The days are winding down on season two of proposal 2.0. We will know more once the harvest numbers are released….but it certainly feels like there are a lot more unhappy deer hunters than just a year ago. The ultimate question looms…was 2.0 too much….too fast?

To be honest, my personal experience does not provide a good feel. I have a good situation. I don’t feel guilty about that… because it is not by accident. Unless the state takes this to the next level, and starts infringing on private property rights (which I can’t fathom happening), my situation should remain relatively constant. The one wild card in the equation is trespassing. The farm is already experiencing increased trespassing issues and I fear that will get worse as deer hunting success declines on surrounding properties.

The DNR is once again asking for input. I’m going to skip the process again this year (did the same last year). As mentioned above, whatever path the DNR chooses will have little effect on the farm. If I’m wrong and deer hunting in Indiana gets to the point I don’t enjoy it….there are other places to hunt….been there….done that.

I do, however, have something to get off my chest….that being the difference between proposals 1.0 and 2.0. I’m seeing posts surfacing that are apparent attempts to draw similarities between the two proposals…even though the proposals were night and day different. Comments like “both proposals addressed deer reduction”…or “both proposals included late antlerless firearms seasons” are misleading and intended or not…manipulative to the uninformed. Supporters of 1.0 were accused of being “agenda driven”, but I would offer the feedback provided in support of 2.0 was worse. Many supported 2.0 out of fear of losing firearms opportunity if it didn’t pass. Others used 2.0 as a vehicle to promote crossbow liberalization. Agenda driven? You bet your ***.

Proposal 1.0 was not driven by the DNR, but by lawmakers (happy Dave?). The DNR was being forced to come up with something to prove a deer reduction effort was underway. Findings concluded the ratio of buck harvest to doe harvest needed to be addressed. Changes were proposed to firearms season structures to take some of the focus off antlered deer harvest…..which in turn should have had a positive effect on the harvest ratio. The point being, we didn’t necessarily need to kill more deer to take the legislative pressure off….just different deer. Basically, that was 1.0 in a nutshell.

Due to the outcry from the non-agenda driven folks (yeah right)….it was back to the drawing board for the DNR. This time tasked to come up with something different…and by the way…don’t touch gun season. How’s that for a set of handcuffs? Next up….2.0…..an aggressive deer killing proposal if there ever was one. Compared to 1.0….the second proposal increased general firearm/ML opportunity by roughly 40% (I used 28/40 to get there. I can’t recall the final 1.0 number, but 28 is close, the 2.0 number was 43 this year, but varies annually). In addition to that, 2.0 added roughly two full months of crossbow pressure that had never existed. By adding more potential focus on antlered deer (instead of less, 1.0)….it required very aggressive measures to address that antlerless harvest ratio mentioned earlier. It is what it is….and is nothing remotely comparable to 1.0. To be clear, I’m not certain 1.0 would have produced the desired results? Just pointing out it was a much less aggressive approach.

I apologize for the long post, but it will be my last…at least for awhile. I’ve accepted that I’m a minority here….and I just don’t have the patience or the energy any more. A big part of it likely stems from the fact I was intimately involved with the DNR regarding deer management for quite some time. Back then, decisions were made by people sitting down at a table and hashing out the issues. It wasn’t always a bed of roses…but it was a far cry better than deer management based on who can submit the most emails.