|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 11:44:28 GMT -5
Post by hanmal on Feb 3, 2009 11:44:28 GMT -5
Urgent Response Needed.....Deer Permits to be TRIPLED!! ---------------------- we need to look this over quick and check it out in your true hunting heart as One Who Reads Sky says ( old Najvaho)---------------------------------------------------------- For those that are not familiar yet with House Bill 1585 that is set for hearing tomorrow............Here is a taste of what they are proposing for Indiana on the floor tomorrow....... (1) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2008, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2009 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county. (2) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2009, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2010 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county. (3) For each of the thirty (30) counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles in 2010, as reported by the state police department, the bag limit for the 2011 deer hunting season must be at least two (2) times greater than the 2008 deer hunting season bag limit for the county. (b) This section expires July 1, 2012. *******Read the bill, if they double the deer quotas next year and the following year the county is still in the top 30, it doubles again and again and again. Example, 2010 Stueben doubles, 16 antlerless 2 bucks 2011 4 bucks 32 antlerless 2012 8 bucks 64 antlerless . How far do you want it to go? ******* Here are the members of the committee: Bardon, C. Brown, GiaQuinta, Porter, V. Smith. Borders R.M.M., Burton, Lehman, Murphy, Torr. Members : Vice-Chair : Herrell Chairman : Fry Here's the link to their emails: Dems - www.in.gov/legislative/house_democrats/caucus_members.htmlRepub - www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/Write 'em and tell 'em how you feel......and also look up your State Representative to give him your feedback too.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 12:00:05 GMT -5
Post by dbd870 on Feb 3, 2009 12:00:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 12:00:07 GMT -5
Post by js2397 on Feb 3, 2009 12:00:07 GMT -5
Would this mean two bucks in those counties?
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 12:07:59 GMT -5
Post by oldhoyt on Feb 3, 2009 12:07:59 GMT -5
This is not worded well at all.
I have no issue with bag limits increasing to reduce the frequency of deer getting hit on the roads. Deer/vehicle collisions are a good index of the general population and are valid data to consider when setting bag limits.
BUT, the way it is worded, the 30 highest counties get limits doubled by default. There is no consideration for whether the numbers are high in all 30 "highest" counties or high in any at all. Adjustments to the language should be made to consider increasing bag limits only when a certain threshold for collision frequency is exceeded.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 12:17:15 GMT -5
Post by danf on Feb 3, 2009 12:17:15 GMT -5
There is no way, by that language, that the limits would be any more than doubled. Everything refers to the 2008 bag limits. However, that being said, the legislature needs to STAY OUT of the biologist's job. This is strictly for the insurance lobby. I believe it was Woody that pointed out that the insurance companies will make money regardless of number of collisions. If the legislature wants to do something about collision numbers they could do something about hunter access instead.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 12:53:08 GMT -5
Post by oldhoyt on Feb 3, 2009 12:53:08 GMT -5
Improving access opportunities will help.
Insurance companies make money no matter what. More risk of collision is handed right back to the consumer as higher premium.
Collision data is a valid management tool, for BIOLOGISTS to apply.
And another thing. Increasing bag limits does not mean hunters will necessarily shoot more total deer. I didn't shoot all the deer I could have last season. If they reduced the price of tags along with the increased limits that may have a bigger influence on total deer shot.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 3, 2009 18:58:12 GMT -5
Post by vortex100 on Feb 3, 2009 18:58:12 GMT -5
I'll bet the 30 counties have the highest human population in the state so why not just make the counties urban deer zones? That would make more sense than dramatically increasing deer bag limits. Also why not allow a small property tax break to people who allow hunting in these 30 counties. I'm sure property owners would be more willing to allow hunting if they got a tax break.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 4, 2009 7:05:44 GMT -5
Post by brushbuck on Feb 4, 2009 7:05:44 GMT -5
Well the state also needs to step in and get some hunting in places , such as example Im from lafayette and purdue property is off limits lots of woods and deer , lilly property , Isuzu property and so on Help us get access to these places we will do the resyt. Cut the herd down ,I know at purdue and the airport has problems with them on the runway but they have secret little hunts for ther buddies needs to be open to drawing. I know there are similiar places all over the state a little help from DNR and Biologist. Look at eagle creek and gulf course cemetary in indy deer everywhere no hunting. Get some bow hunters in there.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 4, 2009 11:44:00 GMT -5
Post by Sasquatch on Feb 4, 2009 11:44:00 GMT -5
I'll bet the 30 counties have the highest human population in the state so why not just make the counties urban deer zones? That would make more sense than dramatically increasing deer bag limits. Also why not allow a small property tax break to people who allow hunting in these 30 counties. I'm sure property owners would be more willing to allow hunting if they got a tax break. [/quote] Great idea! Probably never get it past the liberals though.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 4, 2009 11:59:23 GMT -5
Post by js2397 on Feb 4, 2009 11:59:23 GMT -5
I would think this may be a good deal for those people that don't like the OBR. I doubt anyone is going to kill anymore deer than they normally do but they may like to take a second buck.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 4, 2009 12:08:19 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 4, 2009 12:08:19 GMT -5
Well, HB1585 passed the committee and it wasn't even close. The vote was 10-0. I suspect the rails were greased for this before it ever got to hearing. The bright note in this is that Rep. Friend admitted that this is a "work in progress" and he is working closely with IDNR on several other ideas to help reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions in the state. Don't have any idea what DNR is thinking yet so stand by as this bill now goes to the house floor.
Jack
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 9:53:33 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 9, 2009 9:53:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 10:10:41 GMT -5
Post by indianahick on Feb 9, 2009 10:10:41 GMT -5
Jack do you have a list of the proposed counties. When we go to NY to see the daughter and her family we see more dead deer in Indiana than any other state. Putnam and around Indy seem to be the worst as I recall. While I am not a proponent of the OBR I don't like the sounds of this either. But then again I have been saying that I had read about it for a couple of years now. Legislators do not need to be making bag limits on game animals.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 13:12:21 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 9, 2009 13:12:21 GMT -5
Copied from Hoosier Hunting (GreyGhostHuntr):
Rank (by deer collisions)
County Total Deer %
1 Kosciusko 4,933 997 20.2% 2 Steuben 2,805 860 30.7% 3 Allen 20,857 830 4.0% 4 Marshall 2,836 802 28.3% 5 Porter 8,800 703 8.0% 6 Elkhart 12,803 681 5.3% 7 Tippecanoe 12,837 673 5.2% 8 Noble 2,483 562 22.6% 9 Dearborn 3,332 534 16.0% 10 Vigo 6,224 532 8.5% 11 Lake 31,443 497 1.6% 12 St Joseph 13,985 476 3.4% 13 Jasper 2,222 462 20.8% 14 De Kalb 2,486 452 18.2% 15 Warrick 2,466 418 17.0% 16 Harrison 2,099 415 19.8% 17 Wabash 1,800 411 22.8% 18 Huntington 2,068 405 19.6% 19 Clark 7,558 402 5.3% 20 Cass 2,497 393 15.7% 21 Hamilton 11,419 392 3.4% 22 Montgomery 1,861 383 20.6% 23 Pulaski 958 382 39.9% 24 Parke 1,067 374 35.1% 25 Starke 1,336 360 26.9% 26 Greene 1,457 356 24.4% 27 Washington 1,278 355 27.8% 28 Jackson 2,621 348 13.3% 28 Wayne 3,315 348 10.5% 30 Miami 1,850 345 18.6% 31 Lagrange 1,757 341 19.4% 32 White 1,634 335 20.5% 33 Delaware 7,691 334 4.3% 34 Hendricks 6,322 329 5.2% 35 Grant 4,007 293 7.3% 36 Fulton 1,024 291 28.4% 37 Madison 7,426 290 3.9% 38 Spencer 1,105 281 25.4% 39 Gibson 1,879 277 14.7% 40 Bartholomew 4,015 272 6.8% 41 Ripley 1,334 265 19.9% 42 La Porte 6,151 260 4.2% 43 Vanderburgh 9,941 255 2.6% 44 Carroll 1,155 247 21.4% 45 Howard 4,284 238 5.6% 46 Orange 1,061 231 21.8% 47 Clay 1,273 227 17.8% 48 Morgan 2,726 225 8.3% 49 Boone 3,074 222 7.2% 49 Putnam 1,223 222 18.2% 51 Knox 1,662 219 13.2% 52 Floyd 4,522 215 4.8% 53 Johnson 5,170 209 4.0% 54 Henry 2,080 206 9.9% 55 Hancock 2,653 198 7.5% 56 Jay 1,162 196 16.9% 57 Whitley 1,430 189 13.2% 57 Newton 707 189 26.7% 57 Clinton 1,560 189 12.1% 60 Wells 1,201 177 14.7% 61 Owen 1,010 176 17.4% 62 Marion 48,434 174 0.4% 63 Dubois 1,598 173 10.8% 64 Brown 930 169 18.2% 65 Ohio 428 167 39.0% 66 Monroe 7,123 166 2.3% 67 Crawford 605 163 26.9% 67 Fountain 751 163 21.7% 69 Lawrence 2,154 162 7.5% 70 Randolph 1,022 153 15.0% 71 Perry 865 149 17.2% 72 Shelby 2,190 147 6.7% 73 Vermillion 704 145 20.6% 74 Sullivan 522 143 27.4% 75 Warren 433 137 31.6% 76 Posey 842 134 15.9% 77 Adams 1,334 131 9.8% 78 Franklin 975 130 13.3% 79 Fayette 1,012 127 12.5% 80 Blackford 633 104 16.4% 81 Union 288 103 35.8% 82 Jennings 1,449 94 6.5% 83 Tipton 670 93 13.9% 84 Martin 449 92 20.5% 85 Jefferson 1,833 86 4.7% 86 Switzerland 264 81 30.7% 87 Decatur 1,380 77 5.6% 87 Rush 683 77 11.3% 89 Pike 292 50 17.1% 90 Daviess 779 45 5.8% 91 Scott 1,040 44 4.2% 92 Benton 279 40 14.3% -- (Unknown) 10 2 20.0%
INDIANA TOTAL 347,906 26,467 7.6%
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 13:32:14 GMT -5
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 9, 2009 13:32:14 GMT -5
Are those 3 year numbers? The first number does not seem to jive with harvest numbers..
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 14:25:21 GMT -5
Post by johnc911 on Feb 9, 2009 14:25:21 GMT -5
Very odd it shows hancock county with 2653 whatever that means. There are less than 300 deer taken every year. So those numbers dont seem right. That would be about an 8yr period
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 15:23:23 GMT -5
Post by tickman1961 on Feb 9, 2009 15:23:23 GMT -5
Total collisions - number of deer collisions - percent to total
61 Owen 1,010 - 176 - 17.4%
Looking at the data, it appears too many vehicles are the reason for all the collisions, the deer population is not a big factor.
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 15:47:15 GMT -5
Post by jackc99 on Feb 9, 2009 15:47:15 GMT -5
Are those 3 year numbers? The first number does not seem to jive with harvest numbers.. First number is total collisions in the county; second number is the number of deer related accidents; last number is the percentage of deer-vehicle accidents in the county. Jack
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 15:51:43 GMT -5
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 9, 2009 15:51:43 GMT -5
Total collisions - number of deer collisions - percent to total 61 Owen 1,010 - 176 - 17.4% First number is total collisions in the county; second number is the number of deer related accidents; last number is the percentage of deer-vehicle accidents in the county. Jack OK.. then the percent should be the key factor and not the number of deer - auto accidents. Right?
|
|
|
urgent
Feb 9, 2009 16:33:24 GMT -5
Post by tickman1961 on Feb 9, 2009 16:33:24 GMT -5
Right....% of total collisions from deer...
But the order is by total collisions involving deer, not the percentage...
|
|