Second deer hunt at Eagle Creek Park scheduled for Jan. 12th

INDIANAPOLIS -
Indy Parks has scheduled its second deer hunt at Eagle Creek Park for three nights starting January 12th.

USDA sharpshooters using high-powered rifles will hunt on the west side of the reservoir, which includes two city golf courses.

Indy Parks received a state permit to kill up to 350 deer at the popular west side park. Park officials have said the deer population is up to five times greater than it should be, a figure critics have repeatedly questioned.

The first hunt took place the weekend after Thanksgiving when members of the Wounded Warriors were allowed to hunt on the east side of the park where all the trails, picnic areas and playgrounds are. The park was closed for three days during that hunt with 142 deer killed.

Park officials say this time, the hunt will not interfere with regular park operations as it will occur overnight. Spokesman Scott Manning said near by residents will not hear any gunfire as the sharpshooters will be using suppressors.

The city's permit requires the city to finish the hunt by January 31st.

http://www.wthr.com/story/27796504/second-deer-hunt-at-eagle-creek-park-scheduled-for-jan-12th

The Dunes National Lakeshore uses the USDA guys around here, they have their sharpshooting going on now...they have their bait piles out...it just isnt advertised.... 14,000+ acres of prime deer habitat and we as hunters cant touch it. But yet the Feds brings in these clowns.... sucks !

Makes you wonder who's personal honey hole that is, doesn't it??

Exactly what is it that makes you feel they are "clowns" ???

Steve, as with the Flyway site, nobody appears to like the DNR or the Feds, often for seemingly good reason.

these sharpshooters ARE clowns(I'm being polite in the term I would like to use), using suppressors, shooting at night and over bait and from vehicles....to me sounds like poachers.....

They are not HUNTING....there getting paid to do a job!!! :rolleyes:

some dont know the difference.

Whether you call them clowns or professionals...the bottom line is....when sharpshooters are being used instead of hunters....hunters lose.

Sounds like some don't see the negative in that?

SO getting on the internet and NAME calling and whining is the intelligent answer???

Better yet what would be your answer to how to get hunters put in place of sharp shooters???

Yes it's a "negative" .....but what is the resolve??

Pretty sure that Old understands the negative but probably is making a point about those who are doing a job. Jeff's frustration, all of frustration, about the situation is also understandable. And Brews point gets to the heart of the matter.

While they maybe "professionals" in what they do(head shooting deer)...they take away in what should be a hunters job, keeping deer herds manageable...I can remember some nasty stuff coming from this site when Tony DeNicola and his White Buffalo group was sharpshooting deer up here back in the early 2000's..... you must get through to the politicians about the benefits and cost saving when using "hunters" vs the sharpshooters.....but in actuality to the politicians a dead deer is a dead deer... dosnt matter who kills it....however it does matter to some of the activists as sharphooters take away what us hunters do and our "enjoyment of hunting", or so they think..... I once told an activist, how do you know that "sharpshooters" arnt smiling after each deer he kills"...she was dumbfounded by that.....because to her, us "hunters" only enjoyed hunting because we enjoyed killing.... sharpshooting deer isnt hunting per se and the ARAers know that....anything to keep "hunters" out of the woods.....does sharpshooting work ? sure it does, it reduces deer numbers, but at what cost.... we hunters can do the same job and many would be willing to pay to do so, rather than pay a sharpshooter $300 or more to kill the same deer.... Vehicles, bait, suppressed rifles and spotlights isnt hunting...its just killing and to me they are clowns for doing so... as are the politicians for letting this happen.... if you want "hunters" in there get off your asses and fight for it, cause if you dont, the politicians will use the easy way...sharpshooters which they feel are more politically correct that us "big bad hunters" ....

Before folks get into name calling to heavy perhaps they should take a good look in the mirror .
" using suppressors,"
Wasn't there a big push by the hunting/shooting folks to make them legal to use ?

"shooting at night"
Isn't it legal to hunt deer 1/2 hour after sunset ?

" over bait"
Ever hunt over , or near a legal food plot ?

" and from vehicles "
Wonder how many handicap permits have been issued that allows a person to hunt from a vehicle ?

Depending on how you look at it , could it be that the pot is calling the kettal black ?

It's a fine line Jeff. I fought against sharp shooters and birth control strongly. Still don't like either one. But, the analysis of the situation is difficult. My point is state park "hunts" weren't initially supposed to be more so of "hunting" but instead that of "shooting". Certainly not with bait, not with sharpshooters or suppressors, but none the less one of shooting. What the state really wanted was a "service" to be filled by citizens during those park hunts. Basically, a shoot the first three deer that came along, well as long as only one buck was killed. In essence, it was citizen sharp shooting more then hunting. Even the archery only parks were supposedly so because of local housing issues and such, but still intended to be sharp shooting.

Even the first hunt at Eagle Creek here was basically a sharp shooting event, with bait, that wounded warriors supplied the "shooters", not necessarily "hunters". This of course is where the debate of what is hunting gets messy. I believe the whole point is the cost of the deer reduction, of which you make the point Heck, as you know there is a push for suppressors for general use. In these situations of deer reductions, I don't support paid sharpshooters, or "hunters". But, instead, I do support citizen "sharpshooters", or "hunters", who are not paid whether they are allowed bait, vehicle use or other accessories.

The answer for this particular location is bowhunters....but nobody (including today's hunting community) wants to hear that. The IBA fought and successfully kept sharpshooters out of urban state parks. That was a different time.

FYI, the guy that is "name calling and whining" on this thread has probably put more personal time and effort into fighting the sharpshooter issue than the rest of us combined. If he wants to whine about it...I figure he's earned the right.

Paul, the early stages of the state park ordeal was a combined effort by the IBA and the IDHA kind of. It actually was a reasonably small core of individuals in those two organizations. To suggest it was a broad based inclusion of those organizations membership might be a bit of a stretch. It was a different time for sure. However, it is not that the same results can't be achieved today, but it is instead that the manner in which the game is played has changed and the hunting community doesn't wish to play it the way it is played today. That core of individuals that spent many hours getting Indiana citizens in the state parks to control the deer herd no longer have the energy or will to do the same because quite frankly, the general deer hunting public didn't appreciate what was achieved and didn't want to participate in the process then or now.

I'd like to also suggest that the gentleman that runs White Buffalo is a very articulate, well spoken and intelligent individual. I may not like the service his company provides but be there no mistake, he is successful because the hunting community doesn't and hasn't spent the time adequately representing itself to the non hunting public, including municipalities. Actually, he suggested years ago that the IDHA come up with a service like he provides to address situations here in Indiana. He is very professional in his approach and that is what the non hunting public wants in these situations.

Does anybody know if the possibility of bow hunting Eagle Creek has ever been seriously considered?

PAV/Delaney, Do the efforts you talk about include Eagle Creek.

I am willing to help with any efforts to get that done. It seems like a pretty easy sell, given the Ft. Ben bowhunts. But the political tides are changing here in Indy and it might get tougher with a new (probably Hogsett) mayor next year.

The efforts which I'm speaking of pretty much addressed the state parks. I am unaware of any such discussion or involvement related to Eagle Creek. As you know, Clifty and Fort Ben state parks are only bow hunted, which is an interesting situation to be honest. There really is no documented reason that these two parks can't be or shouldn't be hunted with firearms. The situation of them being bow hunted only is/would be an interesting discussion. Now, Dunes Acres in northern Indiana was a community that Jeff had a great deal of involvement with, I believe, that the residents of the town have vastly differing opinions as to how to address the deer overpopulation issue. National Lake Shores is a whole different issue because the feds have control over it.

When Eagle Creek came up, I did contact the DNR indicating that the organization would provide shooters and run a reduction program at Eagle Creek, for free to the park and the City of Indianapolis. I was told that this was not a DNR issue, which it wasn't, and that any interaction would have to be directly with the City. I did reach out to the City but had no response.

Unfortunately, it should be a proactive thing and with the hunting community it becomes a reactive thing. Then, as experienced in the past efforts, the "hunters" themselves don't usually like certain aspects of the reduction and they often prefer to make it "hunt" instead of a "reduction". Frankly, then you have to assume or hope that those who participate in the reduction efforts will follow the rules. Sadly, depending on the general hunting public to do that is often a lost cause. What this state needs is an organization that formalizes a program that addresses 1) immediate impact 2) sustainability 3) the details of a reduction program and 4) the cost aspects. Then, each municipality should be approached with the program and offered the help before any issue is identified. Now, assuming folks believe firearms are safe in urban settings, the quickest and most effective ( I know this is will make some folks unhappy) is the bait, shoot and get out. But, this makes noise. If you want quiet, bow hunting can also be effective but probably not quite as quickly as firearms. Any program needs to be honest and layout the various scenarios for a reduction and then should let the municipality make its own decision. It is not unreasonable that the future Eagle Creek reductions could be performed by a local, Indiana based organization but I don't believe it is likely to ever be on open draw reduction.

There needs to be a new organization, no disrespect to the IDHA or IBA or the Roundtable that engages a whole new philosophy and approach to all the aspects of hunting, conservation and programs. These, very good, organizations have too much history and legacy to be the front for a new initiative in my opinion. A new organization can and should have many of the same individuals involved and leading but with a whole different mission and approach. All of course, in my own opinion.

Pav...thanks

Guys, the only way to get Bowhunters into Eagle Creek is to hit it head on....you have to put pressure on the politicians, you have to set meetings with those that have a say, and put forth the facts and the expense of using sharpshooters vs Bowhunters....Illinois State Parks utilize bowhunters throught their whole regular archery season, unlike where we use 'em only for a few days in the State parks. Rules can be set within the park and enforced....I had said way back when that the use of bowhunters during the regular seasons would produce the same effect and outcome of using sharpshooters. ****, we had a better out come up here in Beverly Shores than what they would have using sharpshooters..I think we all would rather see a resource such as the deer be managed by those who have cared so much about this resource, Us the hunters ! Pressure from the media, writers and the powers that be is the way to get them in there....find the politicians that are favorable to using bowhunters, hit them with the efficacy of doing so and the cost savings...use examples from this state and other states and our parks....it may not happen over night but constant pressure is what is needed.....****, we should be experienced by now after all we have went through, getting hunters into the State Parks, local towns, etc...use that experience !

Dave,

To be clear, I did not intend to take anything away from the IDHA efforts to get the state parks opened up for deer hunters. Sorry if my post came off that way.

I gave the IBA credit specifically for their efforts in "urban" setting state parks (Clifty Falls and Ft. Harrison). As I'm sure you recall, archery reductions lagged well behind the firearms reductions. I brought that up as those two state parks are the most comparable situations to Eagle Creek as I could come up with.

No offence taken at all Paul.