|
|
Post by hotshot on Feb 25, 2009 12:15:18 GMT -5
Got a mass email today, concerning the house bill that will increase the limit of deer I can bring home.... Don't understand the fuss?  ? My son and I brought home 6 deer this year. We could have shot more, but decided to get selective. This bill is a way for me to extend my deer season, bring home more meat, or donate some, and get in good with more farmers in the area by killing the deer that are eating their crops. In farms near were I hunt, 70- 90 deer are killed each summer with depredation permits(this is a one family two generation farm operation), other farms in the area are just as aggressive with permits handed out. Ther eis still little effect on the local population.... Why the fuss to keep deer permits low? kill more does, the bucks have more to eat and thus are able to grow larger racks. Not only that, but there are a few less does for them to chase come rut, so they get less worn, and are healthier from year to year. I say Bring on the higher limits, let me keep shooting into mid to late Jan, and if I want to use a crossbow- fine(I don't own one..... heck provide for a primitive muzzleloader season in late Jan- side lock or flintlock only..... just get me out in the woods longer. Even if the legislature allows the increase, it will be up to the DNR to set the limits once allowed.... science based data.... |
|
|
|
Post by danf on Feb 25, 2009 12:20:40 GMT -5
No, the issue isn't with the higher bag limits. The issue is that it takes control of the herd OUT of the hands of the DNR. Having the legislature set bag limits is not a good thing.
If you could have taken more, but didn't, you are in the minority based on replies to various recent threads and polls on this forum....
|
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Feb 25, 2009 12:25:11 GMT -5
The legislature can allow for higher limits, but the DNR is still allowed to set the limits- science based control.... as for selective.... let the little does pass, filled the adult does with holes.
One was a mercy kill that was filled with a road kill tag.... only the back straps were able to be taken out- the rest.... not really edible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 25, 2009 13:45:37 GMT -5
We do NOT want politicians deciding fish and game laws! They are way too easily swayed by lobbyists!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Feb 25, 2009 14:02:17 GMT -5
We do NOT want politicians deciding fish and game laws! They are way too easily swayed by lobbyists!  |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 25, 2009 16:28:25 GMT -5
This bill MANDATES that DNR DOUBLE the limit in certain counties based ONLY on the deer car collision data from the year before. It is not an open higher limit across the state and can change counties each year.
What the fuss is about is the talking heads taking control of game laws and setting them based on who lobbies the best. None of the is set by science based data.
Wasn't all power to set and regulate game laws given to the DNR a few years ago? If it was, that alone should shut this bill down.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Feb 25, 2009 18:32:12 GMT -5
The way I see it, the limits are liberal as it is. I know the herd can sustain what is allowed to be taken now (at least in my area). I'm saying I can easily shoot all the venison I can use in a year, without even leaving my county. I could easily shoot more deer, but have no reason to. Wouldn't matter if they tripled the limit, I'd still shoot the same number. I don't believe increased limits will have much if any effect on the herd.
That's not the point. The proponents of this bill are tricky. They sweeten the pot for sportsmen by allowing crossbows, increasing limits, whatever. It all sounds good. Here's the problem as others have pointed out. For 30 counties at least, someone other than DNR is setting limits. Who are they? Politicians. What do they know about wildlife population dynamics? Nothing. What data do they use? Roadkill frequency, which is a valid index of population, BUT, is not necessarily meaningful information without proper context. There will always be a "30 highest counties" for roadkill. There's no mention of comparison to a state average as far as I know. Are the 30 highest significantly higher than the rest of the state? Or, are only 10 counties higher than the average. It's bad "science". The thing is, having politicians setting limits, when you have a perfecty good staff of DNR biologists is bad policy. All you have to do is look at history, it has never worked well for the longterm health of the deer herd ( either too many or too few deer result), or for the interests of hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Feb 26, 2009 5:43:16 GMT -5
I have not chimed in on this matter yet........the reason.......
I feel that **IF** the DNR would manage the deer herd based solely on scientific & biological data AND do whats best for the sport we would not have interference from lawmakers.
Instead, I feel that management is conducted based *somewhat* on biological & scientific data but more importantly decisions are based on what won't insult some of the organized hunting groups feelings.
Examples:
Why are crossbows not considered "archery" during October yet they ARE archery in December and they ARE archery if your hunting any other game animal.
Why do we not have an early muzzleloader season / weekend in October?
Why do we have to jump through so many hoops to get youths a respectable deer season?
Why can't you *quarter* your deer prior to dragging it out of the woods?
Why can't you use your general firearms tag on an antlerless deer if you so choose?
Why do you have to buy THREE buck tags to hunt ONE buck?
The list just goes on and on...........
|
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Feb 26, 2009 6:23:13 GMT -5
Camby, you lost me on the three buck tags to hunt one buck? Please explain. |
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Feb 26, 2009 9:43:05 GMT -5
Arcery, Firearms, and Muzzleloader
You could buy all three and only take one buck. Luckily all but the firearms tag is either sex so you could use them even of you killed your buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Feb 26, 2009 10:16:28 GMT -5
Why do we have to jump through so many hoops to get youths a respectable deer season? What hoops? 3 years ago we didn't even have a youth season. I was somewhat involved in the process and it was fairly quickly and smoothly proposed and introduced. Sure some people have issues with it but I think we accomodated the vast majority and got folks from all groups on-board. This next season we will expand the hunt to include anterled deer so what hoops? Many people keep referring to the DNR setting the bag limits. That's true. Today they do that. That's the big issue with this bill. Whatever they set the legislature is doubling. Now it sounds easy to say ignore the legislature but you have to remember who assigns the budget dollars. Ignore the legislature and you WILL pay for it...literally. Stop HB1585!!!! Jack |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 26, 2009 10:27:07 GMT -5
The legislature can allow for higher limits, but the DNR is still allowed to set the limits- science based control.... Not that simple Hotshot. This bill will FORCE the IDNR to allow that many deer to be killed. This is not an upper end and the DNR could still set whatever limits that they want up to that level. This is completely taking the wildlife control and management out of the hands of the IDNR in the top 30 deer/auto accidents counties. I would have no beef with this except it was not initiated by the IDNR - who should have total control over the management of our game. That is why we hired them.
On a side note.. where have you been? |
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 26, 2009 11:00:14 GMT -5
I have not chimed in on this matter yet........the reason....... I feel that **IF** the DNR would manage the deer herd based solely on scientific & biological data AND do whats best for the sport we would not have interference from lawmakers. Instead, I feel that management is conducted based *somewhat* on biological & scientific data but more importantly decisions are based on what won't insult some of the organized hunting groups feelings. Examples: Why are crossbows not considered "archery" during October yet they ARE archery in December and they ARE archery if your hunting any other game animal. Why do we not have an early muzzleloader season / weekend in October? Why do we have to jump through so many hoops to get youths a respectable deer season? Why can't you *quarter* your deer prior to dragging it out of the woods? Why can't you use your general firearms tag on an antlerless deer if you so choose? Why do you have to buy THREE buck tags to hunt ONE buck? The list just goes on and on........... Very good questions Camby! h.h. |
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Feb 26, 2009 11:52:41 GMT -5
Did a little research, thank first of all for not flaming a former frequent poster who stopped back in with a question... also thanks for sharing factual info.
Camby, some good questions.
Reason for not stopping in lately... job changes make it more difficult to hang out.
I have emailed my rep to do what he could to alter the legislative control.
BTW, there is a serious issue involving waterfowlers... there was a possiblility of allowing 8 birds in the Sept season. Mitch didn't allow our biologist to attend the meeting where he is the secretery / Treasure of the MS flyway council. Meeting was in Iowa and woould have cost the state less than 1000 dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by flinttim on Feb 26, 2009 11:56:53 GMT -5
Can someone fill me in on where Brent Steele sets on this ? He's my Legislator. Is he supporting this or it just is in his Committee ? I can't for the life of me figure out why he would support it. Same for Johnny Nugent. Both proclaim to be hunters, and they should know better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 26, 2009 11:58:34 GMT -5
I think Nugent withdrew his sponsorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 26, 2009 12:01:00 GMT -5
Can someone fill me in on where Brent Steele sets on this ? He's my Legislator. Is he supporting this or it just is in his Committee ? I can't for the life of me figure out why he would support it. Same for Johnny Nugent. Both proclaim to be hunters, and they should know better. Not sure about Brent Steele. Please email or call him and ask him. Brent Steele - www.in.gov/s44/ Nugent had his name removed from sponsorship. He said something to the effect that he did not even know his name was listed as a sponsor. Hmm.. |
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Feb 26, 2009 14:06:58 GMT -5
Arcery, Firearms, and Muzzleloader You could buy all three and only take one buck. Luckily all but the firearms tag is either sex so you could use them even of you killed your buck. Ok gatch ya |
|
|
|
Post by pav on Feb 27, 2009 12:12:47 GMT -5
Can someone fill me in on where Brent Steele sets on this ? He's my Legislator. Is he supporting this or it just is in his Committee ? I can't for the life of me figure out why he would support it. Same for Johnny Nugent. Both proclaim to be hunters, and they should know better. I too live in Senator Steele's district and called his office earlier this week. According to his office (I did not get to talk directly with the Senator), Brent signed on as a co-sponsor in order to keep close tabs on this bill. He is supposedly very much opposed to this bill.....and is taking the old "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" approach. At least that is what I was told? I hope it is accurate. |
|
? 
