Lets hear some more lame excuses as to why YOU aren't killing deer. Obviously it's not YOUR fault. Lets see, we have...Xbows, insurance companies, 8 limit counties, Sasquatch, state park hunts, gun season is in November, youth season, my neighbor doesn't use a bow like I'd rather he do, cougars, non resident hunters, the license "bundle", urban hunters get to start hunting 15 days sooner, etc, blah, blah, blah!

Adjust or keeping whining.

And "gun hunters" have no issues with bows, most just don't or can't set aside the time to practice and become effective with a bow or to sit and wait for a deer to come to with 30 yards or less. I have never heard ONE gun only hunter complain about Bowhunters. But some hardcore bow whackos bad mouth everything. Even tho most of these "traditionalists" use every modern, god damned mass produced product out there except a gun! Please. Spare us the BS.

AMEN....preach it brother

Crossbows accounted for 8,452 of the 36,033 deer harvested during the "archery" season in 2012. That's 23% of the "bow" take.

+1....AMEN....preach it brother

Well yeah comparing that to just archery gear... But comparing to the total harvest it drops off considerably...

I would like to know how many deer were taken from Sept.15th through Nov.30 using a crossbow....

You can rest assured that it wasn't you he saw because he lives on the other end of the state from you (if you hunt only Clark County that is)...

Pav had it correct,but again it morphs into a this or that weapon argument . OH, that was what the rule changed moved too.....

I and most of my neighbors will just continue our management plan,IDNR can not screw that up!

I know it wasn't me. I don't own or use an Xbow...yet. But with two kids, playing every sport, a bad work schedule, and limited time to hunt, let alone shoot my bow regularly I can see the appeal of an Xbow. I would rather hunt with my bow more but there aren't enough hours in the day. Plus I love a good shotgun/muzzleloader blast to wake up the woods up! LOL.

I rarely comment on this forum but have been reading for years and some of the ridiculous one sided comments here finally hit a nerve. Sorry for the rants.

This is the kind of "arm chair biologist" comment I'm talking about.

Teach us please....

I was just correcting this. Crossbows accounted for 6% of the total harvest in 2012.

"I would rather see him with archery gear"!!! Are you kidding me?!?!? I hope it was ME that you saw! I dare you tell me to my face "what you'd RATHER me hunt with!" I'll tell you I'd "rather" you move out of my "wheelhouse" before I break my hand on your face. If you don't like something fine. Don't tell anyone what they "should" do unless they ask or are on your property!

This argument is what is wrong with hunting! I've shot deer with every legal weapon type in Indiana. I am a DEER hunter. You Monday morning quarterbacks and wanna be biologist think you know more than anyone about anything! YOUR way is not the ONLY way! Your opinion is fine but don't be so arrogant to think Everyone else is for it. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Could not agree more! It's about how I do things and if u don't do it like me then YOUR wrong...as I pull out my modern compound bow with carbon arrows and fiber optic sights tipped with steel broad head but how dare u use a crossbow.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MKFrench78:
I know it wasn't me. I don't own or use an Xbow...yet. But with two kids, playing every sport, a bad work schedule, and limited time to hunt, let alone shoot my bow regularly I can see the appeal of an Xbow. I would rather hunt with my bow more but there aren't enough hours in the day. Plus I love a good shotgun/muzzleloader blast to wake up the woods up!
I rarely comment on this forum but have been reading for years and some of the ridiculous one sided comments here finally hit a nerve. Sorry for the rants.

Don't be sorry about anything u hit the nail on the head.

Ok even at 6% that is not enough to account for much of a loss in the deer herd.
Like I stated I had a decent season, why you ask, SCOUTING! In the area I hunt, I watched the deer through the summer they were staying on the private property sanctuaries. I watched one small property extra close because it was close to an area that I have hunted before & knew fairly well. As more & more deer filled the small patch of woods the undergrowth got thinner & thinner up to about as high as the deer could reach. I watched a few times deer running through the corn field next to it to get to the woods I hunted, so I knew where they were feeding & I knew that they had eaten almost every thing in their woods.
They had eaten so much that as you drove by (if you had seen the woods in spring)you would realize that you could see all the way through the woods now, where you couldn't see 10yd through in the spring. So I knew that come gun season my stand was going to be on the main run in the woods on the other side of the corn field. Sure enough as gun season approached more & more deer were running to my woods to eat. The farmer even left a long patch of corn standing to try to give them cover as the ran from one woods to the other.
The night before opening day I got my stand in place in this public woods, hung a few scent wicks.
Opening morning when I got to my stand I saw a big rub on a tree not more than 20 yds from my stand. It wasn't 15 min after sun up that a good sized 8 point walked right by that tree with the rub on it. I let him walk a ways until he got into a clearing then I pulled the trigger on him.
So that is were the deer are in those private woods or at least until the food runs out.
You just need to do some scouting to find these hot spots & work a way to getting to the deer(or getting to deer to you) without trespassing.

I'll be glad when the crybabies quit worrying about what their neighbors hunt with. Some of you compounders really crack me up with your inflated egos. As if a crossbow is any more lethal then your compounds...or my trad bows. I killed my buck with a crossbow this year. He'd be just as dead if I carried my self bow that day. Get over yourselves. You AINT all that with your 80% let off, trigger release, fiber sights and every deer hunting gimmick sold at gander

Perhaps an inume would help?....

Posey,

The total increase in deer harvest from 2011 to 2012 was 7000 deer. The total crossbow take increased over 7000 more deer after their use was liberalized. So when we are discussing the increased deer take and it can be attributed to a single change in policy, then 6% is significant.

I don't have a problem with crossbows but the liberalization of their use cannot be discounted so easily.

It is much easier to see their impact v. the late antlerless season which likely only shifted doe harvest from muzzleloader season. If you combine late antlerless harvest with muzzleloader harvest, the increase from 2011-2012 was from 15% of the total harvest to 16% of the total harvest, a net 1% increase.

We will have to see what happened this year when the deer harvest report comes out in a couple months. The anecdotal reports certainly are louder this year so it is probably reasonable to expect a harvest decline. But don't expect major policy changes without a couple years of trending data.

Jeff,

You just (unknowingly?) proved the points the DNR was making when they allowed crossbows to archery season.

1.) crossbows are effective deer harvest tools
2.) crossbows are easy to use
3.) crossbows allow hunters who might otherwise not harvest antlerless deer the opportunity and tool to do so.

Crossbows are here to stay also, you might try to get used to them.

Wow!

Curiosity got the best of me….and I just had to check on the direction of this thread. My mistake!

Last thing I intended was for this to turn into a weapons clash. People are going to be submitting feedback…and I didn’t like the fact some are publically dismissing a significant disparity between 1.0 and 2.0.

Call me a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to try …one more approach.

First, and this is KEY to what I’m about to say, a rising antlered harvest is an indicator of a rising deer population. Declining antlered harvest is an indicator of a deer herd in decline.

I’ll say it again…. a rising antlered harvest is an indicator of a rising deer population. Declining antlered harvest is an indicator of a deer herd in decline.

Killing bucks has minimal effect on actual deer reduction. The does are going to get bred and fawn…even if they have to cycle two, three or even four times to achieve pregnancy. Because of this, the reduction target ratio of doe harvest to buck harvest used by most states….Indiana included…. is 60/40.

Proposal 1.0 lowered the number of potential antlered deer hunting days using long range weapons. Logic would indicate….less days to kill bucks with long range weapons should equate into a lower percentage of antlered harvest….a deer reduction indicator. The other side of that equation is…a lower antlered harvest percentage means it doesn’t take as many dead does to close the gap on that 60/40 ratio. There was confidence these two targets would get the lawmakers off the DNR’s back…and by reducing the overall number of days to kill deer using long range weapons….would reduce the potential of over harvest in lower deer density regions.

Proposal 2.0 threw caution to the wind. The number of antlered deer hunting days with long range weapons was not allowed to move or decrease. Because of that, a significant number of additional long range weapons days, and a lot more dead does, are needed in order to have any chance of closing the 60/40 gap. Long range weapon days increased somewhere between 40-50% compared to 1.0…depending on the calendar. The lower deer density regions have been left to the mercy of a broken quota system. This proposal, compared to the first, is simply much more aggressive.

I’m purposefully leaving crossbows out of the equation….primarily because crossbow liberalization was coming with 1.0. It was just going to take another annual window of opportunity….to create the license…before that happened. I probably violated more than one confidence by saying that publically, but I’m tired of every discussion on this subject going down that same road.

Deer hunters got what they asked for. Yes, the lawmakers made the initial push…but it was deer hunters that that convinced the NRC to throw a lower impact DNR proposal out the window and then supported a much more aggressive alternative…..all for the sake of “opportunity”. Yeah, we had/have 3+ months of opportunity….for anyone who chooses to use it.

Indications are….2.0 is NOT working….at least not as hoped. Lots of complaints are coming in from folks in low deer density regions that have been hammered. The pockets of high deer density that created this fiasco in the first place are apparently still a problem? I’m basing that on the new proposals for baiting, increasing the bag limit and increasing the size of urban deer zones.

The wheels on the bus go round and round……

Did archery minus crossbows change or just a shift to crossbows??

Wow, Waaay to many crazies on here any more....sheesh !! ....As for the Does killed "across the creek"...I'd have rather him NOT take them at all...that is why I passed on 'em....but still, I'd rather have prefered him to use a bow....lets just get back to the deer management....my fault for opening up a stinky box of worms....

pav Indiana hunters have been killing antlered vs antlerless deer in the 60/40 range since 2006.

In the last four years, let's look @ the data.....

Year Total Harvest Antlered % Antlerless %
2009 132,000 53,000 40 79,000 60
2010 134,000 53,000 40 81,000 60
2011 129,000 51,000 39 78,000 61
2012 136,000 46,000 34 90,000 66

So in the first year of the new regs (aimed @ herd reduction) you see exactly what was designed to happen, happen.

FEWER antlered deer (by both number and percentage of total harvest) were killed and MORE antlerless deer (by both number and percentage of total harvest) were killed.

And by your own yardstick After one year of the new regs being in place, the number of antlered deer harvested dropped, and the number of antlerless deer harvested rose.

So it would appear the herd is being reduced......and wasn't that the goal?

Now that's funny! Did he do anything illegal? If no, you are the "crazy". Why would you rather him not shoot the does? Get ready folks this "guy" is about to enlighten us all on why his years of schooling and work as a deer biologist lead him to believe the DNR doesn't want you to spend any more money on tags, gas, hunting equipment, taxes, lodging, food, etc to go deer hunting. YES that is what Mr. Jeff is saying...excuse me if or the "Mr., I'm sure it's probably "professor" or "Dr." Jeff. Right?? Come on, inform us all on how we should hunt.

No name calling! Period.

If I remember correctly, 1.0 moved the gun season out of the rut. That's why it failed. DNR should have known that it was a stacked deck against it. They probably did. It was like having an election with one clear loser just to give the impression of having an election.

Now they (and 1.0 proponents) can say they gave us what we wanted so we need to live with the results.

Again, this is all speculation until the harvest reports come out. Then we can use data to discuss this.

Got to admit that I got a kick out of this post and got one helluva good laugh from it, but, I do agree with Hanes though... No need for name calling as we are all adults here and everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it doesn't make any sense to you...

Bryan...you and I have more in common than you may think ;0) .... BTW, Mr. French, some on here have more knowledge of deer and management than you may think ..... some need a time out .....

So are are you not not going to tell us why you'd rather him not shoot the does or how "we" should hunt? You're changing the subject.

John, I believe the harvest data from this season will show a further decline in the Buck kills which show the declining numbers ....It is more evident in some areas than others....I do agree wanting to see the numbers. I believe Stewart is just getting a head of those numbers. I understand there are already quite a few upset deer hunters mad at him and the DNR. There will always be some that refuse to see what is happening around them. It took me a while as I was playing right into the DNR's hand. Same for those around me, some are starting to wise up after saying "where'd all the deer go"... look at other states where the exact same thing is happening...Illinois is a prime example...I just dont want us to get that far gone..... One season of passing does just wont cut it, it will take several or more for those that have had drastic drops. We'll have to see where this leads and where the DNR takes the state....but as some have said, get used to the lower numbers.....BTW Frenchy, I'm not changing the subject...just getting back on it....

Jeff, I've heard this a few times now. Can you elaborate on it? I don't think I understand it. Thanks.

Well, after last season Chad Steward himself said in a Newspaper article that one way they gauge a herd rising/declining is by looking at the buck kill and he confirmed the buck kill has been dropping and and that means the herd is on a decline.....he said, "its easier to track 'cause of less variables...year to year hunter efforts dont change much, so hunters all of a sudden arnt taking 3 bucks or eight bucks, they are locked into one buck(noting the OBR). If there are fewer bucks to kill with the same amount of hunter effort, not as many bucks get killed, this tells us the overall population is down", Goshen news Outdoor column, March 17, 2013.... many other states use the same analysis.....

This has been pretty much the same ideology as used by the previous deer biologist as well.

First, thanks for responding with something other than crossbow banter. That arguement seems to still be going full bore on this thread.

Actually, the data you provided only works *IF* you consider buck fawns as female deer. The pre-2012 harvest ratio was pretty consistently in the 50/50 range......female/male.

The changes implemented in 2012 cut the gap to almost 55/45....so the ratio did improve. But my point is...at what cost? Are we being too aggressive, too fast?

The antlered kill dropped 5,000 animals in spite of more antlered opportunity being introduced. This would seem to indicate a herd in decline, correct? Yet we killed 12,000 more antlerless deer than the year before. How long can this go on?

What if the 1.0 reg had been in place in 2012? What would the antlered harvest number been? Minus 6,000?....minus 8,000?....minus 10,000? Hard to say for sure, but removing 14 days from GF and ML season lengths would have surely made a significant dent.

The lower the antlered kill....the fewer dead does it takes to improve the ratio. This is the point I'm trying to make. We could have gone with a much less aggressive approach, proposed by the DNR...but deer hunters did not let that happen. Yes, 2.0 was a DNR proposal too...but it wasn't what they wanted...and their hands were tied by the NRC.

Actually, the fact we introduced more antlered opportunity and the antlered harvest actually fell in the very first year....would indicate the herd was already in decline. Yes?

What exactly was "the goal" anyway? I would offer "the goal" was to get lawmakers off the DNR's back. The travesty of the entire ordeal dates back to the reason the lawmakers started making noise in the first place.

This entire mess can be traced back to one individual. One Representative that is no "Friend" to deer hunters or the DNR. This guy tried for years to legalize high fence shooting pens in Indiana. The DNR, with support from the deer hunting groups fought him tooth and nail. I'm one of many that believes his "deer reduction" ultimatum was nothing more than payback for his high fence failures in the Legislature.

I believe 1.0 was a low impact response that would have produced data implying deer reduction...by lowering the antlered harvest via season structure and improving the doe/buck harvest ratio by default.

It didn't fly....so now we are left with killing more deer. The question remains...did we really need to?

pav First of all, antlerless deer are factored into the data as that is how the state counts buttons and always has. But even with buttons counted as bucks, the numbers are still better that the 50/50 ratio in the past @ 46% bucks and 54% does.

Next..we could play the "what if" game all day. I wanted the firearms tags made either sex (like the archery and m/l tags) and wonder what would have happened if that had been implemented. But...it didn't happen. So while "what iffing" may be interesting, it truly serves no constructive point @ this point as the regs are what the regs are.

While I share your concerns about the numbers of antler less deer being taken, until the data shows the herd numbers lowered, I doubt we see much change. It (the bonus antlerless season) will likely be adjusted by lowering bonus antler less quota permits to 3 or under in some counties), but I don't see the DNR permanently giving up a management tool by doing away with the season. Especially since the season has only been in place two years. And as I've stated (along with many others) countless times..herd reduction isn't just an Indiana thing. It's happening in many states.

Finally, just how did 2.0 pass?

Is it the "fault" of deer hunters who didn't want 1.0? Is it the NRC's "fault"? Representative Friend's "fault"? Is it the DNR's "fault"? A combination of all of the above? I've heard all of these opinions from people who supported 1.0. Perhaps it's no one's "fault". Perhaps it's just the result of the process of negotiation. You start with one plan and it morphs into something else. And just like 2.0 ultimately was adopted, it too will morph into something else in a few years.

Now onto your second post.....

pav Let's look @ antlered harvest data. From 2004/2011 the average antlered harvest was 51,000 antlered bucks. During the three seasons prior to the reg change season of 2012, the antlered harvest averaged 52,000 antlered bucks.

So using your own yardstick of antlered buck harvest numbers as an indicator of herd decline, the numbers don't show that over the previous 8 years. It's only in 2012 after the regs changes occurred that antlered harvest numbers dropped.

BTW, I fully expect harvest numbers to drop for this season. Between higher numbers of does killed in 2012, EHD and lousy weather for many the opening weekend of gun, I don't see how they couldn't drop. How much totals drop (if they do) remains to be seen and IMHO that figure doesn't matter as much as if they continue to drop or level out over the next couple of years.

Then and only then, can you see the true impact of the new regs.

If the DNR simply factors buck fawns into the antlerless harvest...then why does every pie chart in the harvest summary separate buck fawns into their own category? (The question is rhetorical....I know the answer.)

Yes, a long standing 50/50 ratio jumped to 55/45 the first season of the 2.0 regs. Partially because the antlered harvest went down 5,000 animals in year one. I'll address that later.

No offense, but there always seems to be a point where your logic leaves me shaking my head in wonder. We've reached that point with the comments above.

I'm very curious to hear....what you think happened as a direct result of the 2.0 rules changes in 2012 that drove the antlered harvest down by 5,000+ animals in 2012?

Antlered deer hunting opportunity actually increased in 2012 versus 2011, but thousands fewer antlered deer were killed.

I look at that and it tells me the herd was in decline before the 2.0 rules ever went into effect. i.e There were fewer bucks available following the 2011 season.

You apprently see something totally different?

Uh....the weather ??(Isnt that what the DNR always says)....lol....

First of all, I don't think the new regs in 2012 had much to do with the decline in the antlered harvest, but I do think the new regs played a signficant role in the antler less harvest numbers.

So what do I think caused the drop in antlered deer numbers harvested in 2012?

EHD....

In 2011, EHD was suspected or identified in 9 counties. In 2012, EHD was suspected or identified in 67 counties.

Now, I suspect that you're going to say that if EHD was such a factor in the antlered deer poulation, how could the antler less harvest numbers be higher than the previous years totals?

And yes, the antler less numbers were higher. In 2011, there were 78,000 antler less deer harvested. In 2012, there were 89,000 antler less deer harvested. A difference of about 11,000 deer. So what could help explain an increased antler less harvest in 2012?


I can think of a couple of things....

1. During the archery season(s) the antler less total rose by 7,000 above the totals from 2011. I would suspect that crossbow usage and the new bundle tag contributed to this.

2. This was also the first year of the late antler less season and 10,000 antler less deer were harvested.

So the DNR wanted herd reduction and it appears they got it on the antler less side of the ledger. And based on that fact, it now begs the question as to how this will effect the harvest numbers for this season and beyond.

That's the million dollar question and why I look forward to the data from 2013 and beyond.

One last point to remember. If the DNR thinks the numbers demand it, bonus antler less permits can be reduced to the point that the bonus antler less season can all but be eliminated as anything 3 or below doesn't qualify for that season.

And if harvest numbers drop significantly, I could see that happening.

You bet jjas will see "something different"..... LOL!!

pav.....you are correct......there was a herd decline beginning before 2.0 went into effect.