Many threads of late have been those concerned with severely lower deer #'s in the field last year and even MORE compounded lower #'s this year. The IDNR is taking public feedback right now and shutting it off in late Feb.

Get your comments in.....don't forget to leave them with suggestions like shortening the gun season, reducing antlerless quotas, etc, etc. Those that have no disregard for the way things are headed to a severely reduced herd already will not be happy with suggesting reducing the # of days of gun season......but who cares. Listening to "that crowd" got us into this mess faster and deeper that we are in now.....and caused the IDNR to choose their second option (prop2.0).....not their first option (prop1.0). Click in the link below.....let the IDNR know how you feel about this current disaster of Prop 2.0 that the IDNR was forced to do. Copy the same response you send to the IDNR and send it to your Legislators too. Also sending a copy to Bryan Pointer and Pat Early of the NRC would be a good idea too. If Woody can send 100's of emails to Bryan Pointer to push crossbows and supporting extending this "special antlerless" season we got with Prop 2.0.....(as Bryan Pointer said about Woody's email barrage to him).....then we can send our 100's of ideas on how to undo this mess to Bryan Pointer of the NRC.

Here's the link gang.....let them have it.....

IDNR Feedback Link

Already been there and voiced my support.

And thanks to the powers that be for taking public comments. More people have a voice in the process this way.

Wow, You think they are serious about reduction?

Increasing bag limit? 8 is not enough?
Baiting?

Deer (Urban Deer Zones): Rename urban deer zones to reduction zones,
- Modify boundaries for these zones,
- Allow baiting to be used in these zones after archery season closes,
- Increase bag limit of antlerless deer in these areas,
- Allow the director to establish these zones on an annual basis by temporary rule,
- Allow firearms in these areas (where authorized by local ordinances)

It's a national trend. Did you happen to see the recent Time magazine article? Here's a link to a blog about it. Interesting read.

web pagehttp://www.fieldandstream.c...over-story-should-challenge-deer-hunters

Kind said this for years now, but if the folks want a good deal of "input" then have a booth at the Renfro show that has a simple computer survey that folks have to enter their driver license number so as to assure no duplication. Could be something that would take less then three minutes to complete and they'd have access to thousands of sportsmen and women that probably have nothing to do with any clubs or websites. A smart high school kid could create the survey in no time at all. If the DNR would do this, I'd work with the Kevin and his brother to find a spot and figure out how the the booth space would be paid for the DNR. I'm sure someone in the DNR is reading these goofy websites. Phil or others, if interested, call me!

Now in regard to the magazine comment of "Finally, at long last, America may be increasingly seeing us as we see ourselves: as game managers. We need to hold up our end of the bargain, especially in the suburbs where in many cases we are not doing enough. If we don't, we risk losing our credibility with non-hunters, the damage from which would be far worse than what any anti-hunters could inflict", are we also willing to not pull the trigger when numbers are down, be it gun or bow?

If the DNR could figure out a way to make something like that available statewide I'd support it in a second.

It's a good idea.

I did read it when it came out. Well written piece portraying hunters in a positive light.

This really is the BIG picture...+1

sent in my comments like I have done numerous other times. Not optimistic that the IDNR will change their "kill em all" stance anytime soon.

Copy/Paste of my input to the DNR:
The following are my thoughts on recent changes to the Indiana deer seasons, and bag limits.. First of all I think the additional antlerless season is a great idea, which gives Indiana gun/deer hunters an additional eleven days to hunt deer. I also think it was a good Idea to take out the break in bow season. Now, with that being said I also have a couple of complaints... The deer don't want their herd reduced, and the hunters likewise would prefer to see more, not less deer. I see no reason why any county should have a bag limit of more than 4 antlerless deer, period.....The one buck rule was a GREAT idea, and it has improved the quality if Indiana's bucks dramaticly, GET RID OF TELECHECK so it can be enforced ! Last but not least, I would like to adress the favoritism shown to bow hunters. Deer season should come in Oct.1 and go out Jan 5. In that time, a hunter should be able to bag a deer with any weapon he or she chooses.

I think most on here, myself included are all for reducing deer numbers where needed....towns/cities/urban areas, State Parks/Preserves, etc....but the DNR does it with a broad brush....they put the whole of Porter County a "Urban Zone"....the north vs south portion of this county is as different as NW Indiana vs south of Indy....2 different worlds....of course the over kill via the **** antlerless tags is beyond compare....They take any given county and put a 8 bonus on it when the whole county dosnt need to be a 8....some areas, yes or maybe, but not the whole county....I'm with Randy on the telecheck....I dont like it either...

First I would like to say that I respect everyone's opinion on the subject (and that's exactly what these are, opinions, none of use are unequivocally correct).
I have voiced my opinion on subject to DNR website. I agree with statement that DNR uses broad brush; however, to take a micro view would require vast amount of resources that I simply don't think DNR has. Probably why we as hunters need to participate in these surveys.

I voiced against increased bag limits, Urban zone reclassification. I also voiced that I don't agree that all Porter & Lake should b urban. In addition I have stated the real problem in Indiana is access to private land and that the State should find ways to help hunters gain access. I also stated that if land owners are benefiting from the state by crop damage insurance or subsidies they should be required to have hunter access available.

I support telecheck, baiting and keeping the gun season the same.

While many will disagree it's my thoughts and I have voiced them.

http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=18000®ionname=Indiana

Here ya go country boy, this will really tick ya off. Can look up those farmers who get subsidies then lease it right back out to the taxpayers.

Every day, somebody at work or in my family bashes obama for aparently being the only president to give money away. According to most everyone I'm around, the only reason anyone is unemployed or doesn't have healthcare is because obama gives them every thing for free. It's as if obama is the 1st president to sign off on spending.

Then you read the link above... farm subsidies... talk about free money! As if homeland security isn't a big enough waste of money, we have farm subsidies.
Basically, a guy takes advantage of our freedom and CHOOSES farming as his occupation. Or better yet, inherits a farming business. A lot of times a HUGE farm. So then these guys fall on hard times or whatever... and the government bails them out. Just like they bailed out the banks and GM and Chrysler.
Now most who claim to be republican or conservative will come on here and say we have the freedom to succeed AND the freedom to fail. But evidently in the case of farmers... they don't feel that way. They deserve a bailout.
I took my freedom and chose my profession. And no republican would be in favor of bailing me out if I lose MY job(Nor would I expect them to). But farmers... the government uses MY tax dollars to bail out HUGE corporate farms and those who vote republican are saying THAT is okay.
But the elderly person living downtown... they don't deserve it because they're LAZY.

WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS COUNTRY TURNING INTO?

Sorry to get off topic. I'll be giving the IDNR my input.

I'm just so sick of hearing every day how everyone else is lazy. I work my butt off. Most couldn't do my job if they wanted to.
And I realize that if I get hurt or get unexpectedly sick... that I won't be able to do my job. And then, everyone else who never could do my job, will call me lazy

Where did that rant come from, and how did farm subsidies and politics get drug into this thread?

Bump....give your feedback those that need to hear it. ( see original post on this thread)

Hope everyone is giving their feedback regarding Indiana DNR being responsible for a Midwest wide deer population down turn and what Indiana DNR needs to do to fix it.

Well..........don't expect our Indiana DNR to "lead the way" for the Midwest as they have CLEARLY shown the past few years they are incapable of doing such....when their hands get tied, and they are forced to choose "second choices" by a few loud hunters that do not represent our IDNR's first choices, or what the majority of our Deer Hunters wanted. Good luck with our IDNR being able to "lead the way" in the Midwest with that "Ball and Chain" strapped to them....as they actually DO converse with other Midwestern DNR staff leaders.

But glad you can see that from your sarcastic post.......So Sad when our IDNR is at the "bottom of the heap" with issues in this Midwest Deer Decline other states are experiencing.

So much to fix here..........glad you care MKFrench.

+1
What the complainers don't realize is that we grew our herd with basically the same firearms structure we have had for the past 30 years minus the late antlerless season. Looks like the DNR has the herd exactly where they want them, and now it will be easy to adjust the harvest by adding or taking away antlerless permits.

No Need to adjust any season dates just bump up antlerless tags or knock them down a notch or two to gain desired results.

Brew hit the nail on the head! h.h.

Couple of points to recent posts, The herd is in a decline if not a steep decline. Recent outbreaks of EHD has certaintly contributed as well as hunter harvests. Antlered harvest as a ratio to anlerless harvest is a main factor in antlerless permits assigned to each county. If antler harvest keeps rising they "assume" the herd is growing, this is without any research on hunter demographics on a given county, before or after each season. Are more hunters hunting a given county?

When your male deer(antlered and buttons) harvest is less than the female harvest there is little doubt that you are reducing the deer herd. You need those females to produce the bucks taken, at a virtual 1:1 birth ratio common sense says less doe less bucks.I;ve set back and watched the 40:60 bucks to does in recent years and thought this will not goe well, now it seems it "is not going well". Going well for IDNR and its financial needs, going well for a "deer reduction", but not the hunter satisfaction.

IDNR is going to be able to go to the legislature and "pump their chests" as to how they met goals demanded by the legislature. Does ANYONE here get it? This is not what IDNR wanted! IDNR would love a deer behind every tree, they would sell more license and gain more revenue. Revenue the LEGISLATURE doles out in a budget. IDNR in my memory has NEVER been allowed to spend as much as it takes in. Hunters contribute heavily to any"surplus Indiana has as License fees are not available to deposit in the "General Fund". OUR license fees can't be taken to pay for anything outside IDNR.

That said, it only makes sense that IDNR wants more license sales (or revenue) so their budget can be bigger. Who pays the price? The deer! I set in the meetings on the "bundle license", I heard the talk of not losing revenue, and how this bundle package would increase revenue. I have no problem funding IDNR, but folks THEY are "government". Their sole purpose is to grow "government" it insures their jobs.

Sure they can drop high county permits in some counties as an olive branch, but will it make a difference?

If most people are not killing more than 2 deer is a fact(and it is) how will it affect a county harvest? Switch Switzerland county from a "8" to a "4" and I would bet nothing changes. Season dates and lengths do affect hunter attitudes.

This can be best expained by our present season dates. IDNR readily admits that a longer season gives more opportunity for hunters and spread the harvest out over several months. Weather is not as much a factor(but they and other states are fast to use it when needed). The more days in the field the better the chance a hunter kills a deer.

Brew: I have met you, I like you, you claim to be the "guardian of gun season". Be honest, your job keeps you on the road out of state. ANY reduction of season length in gun seasons reduces your ability to kill a mature buck. Your concerns are self centered and not about the overall herd or the "guy next door".

As posted by others here a "few" of us have our own "Nirvana" when it comes to deer hunting. "We" have no need to fight for changing any regulations as we "manage" ourrselves, what I and others try to do is improve the experience of those around us.

Hunt on! But remember the enemy is not IDNR, it is "US" and the legislature who controls IDNR. It takes "US" to control the killing, and "US" to tell the legislature "enough killing ", but alas "US" will continue to type here.....LOL!

Very well put, Joe.

Thanks Joe for reiterating what I have been saying all along... Reducing counties from 8 to 4 is meaningless if hunters are only killing two deer... Only way to make an impact is to cut it down to 1 bonus tag or say you can have 92 bouns tags as long as you do not use more then one per county...

Thats terribly put "joe" and in fact is "the pot calling the kettle black!"

I am 100% satisfied with the indiana deer hunting. I hunt almost exclusively public ground with exception of a 13 acre farm I have access to and the occasion hunt as a guest with friends. There are things I don't like but satisfied.

As far as being "selfish" about the length of gun hunting. I'm get father of 2 young boys and have a job that isn't friendly to my hunting "wants". This year for example my deer hunting consisted of hunting Tuesday mornings from last week in October thru the 1st week of ML season and Opening weekend of gun season. Trust me, i "wanted" to hunt more and if I had to choose one weapon only it'd be bow BUT I don't have to nor do i expect anyone else to think that way. Leave the. seasons as is and adjust the antlerless tags as/where needed.

Big middle finger to most of the loudest hypocrites on this site...you know who you are.

We are by nature each a but selfish and want it our way. Remember, this deer herd is not biologically in trouble. So, all of this is social recreational stuff.

JOE(JB):I have met you, I like you also and hope that NEVER changes.My job has little influence on my Deer Hunting 99% of the time. I hunted 20+ days in Nov.and 7+day in Dec.this year.My concerns are NOT self centered as you may call/see it but your entitled to you opinion. And yes I'm very concerned about overall herd and the "guy next door"....I have not forgot "where" I came from!!!!

BTW...As stated here before the deer herd grew in numbers and prospered very well in numbers basically under the current season structures, except for the recently added antlerless week. The obvious major difference was/is access to tags for antlerless deer. Without any other changes except the elimination of the antlerless week, the deer herd can/will recover reasonably quickly.

Here is the email from another site, one that claims to NEVER influence a hunters decision.....

I would be remiss if I didn't identify the site and Author........ WWW.hunt-indiana.com and Woody Williams.


From: HUNTING INDIANA


INPUT TO THE IDNR

As owner and administrator of hunt-indiana.com I would be remiss in my duty to not give all members a heads up on the present DNR input session.

This is the second year since the IDNR started on a strategic deer herd population reduction program in specific areas. Contrary to some beliefs it appears to be working. Has it gone too far in some areas? Possibly, but the IDNR can alleviate that with bonus permit allocation reduction in those same areas.

Proof positive is that the DNR basically eased off the deer herd reduction gas pedal after the first year (2012) and instituted a reduction of bonus permits from 2012 to 2013 in some 20 counties. That shows that it is going the way that they wanted it to go and they are now starting to scale back. 6 of those 20 counties fell to a 3 or less bonus permit county that took those counties out of the “special late antlerless” season. It is my opinion that they will ease off some more for the 2014 season.

Now the heads up - I’m sure that there are some hunters that do not care for any reduction at all, but it is what it has to be. A very vocal minority is using this planned reduction in an attempt to turn the clock back and are again proposing to “shorten and move the gun and muzzleloader seasons, get rid of the late special antlerless season and get rid of the crossbows.” I guess they do not understand the concept of a “strategic herd reduction” that the DNR is doing.

If you do not want any changes to the firearm and/or the muzzleloader and crossbow season I suggest that you make your feelings known to the DNR at

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7373.htm .

We have had a 16 day firearm and a 16 day muzzleloader season for a long, long, long time. Even when the DNR was *GROWING* our deer herd. They can grow the herd again with the current seasons by doing exactly what they did then - limiting antlerless permits and/or scaling back county participation in the late special antlerless season. With the DNR deer biologist using the antlerless bonus permits the herd can be controlled where it is supposed to be. When a county gets to a 3 bonus allowance that removes it from the late special antlerless season, just like the DNR did with those 6 counties this last season. That move brought to a total of 23 counties that the “special late antlerless season did not apply. With the bonus permits reduction and more counties falling under the 4 limit for the special late antlerless season the DNR can tweak the herd size the way it supposed to do without taking away any deer hunter opportunity

Please send in YOUR input on this and YOUR OWN IDEAS to the DNR today at –

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7373.htm

Thanks,

Woody Williams


You are receiving this email because you have
opted to receive emails from hunt-indiana.com


Any influence here ??????????? Woody has it figured out, he uses people who have no clue but a crossbow agenda......

So have any of the "FACTS" been miss represented in that email???

Too little. ......too late Woody.

It's over.....send all the propaganda chit you want to others. You fried yourself and others with your "one time glory stunt"....and your "one trick pony".

The only hope I have at this point Woodward is that you are still alive to see this shortened gun season happen.....shortly.

.....and scratch your beedy little head wondering how it all fell apart for you in a few short years.

You're panicking Woody.....and I know why.....

:rolleyes: .....SMH

Well Brew he used coyotes as a factor in his recent posts on his site and you agreed. NOT A FACT for his input correct? so he is mis reprenting facts to some one.......is it his members or is it to IDNR?

What I do know is in the end, crossbows will survive and this plan failed. You and many others sold out sound management to crossbow inclusion. Now you aare willing to give up a late antlerless season and the number of county antlerles permits to protect gun season length and crossbows........Can you say HYPROCRITE?

I'm done before I lose friendships........

Honestly, can folks drop the emotional stuff. Look, 2.0 didn't get us in this situation and neither did crossbows. There us nothing to support that thought. Maybe things need to change but seriously, guys on here are good people, can there be any sense of acting such.

Poor Woody.......guy gets blasted on this site! If your reading this Woody......I've got your back.....crossbow brother!

Woody needs to be left out of comments entirely because he isn't relevant to the issue and doesn't comment here. This site shouldn't treat people in that manner.

+1 spread the love man

Nice post dew, your true colors are really showing with this one.

In 2012 the ML season accounted for 9% of the harvest. The late antlerless season took 7% for a combined 16% of the harvest.

In 2011 the ML accounted for 15% of the harvest.

In 2010 13%.

It seems to me that some of the folks who shot does in the ML season are now holding out for the late antlerless season instead.

In other words, much of the harvest of the late antlerless season would have been killed in the ML season anyway. Therefore elimination of that season will only have a partial reduction in the harvest.

On the other hand, there were 7500 more deer taken by crossbows in 2012 than there were in 2011. That accounts for the entire increase in deer harvest from 2011 to 2012. The increase was 7200.

You bet they show true Blackoak......!!!!! I am still an advocate that the IDNR gets the shorter gun seasons they wanted in 1.0...... And the public gets to keep the x-bows they wanted in 2.0.......

.......and one person that selfishly then and now that just lives for 2.0 is still alive to see both IDNR and the public blend together what they BOTH wanted as their first choice. I want to see that kind of person live to see that can happen......and scratch their head wondering why his selfishness did not win out in the end.

I'll live quite well with those kind of true colors I represent Blackoak.....Quite Well.....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Scifres:
[QB] In 2012 the ML season accounted for 9% of the harvest. The late antlerless season took 7% for a combined 16% of the harvest.

In 2011 the ML accounted for 15% of the harvest.

In 2010 13%.

It seems to me that some of the folks who shot does in the ML season are now holding out for the late antlerless season instead.

In other words, much of the harvest of the late antlerless season would have been killed in the ML season anyway. Therefore elimination of that season will only have a partial reduction in the harvest.

I would disagree that many were "holding out", if I remember right the first real snow of the year, at least in my area, in 2012, hit during the new late antlerless season, making the deer that had survived the other seasons much more vulnerable. Thus I believe the vast majority of the deer taken in the late antlerless season in 2012 would have lived another year without that season.

What I want, what he wants, what I think .... sitting here babbling back and forth dosnt do squat...getting the DNR to get off their butt's is what is needed...some here think that as long as they "see" deer on their places all is fine, go down the road 5 miles and even though the habitat is there or is better than it used to be, the deer are not not like they used to be, cause they have been killed off by those with no restraint....dropping the antlerless tags from 8 to 4 wont do squat either. They must go lower than that and drop the late antlerless and in my county reorganize the "urban zone"....now they want to include baiting, or did you guys not see that, it went right over the heads of those on here.... Baiting...heck, why not include 30-06's too ....I'm done babbling, for now....

Including this link again in here for feedback..........keep hammerin' them with it.

Please...do keep "hammerin' them" and telling them to "get off their butts"......

Nothing like publicly berating the very people you want/need to sway....

So what did you do...blow 'em a kiss... ;0).... see the smiley, that was tongue in cheek 'cause some may not see the sarcasm...

I wrote to them what "I" thought they should do last week....I am sure they are getting an ear full from many others and then there are those who will sit back and kiss the dnr's behind saying all is well... there are many pissed off deer hunters in this state right now.... Indiana isnt the only State...Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, pretty much all of the midwest...it seems that there is a war on deer thru the Midwest right now.... will the DNR's listen or will they continue with their onslaught on the herds....

Not berating them at all.....not even close.....

Just creating awareness here and feedback there that let's them know people like jjas that pulled the rug out from under the IDNR in the Prop 1.0 and Prop 2.0 era.....are now pretending to be their best buddies for selfish reasons again.

They kinda like that people can see that.....

Keep the feedback flowing with link above .......

They are listening....

Nothing like being subjected to the constant barrage of complaints and being berated publicly (by a select few) like they (the IDNR) have been over the last few years....

I suggested they keep true and stay the course, adjust bonus permits accordingly. h.h.

As did I.......

I Imagine the DNR like me when they see certain peoples posts they pretty much consider the source Ignore Him and go to the next one,

Will the feedback be available to the public for all who commented?... Interested in what others are saying...

I Have seen feedback before

Yes it is available on request. You will see the same people that cut the knees out from the IDNR as they hated their first choice (Prop 1.0) with their comments....... now supporting them (IDNR) to keep what they were FORCED to do with their comments. LOL!!!

Good luck with that.......

In the past, the comments were made public...and if you looked closely, you'd see multiple comments made by the same people under different names.... :rolleyes:

Happens every time......

Just like people here that post under different names/multiple names/aliases/and multiple aliases here.....and on Forums they administrate.

Pretty flippin hilarious to see the same guy with aliases talking/posting to himself on his own forum using those aliases to make it look like others agree with him......LMAO!!!

Reminds me of the survey that was put out by the IDNR a few years ago and the results that were tabulated by the Survey Entity stated "and one person/IP address entered their feedback over 500 times"

This is why I'm a proponent of sending hard copy surveys to our homes. Ya got one shot at it....no way to manipulate.....but proponents of Prop 2.0 don't like that idea.....

......Hmmmmmm

Grasping at straws, just like the last go around.

Too costly Dew. The DNR should consider selling, and I know it would take legislative approval, a sportsmens license which is a one time license that then provides a dedicated identification number that is then used for all purposes like surveys. Now, a person could still submit their family members number and then comment more then once but it would create a more reliable data base that would scrub duplicates and only count when it matched up with an existing lifetime number. That way, surveys and comments to the NRC could use the same system and identifier. Could still be manipulated but it would be less costly over the long haul and still reasonably reliable.

would expect any less???

I would gladly add my driver's license number to the survey to keep it on the up and up.

That would keep people from making multiple posting(s) under different names and different IPs thus trying to negatively influence the process.

I like your idea. Anything that gets correct/truthful data.....I'm all in ..........no matter what the outcome.

That in itself created quite the angst in allot during Prop 1.0 and 2.0......validity of electronic responses cast.

Again........I like the idea of what you say D.

How would a non-Hunter or land owner give input under this system ?

If they wanted to provide input through the system they would have to buy the sportsmen license or such. The cost of the one time license could be just enough to cover direct cost of producing the license. Or, they could continue to influence in any manner they wish otherwise. Today if the DNR pursues input from them, they contribute nothing to the cost so I don't feel they shouldn't cover some costs related to having their voice heard. Non of their taxpayers dollars goes to Fish and Wildlife, or very, very little.

Dave,

or just use a driver's license #.

It would verify state (IN or not) residency, verify one user comments, and (nearly) everyone has one so no additional investment is needed by our DNR to develop a new identifier.

That would work Dustin.

Most hunt on private land so IMO the landowner,s contribute the most Its been thrown arounda landowner licence structured as a youth licence with the same price range and then the DNR would be able to pick up the PR monies then every one has a licence no.

As far as I know Indiana landowners have never been required to buy a hunting license (migratory waterfowl excluded) to hunt on their own property (as long as they obey the game laws regarding seasons, bag limits, etc.). To require them to buy any kind of hunting license (migratory waterfowl excluded) would mean a change in Indiana law. IMHO, that would be a VERY tough battle to win. After all, it is the private landowners that provide the overwhelming amount of food and habitat that sustain our wildlife. I believe we hunters have more productive uses of our time and money than to fight for that.

Also, all Indiana residents have the opportunity to express their opinions about wildlife management, whether they are hunters, landowners, or apartment renters, etc. And they can express their opinions many different ways, not just through an online survey. Surveying can be a complicated thing. Along that line, would we hunters want to see the results of a survey of HUNTERS severely “diluted” with lots of input from non-hunters or non-hunting license holders?

The wildlife of Indiana is held in trust by the state for benefit of all the people of Indiana.

ALL people -- not just those who hunt, buy a hunting license, etc.

We hunters may not like it at times, but we are not the ONLY citizens influencing wildlife policy decisions.

Without added expense, the only viable way I can see for the state to "ID" anyone would be to use your driver's license number as I (and 76Chevy) have already suggested.

The main problem I could see with doing that is that the IDNR would have to provide security so that those numbers aren't seen and are secure. And I would have no idea if their present software used for commenting has that capability.

I know you all are probably tired of hearing this B.S., but thought I'd share what a local guy was telling me today. He hunts about two miles from me.

He started off complaining about not seeing many deer this season and I shared my views on how I thought antlerless tags should be reduced, and how I wasn't too keen on the late antlerless season. He agreed, saying hunters were killing too many does, and had some unconfirmed complaints about depredation tags being issued in the area (which I don't believe to be true), also said he thought there was a lot of EHD this year also, which I disagree with, most was the year prior during drought.

I told him how a guy down the road told me he and his buddies butchered 23 this year, then he chimes in as a point of bragging saying he and his buddies butchered 42 this year. Quizzed him about how many he shot, turns out his family killed 6 "but they eat them all" so that is OK.

As politely as possible I explained that we hunters better lay off the trigger and start eating pork and beef if we want many deer to hunt the near future. Don't suspect I made much of an impression because there is just an entitlement atmosphere out there with many hunters that feel they should kill as many deer as they can get tags for.

With this stuff going on, the only possible way to stop the reduction is to severely curtail the antlerless licenses to about (1) per customer in our area. Another year or two of this kind of killing and the deer herd around here is going to be pretty sad.

I'm lucky as I can just leave and hunt another state, however it's pretty sad to see what was once a bountiful resource in the area wiped out to a state of generally pretty crummy hunting.

I agree. I didn't think the number allowed was that big of deal but some guys have made good points... A county allowing 4-8 antlerless could lead some to believe that deer are over populated and can take plenty without hurting the herd.

I did not kill a deer this year, by choice. Only deer I took last year was in a state park. I haven't been seeing many deer the last 2-3 years so I'm making the decision to back off.

Steiny, you see that in some that come on here....sad, very sad ...

+1 Steiny.

That has been my point all along. Hunters trust the DNR to do their job. They see the DNR extending seasons and offering basically unlimited deer tags...and they automatically assume there are too many deer. Why not shoot all you want/can?

Yes, before you say it Dave, I know HOW we got here....don't shoot the messenger (DNR). But the facts are... hunter reaction is a product of approved DNR regulations and quotas.

Agreed Paul. But up to this point the agency has basically responded to what it has been asked to do by hunters and non hunters alike, generally speaking.

The hunters that frequent websites such as this, attempt to stay informed, provide feedback, etc... represents a very small percentage of the overall deer hunting population.

The majority don't know what is behind the regs. They simply see what gets printed in the hunting guide each summer....and go with that.

Who were the people suggesting the Indiana deer herd needs reduced in the first place??? When prop 1 first came out in that disguise I have never thought the herd needed reduced except in some state parks. Something about two birds with one stone comes to mind regarding prop 1.

Prop 1 was the result of the initial efforts of ONE legislator. IMO, he was less concerned the about deer population...and more concerned with kicking the DNR and the state hunting orgs in the teeth for fighting all of the high fence bills he introduced.

Prop 1 got canned by hunters. Prop 2 replaced it. Both props had the exact same roots.

Prop 1 had "STAKEHOLER" influence...Prop 2 didn't!!! :rolleyes:

Prop 1 had limited stakeholder (by DNR invite) influence.

Prop 2 had broad stakeholder (by political demand) control.

Yep..........

Pav has it correct on "political influence" as he and I were present in the "stakeholder meetings". We were told to meet one evening in the office of one of the NRC members, three NRC members were present(not even a quorun). When the meeting started The Chief of F&W was asked if Prop 1 would work and was supported by the department, the answer was yes. The NRC member then said a new proposal was going to be introduced and prop 1 pulled, the three NRC members then laid out prop 2. This was BEFORE the public comment period was complete.

Brew, you can keep telling a "story long enough until the general public believes it to be true, which you continue to do, but that does not make it factual or the truth.

I learned a lesson from that experience, government of any kind is not the will of the people, it is the will of those in charge. IDNR can not make ANY decision without approval of the NRC and the Governor, they are puppets. The IDHA will NEVER be put in the position they were with the deer management plan again. We will report on what IDNR is "trying to do", but supporting any idea they have, not going to happen.

Personally...... I've got mine and I will protect that....

Maybe you should jump on the canned hunting fight, it appears it is greased to go thru this year. As I said before in that post, the IDHA wont waste resources.......

Hope this helps you understand who really runs the "show". It isn't you or I.

The IDNR simply have a job to do, much like all of us, and they have people they report to. Can't argue what happened but the citizens of Indiana elect the officials and it is those officials who are the bosses. I'd hate to think that sportsmen don't understand the realities of how things work and I'd find it counter productive for sportsmen to not support the IDNR. Regardless of outcomes, if there is any agency that is there trying to make sportsmen happy and protect their interests, it's the IDNR. I'd actually suggest that we are where we are because sportsmen in general haven't supported the IDNR enough. But the aspect of support too often eventually comes with an idealism of getting something in return or in favor, and understandably so. But even NRC members are likely caught in a difficult situation and I won't want to be in their seat either. But I believe without the IDNR, Indiana wildlife would be in a much worse and risky situation then it is today, although in many cases today appears to be pretty bad.

What is the stance of the IDHA??

Not to hijack the thread but Wisconsin made some changes to their deer hunting...


http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/241535691.html

And kept their gun and muzzy season at 9 days.

While we need 30+ gun/muzzy days..... :rolleyes:

Actually they have more days than us to hunt with a gun.
Season dates and application deadlines


Deer
season 2014
Youth deer hunt Oct. 5 - 6
Gun Nov. 23 - Dec. 1
Muzzleloader Dec. 2 - Dec. 11
December antlerless hunt Dec. 12 - Dec. 15
CWD holiday hunt Dec. 24 - Jan. 5, 2014
Gun hunt for hunters with disabilities Oct. 5 - 13

blackoak So Wisconsin starts their gun season in November and it runs (in some form) for the next 23 straight days, plus a holiday hunt that starts 9 days later and runs for another 13 days. So altogether that's 36 days of firearms hunting.

Add in the 2 days for youth in early October and another 9 days for disabled hunters in early/mid October..and that = 47 days of firearms hunting (in one form or another). Unless I did my math wrong.

It's interesting how if you really take the time to look @ the number of days of firearms season(s), many states have more days that what some assume them to have.

Thanks for the data.

I think what it really shows is there is no real way to compare one state to another. Just to many unique differences in habitat, hunter numbers, season positioning and so forth.

YEP.......

Yup

Excluding Dave...the last four posts are perfect examples of the old saying..."People only see what they want to see."

And with the long gun seasons in Wisc....many are also saying their herd population is nose diving....

Yep.....

And PROUD of the blinders they wear.

I think we all see what we want to see, to some degree, especially when something is not an exact science. Counting days is pretty straight forward. I still believe that comparing states doesn't add much because the intangibles for each are so different. In that context, maybe the discussion here would be more valuable if everyone stated their view and the ideology behind it instead of critisizing someone else's view or assessment of something. It might encourage some to post up the views instead of the few of us who do.

And how is Wisc...fixing the problem???

How about KY how are they doing???

BTW ....how did we grow the BIG herd that the IDNR now wants to "reduce"???

By letting the IDNR do what they wanted with their FIRST choices and recommendations when it came to our deer herd for years......and not letting LOUD small groups of people dictate what they did/do/forced to do.

Was a formula that worked.........and WILL work again......whether it be for deer reduction, deer growth,.........or revenue that the IDNR will need once the "cash cow" is reduced and not as enticing anymore from a "herd number" standpoint to sell tags.

Hmmmmmm.........wonder what they will come up with as a plan to keep hunters interested in deer hunting, and buying tags if the #'s are lower. LOL!!!

Get ready.............

Delaney While I agree with you to some extent...there is one constant in all of these comparisons....

Right now in (enter name of state here) the reality is....herd reduction. It's not just Indiana. And there is no other way to manage a deer herd more effectively than with firearms. That's why the when/how long of firearms seasons in (enter name of state here) are germane to the conversation.

And while I agree with many on this forum that there are very likely areas that have been over hunted, in the end hunters are going to have to get over the fact that deer herds are going to be smaller. It's what's happening everywhere.

Ultimately what will make a difference is to analyze the data from this season and the next few. Couple that with the DNR hopefully being more proactive and lowering bonus antler less quota permits (as necessary) and thus lowering the number of counties that participate in the late antler less season next season and beyond.

And while that likely won't placate some on this forum, that's what's likely to happen in the near term.

Weedhopper:

You asked the IDHA position......... financially better than any other sportsmen group in Indiana!

As far as the deer herd , rules, proposals, license fees ect....... We have no position. Learned our lesson last go round!

Delaney you are correct........

The last 9 years we have seen a stunning turn around in how IDNR interacts with the public as well as state government. IDNR can not talk to the legislature unless invited, they can't talk to the Governor, they need to talk to his "Liason"(sp?). No longer do they come out to "meet the people", hide behind the computer. The NRC is appointed by the Governor, not the people.

Now they get to hear from the "people".... another chance to get beat up.

What iritates me the most is the lack of backbone by the proffesionals inside IDNR, but that is what we get by all people in goverment today.

Deer Hunters........ YOU asked for more "opportunity" be it weapons or season lengths, you got it, now reap the reward! no one thought EHD was a big problem, until it hit their area. now many years running it has taken its' toll (and will continue to do so). The "perfect storm", more opportunity and a dwindling resource. This will not be a quick recovery, no matter the story line from IDNR.

Lowering the antlerless quota will not be a remedy,82% of hunters take 2 or less deer total. Hunters have one thing in mind, buy a tag and fill it!

What IDNR gives is never taken away....

Thanks Joe......understood.

[/qb][/QUOTE] and not letting LOUD small groups of people dictate what they did/do/forced to do.


[/QB][/QUOTE]
Anybody else notice the irony here

Again, I think any of us who were put in the role of the DNR folks would have a really hard time dealing with the situation. Can you imagine having to stand in front of "bosses" that have their own viewpoint and be in a position of recommending something that is in no way going to make hunters in general happy because as we all know, almost no hunters agree on anything. I mean seriously, they in essence are there to serve the "people", full well knowing that no matter what they say, propose or implement, they are going to be hammered by some vocal group of hunters. If most of us on here were in the DNR position we'd probably be telling us to go to heck. Then you add the necessity of trying to figure out how to financially fund that agency with a possible decline in deer license collections. Again, sportsmen want more from the DNR but that can't happen if there is significant reduction in revenue. That's why I look at them and suggest that all things considered, they're doing a pretty darn good job even if I don't like things they way they are.

And Joe makes a really good point that hasn't gotten much attention. It's not going to be easy for the DNR to take anything away. If they reduce anything, there will be an outcry that is unbelievable by hunters, in my opinion. Most want more without giving up anything. And it is going to be a long journey to bring back deer numbers, if they are ever brought back to the highs of years past.

Delaney With all due respect, that's the point that keeps getting lost in these posts......

The DNR wants the herd reduced and based on that fact, it would seem that the likely hood of numbers being brought back to the highs of years past would seem to me to be about zero.

delaney how long do you feel is a long journey??
In 2007 Pike county was the hardest hit county in the state with EHD. It was said we lost 50% of our herd in three months. I believed it. There was dead deer in every thing that held water. You could not drive any county road and not smell the rotten stench of dead deer. 2008 was bad, 2009 was better, 2010 was good, 20011 I was seeing the numbers close to what it was prior 2007. The DNR dropped Pike in 2008 from an 8 to a 3 bonuse antlerless county we have no late antlerlss season as it's still at 3. The deer herd can rebound rather quickly if allowed.

If allowed .... if

A rebound in deer numbers could be quick with the right circumstances. I'm just not sure that hunters will allow the necessary actions it might take. Just as comparing states is difficult, comparing farm country in Indiana to areas like Parker County is very hard. Parke with its habitat could rebound quick but counties like White or the poor habitat counties could take years. Your point though is a good one and a lot depends on the localized hunter attitude.

While we need 30+ gun/muzzy days..... [Roll Eyes]
WE DONT NEED IT,, WE GET TO ENJOY IT BIG DIFFERENCE If the management of the Herd can be accomplished in 30 days without compromising the Goals of that plan. Why would any one want to take time afield away from any of us?? Other than selfish reasons for their Idea of Enjoyment

I'm just a rough neck so spelling and wordmanship stinks but that being said myself the reason for buying the bundle was to hunt longer not the amount of harvest per tag I could hunt all season to harvest none . One is all I need or even wanted my feelings r there are a lot of folks that are the same.when I do harvest a doe it is just for the freezer. My 12 year old shot his first deer (doe) so the rest of the season was just for a buck for the both of us we have only taken one doe from our property per year for the last 7 years due to the fact we are not in a heavy populated area thanks for everyone's input on this whole site

I'm just a rough neck so spelling and wordmanship stinks but that being said myself the reason for buying the bundle was to hunt longer not the amount of harvest per tag I could hunt all season to harvest none . One is all I need or even wanted my feelings r there are a lot of folks that are the same.when I do harvest a doe it is just for the freezer. My 12 year old shot his first deer (doe) so the rest of the season was just for a buck for the both of us we have only taken one doe from our property per year for the last 7 years due to the fact we are not in a heavy populated area thanks for everyone's input on this whole site

Well said....

I am curious. Can anybody tell me what was the length of the general firearms season, and the ML season's….say back in the early 80's, when the herd was still being "expanded". I cannot remember back that far.

Sorry Yaz.....I can't remember what I had for dinner last night.

Who are you??? Have we met??? :p

I think so???

^^^^^^sorry I am no help to you old timers ^^^^^^^^ yaz .....maybe you could go to the library and find it on microfiche??????? :p

Awww man....now you started it....

The greatest threat to our Hoosier Hunting is the ignorant legislature who listens to special interest groups that are not looking out for hunters or hunting but to gain something for their group or members. These special interest groups are not hunting groups as sportsmen shoot at one another and the DNR but not legislators and politicions. This thread is a perfect example of wasting time doing nothing productive. There are several bills in the legislature this year tha harm you as a sportsmen as well as the DNR and Conservation. Bills like the canned hunting bill or the one to lower crimes and fines against people who break wildlife laws. Steele has a bill to make poaching a deer $250 and it's only an infraction. Pay your ticket and be on your way. It is disappointing to come on this site and still see hunters BSing and doing nothing. The DNR is just horrible in they keep hunters going at one another so they never come together for the good of anything. It is that same thing going on in our nation. Keep the people focused on BS differences so they do nothing about real problems.

A person on another site contacted Steele about his bill and here is his response....

His reply:

Thank you for taking the time to right me regarding SB 52. As an avid hunter and outdoorsman let me start by saying that if any legislator knows the importance of the laws regarding Indiana’s laws regarding wildlife it is me. I’d like to point out that SB 52 does not change trespassing and hunting without a permission laws nor a number of other title 14 laws.

The current problem with the ones we did change is that many of the prosecutors will refuse to use their time to prosecute hunting and fishing violations. They are within their rights of prosecutor discretion to not prosecute same. In addition, the majority of cases they decide to prosecute are almost certainly pled down or deferred. So I decided to bring a bill that changed e some of the misdemeanors to infractions. In layman terms this makes the offender prove that he did not commit the offense rather than making the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender committed the offense. The end result I believe is that more individuals that break wildlife regulations will actually be held accountable and be punished at or above current levels.
Thanks again for writing-I hope If I can ever be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Brent


Thoughts....????

Interesting point he makes but it is an example of what I believe is the constant erosion of willingness for the judicial system to fulfill it's duties within the structure of our society. That said, if I was a judge or a prosector I'd find it hard to spend time of dealing with a poached deer as compared to what it likely a huge court backlog of violent crimes waiting to be dealt with. It's just too bad that the value of the infraction isn't more, like $5,000 instead of $250 (yep, it's been a long day so it's reflected in my number). So, if I hunt on property that I own or have permission to be on and decide to shoot a nice velvet buck next year I only get an infraction and a $250 fine. Sad and ridiculous, especially if the law would allow the individual to keep the poached deer. But again, why does this happen? Because society doesn't value wildlife, sportsmen don't speak up enough to make the court system take these situations serious enough and instead sportsmen are focused more on themselves then the wildlife, in general. Not meant to point fingers at folks here because I firmly believe that guys here are outliers in that you do care, but "we" are in the vast, vast minority.

I would say for almost a half century we have been hunting deer for 16 days with the general firearms season......

Hope this helped your memory!