it will be and we will continue to hunt smart on the land we hunt.

yea but you gotta guess. How else can you win the pool?

126,500 +/-

How are your bees doing John? Mine are doing ok - I hope.

Some deer died, most deer lived. Close enough??

I agree with both of the above posts... Couldn't have said it better myself...

Looking for numbers...not gab ;0)

X 2....

I hope you are right.

But I am concerned about the ever increasing low deer sighting complaints. Using short term harvest numbers as a gage could be a mistake.

If you start out with a well full of water, but take out more water per day than the well is capable of replenishing....you will be fine for awhile, but eventually that well will go dry. To prevent that from happening, you monitor the water level and adjust your use of the resource accordingly.

Unfortunately, we have no reliable means of monitoring the "water level" of the deer herd. The best information we have is customer satisfaction based on individual experiences in the field...and that customer satisfaction seems to be waning in a lot of areas.

Personally, I am fortunate enough to hunt an area that is basically exempt from the effects of our deer regulations. i.e. I am not complaining about deer numbers. I do, however, hear a lot of complaints from people I know to be seasoned deer hunters....and that is concerning.

I hunted a lot this season in a few counties, from the opener on 9/15 in Tippecanoe county urban zone to a(nother) late season hunt this week in Montgomery county trying to fill my buck tag, where I do most of my hunting.

From my time of stand and running trails cams, from my limited, and very anecdotal evidence, I would say the numbers are down. Saw fewer deer this year than any previous and virtually no rut action.

Last 10 years...


2004.123,058
2005..125,526
2006...124,562
2007....124,427
2008.....129,748
2009......132,752
2010.......134,004
2011........129,018
2012.........136,248
2013..........125,635

I believe the number will be around 122,000that said I do not think IDNR will change much until the number gets well under 120,000.

I'm sure weather will be the cause this year....lol.

A couple of points....

1. I think the total will be within 5,000 of last years total.

2. IMHO, the totals by county are much more important to focus on than the grand total.

If we knew what percentage of the deer population each of those figures represents...that information might actually be helpful.

Look at the counties and the lowering of "buck" kills, supposedly that is how to gauge whether a herd is in decline....Wabash county went down over all in just 1 year -515 animals, a total of 1700 in 2012 to just 1185 in 2013 and their buck kill has dropped from 760 to just 454 in several years.....the state buck kill is trending down too.... like Ive said, just wait till the more efficient tool like centerfires go into effect and 3-5 years after that then see what the herd will look like... get use to the lower numbers, 'cause that is what we will have and there they will stay....

Isn't that the ultimate goal?

We can continue to argue over seasons, equipment and everything else under the sun related to deer hunting, but in the end...my understanding is that the state wants the herd reduced, and they aren't going to change much of anything until those goals are met.

An edit to this post....

I went back and re-read Chad Stewart's "10 Common Myths" and came across this...

Myth 3: The DNR is trying to reduce the deer herd across the state.

The DNR’s deer management program is
currently working to reduce conflicts between
Indiana residents and deer where they are most
problematic. This is being done in a strategic
and targeted manner (through bonus antlerless
quotas), not statewide. Currently, many counties
have regulations set up to maintain or even
increase deer numbers within the county.


While I get what is being said, I still think most feel that the long term goals could be laid out a bit more clearly.

As it stands, I guess we'll have to wait and see what counties have their bonus doe permits lowered/raised based on harvest data trends over time.

And maybe that is as a "clear" as it was ever intended to be......

duplicate post.....

You know Jeff, there is an arguable pro and con though. Fewer deer numbers is a con. But, maybe that leads to fewer deer hunters, which can be viewed as a pro or con. Rifles could lead to a different business model for hunting then exists today, simply look at other states. This is because it is easier to harvest deer with a rifle, thus assuring greater customer satisfaction. Could lead to broader based leasing, dominating certain areas of the state or local areas. Those types of operations often don't hunt the properties throughout the entire deer season and they have a vested interest in protecting the deer inventory for the next year. Those types of operators will feed and bait for most of the year controlling a greater number of deer through manipulation and low hunting pressure. "Hunting" will rebalance itself and the resource itself, the deer, will take on a greater "value" then it is now, which is probably what it takes to change the whole management equation. The controversy between those who hunt will likely go up (just talk to some of those who hunt near the big outfitters in Kentucky or Illinois who control thousands of acres) because as the regulations allow an expanding business model, more will be forced out of hunting due to economic circumstances. Hunting on private land will go from leasing at $7,000 a year for year round hunting to paying $4,500 to hunt for 5 days. But, for guys who like that approach, they will have a better opportunity to harvest a really nice buck on the 5 days then they will for the year round situation. Be it good or bad, it will be what it will be.

Delaney makes a good point. Leasing (whether by individuals or companies) is going to continue to grow. It's just another reality facing deer hunters today throughout the country.

Will it force some hunters out of private land hunting? I'm sure it will.... Will more hunters end up on small parcels of 5-10 acres? Yes Sir. Will it force more hunters onto public ground? Yep. Will some hunters just quit? Absolutely.

What can be done about it....Nothing.

As hunters, we have placed a tremendous dollar value on big antlers and have shown an ever growing willingness to spend huge sums of money in the pursuit of those antlers.

As Delaney said

jjas, what ever goals Indiana has is very ambiguous...at one time I thought I had read a reduction of 10%(dont remember where), but 10% from what, our record high ?...then someone on here wrote about reducing human conflicts with deer, does that mean less farmer complaints, less homeowner complaints, lower car/deer collisions(those have dropped about 10%)....there isnt a set "number" from what I have seen, a number of anything....

Delaney, I lease now and I dont like paying, but to get what I want, that is the route me and my buddy went....the old place is now a joke since the son took over, I'm embarrassed to even hunt there, but I do 'cause it is close to home. it is now a ghost of what I used to have and how I took care of it.....****, I may even have to go back to hunting Jasper/Pulaski one day for deer, I wont like it, as I dont like to "share" and like to have control of the property I'm on, unfortunately, I'll never be able to purchase a sizeable track, it aint gonna happen, so I lease(we've been thru the why's on here before).... If the deer numbers continue to go lower, maybe the rookies/weekend warriors and wanabe's and the like will go back to their couches and leave deer hunting to those who hunt for the sake of it and not some ego trip....

I think there are a few things that can have some effect. One being season length (ALL seasons). Less season length, less opportunity to return an ROI on costs by outfitters. But, season lengths would have to be REALLY short. I do believe my point, if I have one, is that deer hunting needs to be assessed as a business because that is what the hunting world has become from a materiality standpoint.

Deer hunting IS a business...look at the billions of $$ in sales each year in retail, outfitting, leasing, etc. It brings in tens of Millions of $$ into the PR fund....yes, it even funds our DNR and helps to buy some land....I know Indiana has numbers of license sales, but how about just the number of hunters after deer, do they look at multiple sales of deer licenses going to one individual or is just that one person counted... plus then you have the lifetime license holders and land owners who dont purchase a license... like much of what our DNR does, is it just a estimate(educated guess)...

That percent would only be a guess at best unless there was a true known number to the herd size!!

Looks like we have averaged around 128,000 per the last 10 years here......Id say where goanna be below that again this year...IMO

BTW....I don't think the Hunter's or license sales have fallen much...IMO

My point exactly!!!!!

It is beyond me how we can read about EHD really hammering an area or county, and the following season the antlerless limit stays the same. The county I hunt got hit pretty hard a couple years ago and I'm certain no changes were made. I LIVE in and drive the roads every day in this county. I RARELY SEE A DEER. I live out in the sticks and rarely see a deer in a green bean field in August. I did not shoot a deer this year or last. Fact is, I barely saw any. The places I hunt aren't very good, so I don't expect to see a ton of deer. But I rarely "bump" a deer walking in or out. I rarley see deer in the fields in the evening...How could we have not adjusted?

Harvest stats are helpful. They must be studied in light of the variables such as hunter participation (hours hunted, licenses sold). They are statistics, after all.

Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics)

And they really are the best data we have. Other data includes surveys done of stakeholders such as hunters and farmers. You can read those surveys on DNRs website although the most recent hunter survey is not yet posted. Deer vehicle collisions are also taken into account. Anecdotal information is likely to be discounted heavily.

And deer are only one of many, many species the DNR is tasked with managing. Read their Wildlife Action Plan to see where the whitetail deer species ranks http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7580.htm

Overall, deer are doing fine in the big picture. And they have an amazing ability to rebound and adapt. So if you had to prioritize your resources, how much time and money would you spend on them? Even with the understanding that they butter your budget bread.

^ Nicely done John. The deer are fine. So many other species aren't doing as well.

pav According to Chad Stewart, this is one of the ten common myths of deer management.

Myth 4: The DNR needs an accurate count of deer to effectively manage
them across the state.

Wildlife biologists and statisticians have
recognized that population estimates are not
necessary for effective deer management. Many
states do not conduct population estimates for
their deer herds. Rather, the DNR manages
deer by evaluating trends over time. From those
trends we’re able to estimate whether the deer
herd is increasing, stable, or decreasing. These
trends, along with public surveys, are used to
determine deer management objectives.


My understanding is that they (the DNR) will evaluate antlered and antlerless harvest trends in individual counties over time and adjust the bonus antlerless permits in those counties up/down as needed.

kinda sorta but not quite what they do in evaluation the state parks...always said they never needed to know the number of deer in a certain park, as they follow the plant studies....when the foliage starts coming back, they know they are on the right track

Don't forget to factor in regulation changes...especially major changes like the ones introduced in 2012. Quite frankly, I have zero faith in annual harvest comparisons. Just too many variables in the equation.

who the heck knows whats going to happen here anyways with Chad now gone...our luck we end up with Gary Alt...lol... If they'd back off the bonus tags more in counties that dont need the darn late antlerss gun, I'd be a happy camper...there are some of these counties that now shouldnt be over a 2 bonus county... Porter being one, Wabash another....I dont see why the total kill per hunter has to be more than two antlerless and One buck.. the whole bonus system needs to be looked at.....

I agree that the bonus antlerless system is kinda whacky. According to DNR the elevated limits allow localized problems to be dealt with. But there is also the depredation permit system that is aimed at that.

Since very few hunters kill more than 3 deer, it would probably not make much difference if the bonus antlerless limits were reduced to 2. A multiseason hunter could still kill a 6 deer right? (2-archery; 1-firearms; 1-muzzleloader; 2-bonus). And even a firearms only hunter could kill 3 (1-firearms; 2-bonus).

Wabash is a 3 county so I very highly doubt that it being a 2 or 3 county is making any difference whatsoever in its deer numbers...

I would be more curious to know how many (if any) hunters actually took three bonus antlerless in Wabash County or if any hunter actually took four bonus antlerless out of Porter County...

According to the 2010 Hunter Survey :

Statewide, about 1 deer is killed for every 2 bonus antlerless licenses sold (.5 deer per license).

5.6% of hunters take 3 deer per year.

Less than 5% of hunters take more than 3 deer (4.6%).

Given that, I doubt many people kill 3 bonus antlerless deer in any county.

Thanks for posting the data....

I've read this for years and yet people act as if 1/2 the hunters in this state are killing 8 deer each. :rolleyes:

Oh well....

I know this as well yet some will never be convinced otherwise...

The one that kills me the most is people who think you killing multiple deer in a county two hours away is having some negative affect on their hunts in the county they are hunting in... :rolleyes:

Thus, hunter density becomes material in the local affect on the local deer herd. High density in poor habitat areas, even with low available bonus permits, can create significant impact on the local deer herd. From the DNR standpoint, impossible to manage.

In that case all the DNR could do would be to do away with bonus permits altogether and perhaps entertain limiting license sales in those counties.

I could see them doing away with bonus antlerless permits, but limiting license sales? I don't see that happening.

So, 10.2% of those who hunt deer take 3 or more deer per year. While on the one hand, the DNR might say that this is immaterial in regard to the total harvest number, but, on the other hand, it might be suggested that 10.2% of total deer hunters is an immaterial issue also because they aren't material to what most hunters apparently want, in general, which is to harvest 2 deer. So, it really isn't too far fetched of a position to take that any materiality of getting rid of bonus permits is basically meaningless on a global level since a person can buy a bundle and have all the tags that 90% of deer hunters want to have or fill. Certainly, the issue would then be lost revenue of bonus permits sold by the DNR. Easy solution, increase the cost of the bundle to cover lost revenue. It won't happen, but it really might be suggested that there is no reason for bonus permits because of hunter behavior, in general, evidenced by the apparent fact that 90% of deer hunters don't want to harvest more then 2 deer. This might reduce localized impacts on areas where harvest numbers per hunter are much higher then the 2 average of most Indiana deer hunters. Please be reminded, I don't care what they do, just assessing all of this.

130,000

I wonder what affect bundle licensing will have on those numbers? Three non-weapons specific tags for $65 is a bit more economical than in 2010...and offers more opportunity to use them.
Plus, one doesn't have to use archery equipment to hunt for 3+ months either.

Yea Paul, I wish they'd get the 2013 Survey out. I emailed Chad Stewart before he left and he said the 2013 survey was supposed to be out last year. Anyone know if it came out and just wasn't posted?

Try looking here .... www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3352.htm

Unless I am missing something it is not yet posted there Bean. Did you find it?

Brew I searched by the word feet and came up with populations estimates real numbers could be fun to use those real no,s with real harvest no.s and see what %of the herd is taken in those years and use those no.s to estimate herd size Now ICant do it but I bet someone can Hint ,hint

Huh??

I meant "Brew"

How in the world did auto correct make Deer in to , feet

How in the world did auto correct make Deer in to , feet

No....There some interesting stuff there though!!!

I emailed DFW and got this response about the release of the 2013 Deer Hunter Survey:

Isnt it about time the report should come out ??

It normally would already be out, but what I've heard is that with Chad Stewart leaving it will be delayed.

It cant be that hard, esp. with the computerized check in now.... but they have to put a "spin" on it I know, blame it on the weather or some crap if the kill was down....

I asked about this on March 6th. Here is the response from the district 7 biologist:
I'll ping her again.

From Shannon Winks today 4/6:

MAY !!??? ... I guess there is more spin to put in this one ;0)

Why would you make public the kill data BEFORE you you decide to add another long range killing tool?


To not publish kill data AND next year antlerless quotas is BS!!!

We are being hosed by the current Administration, (above IDNR)

BINGO!!!!!!!

Well I seen a lot of dead deer on US 31 this weekend... Most were in Miami County...

Hey, I was there Sat. working on the lease(Wabash area) LOL........ somewhat normal for this time of year...doe herds breaking up and does going to birthing/spring/summer grounds....I counted 5 dead deer(dosnt sound like much really) from US 30 to 31 and to 24 east....

Seen the same thing on I74 the last couple weeks between Cinci, and Indy. All does that I could tell. Herds breaking up and "normal" for this time of year.

That was a 100+ mile trip for me too...one way ! Where the Eel River passes under 31 on the north bound side, is where I saw my first Otter last year...unfortunately it was a road kill...I had to turn around go back and look at it....

From Falyn Owens:

Darn I am good !....missed my prediction by only 74 deer....this state is in worse shape that I really hoped..... we havnt had this low of a kill since 2003 and 2004 seasons....and the antlered buck kill stayed real low too ....