Was your county one that was reduced or one that was increased?
Sorry to the losers & congrats to the winners.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...mation_id=14472&type&syndicate=syndicate

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-Bonus_Antlerless_Quota_Map.pdf

.....

I see Tippecanoe was reduced from last year.

4 is still about 3 too many for me.

Thanks for posting! Huntington county is being dropped to a 3 so bye bye late antler less season......yeah

laughable. looks like our dnr really put their heads together to come up with such a "dramatic" change to our regs

It could be 1 or 100.
Wildlife management is not controlled by DNR.. Its controlled by the hunter when they make they choose to snap the trigger.

It's good to see the DNR make reductions in 19 counties for this year. Many hunters have wanted that. Especially hunters in the northern part of the state..

And Gundude is 100% correct. Regardless of reg changes, ultimately it's up to hunters to manage the resource.

And if you aren't seeing deer in the numbers you think you should, then don't kill multiple deer in your area.

you guys are right..as long as we still have 40 days to gun hunt nothing will change. though technically IT IS up to the dnr to manage our regs..if not then why are they are there. the dnr can manage our herd but a change like this does nothing and still leaves it up to the hunter. dnr can only affect outcome if serious changes are made. at least we sort of agree. hope that bottom line of your comment wasn't a tip for me jj..I only killed one deer on my Indiana lease last year.

or they could completely get rid of doe permits..course the chances of that happening are probably equal to changing the gun season

Gotta remember that the DNRs primary goal is protecting and managing the resource. I believe that technically the whitetail resource in Indiana is not threatened or at significant risk. And the DNR manages for all citizens which included farmers and other landowners who believe there continues to be too many deer. I could suggest that the DNR provids hunters plenty off opportunity, which apparently the majority wishes to have.

Glad to see they dropped my home county to 3 does and no more late season. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to drop it down to 1 or 2 bonus tags.

Blah blah dude. Then I guess ohios dnr has diff goals than us ha

Blah blah dude. Then I guess ohios dnr has diff goals than us

Yes, remember about 6% of Hoosiers hunt

the IDNR works for the other 94% too.

I don't see at all how it's irrelevant. We've got a date next door that knows how to manage a herd for quantity and quality. Not looking at what they're doing right would be and is ignorant. I don't see how anybody can negate this. Not arguing just saying that we CAN learn from others. Our dnr knows this but has a different goal in mind and it does not include great hunting..that's the frustrating part

They allow baiting and crossbows in archery season for the past 30 years too. You in favor of those??

I think the DNR watches other states and assesses. But, each state has it's own goals and objectives and that creates the irrelevance aspect because what works for one state may be totally wrong for another state. And, whether I like it or not, I believe surveys have shown that Indiana deer hunters in general are satisfied.

I'm in favor of their quality of hunting. 76 we just have diff goals when it comes to hunting..nothin wrong with that. I have lots of family that shoots immature deer and are happy with it. Diff strokes for diff folks

Gills are at about 12 feet... Yawn.. Summer time

+1..... Gonna be a Good year for Sweet corn.

Mosquitoes are bad in the woods with working on tree stands!

Dude........sounds like you have been on the gills! yum!

and blackberries are looking great also!

I still dont believe they dropped the quotas numbers enough...if it is a 4 or more bonus county, you still have that crappy late Doe gun season.... so yea, they dropped Porter to 4, IMO. that is still to high of a quota.....they needed to drop the late Doe gun season too... on top of that, unless they change the urban zone regs, they still will consider the whole county an urban zone, which is still an additional 4 deer....Glad to see they kept Wabash at 3 so no late Doe gun there...

Can anyone reference a source that tells how many hunters in Indiana actually kill more than one or two deer a year?

I remember reading it in the past, but can't remember where.

Never mind, I found it....

Here's a link to a survey taken in 2010. www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/IN_Deer_Report.pdf


Hunter success rates for 2010

Percentage of Hunters who killed....

0 deer - 43.5 %
1 deer - 30.00 %
2 deer - 12.2 %
3 deer - 5.6 %
4 deer - 2.4 %
5 deer - .9 %
6 deer - .5 %
7 deer - .2 %
8+deer - .6 %

If anyone has the comparable data from the last two seasons, please post a link.

Thanks

I used to take up to 5...one year 7 !! regular tags/bonus and urban...I did this for multiple years.... then I wised up!..... IF I killed every deer that was in range, I could kill 4 easily every year....like I said there are those that wised up and wont do it any longer, and there are guys like I USED to be and try and kill every Doe they can 'cause they are lead to believe that is what is needed....it isnt, it is time to re-educate todays hunter....

You get that figured out and I'll buy you dinner

I've had it figured out for the past several years, it isn't anything to do with management.....


It is GOVERMENT and the need to grow and control....


It is YOUR dollars! They need it to continue to grow and control.

Folks, realize, IDNR is interested in one thing........REVENUE.


Deer hunters ARE the cash cow of all DNR's in the midwest....As Jon Olson once told me, "We can always rebuild the deer herd if needed, we have shown we can do it ........" It is all about your expendable dollars.

But Joe, do you really think the DNR would seek to destroy the well being of the deer herd for the sake of revenue? I don't think they would. I don't believe at all that the late doe season had anything to do with money. And, in some regards we continue to say the hunters are the problem because they pull the trigger and on the other hand at times we say the government is the problem because they don't manage the way a subset of society wishes them to manage. It does take revenue to run the agency and the agency hasn't grown in the recent past so I do think they are trying hard to control expenses. We had even argued in the past the Indiana's DNR staff is woefully underpaid as compared to other states. If that is true, then it would appear that they are not overspending, maybe underspending a bit. And even in those other states that pay their staff more, there is great divides between hunters over what should and shouldn't be done with the deer herd. So, in the end are we saying that they we don't want the government involved and we would prefer to privatize the deer herd? That doesn't work either very well. It's a vicious circle. As evidenced by society throughout America, there is constant criticism of government, all agencies, and yet I doubt it anyone could take a government role and make even 80% of the people they serve happy. And lastly, when compared to other forms of recreation, a hunting license is still pretty darn cheap.

Delaney Exactly...

Just three or four years ago, there was talk about hunters needing to kill more does. There were discussions about a late antler less season, an early antler less season and even earn a buck.

Now....we are screaming about too many does being killed because of "insert reason here"......

I gain new respect for the DNR every day. To have to try to manage the resource, while trying to appease not only hunters, but the non-hunting population, the politicians, special interest groups, farmers and the insurance companies would have to drive you to the edge of insanity.

What a thankless job......

There are two kinds of revenue generation for our Midwestern DNR's.......Quantity Revenue Generation.......and........Quality Revenue Generation.

We are in the transition period where Quantity once drove revenue.........and when the "Quantity" lure does not exist any more.........Quality will be the only lure left on the table for our DNR for revenue generation and continued "lure" into the field for our hunters.

We will have pain to let go of the "old revenue" generation scheme..........but a new one will erupt.

Bank on it..........

Before my stomach "erupts" reading this continuing dribble, how about defining this "quality" thing of which you write, that is seemingly consuming some peoples constant way of thinking.

Quality versus quantity is the reason Iowa, Kansas and Illinois are able to charge $500+, $400+ and $400+ respectively for limited numbers of NR deer tags....and Indiana still charges $150 for unlimited NR deer tags.

Those high dollar tags are a simple matter of supply and demand. Indiana offers an unlimited supply, but a fraction of the demand dictates a fraction of the cost.

While true Paul, if you follow those states, and I'm sure you do, their residents are not overly happy about the NR access and the management of their deer herds. Those DNR agencies have been under recent pressure. The point is, no matter what state it is, someone is unhappy and the DNR agencies are always under attack and there appears to be no perfect plan.

And while you look @ that like it's a bad thing, I see the upside of it.

Go to Illinois and ask many of the residents there how much they've loved being part of the whitetail capital of the Midwest. Ask how many of them have been just about priced out of hunting by leasing and outfitting. Many of those that are still hunting are doing so on over crowded, over hunted public ground (if they can find some) or on small private parcels that leasing hasn't swallowed up. And when you hunt tiny parcels or over crowded public ground what happens? You tend to be a bit less choosy about what you kill.

I think Indiana has struck a nice balance with the deer herd. Bucks and does are being taken on nearly a 1/1 ratio and there are opportunities for ALL hunters in ALL seasons.

Seems pretty good to me....

Wonder why Kentucky wasn't on the list???

Hmmm......

Which brings me back to the point I made in an earlier post...

I gain new respect for the DNR every day. To have to try to manage the resource, while trying to appease not only hunters, but the non-hunting population, the politicians, special interest groups, farmers and the insurance companies would have to drive you to the edge of insanity.

What a thankless job......

Yes Dave, I don't just "follow" those states, I have actually hunted whitetails in each state mentioned on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, first hand knowledge tends to get ignored when it doesn't align with some folks' perception.

I posted the cost differences and, in my opinion/experience, those differences are justified. If you really want to hear some resident screaming...shove Indiana's deer management plan down the throat of the good folks in Iowa, Kansas or Illinois. They may not have it as good as they once did...which gives them reason to complain...but they have NEVER had to put up with the Indiana deer model.

THANK YOU!!!!

Omg I just shake my head at this Quantity vs. Quality BS dribble...

"Quality" hunting is what the hunter makes of it... I can go out and not see one deer but it doesn't mean I didn't have a quality hunting experience...

But yet some on here think if we adopted Ohio (or insert other state) regs that our deer will grow to some gargantuan beasts which probably will not happen... Buck sizes are not determined by hunting seasons, but rather by habitat and genes...

Paul, the point is simply that there are already many in those states you reference that are unhappy with the deer regulations and those particular states DNR approach. There is no right or wrong. I can certainly appreciate your perspective and experience, but that doesn't take into account many of live in those states who appear to very, very unhappy about the management philosophy that supposedly led to less access for the average hunter and forced many out of their sport on private lands. There are just too many variables and personal preferences to suggest that one management approach is better or worse then another approach. That's why anyone who professes that this approach or that approach is "the right approach" is simply goofy. Now, if they were to profess that this is the right approach for "me", then I fully understand that. Remember, I'm a guy who could live with a 15 early archery season and a five day gun season and call it quits. Sure as the heck doesn't make me right but it sure as the heck would probably produce the "quality" deer herd some want but who don't want to give up any of their season to get there. Again, my only point is Iowa, Illinois, Ohio Kentucky and so on, don't have it "right". They just have chosen a different path and in doing so they have a lot of unhappy hunters who are residents of those states.

Well Dave, I thought we were discussing quality versus quantity. I was simply offering my take on why some quality management states can charge four and five times the money for a buck tag versus Indiana...and still leave people lining up to get in.

I'd be willing to bet, the state of Iowa pulls in more revenue from NR deer preference point sales than Indiana generates in NR deer tag sales. Why do you think that is?...and why would the powers that be in Indiana not want to emulate that system? I think that is the point of Dew's post.

Joe keeps preaching the deer herd is the IDNR's cash cow. How long before they figure out a better means to capitalize on that resource?

Agreed. But, I would pose a simpler question though. If the intent is to maximize revenue, then why not charge extra now for a buck license. Now, I'm not proposing that obviously but the state could reasonably easy increase revenue by charging more for a buck license to residents with the management plan in place today. So, is the intent to create "quality bucks (big bucks)" or is it to produce "quality revenue (maximum revenue)"? If it is about money, then you probably don't have to necessarily create big bucks to increase revenue. Certainly, under both models, there is a breaking point between money and will to buy a license parts ways. As price increases, hunters drop out and possibly age structure increases. But, it would take a lot of hunters to drop out before revenue would get back to net zero.

They already have......

Implementation of such here in Indiana has just been delayed.

Dew, I don't know about the delayed issue, but the DNR has known for years how they could maximize license revenue from deer. There are just a few other issues they also have to consider and deal with. Actually, to the surprise of many people, the DNR has a lot of smart people working for it.

I know you don't know......

Big yawn.. Anyone try cracked pepper on the popcorn?.. Its great.. Gills are still biting

Keith, you seem unconcerned, almost passive! You must believe "life is too short!" You are wise beyond your years.

Life IS too short to worry about this crap. Carry on...

Policy changes are almost always incremental. Think steering a battleship v. whipping around on a jet ski. It takes time and trends and data.

Relax and steer. You will not be able to whip this ship. It's all going to be OK.

Well Dave the older I get the less I know. Its 5 am and I was just happy I woke up. I've fought a ton of fights on an array of issues..as much as I love to hunt whitetails, I wish there was this much passion for other wild life... There use to be more in Indiana than just deer...

Uhhh...we have the same habitat as Ohio and Illinois..? Age of herd is in fact associated with our regs. Common sense is all that is needed to understand this. When are bucks most visible..typically? When is our gun season? How long is our gun season? Why do our bucks not get the chance to grow? Easy questions with simple answers.

Wake up. It's all about quality aka mature bucks if you couldn't figure out what quality meant. Not quality of the hunt but quality of the herd. Can't believe this has to be explained. U guys ever see the guys in the gas stations when ur headed out for an am hunt..the guys who have on all their camo including their boots? I feel like that is the crowd I'm associating with on here..for the most part anyways. I always laugh a lil when I see these guys and they look at you like "what's so funny" ha. Uhh u funny man

Arguments about season timing, season length and equipment choices aside, I'm looking forward to the season.

We've finally gotten some good rain here in the southern part of the state, and our plots and bean field are looking good. Our stands are set and my bow, crossbow and .44 mag rifle are all sighted in.

Looking forward to October.

Come on Sept 15th!!

Agreed

Can't we just get along and hunt? If we keep it up, we will be replaced by some sharp shooters in helicopters. Bring on the urban season!

Nope..

Ha, camo is way over rated. I have killed plenty of deer while wearing a flannel shirt and tennis shoes. I do fill up the night before though. =)

Everybody has an opinion on when gun season should fall and how long it should be.

Personally, I like to see the testosterone fueled mature bucks on their feet dogging a doe when have a 150 yd+ weapon in my hands.

My crossbow is dialed in and urban deer season opens in a short 2 and a half months!!

I never said we didn't have the same habitat as Ohio or Illinois... I just merely pointed out that genes and habitat have more to do with quality of our herd then regs...

You wonder why our bucks can't grow?... Well golly gee hunters go out and shoot them, that's why and changing our regs will not change that... Hunters will still go out and shoot them... I've been to other state hunting forums and they pee and moan about never seeing big bucks or deer for that matter just like you do...

Joe posted pics last year of a big 6 pointer on his property... He also stated that that buck has always been a 6 pointer... He never grew any more points because Mother Nature intended for that to happen... So even if we changed our regs, it doesn't necessary equate to bigger bucks...

I've asked a guy who lives in Iowa if their bucks are really big and told me all the big bucks from Iowa come from big outfitters that set up shop there but the average deer hunter would be very lucky to see that deer that big outside of those places...

As far as your "quality" statement goes... You and I have different opinions on what quality means to us... I equate quality as the experience of the hunt, you equate quality as to the size of its rack... To each is own I guess... In another topic you stated that you "hunt your butt off" with your bow... Care to elaborate what you mean by that... Do you hunt from a stand or do you hunt from the ground doing spot and stalks?

Yup... Reminds me of the time I took a leak off my buddy's ladder stand and a few minutes later a fawn walked right through it with its nose to the ground and it never even flinched from it...

As long as you don't make any sudden moves most deer will ignore you if they don't feel threatened...

False.....


False.....

Depends on the type of regs changed Dew.

Obviously.......

Also, the deer hunters in Iowa are having some fun themselves in regard to how they view the Iowa DNR and the proposed changes, mostly around antlerless issues. I guess Indiana's DNR isn't the only DNR thats under pressure from crazed deer hunters.

So Deer and Deer Hunting Magazines are full of lies then huh? Genetics, habitat, the overall environment has more to do with a bucks antlers then regs do.. So their contributors (who mostly are retired biologists) are full of crap and don't know what they are talking about but someone who probably doesn't have a degree in Biology knows it all, right... Well golly gee folks there you have it... Who needs a degree in Biology when you have "Dew" around because he knows it all and he is the "expert"... :rolleyes:

So this guy is a liar then huh?... A guy who lives and owns land in Iowa is liar because of what he told me... Do you know this guy personally or something? How or why would you call someone a liar that you don't know?

This guy never has to worry about me going to Iowa or any other state to hunt whitetails because why pay to do something there that I can do here for basically nothing... If I'm gonna spend good money on a hunting trip it sure as heck isn't gonna be wasted on that.... I would rather hunt something that I can't hunt here...

Just like Illinois' DNR and several other mid-western states' DNRs......

......And I would bet now that Ohio is allowing PCRs there are plenty of bow hunters there who have (and will continue to) voice their displeasure to the ODNR (and to one another on the hunting forums).

In other words...different state, different year, same arguments....LOL.

Before you dig the hole your in any deeper...I would suggest you ask a deer biologist what he feels is the primary factor driving overall discrepancies in buck quality between Indiana and other states like Iowa and Ohio.

The answer will be the fact Indiana has a 16 day firearm season in the heart of the rut....and states like Iowa and Ohio offer much shorter post rut firearms seasons. Indiana has plenty of good genetics and offers a virtual smorgasboard of prime habitat. What Indiana does not offer is a legitimate chance for our bucks to reach maturity....and that has EVERYTHING to do with season lengths and timing. But I don't have a degree in deer biology...so don't take it from me.

Also, and this is just some free advice...you should probably leave out the mocking tones (well golly gee) when debating a topic with someone that brings ALOT more knowledge to the table than you are able to provide. Makes you look the fool to the rest of those reading.

So, you "asked a guy"....seriously? Maybe you should seek out a better source of information.

I'm "a guy"....and can tell you this:
My whiteail bowhunting experience in Iowa consists of six trips dating back to the late 90's. Two hunts took place in Zone 5 and four hunts in Zone 6. I have bowhunted both public and private land in both zones.

All hunts have been DIY (do it yourself, no outfitter and no leased land) with mid-November timing. Private land access has not been difficult. Public ground is severely under utilized. It is actually rare to see vehicles parked on public ground....even during the rut.

I have killed a few nice bucks and eaten a couple tags. BUT...the ONLY reason there aren't six record book Iowa whitetails on my wall...is my own fault. I have NEVER made a trip to Iowa that did not result in at least one opportunity to kill a P&Y deer with bow and arrow.

This coming from a guy that has only spent maybe nine or ten weeks of his life in Iowa. I can only imagine what it would be like to live there and have the opportunity to scout year round and hunt the entire season.

Funny how every time this "disagreement" about Indiana's gun season comes up, no one that dislikes the gun season in Indiana ever mentions how Kentucky's gun season starts somewhere around the 9th or so of November. And yet somehow, Kentucky hunters manage to kill some pretty good bucks year in and year out.

H*ll, even Illinois has a November gun opener.....


It just goes to show, that if we put our equipment bias aside, we'd see that there are multiple ways to manage a deer herd and provide ALL hunters with good opportunities.

Disregarding all other states and whatever you feel is a quality hunting experience would you answer me one question please.

Would more or less bucks reach maturity if IN gun's season was out of the rut and shortened?

I think that is the point some are trying to make. Granted that isn't what everybody wants... obviously. But I think it'd be pretty hard to deny that it would be easier for bucks to put on some age if gun season was moved and shortened. But I'm sure many will find a way to disagree.

I get their "point" and I'd answer your question with a simple answer, but then again the answer isn't really so simple.....

So let me ask you a few questions. If protecting bucks is the ultimate goal......

Wouldn't more bucks reach maturity if we shut down deer hunting for the entire month of November?

And wouldn't more bucks reach maturity if we didn't allow game cameras of any kind but especially "real time" game cameras during the season?

And would you be willing to do either of the above?

And finally.....even if you moved/shortened the gun season to December don't you think that more 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 year old bucks would die than do now as hunters would be less likely to pass on younger bucks?

Season length, timing, hunter attitude, hunter density, hunter access, hunter numbers, weather and so on all influence deer harvest, does and bucks. It's funny though that no one wants to give up "their" season when the bucks are most vulnerable. Probably the biggest issue though, in my opinion, becomes hunter density. Most outfitters that control large acreage don't typically want shorter seasons because that affects the opportunity for revenue. They can pretty much control the overall harvest numbers through hunter density on their properties. So, in that case, season length is meaningless. Those same outfitters probably also want to be able to hunt all weapons in the highest time of buck movement and vulnerability. So, again, it is about what's "best" for "me".

Delaney And that's exactly why I asked that very question of Cody.Query....

I highly doubt that people who primarily hunt with a bow would be willing to give up their time in the November woods. Yet, that's the very thing they expect gun hunters to do.....

JJAS, Your first four words were what I was looking for, I'll step out now and leave the disagreement for everyone else. I don't fight it anymore just leads to headaches.

But to answer your questions for me personally.
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO

That comes with the caveat that I don't consider myself the typical deer hunter.

And I hardly consider myself the typical deer hunter either.

But....my whole point with this subject is simply this. Most bow hunters wouldn't dream of giving up their time in the November woods for the sake of the buck herd they profess to want to protect. Yet many of these same bow hunters want.....no... they expect gun hunters to do the very thing they won't.

Funny and sad. Funny how so many get so worked up over the idea of moving the gun season and "protecting the vulnerable rutting bucks" from the gun hunters.

At the root of this discussion though is just plain old human selfishness.

Exactly...+1

Most wouldn't...I would.

You are not alone....

What if it really ACTUALLY was that simple.......but some need it to be "complicated" so it appears "too messy" to follow something simple they just don't want or care about.

It is relatively simple, if you determine what the primary goal is. For instance, if you only care about growing big bucks and forgetting all the other factors, its simple if you ignore everything else. Or, if you only care about the majority of hunters preference in regard to opportunity, ignoring big bucks or the herd's welfare, its pretty simple. Of course, this could go on and on. But, that's where it comes to "just don't want". When you add the aspect of what people want, you have to decide where that is prioritized, or course after assurance the deer herd is biologically sound.

It's only that simple when you only care about getting what you want.

What some seem to keep forgetting is that deer hunting in Indiana isn't only for the select few who wish to rewrite the regs the way they want.

It's for all deer hunters.

Most of the hunters who keep pushing this agenda, wouldn't dream of giving up bow hunting in the November woods for the sake of the buck herd they profess to want to protect. Yet these same hunters want.....no... they expect gun hunters to do the very thing they won't.

And until these hunters are willing to make a major sacrifice like sitting out November (which I'm pretty sure they never will) then this continued quest to shorten/move the gun seasons seems a bit selfish and self serving to me.....

Just as it has for the last 4 years.

And I respect that position completely.

Truer Words Were Never Spoken .......

Best post in the thread

Brew do u ever have anything to say besides agreeing with somebody else? Can you not make your own decisions? This isn't about being selfish. This is about how to grow mature bucks. IF that is your goal EVEN if your a gun hunter you know that by changing the gun season it would help. Bow or gun hunter it shouldn't matter. I do both but my goal is to kill a mature buck. And unlike a few I know what can greatly increase my odds. So if your goal is mature bucks but you don't want to change the gun season I believe you are the selfish one or youre just not too bright

Brew I appreciate the sentiment, but I have a feeling the rebuttal will soon be posted.....


Oops....it appears the rebuttal was posted while I was posting this reply.....

Even as it frequently seems to pit one weapon group against another, I doubt that the average deer hunter, regardless of weapon used or season used in, will willingly give up anything, for any reason. If everyone keeps it all in perspective and realizes that there are just so many other more important things in life, the rules, regs and outcomes shouldn't really get folks all worked up. Just think what it was like 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Its not all that bad now.

literally the dumbest post I have ever read. that is all.

what kind of person with one bit of intelligence would say bucks sizes are not determined by hunting seasons but rather by habitat and genes.

How bout this get rid of deer season all together in Indiana and lets see how big the bucks get.

Parke So if you expect gun hunters to have their season moved and/or shortened to protect the bucks, wouldn't it make sense to not bow hunt during the time when bucks are the most vulnerable to help accomplish your goal and let them breed in peace?

Both sides, all sides, gun or bow or crossbow can be characterized as selfish. I'm not sure the use of the selfish really applies because it many ways that word is overused in the context of what is being discussed. Sure, bow hunters are selfish, as are gun hunters, as are crossbow hunters, as are muzzleloader hunters but not in the pure context of one being more so then the other. People wanting their way isn't really selfish anymore, but instead its the way society is. Using the word selfish makes it more personal then it should be. With the gene pool in Indiana and the nutrition available, yes, all you have to do is let deer get older to have, in general, bigger antlers. Not materially the same in states that don't have great nutrition. Even characterizing what is a mature buck is an interesting discussion because to simply say its a score of "X" Is a bit ridiculous because some bucks might never get to that "X" even if they died of old age.

Funny in a way how deer hunters appear to want to rely on the DNR to solve their problems. In the waterfowl world, there is tremendous argument over seasons and the DNR takes it on the chin frequently. But, when it comes to actually finding ducks, many of the "elite" (MY WORD) waterfowlers scoff at the idea that the DNR has to put effort and energy to public properties for the guys who don't want to put the effort to finding or making their own waterfowl heaven privately. Those who depend on the DNR are often called "welfare hunters". Now, I'm not suggesting that's fair or appropriate or even applicable to deer hunting but what guys should do if they don't like what the DNR is doing is they should buy, lease or whatever enough ground to control their own destiny. After all, its recreation and I'm not sure the government should be responsible for providing recreation.

a mature buck isnt defined by score I think people would agree its a combination of score, age, size.

This gets funnier every off season.

delaney Exactly........

If you only want to hunt mature bucks, by all means have @ it. We've had a one buck rule for years, so build on it. Pass on young bucks, get your neighbors to go along with your management ideas, set up a sanctuary and never step foot in it, ease up on the number of does you kill. Do whatever is legal and you think is right on your ground.

But it's unrealistic to expect a certain segment of deer hunters in Indiana to go along with giving up part of their season to help feed your trophy hunting obsession and besides.....

When did this "It takes a village" nonsense creep into deer hunting?

BUT, we're on page 7 and it pretty much hasn't gotten overly personal or nasty yet. THAT is a credit to everyone!!! But, I'm sure its coming.

Yup. I am just here to copy down Bo's raspberry muffin recipe.

Picked a gallon of them this afternoon--bumper crop this year!!

I went yest after work to pick. I also got a lil over a gallon in about an hour... and that was having to tromp through some tall thick brush to get to 'em too! LOTof poison where I was, that's for sure!

I just copied that recipe I'm goin Saturday to load up. And yes surprisingly it hasn't gotten personal yet......

It was just matter of time for the "chicken Little" crowd to chime in!!!

I think it's been a pretty good discussion in general with a seemingly growing subtle acknowledgement that it's mostly a situation of personal idealism differences as opposed to something being wrong. Heck, it's kind of a mirror image of Congress. Just don't know who the conservatives and liberals are since both want the government involved to help them out.

Hasent gotten Personal ?? That was until you said ALL SIDES I didn't do it

Would you all shut up! I'm trying to kill a muskrat here!

I think for us deer hunters the seasons are fine. For you buck hunters it just makes for a bigger challenge and a more meaningful reward when you do kill your buck.
Good luck on the muskrat gundude!

Simple, yet so very true. Out of the 50 states Indiana's not doing to bad producing mature whitetails with our season structure for those that choose to do the work to put their tag on one. For the meat hunters, nobodies missing any meals that I know of.

^^^^^^good post^^^^^^