I will just take Mr. Bacon's comments as they come one paragraph at a time.

First: We did come to the FWCC as a group, organized with a STAFF of 8 Individuals, that facilitate a voice for the individuals concerned with the health of the Whitetail Deer Herd in Indiana and our hunting heritage. Please refer to our mission statement. The Facebook format allows for free and easy communication by individuals on their thoughts and perspective of our mission statement. We have in excess of 11,000 followers, of which as many as 9,000 are actively engaged in the conversation weekly. All of these individual's concerns and ideas are available to not only the DNR, IDHA, Hoosier Hunting, but anyone that wants to go to our page and look for themselves. We are not a representative group, rather facilitate actual concerns and ideas to get heard.

As far as banning, we addressed this from your forum once on our page: https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1025059857505696 please refer to this post.

So of the over 11,100 followers/members we currently have, we have banned a number less than 30. So about 1/3 of 1%; 0.0031 to be exact. Pretty insignificant in the big picture statistically. First, most have been people using vulgar language or threatening comments repeatedly. Secondly, many of these are people not in Indiana so do not have a dog in this fight. Thirdly, some of those "banned" followers do not exist as real people, rather fake Facebook accounts. Lastly, we have a clear mission statement, and we have a specific agenda and goals that fall under that mission statement. Therefore we are not going to tolerate one or two individuals that want to continually come onto our page and promote disharmony to those missions and goals. We believe if all one wants to do is continually argue their point about other issues, weapon type, domestic deer farming, continual there are plenty of places to do that. In the very few cases we have banned someone for this last reason, we have reached out to them first, many times giving them second, third, . . . chances. After all else fails we have 8 members on the Board of Directors. We consider all the evidence, document it, and then vote on whether to ban or not for the general welfare of the group and our mission and goals. This is something we do not take lightly. However, as you can see from this thread many times they become just a back and forth argument on who can one up the other. This does no good for the benefit of our mission statement and we will not tolerate or participate in such repeatedly. We are going to positively move forward to get the grassroots deer enthusiast viewpoint heard.

As for the IDNR Facebook page, they do in fact censor. There was a very good post about nuisance deer that generated a lot of public comment from not just us but many non related individuals. However, the IDNR chose to delete that post and censor scores of citizens.


Second: Of course our polls are going to ask about the questions we are concerned about. Can any question or comment be manipulated? Of course. Even the Devil can use the Bible for his purposes. Are we professional pollsters, of course not. We are working class citizens, that are attempting to address a concern that thousands of other citizens are recognizing in the management of OUR property and resources. That is why the Facebook forum and social media is a good format. Anyone can look at the posts, comments, and directly firsthand get a feeling for what the followers of our page are saying. Not just the eight of us as staff/board members. As far as the banning issue again I responded in response to your first paragraph.

Third: Of course we are against the current management plan. Do we feel there is a overharvesting of the resource taking place, of course. We are not attempting to hide that fact. Does that me we are anti-DNR, of course not. We KNOW, that most individuals within the agency do what they do for the love of the resource, it is obviously not to get rich or famous. However, we also know they are hamstringed more times than not, due to politics and finances. Currently, there are only 8 of 22 biologists on staff, there is not a deer biologist, unless that has changed in recent days. They have a mandate by law to perform their duties. It is up to us as citizens, when we see them being hamstringed to speak out and get them the funding and resources they need to do their job. We are as PRO DNR as you can be. The second half of this paragraph attacking us personally for our success as deer hunters, is just plain unprofessional and out of line. We have killed a lot of deer, did our job as management tools when there were an abundance of deer. However we did this in moderation. Now that the abundance is gone in many areas, we are practicing moderation in our harvest strategies. His numbers are also misleading. As far as the Walters, there are 13 of us that at one time or another actively hunt, and many more that participate on a non consumptive level. We never have taken an excessive amount of deer out of any given area, ever. We will not apologize for doing our job in managing the herd, as we are attempting to do now in moderation as the conservationists we have always been. We have actively pursued conservation both in season and out of season. https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1028877693790579

Fourth: If the IDHA seen this over reduction going on, why haven't they been shouting to the top of their lungs to conserve the resource and protect our hunting tradition. This overharvest has amounted in dead deer in the hundreds of thousands. This ties into his fifth paragraph: CWD has not killed one wild deer in Indiana, nor is there consistent research that deer FARMING, contributes to the spread of this disease. Why was the IDHA not proactive in attempting to reducing the overharvest of does when the EHD epidemics hit Indiana, and continue too. Actually fighting these actual 4 +/- canned hunting operations you now have a ruling from the supreme court that has taken all overseeing of domestic wild animals out of the authority of the DNR, and made it more easy for a person or corporation to abuse our resources. What was a small problem or insignificant is now a hornets nest. How many deer has the crossbow really killed, in excess of what would have been killed without it? How many days of any season has been lost due to allowing crossbow hunting? Are we against canned hunting, as staff and a board, absolutely; totally unethical and against what every hunter should believe; however, we do not think it is of direct significant consequences to the wild deer herd. Therefore we do not think that clouding "the fight" with these more minor issues, does anything to promote our larger mission statement. Forest for the trees. We have recently sent a letter to the governor that outlines our goals as a GROUP. These Goals are:

1. To develop dialog with State government and the agencies thereof entrusted to manage the resources of the citizens of Indiana.
2. Help develop a statewide, but county by county, deer advisory board consisting of members from the hunting, farming, insurance, tourism, and non-consumptive users communities. Similar to Wisconsin’s newly enacted system that in its first year reduced the doe harvest in many counties, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdac.html , or a wildlife or deer congress as other states have, that receives input for all users of the resource.
3. Express our concerns, that in areas with hunting access, the whitetail doe herd is being overharvested to the detriment of the resource, and there needs to be an immediate reduction in the use of bonus county antlerless permits. While we believe this is a management tool, we believe it should be used as designed to manage overpopulated areas, of which are mostly societal issues, not true overpopulation. True overpopulation by exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat has been very isolated occurrences in this state. Originally this allowed hunters to draw an extra tag for one antlerless deer, not the extreme of eight, and only in problem counties. We feel this tool has been exploited beyond its intended purpose to eliminate too many antlerless deer, and its intended purpose has been taken over by the deer reduction zone, that again does not use moderation, rather extremes in limits that can be in the very short term damaging to our resource and have long term consequences. The DNR does not have adequate staff or a system in place to address the current populations and management thereof. The DNR cannot currently tell us how many deer are in each county. Would be hard to manage anything, for example money, if one did not know how much one had. The DNR used these extreme measures of total deer elimination in the State Parks instead of managing in moderation, and acting on habitat destruction prior to its decimation, and now one is hard pressed to see a deer in said parks. The DNR by using these extreme numbers are promoting the same consequences in all the counties as well. They do understand this; otherwise what is the reason for not allowing the use of bonus county permits in the Fish and Wildlife areas? People expect to see deer in these areas, as well do citizen owners of the resource in the counties.
4. Express our concerns over the depredation permit system. One that promotes the harvest of does during the fawning season in the summer, in affect killing the un-weaned fawns through inhuman starvation or worse, and in cases tripling or more the reduction effect on the herd. While wantonly wasting our resources. The DNR does not have staff to adequately assess the damage requirement. Legislation brought this program about and we will be seeking to have this legislation changed in the near future.
5. Express our concerns that the DNR is currently not staffed in such a manner as to fulfill their obligation under law to manage the resource properly. With EHD and other diseases, our current system and staffing does not allow for timely management decisions that must be made to conserve our resources. Not to mention the everyday duties of biologists to manage our resources. Currently there are only 8 of the 22 current biologist positions filled, and we still do not have a state deer biologist.
a. Statute: Indiana statute defines the authority and responsibilities of the DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife: “ The [Division of Fish and Wildlife] shall . . . provide for the protection, reproduction, care, management, survival and regulation of wild animal populations regardless of whether the wild animals are present on public or private property . . . [and) Organize and pursue a program of research and management of wild animals that will serve the best interests of the resources and the people of Indiana.” (Indiana Code Title 14, Article 22, Chapter 2, Section 3)
b. With this decreased staffing level it would be impossible to manage the depredation claims, assess the wildlife assets of the state, nor manage those assets with due diligence.
6. Promote the idea of sustainable harvest of our state forests and lands to promote wildlife, healthy forest and lands, and the resources and citizens of the State.
7. Promote the procurement of available funding from the Federal Government for further state land acquisition within the state boundaries.
8. Promote ideas for hunter access to CRP ground to assist farmers with deer management.
9. Promote ideas to improve watershed habitat for all wildlife, and water quality, by supporting Clean Water Indiana, and federally funded grants.
10. Work with the DNR to implement funding options that ensure we gain the maximum federal matching dollars to support wildlife in Indiana.

We have also sent a petition to the IGA Natural Resource Committee Summer Study Group to look into funding for the DNR, being proactive in unlocking funds for fish and wildlife resources.

https://www.facebook.com/Indianadee...907232132621803/1030217320323283/?type=1

So can you or any of your members find one single fault in the goals we are attempting to reach? Are these not goals that benefit, the resource, all consumptive and non-consumptive users of the resource, and the boots on the ground staff of the DNR?

Sixth: Just to appease the IDHA< IBA< and IWF, we have formed bylaws, officers, a membership list, and are going to register with the state. As far as the tax reporting. There is none, as all the money to promote our cause is coming out of our own pockets. We are not asking the membership for one single penny. Are we saying that is forever, who knows, but we are attempting to give everyone a FREE unencumbered voice and membership. As staff we believe in this cause to the extent of putting our money where our mouth is. This formation of bylaws and a membership list has caused a considerable amount of work on our parts, that really does not accomplish anything towards our mission statement, other than bureaucratic paperwork trail. It does not change the way we are operating. We are also setting up regional directors and county managers to get input from the grassroots deer enthusiasts.

So Mr. Bacon, if you wanted to work with us, why did you fight so hard to keep us from just having a say on the committee and telling the DNR what we think? Who is trying to impede the VOICE or "Banning" others? We want to work with the membership of the all organizations on the FWCC and those that are not as well. We want to work with all consumptive and non consumptive users of the resources, and even have dialog with the farming lobby and insurance companies, to see how we can come to some middle ground in moderation of management of our resources instead of an all or nothing approach. We feel the IDHA has done a lot for the resource. I personally, was involved for many years, my father still is in a significant way that benefits handicapped hunters and the image of the IDHA. I am grateful for your forethought in 1983 in founding the IDHA. We are not here to take it over, cause its demise, we would hope, that our focus is more direct, and would free up your diminishing resources to partner on other issues you are passionate about.

I believe this addresses all your issues, as well as other negative comments on this thread. We pray that there can now be some positive dialog at actually accomplishing something, as we will with or without your support, but we prefer the former. God bless.

Gary A Walters, RN, Staff and Member of Board of Directors, IWDHM Group