|
|
Post by hoosier on Jul 31, 2007 21:11:17 GMT -5
In parts of Owen county, the deer numbers are still dismal. These same areas were hit hard last year with EHD. I am wondering about other areas hit by it and the numbers of deer being seen now. Any comments appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 1, 2007 7:04:09 GMT -5
In parts of Owen county, the deer numbers are still dismal. These same areas were hit hard last year with EHD. I am wondering about other areas hit by it and the numbers of deer being seen now. Any comments appreciated. The cases of EHD (Blue Tongue) seem to be confined to West Central Indiana such as Owen County. My best guess would be that this area should be "Bucks Only" and a short firearm season, for a few years, until this Disease subsides. Are they still finding dead Deer up your way? |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Aug 1, 2007 17:38:31 GMT -5
Occasionally an untouched skeleton is still found.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 2, 2007 7:02:21 GMT -5
Occasionally an untouched skeleton is still found. If no fresh deer carcasses, are found to any extent, near water sources; then maybe the disease has run its course. |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 10, 2007 16:25:41 GMT -5
I would think that would be the worst possible thing that could be done, David. One reason it was so severe in first place was because the deer population was fairly high in these areas to begin with and encouraging the population to again attain that level will only encourage another severe EHD outbreak down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Aug 10, 2007 20:20:07 GMT -5
Above post very accurate. In the affected areas the pockets that got hit hard were overpopulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 11, 2007 6:58:12 GMT -5
Above post very accurate. In the affected areas the pockets that got hit hard were overpopulated. The reason these areas are over populated is that most of the "huntable" land is off limits to Hunters. Thus the population of Deer increases above the carring capacity which allows disease to move in, and wipes them out. The areas, in those counties, that are huntable, the Hunters must "Lease" the ground at greatly inflated prices which many can't afford; so those areas see very little hunting pressure. You see this is what leasing is doing to our Deer Herd's health. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Aug 11, 2007 11:35:58 GMT -5
So leasing is the reason behind EHD?
What about increased tag prices, lower numbers of hunters and a booming population of deer? The hardest hit area I've seen is centered on and surrounded by thousands of acres of Hoosier National Forest.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 11, 2007 13:23:41 GMT -5
So leasing is the reason behind EHD? What about increased tag prices, lower numbers of hunters and a booming population of deer? The hardest hit area I've seen is centered on and surrounded by thousands of acres of Hoosier National Forest. Yes! In an indirect way leasing is hurting our Deer Herd. Also the general high cost of license, tags and equipment, especially for Non-resident Hunters. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Aug 11, 2007 19:54:41 GMT -5
Do you think the price of tags for out of state hunters really affects the doe population much? I've hunted with 50-75 out of state folks... never seen them harvest a doe. Seems folks only travel for the extra buck tag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 11, 2007 20:50:51 GMT -5
Do you think the price of tags for out of state hunters really affects the doe population much? I've hunted with 50-75 out of state folks... never seen them harvest a doe. Seems folks only travel for the extra buck tag. Maybe in a state like Illinois where a doe tag is CHEAP they might take a doe AFTER they kill out on a buck. But, then again, probably not. You are right - No non-resident is going to pay $125 to kill a doe in Indiana. The IDNR should have made the non-resident bonus tags the same price for everyone.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2007 22:09:00 GMT -5
Do you think the price of tags for out of state hunters really affects the doe population much? I've hunted with 50-75 out of state folks... never seen them harvest a doe. Seems folks only travel for the extra buck tag. Maybe in a state like Illinois where a doe tag is CHEAP they might take a doe AFTER they kill out on a buck. But, then again, probably not. You are right - No non-resident is going to pay $125 to kill a doe in Indiana. The IDNR should have made the non-resident bonus tags the same price for everyone.... Woody,you're correct...because the price is actually $150 for the first doe tag and $24 for the ones after that. Several of my OOS hunters last year bought ONE, but most didn't, after buying the either sex tag for another $150. $300 for 2 deer, or $324 for 3 isn't condusive to good deer management. So, David is wrong again, it's not the leases that are the problem with higher deer numbers. IF David had a point, States such as Georgia, Alabama, and Illinois wouldn't have any deer left. Obviously, EHD is not connected in anyway to leasing. Besides, that has no effect on EHD anyway. It's not passed from deer to deer by contact. It spreads from a midge bite......maybe we need some midge controll?  |
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Aug 12, 2007 0:07:29 GMT -5
You could offer all out of state guys $5 to kill a doe in Indiana and there still wouldn't be many taken on that license. Guys don't travel into the hoosier state to pop does. They don't want to gut, drag, check-in, process, package and haul a doe around on their "hunting vacation". That sounds like work. Guys fill the freezer down the road from their house, they travel for trophies.
If I had to trade $500 OOS tags for $10 resident tags- I'd take the deal. We need more Hoosiers hunting Indiana deer; and not because it will signifigantly reduce the impact of diseases like EHD.
My deer numbers have rebounded fairly well, since adults suffered the brunt of last years killoff. I haven't seen any animals showing signs of EHD this summer- I'd say we're out of the woods for now. I was concerned through the mild winter... but we finally got a few weeks of insanely cold weather there in February that should've frosted a few parasites. Not sure that those temps scientifically matter- but historically it seems a mild winter means a nasty spring/summer afterwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2007 0:30:51 GMT -5
.....that simply isn't true. People that travel and hunt want something for their time and trouble and are just as concerned about deer management as anyone else. You can't blame the hunters that spend the least amount of time in the woods for all the problems associated with your deer herd.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 12, 2007 6:53:50 GMT -5
Do you think the price of tags for out of state hunters really affects the doe population much? I've hunted with 50-75 out of state folks... never seen them harvest a doe. Seems folks only travel for the extra buck tag. If Non-Resident Hunters can't bag a Buck then they will bag an antlerless Deer. They MUST bring something home to justify the cost of the license & tag. Like I said, Leasing 500 acres out to a few Hunters has a more negative impact on a given area's Deer population than Non-Residet Hunters taking Doe. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 12, 2007 7:04:04 GMT -5
Maybe in a state like Illinois where a doe tag is CHEAP they might take a doe AFTER they kill out on a buck. But, then again, probably not. You are right - No non-resident is going to pay $125 to kill a doe in Indiana. The IDNR should have made the non-resident bonus tags the same price for everyone.... Woody,you're correct...because the price is actually $150 for the first doe tag and $24 for the ones after that. Several of my OOS hunters last year bought ONE, but most didn't, after buying the either sex tag for another $150. $300 for 2 deer, or $324 for 3 isn't condusive to good deer management. So, David is wrong again, it's not the leases that are the problem with higher deer numbers.IF David had a point, States such as Georgia, Alabama, and Illinois wouldn't have any deer left. Obviously, EHD is not connected in anyway to leasing. Besides, that has no effect on EHD anyway. It's not passed from deer to deer by contact. It spreads from a midge bite......maybe we need some midge controll? I am CORRECT! Leasing does limit the number of Hunters, in a given area, that otherwise would have enough safe room for additional Hunters. The States you mention "Timex" have had serious problems in the past as I know people in those states that can confirm this fact. They found another CWD case in Illinois not long ago, and now Kentucky is having problems with EHD. South Central Indiana is currently having problems too with EHD. Your Leasing is limiting the number of hunters for the sake of BIG ANTLERS, and at the same time is keeping the Deer herd out-of-balance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2007 9:59:12 GMT -5
BS---Leasing have no effects what so ever on the number of midges in a certain are that carry the EHD virus. None....Zero....Nada. Over population of deer doesn't cause EHD either, as you should know by now.
Then you compare CWD with EHD, neither can be cause by leasing. CWD can be transferred deer to deer, but most likely was brought to Illinois int he back of a truck by a game farmer, not a leasor.
EHD is a common disease in most of the South. It's been here for years. It's not spread just in and arround areas that have land leases on them.
I think most people that look at the facts of teh disease understand that perfectly well.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 12, 2007 10:23:13 GMT -5
I still believe that "Leasing" is very detrimental to the Deer Herd.
(1) It allows only a few Hunters in a given area to harvest a small amount of game. This area (if large enough) could safely accommodate more Hunters, who could harvest additional animals keeping a good balanced herd.
(2) Leasing is one reason many Hunters have quit hunting. They simply have no where to go, unless they don't mind paying high fees to some outfitter or landowner.
(3) Hunters & Sportsmen are paying "Double" for a sport that their taxes, and licenses purchase pay for. Why should they be charged extra?
(4) Leasing undermines sound management programs by competing with State programs. This is Not Good, as it allows deer populations to exceed the carring capacity of the area. It has nothing to do with the number of midges in a certain area.
(5) If one is going to lease land for hunting a species, that belongs to the people of a State, then they should be made to purchase a license to operate and submit each year a wildlife management plan to the State.
Best method is to give the Landowners and Farmers tax breaks on their property to allow Hunters to safely hunt on their unused or culitaved areas, if the land owner wishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Aug 12, 2007 11:17:16 GMT -5
South Central Indiana is currently having problems too with EHD. Your Leasing is limiting the number of hunters for the sake of BIG ANTLERS, and at the same time is keeping the Deer herd out-of-balance.We aren't CURRENTLY having problems- we had a pretty big killoff last year at this time though. And in case you don't get over into "South Central Indiana" too often... 80% of the land in those killoff areas is public. For all that typing you did, you somehow missed the point that todays hunters have a screwed up view of horn hunting and mocking anyone who harvest an antlerless deer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2007 11:25:58 GMT -5
Can't you admit that LEASING has no bearing on EHD. There's tons of information about the disease posted in hords of web pages and none of them make the same allegations that you have continued to harp on? (1) It allows only a few Hunters in a given area to harvest a small amount of game. This area (if large enough) could safely accommodate more Hunters, who could harvest additional animals keeping a good balanced herd. NOT a dimes bit different than any private land situation where a landowner or hunter contrals as large a block of land for him and his friends. No difference at all. Some times it less, sometimes more acres per man. Leasing has no effect on hunter density at all. None. (2) Leasing is one reason many Hunters have quit hunting. They simply have no where to go, unless they don't mind paying high fees to some outfitter or landowner. BS-- As many that say they quit because of no place to hunt, join because of leasing provides them a place to hunt. I can prove the point, with about 20 or so hunters that would not be hunting in Indiana if it were not for a land lease. (3) Hunters & Sportsmen are paying "Double" for a sport that their taxes, and licenses purchase pay for. Why should they be charged extra? The landowner is bearing the brunt of the cost of feeding all those deer and other animals, why shouldn't they have the ability to recoop some of their loses? Besides, the hunters don't have to lease, nobody makes them sign a contract on public land. There's plenty of it if you don't want to hunt on a lease. (4) Leasing undermines sound management programs by competing with State programs. This is Not Good, as it allows deer populations to exceed the carring capacity of the area. It has nothing to do with the number of midges in a certain area. The truth is that leasing and other good sportsmen make the deer management program what it is by helping the deer herd maintane a good healthy balance. Those spending money on hunting are MORE likely to take a genuine interest in seeing a good healthy deer herd.
If you talk with your Deer Manager, you'll hear him say that no place in Indiana that is hunted by leasors is OVER POPULATED. That because there is NO OVERPOPULATION problem in Indiana at this time on huntable ground.
Not to mention that OVER POPULATION does not contribute to EHD in any way other than provide more targets for the midges to infect. It also allows recovery from a EHD out break progress much faster, but you don't want to mention this fact.
(5) If one is going to lease land for hunting a species, that belongs to the people of a State, then they should be made to purchase a license to operate and submit each year a wildlife management plan to the State. The State already has a wildlife plan, doesn't need any more to deal with. That's why they have zones with different numbers of does that can be taken. Best method is to give the Landowners and Farmers tax breaks on their property to allow Hunters to safely hunt on their unused or culitaved areas, if the land owner wishes. Very complex issue. Deals with a lot more than you realize. We're in the process of working on that in Ky. and have been for the last few years. Non-hunting lawmakers don't see the need or they don't understand the conceot. Still has nothing to do with leases, as they will continue to be popular to a lot of people who are tried of the public land hunting scene.
|
|
