|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 13, 2012 19:50:44 GMT -5
.................... Most Hunters and Farmers know WAY more about the Deer numbers on their land than all of the Biologist on earth. Absolutely and that is why they should manage "their land" the way that they see fit to.The DNR gives then the tools to do it. But, guess what Bill? Those "Hunters and Farmers" do not have a clue as to what the herd is doing a mile down the road or even less than that, do they? That is why Indiana has a dozen biologists and a head honco deer biologist - TO MAKE CALLS FOR THE ENTIRE STATE, not just a particular "farmer or hunter's land". Every survey of Indiana deer hunters I have have seen the overwhelming majority believe that the DNR is doing a good job with our herd.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 13, 2012 20:22:46 GMT -5
Our state already mandates antlerless quota on a county by county basis. Don't see why they don't zone high density parts of the state, alot like Kentucky does.
BTW, Woody, This poll conflicts your last statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 20:33:00 GMT -5
Lug, NO it doesn't. The poll asks a question about deer numbers, not about the job the DNR is doing. Those happy or satisfied out number the malcontents 7 to 3 or close to that.
The antlerless quotas do the same as what Ky. does with zones.
Zone ones in KY. allow unlimited antlerless at a price people can afford (2 for $15).
Zone 2's allow you 4 deer total.
Zone 3 are growth zones, shorter gun seasons and 2 deer limit.
Zone 1 are reduction counties, Zone 2 are to maintain the numbers as is.
That noted, most hunters don't kill 2 total.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 13, 2012 20:36:20 GMT -5
Our state already mandates antlerless quota on a county by county basis. Don't see why they don't zone high density parts of the state, alot like Kentucky does. The county by county antlerless quotas is a LOT smaller areas than doing it by zones.BTW, Woody, This poll conflicts your last statement. I guess I should have made msyself clearer. Every scientifically valid survey of Indiana deer hunters I have have seen the overwhelming majority believe that the DNR is doing a good job with our herd. A poll on a website is hardly "scientific", is it?
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 13, 2012 20:56:26 GMT -5
Really county by county zones are a LOT smaller, than zones would be. No crap Woody, thats the point. Posey, Vand, Warrick, Pike, and Gibson counties could easily support a TBR, along with a longer season and/or higher antlerless bag limits, than say other countys in a "zoned" area of the state.
and Tom, i know exactly how KY works just fine, took my fair share of deer you your neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 13, 2012 21:04:56 GMT -5
Really county by county zones are a LOT smaller, than zones would be. No crap Woody, thats the point. Posey, Vand, Warrick, Pike, and Gibson counties could easily support a TBR, along with a longer season and/or higher antlerless bag limits, than say other countys in a "zoned" area of the state. and Tom, i know exactly how KY works just fine, took my fair share of deer you your neck of the woods. Then I read you wrong. You posted and seem to call for being like Kentucky - "Don't see why they don't zone high density parts of the state, alot like Kentucky does." Looks at Kentucky's "zone maps" and then look at Indiana's bonus county maps. Tell me which states does more micro managing.. Take a look at the only "A" county - Tipton county Indiana .. surrounded by 3 , 4s and even a 8 county. Tipton is NOT a high density counjty even though it's neighbors are. Managing by counties is just fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 21:10:34 GMT -5
Woody is correct, even though Ky. zones by counties, they have rules about neighboring counties and how they are zoned. They won't have a island inside of ablock of counties that is different. Otherwise, there is no difference in the two states, just details.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 13, 2012 21:16:15 GMT -5
Really county by county zones are a LOT smaller, than zones would be. No crap Woody, thats the point. Posey, Vand, Warrick, Pike, and Gibson counties could easily support a TBR, along with a longer season and/or higher antlerless bag limits, than say other countys in a "zoned" area of the state. and Tom, i know exactly how KY works just fine, took my fair share of deer you your neck of the woods. Then I read you wrong. You posted and seem to call for being like Kentucky - "Don't see why they don't zone high density parts of the state, alot like Kentucky does." Looks at Kentucky's "zone maps" and then look at Indiana's bonus county maps. Tell me which states does more micro managing.. Take a look at the only "A" county - Tipton county Indiana .. surrounded by 3 , 4s and even a 8 county. Tipton is NOT a high density counjty even though it's neighbors are. Managing by counties is just fine. Yeah, that works fine for you and I, but i suppose you don't believe the hunters that are screaming that numbers are way down?
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 13, 2012 21:20:30 GMT -5
Woody is correct, even though Ky. zones by counties, they have rules about neighboring counties and how they are zoned. They won't have a island inside of ablock of counties that is different. Otherwise, there is no difference in the two states, just details. Gonna try my best to translate, that scribble you call kentuckian english......No, nevermind, thought i understood, but i can't make heads or tails outa that. Practicalsportsman, is that you on Timex's account? lol
|
|
|
Post by billybobteeth on Mar 13, 2012 21:20:45 GMT -5
Really county by county zones are a LOT smaller, than zones would be. No crap Woody, thats the point. Posey, Vand, Warrick, Pike, and Gibson counties could easily support a TBR, along with a longer season and/or higher antlerless bag limits, than say other countys in a "zoned" area of the state. and Tom, i know exactly how KY works just fine, took my fair share of deer you your neck of the woods. Then I read you wrong. You posted and seem to call for being like Kentucky - "Don't see why they don't zone high density parts of the state, alot like Kentucky does." Looks at Kentucky's "zone maps" and then look at Indiana's bonus county maps. Tell me which states does more micro managing.. Take a look at the only "A" county - Tipton county Indiana .. surrounded by 3 , 4s and even a 8 county. Tipton is NOT a high density counjty even though it's neighbors are. Managing by counties is just fine. The 8 Howard county is a very low density county as well we are always in the bottom 10 or 12 counties in harvest every year and this year will be no different .Yet the all knowing limit setters deamed us a 8 now thats a total farce and joke of jokes .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 21:48:09 GMT -5
Lug, I'll dumb it down for you. IF a county needs to be changed up or down, but is surrounded by a different number, then it will follow suit with that number. Makes it easier for LE to watch whats going on the harvest. And hunters are not normally killing county limits anyway, so a year of being zoned higher or lower is no big deal. Got it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 8:02:32 GMT -5
Back when I lived in Indiana, I lived in Johnson county for a few years by Atterbury.
You could take 8 Does per season in that county ? Why?
That county has few deer imo.
And, like I said, Biologist have probably never stepped foot on 90 to 96% of private land in Indiana.
Most private lands in every IN county have never been studied or stepped foot on by a IN Biologist.
So, there are literally millions of acres in IN, that the Biologist know NOTHING about.
So there population estimates are probably off, and the bag limits are probably not right, imo
BTW, This is the case in every state in America, here in KY also.
|
|