Pav,

The vertical bow archery harvest (as a percentage of total harvest) has been stagnant for years. It dropped to 16% in 2015 and quite frankly vertical archery hunters haven't shown any inclination to do what you are suggesting they will. With a full 3 month season, and 6 weeks of that season (more or less) to themselves, the opportunity to step up and assume a larger part of herd management has been (and continues to be) available.

Perhaps you are right in that it will change and if/when it does, maybe the DNR will decide to take a look at the season structure @ that time. But until then, with herd reduction ongoing and firearms hunters paying the bulk of the bills and managing the herd, I can't see why they would change much of anything...

Dew, I say, not as I dew....

6+ years of the same long winded, silly comments capped off with a bit of hypocrisy and threats that have never materialized....

It's really gotten boring....

Why don't you guys give it a rest!

Agreed

119242 From Sept 15, 2016 to Friday, January 6, 2017

Where is the "LIKE" button when you need it?

I agree as well. My apologies to all and I'll do my very best to not get involved in it again.

Vertical bow opportunity has not changed much in many years (its basically maxed out). We have introduced crossbows and additional gun days in recent years. Additional weapon options and more days to hunt with with those weapons are going to affect the harvest percentages. You start out with a whole pie...but the more slices you take from a pie, the smaller the slices become.

I would also offer that we're not recruiting new vertical bowhunters at a significant rate. Most bowhunters started out a gun hunters and picked up bowhunting for the additional opportunity. Today, folks have the option to gain that same opportunity without learning to shoot a vertical bow. They can take a crossbow right off the shelf....aim and shoot it using the same form as their guns. The incentive (extra opportunity) for people to transition to vertical bows has basically been eliminated.

The percentage I posted from Ohio (45% of total harvest) was vertical bow and crossbow combined.
In 2015, that was a combined 26% of the Indiana harvest. If we reduce gun days, that percentage will climb...just as it did in Ohio.

To be clear, I have no delusions of Indiana adopting shorter gun seasons for the sake quality hunting. If it happens, IMO it will be due to over harvest. If we get to that point, it just makes sense to shorten the "management" season versus the "recreation" season.

I have no inside sources or information...but I won't be surprised if our deer seasons look alot like Ohio's sometime in the not too distant future.

Pav,

I obviously can't disagree that with crossbow inclusion, overall archery harvest percentages are up. When you look @ the data, before crossbow inclusion in 2012 the archery harvest accounted for roughly 20% of the total yearly total. Since crossbow inclusion for all, over the last four seasons (2012/15) the archery harvest has risen to 27% of the yearly total harvest.

I also agree that eventually the firearms seasons will likely be shortened and/or moved. But, IMO the percentage of the total harvest by archery hunters is going to drive that bus. Having said that...for the IDNR to make any major changes before those trends are clear (as indicated by the percentage of total harvest by archery hunters steadily growing), makes little sense to me.

Regardless, it will definitely be interesting to see what happens as the next few seasons pass.

Thanks for the post.

With Archery going up did firearm harvest go down acordingly stay the same or go up too ??

Constructive conversation 👍.

Yea...f'n great...more crossgun guys in my archery season...(sarcasm intended for those in Rio Linda)

I looked @ two different seasons several years apart (2009 and 2015), to come up with this snapshot.


In 2009, Archery season accounted for 22%, firearms season 63%, muzzleloader season 14%, youth season 1% of the total harvest.

In 2015, archery season (bow and crossbow) accounted for 26%, firearms season 59%, muzzleloader season 9%, late antlerless 4%, youth season 2% of the total harvest.

If broken down by equipment type...

In 2009, archery equipment accounted for 22% and firearms equipment account for 77% of the total harvest. The remaining 1% is the youth harvest.

In 2015, archery equipment (including crossbows) accounted for 26% and firearms equipment accounted for 72% of the total harvest. The remaining 2% is the youth harvest.

I just hope we don't resort to legalizing baiting in Indiana.

I would be just fine with adopting deer Ohio's season structure though!

And the value of it is
X=5cm

Shortening firearms season or moving it to a later date will not affect the total harvest numbers. Lowering bag limits will. Opening weekend of firearms season is the deadliest two days there is for being a deer. Many "hunters" will never step foot in the woods again until opening weekend next season.

Amen and Amen!

I can see your point *IF* firearm season was only shortened by a couple of days. But I did say "significantly shortened". Ohio has 7 days of general firearm, 2 days of late firearm and 4 days of very late ML. A total of 13 days compared to Indiana's 39 days (at minimum). I cannot envision killing the same number of deer in 1/3rd or less of the days afield.

That would be a good thing to me and the deer pop. ...

The supporters of Prop. 1 said that's exactly what would have happened if it had pass....prop. 2 was watered down according to some of them!

pav You may very well be correct, but I cannot envision the IDNR cutting firearms season(s) down to that level.

To do so, would likely result in the herd numbers rising to (and eventually exceeding) the levels they were before reduction was implemented, IMO.

I think we should back off on the population reduction goal.

That said, if you look at just the harvest numbers, which is what everyone does since it's our only real data, there is no public policy argument for that.

5% or even 10% variation in the kill will not change policy. In fact, if my goal was to reduce population, I would argue that we haven't done enough. Despite making it easier to kill more deer, hunters simply are not doing that. There's a lot of devil's advocate in that statement so if you quote it, quote the context too. My point, is that if you are really after a policy change, be prepared for pretty reasonable argument against changing population reduction goals.

I'd speculate the path forward is going to be status quo; if only to allow the dust settle. My guess is that for the next 4 years, we will see very few policy changes as it relates to deer hunting. That coincides with our new administration as well as the period of the HPR trial. We also have a relatively new deer biologist.

I kinda wished we would adopt Maine's way of harvesting... You are only ONE deer, PERIOD... They have some areas where you may take an extra Does but we could do our own thing here...

Now, I would never tell anyone how to hunt (like some people here like to do) and I say, take whatever makes you happy, however, if you were only limited to one deer people would be a lot more choosy and not shoot dinks that may only yield enough meat for a slick meat sandwich...

I only hunted two day this year (got my deer the second morning of gun season)... I shot a half-racked buck that probably weighed up in the range of 220 - 250 pounds... I knew my season was over the second I shot him due to his size... I KNOW when to stop unlike some... If I had to continued to hunt then I was out to shoot and not hunt... I didn't need anymore meat as I still had half a Doe from last year...

I SMH when I see people think they have all the answers and say their ideas are part of the solution and come here and boast about their "successes" of killing multiple deer a year and then complain when everybody does it and ***** about deer numbers being down... If you want to help make your hunting experience better, then start by changing YOUR hunting habits first before you complain about others hunting habits

Killing multiple deer and then continue to go out into the field for more IS NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, IT JUST AND ADDS TO THE PROBLEM...If you are going complain about something then do not participate in it...

I do not like nor agree with the late gun anterless season, therefore, I do not participate in it... I do not have the time nor put in the effort to to shoot my bow, therefore I haven't archery hunted in a few years... I haven't shot any of my muzzleloaders or hunted in the muzzleloader season in over ten years... Maybe that is why I see deer every year when I hunt... I KNOW when to quit and I know when to adjust my hunting when I see a problem... The past few seasons have been my best hunting... I stopped shooting multiple deer, I went to using a single shot gun (though I did kill my deer this year with a four shot rifle I tried hunting with my buddy's rifle) and I have truly enjoyed my hunting experience... The only issue I have with rifles is the safety aspect due to bullet travel capabilities but I'm not against their use for hunting...

Now I will agree with you Dew, pav, and Jeff that 40 day gun hunting is a bit much and I have publicly stated so... If I had the opportunity to change hunting, I would get rid of the late gun season, move muzzleloaders into the general firearm season and do away with its own season as it is not needed if you can use them there... But I would keep the season where it is at and at 16 days to give Hoosiers who pay for the privilege to hunt plenty of opportunity to do so...

Shorting the gun season may help a little (but not by much) with numbers... Only allowing a buck and doe or two does per year max would do a lot more in bringing back deer numbers as it would FORCE people out of the woods and help elevate the pressure on the herd... Also,I believe that if you shorten or move the firearm season that the General Assembly WILL GET involved and put it back... They got involved in allowing rifles, they'll get involved here as well, mark my words... So arguing for a shorter and moved season probably is pretty much moot...

Bryan78 hit the nail on the head and drove it all the way home...and didn't even have to mention prop f'n 1. I bet "prop 1" has been mentioned here more than the word DEER.

Just for the record:

I don't believe I've ever told anyone how to hunt or what animal to shoot. I could care less what ones weapon of choice happens to be... within the law, what size buck trips their trigger or how many deer they should take... within the law (although I do cringe when I see a truck bed full of dead fawns).

I have a lifetime license, but have not killed a deer in Indiana since 2014....by choice. According to my records, I have not killed a doe since 2008 (primarily due to a couple EHD events in my hunting area). My definition of "deer management" has little to do with harvest and much to do with habitat improvement/enhancement.

What does get under my skin is the fact the state in which I live chooses to treat the deer herd like vermin...not much better than coyotes...and the majority of deer hunters seem to care less. That's why I don't fit under the big tent.

119,280 checked in so far.

Amen, Paul.

So using the actual harvest reported, here is the trend for the past 10 years, actual and with a 5 year rolling average to smooth out the bumps.

And here is the 5 year trend which I believe is closer to reality since we have seen a lot of changes in this time. But you have to keep in mind that 2012 was our record year.

It might prove interesting to again check arlowe13's post (shown above) on page 7 of this thread. The total annual harvest numbers seem to agree with those put out by IDNR. However, I am wondering upon what the firearms kill numbers are based??

UPDATE: I think I finally figured out the answer to my question. Arlowe13’s table and graph show data for total deer killed during each year’s Traditional 16-day Firearms Season (as opposed to kills with firearms equipment). Also, the Firearms Kill in the table and graph does not include the Late Antlerless Firearms Season data for 2012 through 2015. Those data are:

2012 = 10,091
2013 = 6,436
2014 = 4,171
2015 = 5,105

Arlowe13, thank you for posting some very nice, informative tables and graphs.

Pre-2012 data is irrelevant...and the 2016 data is comparatively tainted due to the inclusion of rifles. Based on what I'm seeing / hearing, there is nothing stable about the herd.

I could have killed just as many deer as ever this year had I wanted. Doesn't change the fact my deer sightings were the lowest I've experienced since the early 80's. Hunted the exact same property for the past quarter century....and never saw so few animals....early season and again in late season.

Point is, falling harvest numbers don't tell the entire story. I won't bother posting the well water comparison again....

Since I don't know the area you hunt I can't speak for that but the two areas I hunt I have seen one produce better then the other and vice versa year in and year out... This year I only hunted one and not the other but the one I didn't hunt my buddy's wife told me she hasn't seen very many deer this year so hopefully if I hunt there
this year hopefully it will be better...

I have no objective data but it has taken more effort to kill deer the past couple years for me. There are still plenty of deer, just not as many as there used to be. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing in the broader sense.

I have no fear that the deer herd can rebound from just about anything we do in the modern conservation ethic era. In that sense the deer herd is as stable as it needs to be.

In the end, if herd reduction is having the designed effect, harvest numbers should lower and settle out. I know many hunters don't like it, but that's what is supposed to happen. Does that mean somewhere around 120,000 is the "new normal" as far as harvest totals goes? I don't know, but based on the last few seasons that's where the numbers are.

That doesn't mean there aren't areas that may have had too many deer taken (or in some cases, perceived to have had too many deer taken), but to expect the DNR to be able to "micro manage" the herd by sections of counties is unrealistic. IMO, that responsibility falls to the hunters.

Things that seemingly get lost in the endless arguments on forums such as these, are the effects that hunter numbers, hunter density, loss of habitat due to development, and today's farming practices have on deer numbers as well.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the new harvest report and the breakdown of data it provides.

119,315

100% agree. All the bickering and nitpicking aside, this is the truth of it. DNR wanted the herd reduced, their plan worked and we see less deer. We as deer hunters may not like it, but to not understand that is like letting the air out of your tire then wondering why you have a flat. And in areas everyone is up in arms about seeing zero deer and saying something needs to change, it comes down to exactly what you laid out, not only is the DNR not going to micro manage areas (especially on only one or two year's data), but there are a lot of variables in each area that they don't have control over.

final tally .... 119,460/Feb 2 @ 10pm central