IMO true as well.

Grant Woods said it well in a series of emails we had a couple years ago, "Most states manage based on the local deer hunting culture. Dog hunting, baiting, long rifle season, late rifle season, etc., are cultural decisions – not based on biology"

I also quote an NRC member at a meeting I went to when the Reg #1 was being shot down. The quote is, " Good deer biology doesn't make for good public policy."

Management of the deer herd hasn't been about biology for a long time. This deer herd hasn't been in biological trouble for a long time, maybe ever. The entire management, once the whitetails were well established in Indiana, has been about social management. The farming interests, insurance industry and even folks in suburbia have gained more and more influence over the management plan. This is because those who hunt deer won't get engaged, they want to fight amongst themselves and frankly, most don't care about deer except for a few weeks in the fall. Of course, I am speaking about the majority, not those who post here and on other sites.

I would agree with that Dave...to an extent. The social aspect has always been present, but you and I can both recall a time when there was more of a balance between sound conservation principles and social management. It wasn't that long ago, although it feels like forever.

I'm not going to throw the man under the bus on a public forum, but roughly fifteen years ago, a well known Hoosier conservationist told me the internet will spell the end of conservation as we know it. He sure hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Whitetail hunting got too good, too easy. Whenever stuff gets that way it tends to lose the unique aspect, the special aspect and often it brings on a lot of apathy from those who engage in whatever the activity is. Then different aspects of the activity cause those engaged to want "tweaks" for their attitude or approach vs. others attitude or approach. Then, often "it" becomes more about the individuals and their way then the value of the activity itself. Times change. Times have changed. I don't believe the internet will spell the end of conservation but instead will cause a lot of distractions regarding conservation. The internet is a tool and one that has not been used wisely by sportsmen and conservationists. Most sportsmen want it the old way, the comfortable way.

The "internet tool" works great when you post Mis-Information then CENSOR/BAN those that try to state the Truth/Facts....Hence the IWDHM FB group!!!

I'm going to ask that folks try to refrain from addressing the IWDMA because I don't believe they are allowed to post on this site. I might be wrong about that but there isn't any value in being critical of other groups and doing such is counter productive. What needs to happen is dialogue between the groups because each group brings value to the table. Im not caught up in any assessment of information correctness or the like and from what I know do far, that group has initially started to address, or at least try to address, some issues that are supportive of the DNR needs and of course some aspects of the deer management process that other groups have had issues with in the past as well. They apparently are also looking to set up a state wide representative structure, something that the older groups have done or tried to do in the past as well. The older groups have frankly lost momentum and new energy and effort should be welcomed, even if no one agrees on all the issues. This site should not be an avenue for comment about other sporting groups but instead should be a site to state ones own thoughts and comments. Sorry for the mild rant but it is what it is.

Why would the IWDHM not be allowed to post here????

This is not a closed forum as they are claiming .... Actually there the one's spreading the BS about this forum on there page!!!!How productive is that ???

How are they(IWDHM)being productive by asking/telling folks to BOYCOT the IDNR... ? Explain that...

It seems at this point there is a "back and forth" going on that is of no value. I'm sure most can remember the debacle from a couple of years where there was comment, counter comment about Woody's site and his comments and positions. Nothing gets accomplished by it and that is no point in it. I'm unsure of what the reference is in regard to comments on their facebook about this site as I haven't been sitting at the computer day in, day out. And actually, IF any other site, anywhere is making comments about this site or the IDHA , let them say what they wish. But, I know this, this "in the public" stuff isn't doing anyone any good and is probably counter productive to deer management or deer issues.

So, I'm not sure whether their leadership can post on here or on the IDHA facebook page. Regardless, there is no reason for folks that post on this site to make critical comments about any other organization. I honestly respect everyone who visits this site and would hope that all of us can rise above name calling, insinuation, bashing or other forms of such. I"ll say it again, the leadership of the deer groups, and IWDHM Is a deer group, period, should seek to sit down and talk amongst themselves and quite any type of crap on any website or facebook page or other media. I don't know every one of the leaders all that well, but I know they have energy and while they will differ on issues, if they could work together on certain issue they could possibly make some things happen.

I too remember when deer hunting wasn't so easy. I appreciate how good we have it.

PAV, I'd much rather discuss this stuff over a beer in a Colorado deer camp...And I'm only responding to defend my statement, not to make this go on forever...
I think what you are saying is that Iowa hunters "are the way they are" because they've had guns out of the rut and therefore have seen more mature deer as a result? And because of this, they've naturally become more selective?
If that's the point, I get it. You're 100% correct about the OBR doing that here. I admit I HATED the OBR in it's inception. But I went out the next couple seasons and passed youg bucks in Bow season and saw more big deer than I could've ever imagined were there...all because I didn't drop the string on the first buck. Changed my attitude forever.
It wouldn't bother me a bit if Indiana moved firearms out of the rut.
But I'm not as optimistic as others are, that the guys shooting the first deer they see aren't going to be successful in december. My problem with guns out of the rut theory is that when you put 2 hunters per acre in the woods on ANY WEEKEND... lots of deer are gonna die. Maybe I'm wrong? I believe if we had opening weekend of firearms this July, we'd kill a TON of deer. Would we kill fewer mature deer? Maybe. But I personally don't get mad if a kid on his first hunt kills a booner either. Good for the kid.

I don't participate much in these running point-counterpoint type of threads. But I do want to mention, just for clarification, that as of right now, no one is being prevented from joining or posting on this forum. Actually I've never at any time been asked to do that by the owner of this site. About the only way to get banned is to break the rules in the user agreement. THAT has certainly happened in years past.

Carry on!

Hey Mike, can we change that beer to Wyoming elk camp?

Good Morning Fellow Hunters:

Finally found a way into your site. Been wanting to reply to some of your posts on this forum for awhile. However when I attempted it came up with a login or register screen. When I clicked on register to reply I was given the message, "We are not accepting registrations at this time." I have posted a screen shot of this on the IWDHM Group FB page, just so you know. I searched your homepage and the forum site for a way to register and kept coming up empty. When I finally clicked on a General Information Thread, within the body of a message was a "click here" link that finally allowed me to register. Very very difficult. Most would have given up after receiving the first message of "We are not accepting registrations at this time." However, I did feel it was important to respond to some of your posts, especially from your President Joe Bacon. Be looking for that response to come shortly.

Gary Walters, RN Board Member IWDHM Group, Hoosier Deer Hunter

Appreciate the explanation on the registration process. I think I've said it a few times in posts already, but while there is always a lot of emotions around deer hunting and deer management, there needs to be a way for all the groups to work together even in the face of differences. All groups bring something to the table I'm looking forward to a broader understanding of your groups goals and while I'm sure there will be some from this site that don't agree with every goal, as evidenced by hundreds of other topics here over the years, I do believe there is good and meaningful input that can be provided by those who visit this site.

Let's see how productive and Truthful this gets.......

I will just take Mr. Bacon's comments as they come one paragraph at a time.

First: We did come to the FWCC as a group, organized with a STAFF of 8 Individuals, that facilitate a voice for the individuals concerned with the health of the Whitetail Deer Herd in Indiana and our hunting heritage. Please refer to our mission statement. The Facebook format allows for free and easy communication by individuals on their thoughts and perspective of our mission statement. We have in excess of 11,000 followers, of which as many as 9,000 are actively engaged in the conversation weekly. All of these individual's concerns and ideas are available to not only the DNR, IDHA, Hoosier Hunting, but anyone that wants to go to our page and look for themselves. We are not a representative group, rather facilitate actual concerns and ideas to get heard.

As far as banning, we addressed this from your forum once on our page: https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1025059857505696 please refer to this post.

So of the over 11,100 followers/members we currently have, we have banned a number less than 30. So about 1/3 of 1%; 0.0031 to be exact. Pretty insignificant in the big picture statistically. First, most have been people using vulgar language or threatening comments repeatedly. Secondly, many of these are people not in Indiana so do not have a dog in this fight. Thirdly, some of those "banned" followers do not exist as real people, rather fake Facebook accounts. Lastly, we have a clear mission statement, and we have a specific agenda and goals that fall under that mission statement. Therefore we are not going to tolerate one or two individuals that want to continually come onto our page and promote disharmony to those missions and goals. We believe if all one wants to do is continually argue their point about other issues, weapon type, domestic deer farming, continual there are plenty of places to do that. In the very few cases we have banned someone for this last reason, we have reached out to them first, many times giving them second, third, . . . chances. After all else fails we have 8 members on the Board of Directors. We consider all the evidence, document it, and then vote on whether to ban or not for the general welfare of the group and our mission and goals. This is something we do not take lightly. However, as you can see from this thread many times they become just a back and forth argument on who can one up the other. This does no good for the benefit of our mission statement and we will not tolerate or participate in such repeatedly. We are going to positively move forward to get the grassroots deer enthusiast viewpoint heard.

As for the IDNR Facebook page, they do in fact censor. There was a very good post about nuisance deer that generated a lot of public comment from not just us but many non related individuals. However, the IDNR chose to delete that post and censor scores of citizens.


Second: Of course our polls are going to ask about the questions we are concerned about. Can any question or comment be manipulated? Of course. Even the Devil can use the Bible for his purposes. Are we professional pollsters, of course not. We are working class citizens, that are attempting to address a concern that thousands of other citizens are recognizing in the management of OUR property and resources. That is why the Facebook forum and social media is a good format. Anyone can look at the posts, comments, and directly firsthand get a feeling for what the followers of our page are saying. Not just the eight of us as staff/board members. As far as the banning issue again I responded in response to your first paragraph.

Third: Of course we are against the current management plan. Do we feel there is a overharvesting of the resource taking place, of course. We are not attempting to hide that fact. Does that me we are anti-DNR, of course not. We KNOW, that most individuals within the agency do what they do for the love of the resource, it is obviously not to get rich or famous. However, we also know they are hamstringed more times than not, due to politics and finances. Currently, there are only 8 of 22 biologists on staff, there is not a deer biologist, unless that has changed in recent days. They have a mandate by law to perform their duties. It is up to us as citizens, when we see them being hamstringed to speak out and get them the funding and resources they need to do their job. We are as PRO DNR as you can be. The second half of this paragraph attacking us personally for our success as deer hunters, is just plain unprofessional and out of line. We have killed a lot of deer, did our job as management tools when there were an abundance of deer. However we did this in moderation. Now that the abundance is gone in many areas, we are practicing moderation in our harvest strategies. His numbers are also misleading. As far as the Walters, there are 13 of us that at one time or another actively hunt, and many more that participate on a non consumptive level. We never have taken an excessive amount of deer out of any given area, ever. We will not apologize for doing our job in managing the herd, as we are attempting to do now in moderation as the conservationists we have always been. We have actively pursued conservation both in season and out of season. https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1028877693790579

Fourth: If the IDHA seen this over reduction going on, why haven't they been shouting to the top of their lungs to conserve the resource and protect our hunting tradition. This overharvest has amounted in dead deer in the hundreds of thousands. This ties into his fifth paragraph: CWD has not killed one wild deer in Indiana, nor is there consistent research that deer FARMING, contributes to the spread of this disease. Why was the IDHA not proactive in attempting to reducing the overharvest of does when the EHD epidemics hit Indiana, and continue too. Actually fighting these actual 4 +/- canned hunting operations you now have a ruling from the supreme court that has taken all overseeing of domestic wild animals out of the authority of the DNR, and made it more easy for a person or corporation to abuse our resources. What was a small problem or insignificant is now a hornets nest. How many deer has the crossbow really killed, in excess of what would have been killed without it? How many days of any season has been lost due to allowing crossbow hunting? Are we against canned hunting, as staff and a board, absolutely; totally unethical and against what every hunter should believe; however, we do not think it is of direct significant consequences to the wild deer herd. Therefore we do not think that clouding "the fight" with these more minor issues, does anything to promote our larger mission statement. Forest for the trees. We have recently sent a letter to the governor that outlines our goals as a GROUP. These Goals are:

1. To develop dialog with State government and the agencies thereof entrusted to manage the resources of the citizens of Indiana.
2. Help develop a statewide, but county by county, deer advisory board consisting of members from the hunting, farming, insurance, tourism, and non-consumptive users communities. Similar to Wisconsin’s newly enacted system that in its first year reduced the doe harvest in many counties, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdac.html , or a wildlife or deer congress as other states have, that receives input for all users of the resource.
3. Express our concerns, that in areas with hunting access, the whitetail doe herd is being overharvested to the detriment of the resource, and there needs to be an immediate reduction in the use of bonus county antlerless permits. While we believe this is a management tool, we believe it should be used as designed to manage overpopulated areas, of which are mostly societal issues, not true overpopulation. True overpopulation by exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat has been very isolated occurrences in this state. Originally this allowed hunters to draw an extra tag for one antlerless deer, not the extreme of eight, and only in problem counties. We feel this tool has been exploited beyond its intended purpose to eliminate too many antlerless deer, and its intended purpose has been taken over by the deer reduction zone, that again does not use moderation, rather extremes in limits that can be in the very short term damaging to our resource and have long term consequences. The DNR does not have adequate staff or a system in place to address the current populations and management thereof. The DNR cannot currently tell us how many deer are in each county. Would be hard to manage anything, for example money, if one did not know how much one had. The DNR used these extreme measures of total deer elimination in the State Parks instead of managing in moderation, and acting on habitat destruction prior to its decimation, and now one is hard pressed to see a deer in said parks. The DNR by using these extreme numbers are promoting the same consequences in all the counties as well. They do understand this; otherwise what is the reason for not allowing the use of bonus county permits in the Fish and Wildlife areas? People expect to see deer in these areas, as well do citizen owners of the resource in the counties.
4. Express our concerns over the depredation permit system. One that promotes the harvest of does during the fawning season in the summer, in affect killing the un-weaned fawns through inhuman starvation or worse, and in cases tripling or more the reduction effect on the herd. While wantonly wasting our resources. The DNR does not have staff to adequately assess the damage requirement. Legislation brought this program about and we will be seeking to have this legislation changed in the near future.
5. Express our concerns that the DNR is currently not staffed in such a manner as to fulfill their obligation under law to manage the resource properly. With EHD and other diseases, our current system and staffing does not allow for timely management decisions that must be made to conserve our resources. Not to mention the everyday duties of biologists to manage our resources. Currently there are only 8 of the 22 current biologist positions filled, and we still do not have a state deer biologist.
a. Statute: Indiana statute defines the authority and responsibilities of the DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife: “ The [Division of Fish and Wildlife] shall . . . provide for the protection, reproduction, care, management, survival and regulation of wild animal populations regardless of whether the wild animals are present on public or private property . . . [and) Organize and pursue a program of research and management of wild animals that will serve the best interests of the resources and the people of Indiana.” (Indiana Code Title 14, Article 22, Chapter 2, Section 3)
b. With this decreased staffing level it would be impossible to manage the depredation claims, assess the wildlife assets of the state, nor manage those assets with due diligence.
6. Promote the idea of sustainable harvest of our state forests and lands to promote wildlife, healthy forest and lands, and the resources and citizens of the State.
7. Promote the procurement of available funding from the Federal Government for further state land acquisition within the state boundaries.
8. Promote ideas for hunter access to CRP ground to assist farmers with deer management.
9. Promote ideas to improve watershed habitat for all wildlife, and water quality, by supporting Clean Water Indiana, and federally funded grants.
10. Work with the DNR to implement funding options that ensure we gain the maximum federal matching dollars to support wildlife in Indiana.

We have also sent a petition to the IGA Natural Resource Committee Summer Study Group to look into funding for the DNR, being proactive in unlocking funds for fish and wildlife resources.

https://www.facebook.com/Indianadee...907232132621803/1030217320323283/?type=1

So can you or any of your members find one single fault in the goals we are attempting to reach? Are these not goals that benefit, the resource, all consumptive and non-consumptive users of the resource, and the boots on the ground staff of the DNR?

Sixth: Just to appease the IDHA< IBA< and IWF, we have formed bylaws, officers, a membership list, and are going to register with the state. As far as the tax reporting. There is none, as all the money to promote our cause is coming out of our own pockets. We are not asking the membership for one single penny. Are we saying that is forever, who knows, but we are attempting to give everyone a FREE unencumbered voice and membership. As staff we believe in this cause to the extent of putting our money where our mouth is. This formation of bylaws and a membership list has caused a considerable amount of work on our parts, that really does not accomplish anything towards our mission statement, other than bureaucratic paperwork trail. It does not change the way we are operating. We are also setting up regional directors and county managers to get input from the grassroots deer enthusiasts.

So Mr. Bacon, if you wanted to work with us, why did you fight so hard to keep us from just having a say on the committee and telling the DNR what we think? Who is trying to impede the VOICE or "Banning" others? We want to work with the membership of the all organizations on the FWCC and those that are not as well. We want to work with all consumptive and non consumptive users of the resources, and even have dialog with the farming lobby and insurance companies, to see how we can come to some middle ground in moderation of management of our resources instead of an all or nothing approach. We feel the IDHA has done a lot for the resource. I personally, was involved for many years, my father still is in a significant way that benefits handicapped hunters and the image of the IDHA. I am grateful for your forethought in 1983 in founding the IDHA. We are not here to take it over, cause its demise, we would hope, that our focus is more direct, and would free up your diminishing resources to partner on other issues you are passionate about.

I believe this addresses all your issues, as well as other negative comments on this thread. We pray that there can now be some positive dialog at actually accomplishing something, as we will with or without your support, but we prefer the former. God bless.

Gary A Walters, RN, Staff and Member of Board of Directors, IWDHM Group

Thank you for taking the time for the long explanation. I also very much appreciate the tone of the post and approach to welcoming a working relationship with other groups. Your compliment of the IDHAs efforts over the years is also appreciated. Your questions as to the issues and the IDHAs response and interaction to the DNR policies are fair and generally have explanation that Joe can address. Sadly, as you know, we all have been bloodied over the years either fighting against certain management plans and/or fighting in behalf of the DNR, often with little accomplishment. Everyone has to recognize their differences and find a way to get the big picture addressed. Be there no mistake, the sportsmen and the DNR have been losing the battle over all management issues in recent years to many outside interests and influences. That, in my opinion, is pretty much job one and the old groups sometimes get worn down and have lost energy. New groups are always good because they big energy and momentum. So, I hope the dialogue moves forward effectively and respectfully and no group stands in the way of the success of the other groups and the big picture.

How is the IWDHM being productive by asking/telling folks to BOYCOT the IDNR... ? Explain that...

BTW.... How is your post about the IDHA on the FB page not slanderous ... Gary? Thought you didn't allow that type of post!!


https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1028877693790579

I did forget one issue. We did meet the requirements for membership into the FWCC. We were given a copy prior to date of petition, and no where does it say that the GROUP must have a certain structure as alluded to by Mr. Bacon.

Mr. Brew,

I know of you; and you have mentioned you know me and my father, though we don't know you. I will not get into a back and forth with you as it is counterproductive. However, I will answer your question, taken out of context in regard to our post, of which you could have freely asked on our page for everyone to see and gotten the same response. https://www.facebook.com/Indianadeerherdmanagement/posts/1025094057502276

In being proactive we are attempting to educate hunters that despite quotas or limits, it is ultimately us that manage the heard by the pull of the trigger or the release of the arrow. If one is not seeing deer or a significant reduction in his/her hunting area, just don't pull the trigger. Also, if one feels like the DNR is being politically pressured by the farm and insurance lobbies to promote more dep tags, doe/antlerless permits/reduction zone tags, stop buying them. If we show them we are an economic force then they too will listen to us. Money talks, and as the post in its entirety includes: "As conservationists in the past, practice conservation, and we will get you the money." So now Brew, enjoy your beer, we are going to attempt to ensure we have a huntable herd for generations to come. I will respectfully ask you to participate in our Facebook conversation; however attempt to remain in a positive light and promote ideas, rather than a non stop back and forth that accomplishes nothing. Thank you sir.

Gary

You left it on Facebook, Brew. Don't bring it here.

Don't like it don't read it Weed!! You a self appointed mod now?

BTW....I haven't left anything !

Weed, I like your thought. A lot of this can be addressed via private messaging.

To be fair that route has no destination for some.

Wonder why Gary didn't do that when joined up???

In all fairness to Gary, a lot of what he had to said needed to be in the open for transparency (which is a good thing). I saw nothing wrong with him airing all he did in the open and not privately.

Likewise I think so long as respectful it is a good thing to ask questions to him or the IDHA in the open as well.

My suspicion is he wanted to address a brought audience that was addressed in previous posts before he joined. Let's try to not get into the "he said she said".

Here is a nice article to read from a popular bow hunting magazine:

http://www.petersenshunting.com/con... manchannel&utm_content=petersonshunting

Quoted directly from the article:

“We would go three or four days without seeing a single deer. I’ve seen numbers go up and down before, but not like this. They just weren’t there,” says Hicks, a 40-year-old heating and air conditioning mechanic from Goochland, Virginia. “We would go three or four days without seeing a single deer. I’ve seen numbers go up and down before, but not like this. They just weren’t there,” says Hicks, a 40-year-old heating and air conditioning mechanic from Goochland, Virginia. “We normally kill 30 to 40 deer, but we only killed eight this year. I didn’t shoot a buck all season.”

He’s not alone. Hunters throughout whitetail country are experiencing the same thing: hours in a stand with little to show for their efforts. Like Hicks, many spent days in the woods without seeing a single deer.

Get used to it. Lower deer numbers are likely the new normal.

South Carolina’s deer population has been trending downward for nearly 20 years, dropping from 1.2 million animals in 1996 to 800,000. The decline is even more dramatic in Iowa, where 550,000 deer roamed the state in 2006. It’s close to half that now. Ohio’s deer kill was also down to the lowest level in 14 years. Other states like Michigan, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kansas, and Missouri are experiencing similar declines.

Hicks is no biologist, but he has a pretty good idea what’s going on where he hunts.

“We are just killing too many deer,” he says.

--------------

Love how Hicks in the write up says we used to kill 30 to 40 deer now only 8.....then state the problem is "We are killing too many deer".....


Pretty good read once you get by that and they bring up some valid points about predidation and it's impact.

I would like to tell a story. In the late 80's early 90's I was on the board of the IDHA as Editor. Had a conversation with then Chief of Wildlife Wayne Faatz and Deer Biologist John Olsen. Believe it was Olsen that said, prophetically, at the time., "Deer Management is more of a social issue. Deer for the most part will never be overpopulated in Indiana in regards to carrying capacity of the habitat. However, right now farmers and insurance companies are bit---ng. Hunters are happy, seeing and killing deer and more opportunities are being presented. So we will react to the authority above us and address their (farming/insurance) concerns. At some point the pendulum will swing and hunters will stop seeing deer and they will start to complain." Swear on my life true story. So we can wait to complain when it is back like the 50's-70's, and then take decades to swing the pendulum back in our favor, or start complaining now and attempt to moderate a sustainable huntable herd that provides enjoyment for both consumptive and non consumptive users. Hopefully with some positive communication we can get that pendulum barely swinging and in moderation keep everyone happy within reason, the herd healthy, and I can go to heaven knowing my grandkids will have similar opportunities as I did. But I will admit, I believe the good old days are gone forever, and I was lucky enough to teach my son to hunt during the best times to be a Hoosier Deer Hunter. Hope as organizations and individuals we all work together to slow that pendulum down. God Bless.

Gary, I don't fear there will be no deer for our grandkids to hunt, partly due to far too many of us care far too much for this sport known as hunting to allow it (proven by groups and forums like your's, IDHA, IBA, Hunting-Indiana and various others) I also feel the DNR wants to keep things getting like they were in the 50's-70's because they need the deer for financial stability (we are their biggest funding source...no deer less licenses...).

I know first hand how fast a place can go from not having many deer to having an abundance as well...sometimes this is accomplished through habitat improvement (as we did), local landowner cooperatives (always a good thing if possible) and as some of our state needs now trigger control....whether taught or forced with legislation.

The new quotas not going up in nearly all counties (more down) shows even the DNR is catching onto this...I do respect it isn't enough in some opinions though and many think they should have changed more....however the bonus season truly makes barely any impact in the overall numbers harvested...and will continue to play less and less of a role as fewer and fewer counties are part of it.

A lot of us talked with the John Olsen, Wayne Bivens, Glen Lange, and numerous other DNR guys and they all acknowledged that the "orders" came from the top or beyond. But at least back then, the sportsmen had some voice and some influence. A lot of that changed when the Daniels administration took over in my opinion. Where there once was an interest in the folks in fish and wildlife to meet with sportsmen and try to get things done, they came under the influence of cost reductions and more so do as they are told then getting input from sportsmen, all sportsmen. For a lot of us who spent a good deal of time trying to influence things or support the DNR, we were pretty much told "those days are over". For a while now, and not to say these guys are bad guys, the directors of the DNR aren't even biologist types.

That closing line is just sad, and I know that is something ALL of us can agree on.

EXACTLY! Or pick up the phone and call one of these guys. I have, more than once! Do I agree with 100% of everything they have to say…NO. Do I applaud the individuals for at least trying to do something productive….YES.

Bottom line is NOBODY is going to agree 100% within any group membership. Then again…nobody at IWDHM is twisting anybody's arm to join. If you don't like what they have to say…DON'T JOIN. But don't keep bashing and picking apart every single sentence somebody with that group has to say!!!!! Look at the BIG picture for a change.

I know the great things the established groups like the IBA, and the IDHA have done for deer hunting, and hunting in general in the state. But, like Delany has said, it seems they are worn out and beat down.

Not to put words in his mouth, but Joe has admitted several times that "he don't care what they DNR, ect. does any more….he has his own place and will manage as he sees fit". I'm sure he is tired of the fight. He should be. I thank Joe and the IDHA, and the other groups for what they have done. But if they are not going to fight, at least step back and let some people that are willing to try to do something productive, be productive, and get the HUNTERS voice back, and the some of the politics out of deer management in this state.

Give these guys a chance……

Now we are getting somewhere gentlemen. It is time we all get a voice back. Agree!

I agree to a point.... But the past history and some untruthfulness with some of there Board members is hard to put aside for some !!!

Why have a formed group then censor what is being said when it comes to input..... Sad really!!!

Brew, couldn't agree more bud. Censoring inappropriate words or actions is one thing, but respectful opinions should always be welcomed.

Addressed and answered, not he said she said, back and forth. Will not get us anywhere.

Will not pick a fight here, or bait me into your arguements, because, believe it or not, I do believe in what the IDHA once was. And surely believe in IWDHM is now.

LOL, Brew maybe you do know me. My word is of the utmost importance to me, and I have taught my children that as well, and as adults they have remained honest and truthful as I. All of us Walters would rather you hit us in the mouth than call us a liar. But with age also comes wisdom, and my character and integrity speaks for itself to those that matter. So good luck with whatever you are attempting to succeed at. Haven't heard one positive idea from you yet.

Don't be scared Gary..... Where just stating facts as you did!!