Breaking down information can be extremely subjective. If they add an early ML season next...or maybe an air gun season...the numbers get tossed around like salad all over again.

BTW, one correction....the archery harvest did not rise, it went down a couple percentage points. Crossbows are not legal on an archery license in this state.
Crossbow harvest increased 10%.

But we aren't talking about something subjective here. We are talking about the harvest numbers the DNR posted in their 2014 Indiana Deer Season Summary which I posted just as they did.

And while I understand the license side of the archery vs crossbow issue, on page 7 of the summary, you will find where I pulled the data I posted from table one. And within table one you will also see where the DNR combined the archery/crossbow harvest data together. So I did as well.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2014deerharvestreport.pdf

Have a nice evening.

But we aren't talking about something subjective here. We are talking about the harvest numbers the DNR posted in their 2014 Indiana Deer Season Summary which I posted just as they did.

And while I understand the license side of the archery vs crossbow issue, on page 7 of the summary, you will find where I pulled the data I posted from table one. And within table one you will also see where the DNR combined the archery/crossbow harvest data together. So I did as well.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2014deerharvestreport.pdf

Have a nice evening.[/QUOTE]

The data may not be subjective, but how one interprets the data is absolutely subjective. For instance, I could say the 2014 harvest would have been 105,000 animals under the 2009 regs. I don't necessarily believe that to be true...but that is what the data suggests.

Regarding archery versus crossbow data...Table 3 on page 10 tells the real story.

pav We could "what if" the data all day by taking or adding things from it that don't exist.

And we could spit/spat all day long about whether the archery/crossbow totals should/should not be included together, but in the table I referenced the dnr did so, so I did the same.

Regardless, even if you split the data, my original point still is valid. Bowhunters are taking a larger share of the harvest while firearms hunters are taking a lower share and that's happening without moving/shortening the gun seasons and adding the late antlerless season in as well.

Have a good day.

EXACTY.....

In essence, all you saying is...more deer are being killed with crossbows during a 3+ month long statewide, either sex season than are being killed during a late December, non-statewide, 10 day, antlerless only firearms season.

That's quite the revelation....

I get that you see what you see, but my point has been and continues to be.....

Since 2.0 passed, Bowhunters are taking a larger share of the harvest while firearms hunters are taking a lower share and that's happening WITHOUT moving and/or shortening the present gun seasons, while ADDING a late December, non-statewide, 10 day, antlerless only firearms season.

Why does it seem that these discussions almost always end up a weapons issue? It seems that at times the "deer" herd becomes secondary to weapons. The big picture, in my opinion, should be about how many deer are being harvested, what the average harvest per hunter is, how to limit harvest when needed and what the intended number of deer per habitat mile is targeted by the DNR. Forget the weapon issue for a while because at some point, hunting is hunting. I'm not really sure that the vast majority of hunters even acknowledge or take into any considerations this thing of "management". I believe the problem is hunter density, unwillingness to not pull the trigger or release the bow, or the vast lack of the majority of those who hunt deer to really give a crap about the deer herd except when they are wanting to shoot one.

The existing hunting organizations have become vastly ineffective in influencing anything because the game has changed with how politics and management is handled. The emerging social media organization will have a good opportunity to see if hunters can have an influence based upon the number of those who hunt deer becoming socially engaged. Now, again, no organization is going to satisfy everyone and if they get caught up in a weapons focus instead of looking at the bigger issue of harvest and herd size, they too will get drawn down into the abyss of being discounted by the agency. There are more then a few in the DNR that often have felt that we are at a point where most who are engaged year round are more focus on the weapon use issue then the status of the deer herd itself.

Dave... are you talking about "IWDHM" on FB when you say "emerging social media organization" ???

If you are BEWARE ....If anyone doesn't tow there line so to say you are banned from even comment within the group!!! That's what we need Hmmm???

Delaney First of all for me, this thread isn't as much about equipment as it is, how that equipment is being used to harvest deer.

You want data? I've posted data that shows....

What percentage of hunters are killing how many deer. See page 28 of this report. http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/IN_Deer_Report.pdf

That (as a percentage of harvest) bowhunters are harvesting more deer during the season, while firearms hunters are harvesting fewer deer since the new regs were implemented.

You want data that shows hunter density? Here you go.... web pagehttps://www.qdma.com/articles/hunter-density-across-the-u.s

Indiana is listed as having 10.8 hunters per square mile, while Iowa is listed as having 0-4 per square mile while Illinois and Kentucky are shown as having 5-8 hunters per square mile.

That's a lot of hunters in Indiana, and as I've pointed out several times, even if there were ZERO bonus antlerless permits, with the present license structure, every hunter in this state could still kill 4 deer per season.

You want to know what the intended number of deer per habitat mile targeted by the DNR is?

I wish they (the DNR) would...

Give us that number, tell us where we are now, and let us when we reach that number.

As far as taking the "politics" out of the posts on the forum, I can't see a way to make that happen. There will always be hunters who favor certain pieces of equipment and see their views as correct. And that means debate is going to happen.

What I would like to see...is less tolerance for the personal attacks and foolishness that seems to crop up every, single time subjects such as those you listed above, are discussed/debated.

It might not lead to more agreement, but it would certainly lead to fewer derailed threads.

And there we have it. I don't think there is a truer statement on this thread. Nobody cares about the herd……

Glad someone else sees that. I don't pay much attention to all the stats….but I think I read that on average, a deer hunter kills less than, or right at two deer per year. And if the "average deer killed per hunter" is two or less…..WHY even have the ridiculous bonus numbers above 3 or 4….or ANY above the 4 we can kill without the bonus for that matter??? For the very small % of hunters that just like to kill deer to be killing?? We are obviously in a era of deer decline (by design). If that in fact is the case….WHO is killing all the deer????? Or is it…just maybe we don't have all the deer that the powers to be THINK we have…...

With all due respect, I think it shows the opposite.

Sure people may disagree about how to manage the herd, but if they didn't care about the deer, they wouldn't frequent these forums, or start a facebook page, or contact the DNR, NRC, the Governor and their lawmakers.

Take me for example....before a few years ago, I wasn't really involved in the debate. But now, I want my voice heard and am not satisfied with just a certain group (or groups) having the ear of the powers that be.

And with the internet, our voices not only can be heard, they can be heard in real time by those who ultimately help make the decisions...

According to Chad Stewart's Ten myths of deer hunting....

Indiana historically has had high antlerless
limits available to all hunters. Hunters have
been allowed to harvest eight antlerless deer
in many counties. These limits are high to
allow individuals experiencing deer problems
the opportunity to solve their problems in the
hunting season. It is not meant to be a limit
that is reached by all hunters, and it rarely is
reached. Despite high quotas in some counties,

Surveys repeatedly show the vast majority of
hunters (85 percent) take three or fewer deer,
and less than 1 percent ever take eight deer in
a season.

The chart showing this data is on page 28 of the link below...

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_1034_2010_Deer_Hunter_Survey.pdf

jjas,

You obviously have a more positive outlook on this than I do. I have grown weary of how every single post on every single site about deer/deer numbers/proposals/etc turns into "he said-she said's", "they banned me from their site because I said this", and "its this groups fault", its "because we have allowed this weapon"……….That does not do US, as a group, of deer hunters any good. I REALLY hope you are right, and people can look down the road, and not just what's in front of their noses right now...

youd have better luck hoping for world peace

Ding Ding - we have a winner.

For now, that new entity is engaging via social media. Certainly they might ban folks that don't agree but maybe that isn't all bad because at some point the arguments become pointless and detract from accomplishing anything. If they can make it work, regardless of whether I agree with all their views, good for them. I can go on and on as to what I believe the IDHA and the IBA have done in the past and good that it has produced. That said, there needs to be new energy and new involvement. The IDHA and the IBA has a lot of baggage with many deer hunters, be it warranted or not. So, there needs to be other organizations with other views and goals. My hope would be that all organizations put the deer herd first and foremost. We need more involvement, not less. And as I have said before, no organization is all right or all wrong and no organization can be all things to all people.

If the "IWDHM" wants to put the Deer Herd first they need to stake a firm stance against HIGH FENCE KILLING of Deer and CWD, then move in the right direction to end it!!!

There stance of NOT being AGAINST it is SAD...

Brew You hit the Nail on the Head ..If you are going to sit at a table with Partners and EVERY ONE of those Partners, State and National have Taken a FIRM stance against Canned Hunting and the very root of CWD deer farming. If you want to accomplish anything you had better stand side by side with your partners, if you want there support.. and its not happening.

I still want a Spring squirrel season.

Ditto

Exactly.....

I agree that this is a major issue and am disappointed with their current position on it if they are not against it. That alone though does not mean that their organization alone and working with others on other issues isn't without merit. Don't forget that there are a lot of big national organizations that haven't become actively involved with the canned hunting issue. Folks have to find common ground and work towards successful conclusions and while I agree that canned hunting is something that all organizations should be against, there are a lot of other issues that also need attention.

The big national organizations won't pitch their tent because of places like South Texas and South Africa....where high fence facilities are measured in square miles, not square acres, and contain self sustaining resident herds. For most, "high fence hunting " and "canned hunting" are synonymous...and until that changes, don't expect the big boys to take the hard line.

That said, it is completely ridiculous for a deer hunting organization in Indiana to take a neutral stand on this issue! High fence operations in this state only offer canned hunting. Indiana has small tracts, often sub-divided, and the pens require artificial stocking with farm raised animals. THAT is 100% canned hunting IMO.

Unfortunately, that "IMO" is where the train gets derailed on the national/world stage. Opinions are like a**holes...everybody has one.

Paul, those organizations could take a stance based upon acreage and such, but still they seldom will take a stance. They get no excuse in my opinion.

I agree 100% Dave. Problem would be defining minimum acreage for different species and types of terrain.

The way I see it, if the facility is not large enough to sustain a resident herd....and must be artificially stocked with game farm animals...the acreage is a moot point.

Exactly Pav..... If it has a ear tag or farm raised it not free range!!!

The Sad part with IWDHM is they didnt poll there member/ followers about the issue.They just made a position on there own behind the scene !!!

For sake of debate, the term farm raised is an interesting term. Arguably cattle ranchers out west that let their cattle free range on government lands don't raise wild cattle but instead those are farmed or ranched cattle. The ear tag I get. And, I do understand the intent of farm raised in the context of Indiana. But, the term itself could be applied differently in some circumstances.

Yeah, but in most western locations, those cattle (and sheep) only "free range" on government land a few months out of the year. They live in private pasture and feed lots the majority of their lives.
I don't think that practice clouds the definition of "farm raised".

Paul, not sure the word majority is fair but I do understand your point. At this point though the issue appears to be more so in the legislative arena then DNR. The organizations, all if them, will have to decide whether they wish to engage, support or oppose these activities In the meantime, it could be argued that there are numerous other issues that need attention and the more organizations working together the better off the resource will likely be. I've not always been fond of some of the positions of the IBA but to publicly try to diminish their value or discredit them publicly wasn't warranted. This public stuff between sporting groups is detrimental to the big picture. We have to understand that most organizations don't represent the average deer hunter and might not even want to. So, the needs to be continuos private dialogue seeking common ground and then rules of process for that which folks disagree on. I remember when QDMA wouldn't help with the birth control issue because it wasn't their mission. Do be it. Doesn't mean they are a bad organization or not worth working with. Until, and I would hope it happens, the longtime leaders of the existing groups sit down and talk with the new folks we will not know how there can be added value of more people at the table.

I'm going to comment on IDHWM Facebook page as President of the IDHA and a member of the FWCC.

IDHWM came to the FWCC wanting to be a member with NO/ZERO group structure, their only claim was that the "net" was the future of communication. That might be but today we use a network of interested parties with a structure. Let me also add that IDNR has a Facebook page. People can comment as they wish with no fear of being censored, that can not be said of IDWHM.

The IDHA learned long ago that polls can be manipulated by how the questions are asked,IDWHM has not learned that the questions they asked are loaded in their favor or they do not care. You as a member are either "for" their agenda or you are banned.

IDWHM seems to be against IDNR's deer management plan....... Two of the three representatives at the FWCC meeting actively participated in the liberal deer harvest of the 80's, 90's and even into 2000's! There was ample bragging of deer harvests per season in the "family" of more than 20 deer harvested,the "kill number" was justified as the family consumed the deer, now today the IDNR is the problem? I can't comment on the 3rd person as he, to my knowledge was never an IDHA member.

Anyone can check the IDHA's position on herd reduction, even back when there were county quotas, the IDHA warned of over harvest and the result. We were told and I quote....... "We built the deer herd once and we can do it again." Search my quotes on this site and others and you will find this in my history many times.

CWD,EHD,Deer farming/Deer rehab, canned hunting, mean nothing to the Facebook page ownership, membership was not involved.

The IDHA will support ANY group that has filed as a group with the State of Indiana or the Federal Government and meets tax recording requirements...... At this time the IDWHM does not meet the standard required for membership in the FWCC.

Joe Bacon

President IDHA

Thanks for your input.....

Looks like the same view I have of them also!!!

BTW...Your spot on about censorship on the "IWDHM" site.

I'm hoping that everyone can take a step back and be focused on their individual organization and the deer herd itself. There needs to be an effort for everyone to look forward and not look back. All of us have likely gone through various stages of deer hunting and deer harvesting. What happened in the past probably is best served in the past.

I'm not sure what all the criteria is that the DNR established for participation on FWCC and I'm happy to see that the IDHA is supportive of any group that meets that criteria. Each organization, be it the IBA, the IDHA , QDMA or the IDWHM all likely having differing views on various issues but each likely has value to be added to supporting the DNR and to input and ideas as to how the future of deer management in Indiana is best served. The best approach in my opinion is for the various individuals in all of these organizations to sit down and talk about common interest and goals. There is no doubt in my mind that each organization has individuals with a lot of passion and energy concerning deer and deer management and what would likely best serve the DNR and the deer herd generally is for all those individuals to work together. Heck, I even think a guy named Woody Williams should be at the table also because he has a lot of passion and energy as well, even though many on here have not always met eye to eye with him on issues. There is no value in exclusion and if folks are really interested in the deer herd we have to be able to work through any barriers to working together. Personally, I don't believe the FWCC is worth the time that is spent on it and that a better format by the DNR is probably warranted.

This stuff reminds me why this nations founding fathers created a "Republic" and not a "democracy."
In a democracy, majority rules. Basically if it's 50-50, you talk enough people into voting with you so it's 51-49 and you get what you want. This sucks because the 49% group will talk a couple back to their side and back the other way we go.
In a "republic" we elect people we trust to act on our behalf...to do whats best, even if it isn't always what we "wanted." If those elected aren't doing what's best, we vote them out...(which we don't seem to do anymore)
In this case, it sounds like the people making all these decisions aren't elected officials? I don't know who's making all these new rules. Too many abreviations...I don't know what all of them stand for.

Anyway, I think Delaney really makes a lot of sense here. A dead deer is a dead deer regardless of what weapon was used to kill it. I realize that some make the job easier.
I've said before and stand by it: The difference between Indiana and the states so many love is that hunters in those other states aren't shooting little bucks and aren't killing as many does as they can. You could make the rules more liberal in Illinois and Iowa and it wouldn't change a thing. They have what they have because they CHOOSE to do what's right.
Those states are about the same size as we are and they kill as many deer in archery as we do with guns!!

All depends on your definition of Right And what the management plan is Stable across the boards herd stability Or Big Buck Management

My definition? You missed the point. In Iowa, the "Managemant Plan" is what each individual decides it is...Like I said, Iowa could adopt the same management plan Indiana has, and it would have little effect because the hunters/guy with the weapon would continue to manage themselves. They let little bucks walk. Period. I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but that's what's going on. That's what will ALWAYS happen. They have antlerless season and they have a "Plan" every fall on how many does they will take from their farm,lease etc...
In my opinion, we fix all of our problems by managing ourselves. Not by legislating it.

Does Iowa have a Big Rock Candy Mountain too?

In Iowa, they don't hunt deer with firearms during the rut. That is a HUGE factor for growing big deer. Iowa residents are used to seeing big deer, which makes many hunters more selective by default. Hunter attitudes in Iowa are a reflection of their management plan.

Same could be said anywhere, including Indiana. Whether you supported OBR or not, it is undeniable that OBR affected hunter attitudes when it comes to notching their buck tag. The regulations definitely make a difference in hunter attitudes.

I read an interesting piece talking about regulation versus conservation. Said for many years, conservation was the primary consideration when determining regulations. Not so much these days. Conservation has taken a back seat to politics and hunter preference.

That article speaks an unfortunate truth IMO.