pav
Quote
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.
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
Quote
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.
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?