Any indication on where these "zones" will be ?? Include both gun and archery ?? 10 is an awful lot of dead deer plus any taken with regular tags.. I wunder if Bloomington will be part of this....sounds like they could use it there...if the their darn local govment clownboys ever allow hunting in their city limits

Only areas north of the Ohio river

Any word yet on these "zones"...are firearms going to be allowed in these zones starting in Sept ??

Any major changes to what.. the now defunct urban zones ?? Heck, just kill 'em all and be done with it.....

So, instead of being able take 4 "urban deer" plus the regular bag, your now going to be allowed 10, plus the regular bag ?? W T F !!

Show me one person that will.

Much ado about nothing. The vast majority are done by two at most.

Time to take a deep breath and relax. Bigger things in life to worry about imho

You keep saying that and the herd keeps shrinking....there are areas that could use a good reduction(Bloomington), but not my WHOLE F'N COUNTY !!

Yes he does and he is right... If you would look five feet past your nose you would understand that there is more to the deer numbers than just hunters...

How many hunters in Indiana kill 3 or more deer in a giving year?... I know it was posted once here and the number was so small that it was pretty much negligible...

So what if you could kill ten deer there... If you don't have ten deer to kill, then it wouldn't matter now would it... You can only take what is there and if isn't there then no one is taking it then...

Jeff your problem is is that you can't look past a number and you think if they would drop that number by one it would make some sort of difference WHEN IT WON'T... :rolleyes: smh

Here's a link to the data you referenced. It is posted on the lower half of page 41.

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/IN_Deer_Report.pdf

For example, in the 2010 season 43% of hunters didn't kill a deer. 30% of hunters killed 1 deer and so on....

0 - 43%
1 - 30%
2 - 12.2%
3 - 5.6%
4 - 2.4%
5 - .9%
6 - .5%
7 - .2%
8+ - .6%

This is funny to me as I see the same argument that if numbers are down guys say dnr can reign in the kills by lowering bonus antlerless. Which is it?

Also based on your numbers above 4.6 percent of hunters kill 4plus deer. For ease of math and without looking at exact numbers let's assume 100k hunters in indiana hunt and kill 100k deer. In that scenario 4.6 k hunters kill a minimum of 18.4 percent of the deer. At a minimum, using only 4 deer as the bottom which isn't accurate. I could go back and run the actual numbers and it'd be over 20% I'm certain. Seems significant to me.

One thing I'm not sure of is if this data includes the urban deer harvest and the harvest from draw hunts in state parks. I think it does, but I would imagine someone on here would know for sure.

It would be interesting to see the total number of deer killed in these parks and urban areas and how that factors in to the total harvest data.

I thought I read that they weren't included somewhere but I could be wrong. I was once before .

Cody.Query I found where the urban deer harvest is included.

I don't know if the park hunts are included in the harvest numbers but in 2010, it was less than 1,700 deer. In 2014 it was a bit over a 1,000 so it won't make a huge difference.

I wasn't going to say it...but glad someone did!

yup, they can stop all doe harvests

Appears I can now legally take up to 20 deer/year off the farm I hunt.

Pav, really stupid isnt it .....

Jeff,

What is stupid is the fact they promote a "kill all you can" philosophy among hunters and have the gall to call it "deer management".

..and before anyone chimes in about individual choices, I am confident the majority of deer hunters in this or any state greatly rely on DNR established season lengths and bag limits to assist them with those choices.

That is correct..... We ALL look for established quotas set by the state and government to weigh heavy on our choices..... ESPECIALLY if you are the type that doesn't want to think for yourself or be responsible for the result of what you choose.

As long as it is advertised "there is plenty"..... People will then look straight to the limit, and proceed. I have yet to be fishing with a Walleye fisherman on the Maumee River in Ohio and the limit is set for 4 Walleye..... And someone says next to me "I'm going to purposefully set the limit less for me because I'm going to be more responsible to the resource than what the State of Ohio says I need to be"...........LOL!!!!!!!

I see morons saying here daily it's ALL about "individual choices"...... What a convenient errant thought that just gives no consideration at all for the WHOLE PICTURE.

its the class of people you fish with then Dew. Alot of us throw back 99% of what we catch.....even the big ones.

Ive known some game hogs that have fished with me....only once though. I dont take em again nor ever go with them again.

Must be...... I hardly catch a thing and a dozen guys to my right and dozen guys to my left that I don't even know stay till they get their limit of Walleye day after day after day......

Maybe you could go over there and reason with them TrapperDave.... You threatening to not fish with them might change their mind about the State saying there is plenty and the limit is 4??? LOL!!!!!

If I'm fish'n and its legal size, its going to get filleted ;0) .... I fish to eat, I hunt to enjoy nature, not to kill every legal deer I see. I dont shoot every deer I see or get in range...if I did I'd fill every tag for that county. ..I dont and wont ....When some hilljack see's that he can take 20 deer, many suppose there is a reason the DNR wants 'em all killed off ...this goes back to specific areas where deer do need to be hit hard, like Bloomington, the State Parks, and certain other cities and towns, but not a whole county...I have yet to see what the reduction zones will be like this year, I do hope they scale back and get more localized. I always have supported and will continue to support reduction WHERE NEEDED.... I can remember when I started the urban hunts in Beverly Shores(20 yrs a go), the goal was to reduce the herd which we did, the habitat like the state parks have made a great come back, but deer are now very hard to see and find, combine the National Lakeshore sharpshooters, and your lucky to see deer north of HWY 20.....I dont want the whole state to get like that....when you have a guy next to your property and he kills every thing he see's, it then effects you, esp. when he wont listen to reason... when is enough enough ?

Well said Jeff

Many hunters have a similar mindset sadly though, and one cannot or at least shouldn't hold that against them if you hold similar in fishing.

Many many hunters and fisherman need to be taught conservation and understanding of what our resources can and will take without having a detrimental impact on the resource (whether that is fish, deer, squirrels, turkeys...).

I too appreciated your sentiments though.

I posted this to DFW:

I have posted some questions her that have went unanswered by a biologist administrator, rather have been addressed by a lay person from the outside. The biologist did respond that the numbers for deer reduction zones and bonus county permits are for a perception of where overabundance are deer are from, and really people killing all those deer are not really probable or significant. We have repeatedly been given this canned response by the DNR in letters as well. Refer to Woody's comment on here about reality and he used DNR 2011 survey. I used the same survey and the 2011 Deer Harvest summary to just run the numbers as you have reported them. Now my question to a trained biologist is: are 38,372.29 antlerless deer significant in the overall picture of deer management in Indiana? That is the amount of antlerless deer killed by people killing 4 or more deer in 2011, that is 29% of the total harvest which already consisted of 50.5.% female deer. Don't know who killed the 0.29 deer, lol. But I would say that is very significant, despite using the small percentages of hunters that do it, in a manipulation of perception. I would appreciate the biologist that I and most hunters help to pay a significant portion of their salary respond to us as citizens, and not a lay person, that a biologist just wants to confirm is correct as in one of the other posts, though it still didn't explain that issue. Thank you for your time and efforts in addressing this question from a citizen. Again 38,372.29 antlerless deer, is that significant as a total of 29% of the harvest, despite the fact that less than 5% of the hunters do it?

IDFW facebook page deer reduction zone post 8/19

I would also suggest you read my reply to Woody on the same IDFW post under his reality comment:

So Woody, since you are answering questions that should be answered by the biologist that I help to pay for, as well as should be the one informing the public on this site and answering my question, not a self appointed deer management expert, great example of Good OLD BOY club that has been affecting deer management in Indiana way too long. I guess I will have to answer your response, again a play on numbers. Let's put your numbers in perspective, using the survey you quote above. There were a total of 164,688 licensed hunters, not including landowners, military hunters on leave, etc that do not have to purchase a license. Also it says estimate of lifetime license holders, which I don't understand, looks as that would be the easiest exact number to find, especially from such a reputable survey company. They harvested 129,018 deer, of which 50.5 percent were does, in Indiana in 2011, the year the survey refers too. Again all numbers are from that survey, or that years harvest summary published by DNR. So lets break it down: Hunters harvesting 4 deer number 3952.5 harvesting 15,810.04 deer. Hunters harvesting 5 deer number 1482.192 harvesting 7410.96 deer. Hunters harvesting 6 deer number 823.44 harvesteing 4940.64 deer. Hunters harvesting 7 deer number 399.38 harvesting 2305.63 deer. Hunters harvesting 8 deer number 988.13 harvesting 7905.02 deer. So these hunters that harvest 4 or more deer, since there is a one buck rule, they all must be antlerless; harvested an additional 38,372.29 antlerless deer or 29% of the total harvest. That seems to be pretty considerable amount to me. In addition to the fact that the total harvest in 2011 included 50.5 percent females. Two of the previous Deer Biologists John Olsen, and Jim Mitchell, as well as the famed James Kroll, have made it pretty simple, If you want to grow a herd < 33% of your harvest must be antlerless, if you want to maintain a herd that number should remain around 33%, if you want to reduce a herd it must be above 33%. Just simple figures. See they have used you, Woody, as a tool to perpetuate further perception manipulation by using these big survey's with big numbers, that make those < than one percent statistics look insignificant. I will contend that 38,372.29 antlerless deer are very significant especially since they are 100% antlerless. See the smoke and mirrors. I think in the future, I would prefer the real biologist that I help to pay for answer my questions as a citizen. Thanks though Woody for allowing me to put your reputable survey into PERSPECTIVE.

Maybe this help clear up the true numbers at least from 2011 with the DFW own surveys and summaries. Not mine or anyone elses input.

29% to be exact in 2011 per DNR DFW figures.

So lets break it down: 2011 Hunters harvesting 4 deer number 3952.5 harvesting 15,810.04 deer. Hunters harvesting 5 deer number 1482.192 harvesting 7410.96 deer. Hunters harvesting 6 deer number 823.44 harvesteing 4940.64 deer. Hunters harvesting 7 deer number 399.38 harvesting 2305.63 deer. Hunters harvesting 8 deer number 988.13 harvesting 7905.02 deer. So these hunters that harvest 4 or more deer, since there is a one buck rule, they all must be antlerless; harvested an additional 38,372.29 antlerless deer or 29% of the total harvest. That seems to be pretty considerable amount to me. In addition to the fact that the total harvest in 2011 included 50.5 percent females.

So lets look at what the <5% kill in 2011 anyway. Per only DNR DFW Numbers

So lets break it down: Hunters harvesting 4 deer number 3952.5 harvesting 15,810.04 deer. Hunters harvesting 5 deer number 1482.192 harvesting 7410.96 deer. Hunters harvesting 6 deer number 823.44 harvesteing 4940.64 deer. Hunters harvesting 7 deer number 399.38 harvesting 2305.63 deer. Hunters harvesting 8 deer number 988.13 harvesting 7905.02 deer. So these hunters that harvest 4 or more deer, since there is a one buck rule, they all must be antlerless; harvested an additional 38,372.29 antlerless deer or 29% of the total harvest. That seems to be pretty considerable amount to me. In addition to the fact that the total harvest in 2011 included 50.5 percent females.

So if we drop just one it will save 7905 until next year or for the guys that haven't harvested yet.

A couple of points/questions....

1. I think the report that you are referring to was published in 2011, but I thought it concerned the data from the 2010 season.

2. Where did you get the 168,000 figure?

3. Wouldn't it be necessary to include the ltl holders and landowners numbers and harvest numbers to get an accurate figure to be used to come up with your data for the number of antlerless deer killed by hunters who killed 4,5,6,7,8+ deer?

On page 27 of the report, I believe it estimates a total of 164,688 hunters in the field during hunting season.

Then, on page 28 of the report, I believe it estimates a total harvest of 150,766.

The at the bottom of page 28 of the report, I believe it provides the number of hunters via a calculation of the percentage in the category times the total number of hunters in the field. If my assumption is correct, then here are the following: (this then uses a total hunter number of (150,766)

Harvest........,,,, Hunter........... # of ...........,,..Total ....,,# Greater
Number.............. % ............,Hunters.........Harvest....Than 3
4.................... 2.4 % .........3,919............15,680......3,919
5..... .........,,,, .09% ........... 1,357.............. 6,784.......2,714
6 ................. .05% ...........,.,754 ..............4,524.....,,, 2,262
7 .................. .02% ............. 301............,.,2,107....... 1,204
8+ ...................06%............. 905.............. 7,240.........4,525
........................................................Total .......36,299..... 14,624 % of Harvest, Using Harvest of 150,766...... 24.1%....... 9.7%
Number of square miles in Indiana ...............X...........,. X
Impact per Square Mile ...............................,,Y............. Y
Number of Acres Of Deer Habitat in IN...........A .....,,.,,,,,A
Impact per Deer Habitat Per Acre...................,B ...........,B

Now, I used a harvest total of 3, assuming most guys would per angst at an available harvest number less then that number. It also would take into account that some of those in the harvest of 3 deer would have multiple bucks harvested. Of course, the numbers above would include both does and button bucks and if we had the % harvest of those two groups, we could apply that % to the above numbers to then leave the impact on the female population.

Everyone would have a different number that they would believe is "significant". And clearly, a localization of high harvest then can impact a certain geography very drastically.

Any, numbers are numbers and I could have looked at the report incorrectly in my very, very quick assessment. And yes, I do believe this was 2010 estimated harvest and hunter numbers from the DNR.

And, it is surprising that close to 43% of the hunters don't harvest a deer, which would generally lead me to believe that there should be a larger outcry about the deer numbers then there has been. Maybe there hasn't been because most feel like they don't have any real avenue to comment or affect change. That number should also be used "against" legislators and others who suggest we have too many deer from an overall standpoint.

bump

Woody give that to you brew greg gororge. Not surexwhich personality to address. Did he explain it to you when he tokd you what to post.