Couple of points to recent posts, The herd is in a decline if not a steep decline. Recent outbreaks of EHD has certaintly contributed as well as hunter harvests. Antlered harvest as a ratio to anlerless harvest is a main factor in antlerless permits assigned to each county. If antler harvest keeps rising they "assume" the herd is growing, this is without any research on hunter demographics on a given county, before or after each season. Are more hunters hunting a given county?

When your male deer(antlered and buttons) harvest is less than the female harvest there is little doubt that you are reducing the deer herd. You need those females to produce the bucks taken, at a virtual 1:1 birth ratio common sense says less doe less bucks.I;ve set back and watched the 40:60 bucks to does in recent years and thought this will not goe well, now it seems it "is not going well". Going well for IDNR and its financial needs, going well for a "deer reduction", but not the hunter satisfaction.

IDNR is going to be able to go to the legislature and "pump their chests" as to how they met goals demanded by the legislature. Does ANYONE here get it? This is not what IDNR wanted! IDNR would love a deer behind every tree, they would sell more license and gain more revenue. Revenue the LEGISLATURE doles out in a budget. IDNR in my memory has NEVER been allowed to spend as much as it takes in. Hunters contribute heavily to any"surplus Indiana has as License fees are not available to deposit in the "General Fund". OUR license fees can't be taken to pay for anything outside IDNR.

That said, it only makes sense that IDNR wants more license sales (or revenue) so their budget can be bigger. Who pays the price? The deer! I set in the meetings on the "bundle license", I heard the talk of not losing revenue, and how this bundle package would increase revenue. I have no problem funding IDNR, but folks THEY are "government". Their sole purpose is to grow "government" it insures their jobs.

Sure they can drop high county permits in some counties as an olive branch, but will it make a difference?

If most people are not killing more than 2 deer is a fact(and it is) how will it affect a county harvest? Switch Switzerland county from a "8" to a "4" and I would bet nothing changes. Season dates and lengths do affect hunter attitudes.

This can be best expained by our present season dates. IDNR readily admits that a longer season gives more opportunity for hunters and spread the harvest out over several months. Weather is not as much a factor(but they and other states are fast to use it when needed). The more days in the field the better the chance a hunter kills a deer.

Brew: I have met you, I like you, you claim to be the "guardian of gun season". Be honest, your job keeps you on the road out of state. ANY reduction of season length in gun seasons reduces your ability to kill a mature buck. Your concerns are self centered and not about the overall herd or the "guy next door".

As posted by others here a "few" of us have our own "Nirvana" when it comes to deer hunting. "We" have no need to fight for changing any regulations as we "manage" ourrselves, what I and others try to do is improve the experience of those around us.

Hunt on! But remember the enemy is not IDNR, it is "US" and the legislature who controls IDNR. It takes "US" to control the killing, and "US" to tell the legislature "enough killing ", but alas "US" will continue to type here.....LOL!