... Several hunters expressed concern last fall that they weren’t seeing as many deer during the October through December hunting season and wanted the permits reduced...

http://www.southbendtribune.com/spo...b62ccf1-81bb-529f-bbbf-4815af4d6cfa.html

only "several " ...ROFLMAO !! ... smh

“Our studies show that 70 percent of hunters only harvest one deer and 20 percent harvest two and only a couple percent take three,” he said. “The surveys also indicate that most hunters are satisfied with how we managed the deer.”

while that may be true, but by having a "high" bonus number, it gives the impression there is a deer problem, when there really isnt... even if one person only takes two, but then his cousin takes two, then his brother takes two, then billybob takes two, etc, because the DNR "says" there are waaaay to many deer around, we can all kill two deer or more on our 90 acre farm ... smh ... and I know that happens, 'cause it happened where I used to hunt on the surrounding property...they were friggin IDIOTS !! ..and it effected all the surrounding landowners.....I still think the DNR is screwed in the head with all the bonus permits they allow, and having no limit on the number of deer one "can" kill state wide...

I've looked over the data and it's really surprising how few hunters actually take more than three deer.

According to the data, a total of 2,166 hunters took 4 or more deer last season.

That doesn't mean that there aren't areas that have been hunted too hard, but lowering those bonus permit numbers will likely make little difference.

You're right, the number of people that kill 4+ is small, but you also have to remember that those 2000+ hunters multiplied by 4, 5, 6+ deer ends up accounting for something like 10k+ deer killed (almost 9% of the harvest).

Now, if those hunters were only limited to 3 deer, it would have only saved about 3k+ deer. I saw "only" because we have seen bigger swings in total harvest naturally.

If you were limit hunters to only 2 deer, theoretically we could have saved over 10k deer.

It could also be argued that out of all those deer not killed by the hunter limited to 2 or 3 deer, not all of them would have survived because they could have been killed by another hunter nearby. All speculation, of course, but the argument could be made.

Let's just say that we have a hunter density of 8 per square mile, that is one hunter per 80 acres. Now I'm going to pick a HIGH deer density of 40 per square mile. now each of those hunters take one buck and two does between all seasons. 24 deer leave the herd.

8 bucks left and let's say herd was perfect 1:1 that leaves 12 male deer. then we take 16 out of twenty female deer......... do you see the problem?

Yep I twisted what harvest numbers are, but so does IDNR as to the effect of hunter harvest numbers. They use EVERY hunter not area specific harvest numbers.......

I can't argue against your point, but for the sake of argument let's say that the bundle was the only license available and it was changed from a three deer to a two deer license.

Would that lower the harvest? I'm sure it would.

Would it be enough to satisfy those in low deer density areas? I highly doubt it...

And in high deer density areas how long would it take before the DNR wanted to reduce the herd again?

8 hunters per sq. mile ??... heck, a property 1/2 mile across the tracks had 7 on less than 40 acres !! ... the 20 acres behind me had 3 guys..... not all areas are created equal, which is what the dnr leads one to believe IMO ..

Which illustrates another problem (an ever shrinking amount of available hunting land).

With that many hunters on that little bit of land, even if only 5 of those 10 hunters killed one deer each, it obviously wouldn't take long to reduce that herd to basically nothing.

“We’re working to develop an online system in which all hunters can give us feedback each year, and do so immediately after their hunting season is over,” Caudell said.

This is Great News as we move forward from a reduction mode.

Indeed.

I agree, the harvest would certainly reduce. My point was only that we don't really know by how much. Only thing we can do is guess.

Don't need any bonus tags at all to harvest 4 deer

2 archery, 1 firearm and 1 muzzleloader

All I use are the archery tags anymore ..

So if the harvest from hunters who harvest over 4 deer is so miniscule, then why have them? I believe higher county antlerless permits was put into place to reduce deer numbers. It is my understanding that we are no longer in a reduction mode. Why keep outdated rules?

My understanding is that putting counties in a 4-8 bonus antlerless quota tells hunters in those counties that the the IDNR determined through various factors such as deer/vehicle collisions, harvest trends, and crop damage, etc, that those counties could stand additional antlerless harvests.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the one tool the IDNR has that they can lower/raise without having to go through the rules change process.

Not sure it matters much with 70% only taking one deer or less.

50% or so don't even harvest one if I recall correctly