|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 19, 2008 14:40:11 GMT -5
I could care less what some biologist says from another state about our state's deer season length. Sounds to me you've got a personal problem with Dr. Mitchell.
I'm surprised that one of you main points was to eliminate trespassing with a shorter season. Why not work with you local law enforcement agency or the county CO to stop the problem?
Ive never heard any farmer say they were scared to get shot on their farm during deer season. Where did you get that information? As this leasing thing gets bigger most farmers are glad for the reduction of deer and extra income.
Nothing personal but I don't see any of your views on our length of season to be valid. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 19, 2008 14:58:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 19, 2008 15:09:09 GMT -5
The longer gun season provides a longer time frame for trespassers, I get his point on that one. Honestly, I do know at least one farmer that gets tired of 32 days of worrying where that gun shot came from and where it is going. This is in areas of high deer density with brutal hunting pressure.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 19, 2008 16:54:29 GMT -5
Shorter gun season to limit trespassing or protecting landowners? where's the proof? He said she said I heard is garbage. What is the real reason? Baffle em with BS right....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 19, 2008 18:56:33 GMT -5
Sorry for not responding until now. I've been chasing fishable ice around the country for the past couple weeks - and I couldn't get online in northeast Montana. I hope that you found some and had a good trip to Montana. Yep... there are some of that are dead said against making any more changes that takes away any more hunting opportunities. Maybe we were quick to lump you in with the others that are pushing, pushing and pushing to become a number one trophy state. The ink was not even dry on the OBR extension when some started their "shorten/move the gun season spiel. This article seemed like more of the same.. . Mike Tonkovich, who I have all the respect in the world for, said it amounted to 2% difference. Why should we give up a bunch of hunting for a 2% difference? "Easier on landowners" doesn't cut it either. 2% ...... That is an enforcement issue no matter what time of the year it is. Heck, I caught some mushroomers on my place when I was turkey hunting. Punish the perpetrators and leave the honest folks alone , I agree with that 110%. As do almost everyone on here. Deer for deer I can hunt Kentucky a LOT cheaper than a Kentuckian can hunt Indiana. To be honest I think KY does it better on NR. Bonus tags for NR cost the same as residents. No I don't want to get in a price war with surrounding states. I think we can do away with it and keep the same seasons. Ky does it just like we do. Long season and in the rut.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 19, 2008 19:26:45 GMT -5
Don,
I think that you are listening to a very vocal minority....
From the 2000 IDNR Deer Hunter Survey...
Hunter Satisfaction With Deer Management in Indiana.
Survey participants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with overall deer management in Indiana (Fig. 3. Question 10). Three times as many hunters were satisfied with current deer management than were dissatisfied. Overall, 64% of respondents gave a positive rating to deer management in Indiana compared with the 21% which gave a negative rating.
From the 2002 IDNR Deer Hunter Survey...
Hunter Satisfaction With Deer Management in Indiana
Almost four times as many hunters were satisfied with current deer management than were dissatisfied (positive:negative ratio of 3.8:1). Overall, 60% of respondents gave a positive rating to deer management in Indiana compared with the 16% which gave a negative rating.
From the 2004 IDNR Deer Hunter Survey...
Hunter Satisfaction with Deer Management in Indiana
Survey participants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with overall deer management in Indiana (Figure 1, Question 10). Over four times as many hunters were satisfied with current deer management than were dissatisfied (positive: negative ratio of 4.6:1), which is an improvement from the 2002 survey.
Overall, 69% of respondents gave a positive rating to deer management in Indiana compared with the 15% which gave a negative rating.
Indiana has a majority of hunters surveyed that gave the Indiana deer management a positive rating. A positive to negative ratio of 4.6:1. Let me repeat that – that is 4.6 happy deer hunters against 1 that is in “ire”.
When the OBR was being debated Jim Mitchell said that he would do whatever the deer hunters wanted as long as it was not detrimental to the deer herd. In other words it was a social issue. The OBR passed by the slimmest of margins and we got stuck with it. A lot of deer hunters were blindsided and lost hunting opportunities with the OBR. That wont happen again with shortened and or moved gun seasons and antler restrictions.
If we are into another "social issue" we will be heard this time around.
This old “we need to be like so and so state “ gets old. People like to cherry pick in saying what works and what doesn’t - just to suit their agenda.
"We want to be like Illinois and have a short season!"
But, they have a two buck limit.
"We want to be like Kentcky and have an OBR!"
But, they have a long rifle season in the rut.
"We want to be like Ohio and have a short season and an OBR!"
But they have crossbows.
Cherry pickers....
BTW – The Illinois gun season came in a day before Indiana’s did this year.
|
|
|
Post by outdoorswithdon on Feb 20, 2008 9:20:37 GMT -5
I agree with people who don't like my idea of shortening the season if the intended goal of management is just bigger antlers. Though I am a unrepentant trophy hunter who eats everything I kill, I don't begrudge those who would like to kill a smaller buck. I am not for point restrictions for that reason.
This proposal, if you will, is all about giving us landowners a break in such a manner that will not effect the harvest of deer every year. The great majority of deer hunters do not own the land they hunt on. As a result, they do their thing, have fun for a couple weeks and go home. They don't spend a minute thinking about deer hunting again until the next year. For landowners, it's adifferent game. I am still fixing fences that were knocked down last gun season, tearing down stands and picking up garbage from trespassers and guys I allowed to hunt on my farm. Only landowners pay the price for 32 days of gun season, so it's not surprising that lots of hunters would like it left the way it is. They pay no price for season - usually literally and figuratively.
I'm not saying we should be Ohio or Illinois. I'm saying we ought to learn from their mistakes and successes. Both said shorter gun seasons are in place in part, to give law enforcement and landowners a break.
So, if we can kill more deer with a shorter gun season Illinois and Ohio experiments prove it), and give landowners a break(Law enforcement in every state arests show gun season is by far the worst), then why not do it?
If it were up to me, I'd go with 9 days of shotgun, opening the Saturday after Thankgiving. The first tag would be either sex for the same price. That gives guys 2 weekends to hunt. I'd also be ok with closing season completely the week before gun season, and giving a buck tag back to bowhunters. I'd then have a 9 day muzzleloader season in late December.
Don
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 20, 2008 9:42:32 GMT -5
don,
like i said in my earlier post you need to work with your local law enforcement agency to get rid of your trespassing issues or hire someone close to keep watch over and patrol your property.
i will admit that your main reason to shorten the gun season is one of the most self serving ideas ive read to date. im just glad the idnr biologists make the decisions and not you. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Feb 20, 2008 9:44:16 GMT -5
Yeah, let's just have one weekend of gun season [ML, shotgun, PCR, handgun] and let the bowhunters have the rest of the time from October 1 through January 31 with a no limit on bucks. Make that two days for gun hunter in the middle of the week, that should take the pressure off, and let all those paranoid landowners get some peace and quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2008 10:23:54 GMT -5
........... So, if we can kill more deer with a shorter gun season Illinois and Ohio experiments prove it), and give landowners a break(Law enforcement in every state arests show gun season is by far the worst), then why not do it? Don, There will be arrests no matter how long or short the season is. One more time, it is an enforcement issue. Because some of us cherish our time in the woods. We don't want to see it cut anymore than it already has been. Especially for a bogus reason of "giving the farmers a break". Don't suggest taking away from honest law abiding hunters just because some are outlaws.. Nail their butts to the wall, but leave honest hunters alone with our precious time in the deer woods. You know if a farmer prosecutes a couple of the outlaws word gets out and the outlaws will steer clear of that guy's property. Want to copy Illinois? Use their trespassing law where it can be a $3,000 fine for trespassing.
|
|
|
Post by oneshot on Feb 20, 2008 11:43:22 GMT -5
I dont know about Ohio but in Ill. the firearms deer permit is COUNTY specific, as opposed to state wide. I would go for that too here in Ind. 32 days is way to long for a firearms season.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Feb 20, 2008 12:36:11 GMT -5
I am still fixing fences that were knocked down last gun season, tearing down stands and picking up garbage from trespassers and guys I allowed to hunt on my farm. Yep, Woody is right... The first part of the above is an enforcement issue. The second part is YOUR PROBLEM. You control who has permission to hunt your land. YOU should outline to those who you give permission to exactly what they can and cannot do. If they don't adhere, then they don't hunt. Plain and simple. I'm sorry, but on our family land in Tippecanoe County, we've had more problems from KIDS from a neighborhood down the road than we've had from tresspassing "hunters". Believe me, when they are caught on the property, they are dealt with in NO uncertain terms.... Sounds to me like your proposal is meant to punish everyone for your problems. No wonder why very few are supportive.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2008 13:38:30 GMT -5
Some more factual information...
1. The average age of antlered deer in the statewide herd in IN has been steadily increasing for many years - it has increased from 34% older than 1.5 years in the early 1990s to 47% older than 1.5 years during 2001-2004 to 55% older than 1.5 years in 2006-2007.
2. In two separate random surveys of IN deer hunters (1993 & 1995), the Division of Fish & Wildlife has found that the majority of IN deer hunters oppose reducing the length of the Firearm season. In the most recent survey, when approximately 6,300 of 10,200 deer hunters responded, they were asked to provide the ideal length for the archery, firearm, & muzzleloader deer seasons. Fifty-nine (59) percent of the respondents proposed a longer firearm season than currently exists vs. 9% proposed a shorter season and the overall average season length proposed was 22 days vs. the existing 16 day framework Similarly, 56% of survey respondents proposed a longer muzzleloader season than currently exists vs. 9% proposed a shorter season & the mean season length proposed was also 22 days vs. the existing 16 day framework.. In the 1993 deer hunter survey, 84% of 3,000 respondents opposed shortening the firearm season.
Since both surveys show that the average deer hunter actually hunted on less than 1/2 of the days that are currently available in the firearm season and hunted on approximately 1/4 of the days available in the archery season, it appears that the large majority of IN deer hunters want a high degree of flexibility in their personal freedom to choose when and how to deer hunt and do not want their choice of deer hunting opportunities reduced.
The majority of respondents (87%) of the 1993 survey also opposed closing the hunting seasons during Nov. 7 – 21, the perceived peak of the deer breeding season in IN.
3. In the most recent survey of IN deer hunters (2005), 69% of respondents were satisfied with the Division's deer management while 15% were dissatisfied with the current deer program. Hunters who hunted private land were significantly more satisfied (78% satisfied vs. 8% dissatisfied) than those who hunted public land (Fish & Wildlife Areas, 66% satisfied vs. 13% dissatisfied). This difference in satisfaction rates between public vs. private land hunters is believed to be due to the lower hunter densities on private vs. public lands.
4. While deer biologists in IL & OH have indicated that they believe that their states may benefit from short firearm & muzzleloader seasons serving to encourage hunters to harvest antlerless deer; IN deer hunters utilize the longer seasons vs. those states to predominately take antlerless deer. In the late 1980's and early 1990's the IN Muzzleloader season was 9 days long and approximately 80% of the harvest was antlerless deer. Since the Muzzleloader season was extended to 16 days in 1992, the harvest has remained 80% antlerless deer - the extra days have served to add additional recreational opportunity while primarily adding antlerless harvest. During the last 7 days of the firearm season in 2006, antlerless deer comprised 71% of the harvest which follows a long standing trend. In IN, additional days of opportunity equates to additional antlerless harvest.
5. The reputation for high numbers of trophy bucks has caused significant deer management problems for at least three states (IA, IL, KS). According to each and every state’s deer management biologist, the states are experiencing: A. significant conflicts between resident deer hunters and nonresident hunters B. displacement of resident hunters from traditional hunting access C. resident hunters not being able to afford access to high quality deer habitat due to nonresident leasing of the better habitat D. the agency has experienced increasing difficulty in controlling the deer herd as fewer hunters have access to the deer and as nonresident hunters refuse to harvest adequate numbers of antlerless deer
In KS, the reputation and subsequent nonresident demand for trophy bucks has led to the reduction of resident archery opportunity from a statewide license to a region specific license in order to be able to require the same for nonresidents (a statute designed to spread the nonresident guide fees across the state).
High nonresident license fees in IL and KS have been more a response to the conflict between residents and nonresidents than a bonus from having many trophy bucks in the state.
WW - BOLD emphasis is mine..
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Feb 20, 2008 15:17:38 GMT -5
In my personal opinion Ill's firearms seasons have nothing to do with deer management and all to do with being a firearms inhibitive state. Look for more restrictions next year. I can almost see a muzzle diameter size in Ill's future. After all Chicago wants one.
Ohio- Until just recently another of the more restrictive firearms states. Along with California, Mass, New York, Ohio has some of the most rabid anti firearms legislates in federal government.
You have to tear down permanent stands? That is your fault by not specifying that all stands must be removable. Ladders, lock ons, climbers only. No nails, lag screws etc in trees. If someone destroys a fence either they fix it or the do not return. Trespassers brace you as to who has the right to be there. You bet they will what better way than show strength to whomever they meet to make them think that they have permission. If you feel threatened, leave, take down plates, call police, Chain vehicle to tree to keep them there until police arrive. Word gets around you will prosecute they will stop.
Bah Humbug. Your pushing your own agenda for personal reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with deer management.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 20, 2008 17:24:57 GMT -5
You would think Indiana has an awesome opportunity to keep our money in state and get progressive like some other states with management strategy and actually improve upon some of the other models. The non-residents could be limited and the fees go up for those boys. It could happen. If you don't care for opportunities at mature bucks and are happy with the "get lucky" factor, disregard the post. Again, this isn't Kentucky, it is probably going to take more than the OBR for Indiana. Also, this only applies to the hunters that don't have their own "low hunting pressure piece of heaven".
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2008 17:31:38 GMT -5
You said.....You would think Indiana has an awesome opportunity to keep our money in state and get progressive like some other states with management strategy and actually improve upon some of the other models. Then you said...Who should pick which states we are supposed to mimic? Like I said - a lot of cherry pickers out there.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 20, 2008 17:55:56 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll cherry pick, Ohio has us whipped in deer management, and they are very similar to Indiana in habitat and population. I don't get how so many people loyal to Indiana can sit and watch all that money leave the state and be alright with it.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Feb 20, 2008 18:02:54 GMT -5
Some more factual information........Since both surveys show that the average deer hunter actually hunted on less than 1/2 of the days that are currently available in the firearm season and hunted on approximately 1/4 of the days available in the archery season, it appears that the large majority of IN deer hunters want a high degree of flexibility in their personal freedom to choose when and how to deer hunt and do not want their choice of deer hunting opportunities reduced. ..... I think that right there says it all for me. Why take away opportunities, if anything we need to be adding rather than taking away. I firmly believe with a steadfast resolution that the "farmer needs a break" excuse is absolute BS. All this talk about "still tearing permanent stands down and picking up garbage that is left by trespassing hunters" I also suspect is absolute BS. For this to be a real possibility there would have to be a stand in every tree and pile of garbage underneath strung out over 200 acres. BS. If this article isn't a backdoor play at limiting instate residents opportunities for a small chance at producing "bigger bucks" and hopefully a slice of the lucrative out of state leasing money I don't know what is. I was in a good mood until I came here and read this thread. Note to self..... don't come here anymore....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2008 18:05:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll cherry pick, Ohio has us whipped in deer management, and they are very similar to Indiana in habitat and population. I don't get how so many people loyal to Indiana can sit and watch all that money leave the state and be alright with it. Yep... that is why Switzerland county is Little Cincinnati on opening weekend. Look at the Indiana border counties and see how many Buckeyes head west druing our season. I've never hunted Ohio in my life. I did drive through it on my way to hunt deer in Pennsylvania back in the 70s....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2008 18:09:44 GMT -5
I was in a good mood until I came here and read this thread. Note to self..... don't come here anymore.... Oh no......Just ignore the posts that you don't like..or participate in the debate. People need to stay engaged so that we are not run roughshod over.
|
|