Quotas have been reduced in eight counties and increased in one. As a result, 60 counties will be included in the special antlerless season compared to 63 in 2014-15.

In addition to basic bag limits, hunters can purchase bonus licenses to take additional antlerless deer based on the quota assigned to the county in which they hunt. Bonus antlerless licenses can be used in any season, except the Reduction Zone Season, using the equipment that is legal for that season.

Bonus licenses may be used in any county, but hunters may not take more than the county quota for bonus antlerless deer in any specific county.

County quotas range from A to 8. For counties designated as an “A,” a bonus antlerless license can be used to take one antlerless deer from Nov. 26 through Jan. 3, 2016 (the last four days of the regular firearms season, plus muzzleloader and archery seasons). Bonus antlerless licenses cannot be used in an “A” county prior to Nov. 26.

Since 2011, the number of counties with a bonus quota of 8 has dropped from 45 to 23 this coming season.

They should have dropped a bunch of those 4's to 3's and do away with that dam antlerless gun season...

Considering that...

1. A hunter can kill a deer with a bow, a crossbow, a muzzleloader and a firearm in any county for a total of 4 deer. No bonus antlerless permit required.

2. According to the 2010 data that breaks it down, only 2.2% of all hunters killed more than 4 deer.

3. In 2014, 4,200 deer were taken in the late season in the 64 counties that were eligible. That averages out to 65 deer per county.

So other than maybe saving the 4,200 deer, what other benefits do you think we would see from the DNR dropping the bonus antlerless permits statewide to a 3?

Even with a 3 in any particular county and assuming that any given hunter stays in that one county, that is still a total of up to 7 deer he/she could take. And again, the last data available I could find shows 2.2% of hunters killed more than 4 deer. And .8% of hunters killed 7 or more deer.

So what do you think would change?

meh .... I still stand by what I said... but yet the deer kill numbers continue to drop. When is enough enough ?...the DNR still hasnt given a number they want to reach.... I hope more hunters continue to wise up and pass on antlerless deer...I know I do and will continue to do so....

FWIW, I agree with you about hunters passing antlerless deer in counties with low deer numbers.

My point is, lowering bonus antlerless numbers won't change much (if anything).

Sorry, double post.

If they just did away with the use of antlerless tags during gun season that would greatly reduce the number of does killed since most ate killed during gun season.

MOST people loved the antlerless season when there was an abundance of deer. I and others warned of this day and were ignored.

Now it comes and people want to complain to IDNR?????

As the bible says........ "you reap what you sow".

Or if you aint religious........ KARMA BAYYYBEEE!

Let's just add another weapon..... That'll fix it. LOL!!!

...... Or better yet, jump on board with "Being a Guardian of the current gun season". That'll SURELY help fix it.....

LMAO....

Just friggin hilarious what "boat people jumped on" years ago...... Their "leader" wants no responsibility for this mess now.... And they point to articles written from the 1970's and 80's about coyote fawn kill as something that has contributed heavily to our current rapid decline.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know what I'm doing ..... I know what I'm not changing ..... I know everyone wants to hunt my properties now worse than EVER...... And I know they didn't listen to me and those that tried to put this state in MUCH LESS of a mess as reduction was being discussed. So to those that experienced that route.......

....... Careful who you listen to "next round".

Adding another weapon, and "guarding gun season" just isn't as grand as some were swayed to believe........

A few points....

1. The late antlerless season was included in both proposals so like it or not, it was going to happen.

2. Based on 2010's data (which is the last I've seen this broken down this way) only 4.8 % of hunters killed more than 3 deer and only 2.2% of hunters killed more than 4 deer.

3. Do I think there are areas that have been overhunted, had too many deer killed with depredation permits, had a couple of rough winters and bouts of EHD? Sure. Do I think that statewide the herd is in trouble? No, I don't.

Point being...according to the DNR, since 2011 the number of counties with a bonus quota of 8 has dropped from 45 to 23 (as of this coming season) and they lowered the counties eligible to participate in the late antlerless season to 60 (I believe).

So knowing all of this, plus the fact that herd reduction has been going on, it begs the question.....For those who aren't happy, just what would you have had the DNR do for this season?

1 point.....

I would have let the IDNR keep Proposal #1 which was THEIR FIRST CHOICE on how to reduce the herd so we wouldn't have such a mess on our hands now. But that was taken away from them and a choice was forced upon them by the likes of people like jjas.......the perfect recipe for a disastrous mess was born.

Now... People like jjas stand back and say "good job" IDNR, we've got more people complaining about the situation we are all in than ever before. And also at the same time have the audacity to ask "for those that aren't happy, what would you have the IDNR do different".

Typical jjas and Woody mentality.......Screw the IDNR out of their first choice..... And then years later attempt to try to lead the way on how to fix it for us all...... LMAO!!!!!!

Great job dudes..... LOL!!!

1. The original late antlerless season proposal was a replacement for...not an ADDITION to... general firearms days. Big difference.

2. I keep reading about the old 2010 data. Since the current regs ARE the concern...I would like to see how that 2010 data compares to the first few years of crossbows, added firearms days, and bundle licensing.

3. Statewide? So, if you are not seeing deer where you live, but a guy 60 miles away has plenty of deer....that's OK? I'll go out on a limb here and say...if it were not for ever increasing private deer management practices, the herd would be in much worse shape...statewide.

The DNR tell me that I can kill legally kill 20 deer off the farm this year...and that does NOT include any depredation permits. I'm more than happy to say "thanks, but no thanks".

The two responses were about what I expected....

The first was typical...full of personal attacks and foolishness and I won't waste my time responding to it.

As for the other...

PAV 1. I've seen the failure of 1.0 passing (depending upon who is speaking) blamed on everything from a couple of people,the DNR, NRC, state politicians, the Governor and the local dog catcher... In reality, 1.0 met with resistance on many levels and ultimately failed.

Funny thing is...IMO, it may very well have passed if crossbow inclusion had been a part of it. But it wasn't and 2.0 took it's place.

As far as the late antlerless season goes....

Do I think that the season is necessary? Not in some areas, but herd reduction was going to happen and the late antlerless season was/is the tool for the DNR to help make it happen and to help manage the herd down the road without having to go through another 1.0/2.0 debacle.

One last point...1.0 was pushing for a shortened gun and muzzle loader season, but since the overwhelming bulk of the deer are killed in the first nine days of those seasons, one has to wonder if the difference in numbers would have been significant or not.

2. If you can find newer data broken down the way 2010's was, I would love to see it. Regardless, the late antlerless season harvest numbers are dropping. Fewer counties are involved in it this year and more counties have had their bonus antlerless permit numbers dropped. Is that enough to satisfy some? Obviously not, but the numbers are dropping.

3. There was/is and always will be pockets in this state that don't hold the deer people think they should. Some of that is due to habitat, the number of hunters, some of it is weather related and obviously there have been outbreaks of EHD. The other side of that coin is that there are places in this state that hold too many deer and whether it's because the habitat is better, it lies around protected areas like subdivisions or tracts being managed, or maybe hunting just isn't allowed...it's just the way it is and always has been.

Finally...I have said (and still think), that after herd reduction (and if archery hunters show the ability to consistently take a larger share of the harvest), the gun season will be altered.

And it very well may have happened a few years ago, if the first proposal had been more reasonable.......

Sorry...double post.

This is exactly where the argument of 1.0 versus 2.0 falls apart. Stewards of the resource will tell you proposal 1.0 was indeed the more reasonable approach...and proposal 2.0 was/is entirely too aggressive.

---------------------------------------------
What if the late antlerless season had replaced the last seven days of general firearms season? We don't know for sure, but we do know more firearms days equals more dead deer, right?

Last year's numbers look like this:

Last seven days of general firearms: nearly 16,800 total deer harvested, 11,700 of which were antlerless

Late antlerless season: Less than 4,200 deer harvested.

That's roughly 21,000 total animals. Would the late antlerless season have produced such numbers if combined with seven fewer days in November? Count me as skeptical on that....

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

As for weapons, there are two choices on the rise despite declining harvest totals...those being rifle and crossbow.

The rifle percentage is basically replacing a shrinking shotgun percentage. The combination of the two percentages are holding steady since 2009 (three years before 2.0 and three years after).

The crossbow percentage is climbing quickly, but the archery percentage is holding relatively firm.
The combination of those two percentages from the same time frame results in roughly a 50% harvest increase...more than 10,000 animals...all crossbow.

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

I don't have any data on bundle licensing, but would be shocked if bundle licenses do not represent the majority of license sales. This means more tags in more pockets. I'll leave it at that.

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

Deer hunting generates millions of dollars in this state, yet money spent on deer research is a joke. We can't even keep a deer biologist. Chad was not the first professional to bail on Indiana. Like it or not, politicians are running the IDNR. Our deer herd is ultimately being "managed" by people that care more about money and votes than the resource. Not a good recipe for success if you ask me....

Going to climb off the soapbox now. Right now, I consider myself very fortunate to be hunting a large tract of land in the company of... and surrounded by... like minded individuals. If that ever changes, I'll find somewhere else to spend November vacation time....probably beyond the state lines.

Not one time was proposal 2 ever referred to as the more "aggressive" proposal untill now.... If anything proposal 2 was referred as being watered down and wouldn't work!!

Interesting that now some are referring it to be the "Aggressive"

Theeee most absurd and false post on this thread.

You are always asking everyone to back up their "claims" Brew with links..... Let's see you back up this claim with "past concerns it was a watered down down approach". Prop 2 ADDED CROSSBOWS FOR EVERYONE and ADDED ANY WEAPONS SEASON FOR ANTLERLESS between Christmas and New Years.

NOW you call that "watered down" and say there were others calling that approach "watered down"....????

Show us!!!

And for those of you watching this debate..... The jjas's, Woody's and Brew's of this site wanted 2 things years ago...... They wanted Crossbows for ALL (more aggression towards the herd) and they wanted to continue with the longest gun season in the midwest so they could have as many days to hunt BUCKS with a gun that they could.....

This was not about managing the herd in a thoughtful way for them.... It was to selfishly add another weapon, and selfishly keep as many days possible to hunt their beloved BUCK with a gun. They snuffed out the IDNR's first choice of Prop 1.0 that had a reasonable approach to crossbows and the IDNR's first choice to reduce our gun season to hunt bucks so those that just focused days with a gun were forced to think about something else to hunt besides JUST BUCKS.

And now they want us to pity their selfish logic and motives.....

The result of their selfishness has broken apart the hunting ranks of this state like never before, increased leasing like never before because now people are not only leasing for Trophies... THEY ARE NOW LEASING TO JUST BE ABLE TO SEE A DEER!!! They are also responsible for the largest crash in our deer population that we have seen yet.... And it's not over.

....and they still want to act "innocent"..... And want us to believe the Prop 2.0 they forced the IDNR to move to was "less aggressive"..... LMAO!!!!!!!

As far as the firearms season goes, let's look @ numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.


Now let's look @ crossbow numbers.....

In 2009, crossbows accounted for 1% of the total harvest.

In 2014, crossbows accounted for 10% of the total harvest.

Where did the 9% increase come from? Is it in addition to, or did it replace kills from different equipment?

In 2009, vertical archery accounted for 21% of the total harvest.

In 2014, vertical archery accounted for 19% of the total harvest.

In 2009, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 25% of the total harvest.

In 2014, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 20% of the total harvest.

So 7% of the 9% increase in crossbows kills can be accounted for in the drop of vertical archery and muzzleloader percentages.


Now let's look @ archery totals as a whole.....

In 2009, vertical archery hunters accounted for 21% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 1% of the total harvest for a total of 22%.

In 2014, vertical archery hunters accounted for 19% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 10% of the total harvest for a total of 29%.


So what does that tell us.....

Archery hunters took a larger share of the total harvest (29%), while firearms hunters (even with the addition of the late antlerless season) took a smaller percentage (69%) of the total harvest when comparing 2009 to 2014. BTW, the other 2% is the youth season percentage.

So what is happening is what many predicted would happen....

Archery is becoming more of a management tool while firearms hunters are taking a lower share of the total harvest.

Iam sure you have edited all your post that said that by now...just like you did with the "Bojangles" deer thread when the Trail Cam thread was brought up!!

BTW..... Post up where someone had said proposal 2 was going to be to "Aggressive" and would kill to many deer in the end (or edit a post to show that)....

YOU brought it up Brew..... So now "show us the money".....

All my comments are out there in "unedited fashion".... Check with the administrator here if I have altered any of my comments on Prop1.0 and 2.0 discussion....

Got another BB in that gun that "appears to be a 12 guage Bud"????? Keep firin' blanks Bro'........ The Truth is out.... And you just don't like it.

Lay as many "distractions" out as you want..... It's your ankle that's locked in this messy trap you now can't explain your way out of...... Sorry for your self imposed luck on that one.... LOL!!

Lol.... Theee most Honest guy on the Internet.... We know you wouldn't edit or delate anything .... LMAO

That's correct.... No editing of any Prop 1.0 and 2.0 discussion on my part that lends authenticity to your claim earlier in this thread which was false..... And I'm instructing you to verify such with this Site Administrator. Scared you might find the TRUTH if you ask and verify??? Might have to change your story of lies Brew???

Kinda' ouchy to get called to the carpet in public isn't it Brew..... And who did that to yourself?

False!

Did a quick search on this website and found a thread I started prior to the end of the 2013 season. Here is a direct copy/paste...and FYI BREW, you own Post #3 on that thread. I did BOLD the word "aggresive" for clarity here...used three times in one paragraph. Here you go:

"Due to the outcry from the non-agenda driven folks (yeah right)….it was back to the drawing board for the DNR. This time tasked to come up with something different…and by the way…don’t touch gun season. How’s that for a set of handcuffs? Next up….2.0…..an aggresive deer killing proposal if there ever was one. Compared to 1.0….the second proposal increased general firearm/ML opportunity by roughly 40% (I used 28/40 to get there. I can’t recall the final 1.0 number, but 28 is close, the 2.0 number was 43 this year, but varies annually). In addition to that, 2.0 added roughly two full months of crossbow pressure that had never existed. By adding more potential focus on antlered deer (instead of less, 1.0)….it required very aggressive measures to address that antlerless harvest ratio mentioned earlier. It is what it is….and is nothing remotely comparable to 1.0. To be clear, I’m not certain 1.0 would have produced the desired results? Just pointing out it was a much less aggressive approach."

I am kind of wondering when the focus and discussion can move to forward thinking instead of historical "this and that". There is no perfect plan, no satisfying everyone and no one has "the answer". Just hoping that the rhetoric and any name calling or insinuations are kept toned down and/or totally eliminated.

So are you saying that is my post pav???? Or are saying that's your post?? Which is it ... And what thread???

BTW.... the search here only goes back to January 03, 2013 in the Deer forum

I wouldn't expect the name calling to stop .... Just look at the other thread where Dew refers to all others as "MORONS"!!

That pretty much the pot calling the kettle black if I ever seen it !!! SMH

Interesting data/numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.

Seems all this "panic" so many of them (1.0 guys) are pushing now is nothing more than another attempt to convince hunters that the gun and muzzleloader seasons should be shortened/moved. This time to "save" the herd from the evil DNR....and Woody.

That's all they want again it appears ......

The guys that weren't happy before aren't happy now and the ones that were still are. The arguments still continue, until they manage on a smaller scale there is no way to make everyone happy. The southern half of the state has a large population and a ton of public land. The northern half is the opposite, we all hunt different types of land in different areas so we can't really agree on a best practice since our areas are so different.

"Shorten gun/ML seasons" .... works for me...BTW, reduce the AL counties some more too ;0)

SOooooo......How long did it take for jjas and Woody to send you this ^^^^ response that you copied and pasted up for them....

LOL!!!!!

Some things are just so transparent.


Oh my goodness Brew....... the situations you get yourself into. LOL!!!!!

And to correct your "false spin" again...... we aren't trying to save anyone from the "evil DNR". We are just making others aware of what the DNR wanted as their FIRST CHOICE.

That EXACT complaint was cited by DNR Brass in a Senators office after 1.0 was forced off the table.

So.........Brew......... who are we labeling as evil???

.....we are simply now NAMING those that forced them to not be able to do what they (IDNR) wanted....... forced a more AGGRESSIVE approach.......and now has this state in a large messy tail spin.......AND STILL WORRIED THEIR 30+ DAY GUN SEASON SO THEY CAN JUST HUNT BUCKS WILL BE SHORTENED in the very near future!!

Tell ya what.......... Brew, jjas, Woody.... post up your Doe picks over the last 3 years. I'd like to see YOUR contribution to reducing the herd that you were so positively for. You got the Crossbows you wanted to do that with.....you got a season for any weapon you wanted to kill Antlerless..........let's see you posing with your contribution to what you wanted.

Make sure you post doe pics that will match up with check in records too.......wouldn't want you to go through any "trouble" explaining doe pics from WAAY back.... with no current check in records.

Let us see what your contribution to what you "say" you wanted was.........or did you little devils just buck hunt with all those "gun days" and THREE new months of Crossbow you knew you were just going to use to buck hunt only.....and don't want anyone to know that..

Let's see those Antlerless pics over the last 3 years Brew, jjas and Woody. Make us proud..... (cough)

Hey Brew.

My thread, my post. Just saying you were the second person to respond to that thread. Name of the thread was "2.0 Too Much...Too Fast?", started on January 4th, 2014....a couple days before the 2013 season ended.

Point is, I don't make this stuff up as I go. Proposal 2.0 was/is significantly more aggressive than the first proposal. They ADDED double digit firearms days. They ADDED 3+ months of crossbows.
The sad part is...alot of people looked at 2.0 as the better proposal (better for them, not the deer herd). Originally, we were fighting against the threat of political control. Before it was over, we (the vocal majority) gift wrapped and delivered control to the politicians. Can't help but wonder if they are still laughing at us?

As far as the firearms season goes, let's look @ numbers...

In 2009, the firearms and muzzleloader seasons accounted for 77% of the total deer harvest.

In 2014, the firearms, muzzleloader [b]AND the late antlerless season accounted for 69% of the total harvest.

So even including the late season, the firearms harvest accounts for 8% less of the total harvest when compared to 2009.


Now let's look @ crossbow numbers.....

In 2009, crossbows accounted for 1% of the total harvest.

In 2014, crossbows accounted for 10% of the total harvest.

Where did the 9% increase come from? Is it in addition to, or did it replace kills from different equipment?

In 2009, vertical archery accounted for 21% of the total harvest.

In 2014, vertical archery accounted for 19% of the total harvest.

In 2009, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 25% of the total harvest.

In 2014, muzzleloader hunters accounted for 20% of the total harvest.

So 7% of the 9% increase in crossbows kills can be accounted for in the drop of vertical archery and muzzleloader percentages.


Now let's look @ archery totals as a whole.....

In 2009, vertical archery hunters accounted for 21% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 1% of the total harvest for a total of 22%.

In 2014, vertical archery hunters accounted for 19% of the total harvest and crossbow hunters accounted for 10% of the total harvest for a total of 29%.


So what does that tell us.....

Archery hunters took a larger share of the total harvest (29%), while firearms hunters (even with the addition of the late antlerless season) took a smaller percentage (69%) of the total harvest when comparing 2009 to 2014. BTW, the other 2% is the youth season percentage.

So what is happening is what many predicted would happen....

Archery is becoming more of a management tool while firearms hunters are taking a lower share of the total harvest. [/b][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how your explanation of "how" we're killing too many deer helps the situation?

Of course the percentages are going to change. A double digit variable was introduced in the 2014 numbers which was virtually non-existent in 2009.
Still working off 100%...just splitting it more ways.

Just out of curiosity, I removed the 4200 late antlerless deer from the 2014 firearms harvest and all but 1,000 deer from the 2014 crossbow harvest. Adjusted the total harvest accordingly, figured percentages for archery, firearms and ML and compared those to 2009. This is what turns up:

Archery - 2009: 21% 2014: 21%

Firearms - 2009: 53% 2014: 55%

MLoader - 2009: 25% 2014: 23%

Not much of a difference when you remove the changes, huh? Not sure what that proves, if anything? I just found it interesting.

Hey Brew.

My thread, my post. Just saying you were the second person to respond to that thread. Name of the thread was "2.0 Too Much...Too Fast?", started on January 4th, 2014....a couple days before the 2013 season ended.

Point is, I don't make this stuff up as I go. Proposal 2.0 was/is significantly more aggressive than the first proposal. They ADDED double digit firearms days. They ADDED 3+ months of crossbows.
The sad part is...alot of people looked at 2.0 as the better proposal (better for them, not the deer herd). Originally, we were fighting against the threat of political control. Before it was over, we (the vocal majority) gift wrapped and delivered control to the politicians. Can't help but wonder if they are still laughing at us? [/QUOTE]


Hey Pav...

Yes I remember that thread but my point of "NOW" was/is now that we have the Proposal 2.0 in place is the ONLY time it is or has been referred to as "AGRESSIVE". I understand you don't make stuff up I don't also and wasn't trying to say you where.My point was and still is that until Proposal 2.0 was placed in action no one was saying it was going to be the "AGRESSIVE" Proposal.....If anything it was just the opposite!!! Watered down, wont work and so on....

I respect your thoughts on the subject Pav.... Your one of the few Proposal 1 proponent's that don't GRAB a GUN when gun/muzzleloader seasons comes in and goes Deer Hunting!! you seem to be a die in the wool Bow Hunter.

Pav Breaking down the information in a way it hasn't (to my knowledge) been presented, shows several things.

As a percentage of total harvest, deer killed with firearms has dropped by 8% when comparing the 2009 season (pre reg changes) to the 2014 season (post reg changes). And remember, the firearms figures include the late antlerless season.

As a percentage of total harvest, deer killed with archery equipment has risen 7% when comparing the 2009 season (pre reg changes) to 2014 season (post reg changes).

In other words, since 2.0 passed, hunters are beginning to utilize the archery season more as a management tool instead of relying primarily on firearms to manage the herd.

And this has happened not only without changing the present firearms/muzzleloader season structure but while ADDING the late antlerless season TO the firearms season structure.

Brew.....That is the second time you have claimed before 2.0 was put in place people were saying it was "watered down, won't work and so on". Where are you seeing this? What is the link that would show this? Are you talking about just a few insignificant voices or are you talking masses that were saying this? Please point us to some validation to your claim.

........And... when comparing Prop 1.0 to 2.0 are you saying the common person couldn't tell that 2.0 wasn't MUCH more agressive than Prop 1.0? I mean for God's sake....the common hunter couldn't see adding crossbows for 3 months for all to use and adding special any weapons antlerless season, while retaining 30+ days of gun hunting wasn't more aggressive than Prop 1.0 which had none of that in it ??

And you want us to all sit around and thank the Brew's, jjas's and Woody's of the State for yanking the less aggressive Prop 1.0 out from under the IDNR??......just so you could save as many days and have as many weapons to hunt a buck that ya'll selfishly wanted...

I'll say it again just like I did on page 2 of this thread......... Brew, jjas, Woody..Cough up your antlerless kill pics over the last three years. Show us you fought for something that was worth participating in...and you not only backed up the validity of 2.0 by your words, but you backed it up by your actions. Please don't tell us that you just used 2.0 to have another weapon (Crossbow) and retainment of your 30+ days of gun season just so you could selfishly hunt your bucks better and more often....

There were several that said if 2.0 passed it would just increase the number of days people used to hunt bucks and there was no way it would have the intended goal of increasing the ratio of antlerless to antlered kill and reducing the herd. Dew was not one of them he has been pretty consistent throughout the process. The stated goal of 1.0 was to reduce the herd 2.0 has been very effective at that goal. The other part of 1.0 was to reduce and move gun season which is more for trophy deer management.

As to how much the DNR supported 1.0 is debatable, there were several including myself that spoke with DNR personnel and they sstated that it was pushed by some powerful people and was not what they wanted. The same people told me that years ago in a meeting with the DNR the leader of one of those groups made it clear that there was enough money and power in the group to push their agenda with or without the support of the biologist.

I'm not sure where, when or who might have said that there was enough money and power to push any agenda through, but I can safely assure that there is no truth to that, not by an organization or for that matter individuals who are involved in the daily hunting debate. This is what is so pathetic about all of this. So much misinformation, folks saying things that are largely baseless and people letting emotions get the best of them.

The biologist only has certain influence. The DNR director only has certain influence. Sporting groups have a little influence. Individuals themselves have a little influence. The legislature as a whole or a select few of them have a lot of influence. Insurance companies have a lot of influence. Believe maybe 5% of what you hear and ignore the other 95%. Forget listening to anyone who pounds their chest and says they know what is going on because those directly involved don't know what's going on.

The sporting groups, the old ones, don't have any real influence anymore and haven't for some time. They did a LOT of good things and some things a lot of folks didn't like. Now, there needs to be new sporting groups evolving to replace the old ones and hopefully those new organizations will be able to structure in a way to have an impact on things. That said, no one organization will ever make everyone happy or satisfied. But, this whizzing stuff that is evolving in this thread is just worthless.

I am just repeating what was told to me by a DNR employee that claimed to be in the room when it was said. I have no reason to not believe them and I have no reason not to believe you. This was when the obr happened. Same person said 1.0 was not what the biologist or DNR wanted.

Certainly understand that it might have been said by someone in some meeting with the DNR. I'm just making sure folks understand the reality. I too talked with Chad and other DNR folks throughout that process and there were differing positions/opinions in the DNR about what those folks believed should be implemented. That's part of the problem. No one speaks for everyone within an organizations or agency in regard to each individuals personal thoughts, beliefs or wishes. People should be communicating to the DNR year round on what they want or are experiencing where they hunt. Forget the conspiracy theories, the theories that any organization is influencing very much or that one person in the DNR speaks for every person in the DNR in regard to what they think needs to happen.

Agreed, you are someone I respect, same as Joe and some of the others. We don't always agree on things but you and Joe work hard and do a lot for hunters.