|
Post by boonechaser on Jan 6, 2014 13:46:23 GMT -5
I think EHD in some area's is more the problem than over harvest.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 6, 2014 14:26:10 GMT -5
Woody, do you recall back in the late '60's either around '68 or '69 when Crane closed the Deer Hunts, due to an outbreak of EHD?? I remember they reopened the area, to Deer Hunting, in 1972. Seems like I read something about that EHD outbreak some years ago. That was before my time. I had started deer hunting then but I never knew Crane existed for deer hunting. My area was hit by EHD way back in the early 80s and we found 13 dead ones in the 240 acres we were hunting. There were less deer that year but the rut was very intense. The next year you wouldn't have known there was a problem the previous year. I have stayed out of the fray for a while .I am compelled to post against my better judgment but here goes you can bash me and this post after I leave I will not get into some long winded insult filled rant with anyone over it .Know this I am not alone in this and its well thought out by many who are pushing for real change here outside the two main sides of the arguments . First this is not the 1980s or even the early 2000s the rules and limits were completely different than today back then. Back then the limit was 1-3 deer a year period and in later years it was 2 bucks and 2 doe or 1 buck and 3 doe depending on the year we are talking about in the early 1980s. The state was building a herd back then .Now the state over the last 5 years have been hell bent to reduce this fine herd and the OBR was the start of that trend to push hunters to focus on the doe herd . You and I as well as others here know that and tend to play things down by using past experience here in our state or use antidotal responses to waive uncomfortable truths away. The happenings and events of today have little to nothing to do with those of 20-40 years ago .EHD has played the roll that maybe 5 or 10 hunting seasons would of under the current rules its been a major player in this issue .The DNR has to react quicker to this .But then again they want to reduce the deer population 25% from a mythical herd estimate that don't exist . Unless the DNR closes the late antlerless season and takes bonus limits down to 0 in many of the counties in the northern 2/3rds of our state the deer herd in those areas will be at near 1970s early 1980s lows in most areas of those counties involved .Sorry that is fact . Another fact is that if hunters were able to conserve animals and control themselves there would not be the need for set seasons and limits controlling the hunting like there are today .So putting this back on the shoulders of hunters with little or no self control is silly and unrealistic they will do what they are allowed to do . The vast majority of hunters simply lack self control . This peeing match between prop 1 and prop 2 supporters is doing nothing buck destroying deer and driving a wedge between hunters .I suggest that the DNR distance themselves between these two small groups as quick as possible they are like two groups of 5 year olds fight over control of the ball crybabies does not describe it .Its sad adults cant leave things alone that worked like the years prior to 2000.I was going to post this on HH but they don't want the other kids to come play on their site and muddy their water they are not accepting members. They think that the majority of hunters will ask for a shorter gun season they are wrong we know that will not fix this at all. The deer herds will not rebound at all until the limits and seasons lengths and dates go backwards about 20 years . Now there are those who say leave it as it is for 4 or 5 years who all lay on the need for more opportunity hunting banner .They are wrong as well if we do remain the same with the the reduction efforts roll on after the EHD for two years and season additions we in many areas will not have the hunting we had 25 years ago. Sorry but that's the way it is and to argue its the same now as was back then until the rules and bag limits change back to those of 35 -40 year ago is silly to say the least .As for Chad to admit that the herd might not rebound back quickly or at all would mean hunters would see flaws in DNR reduction plans and prove that the DNR will not manage the herd in a proactive way when they did not immediately close or alter seasons and limits on antlerless deer . Now all you can bash away at me and my post but know that there are many of us forming to get changes that will result in less deer hunting seasons and opportunity here in our state and that will just get uglier in the next year or two when the numbers come out .We will gain support as other groups lose it . Good luck all and just fight the fight you feel will be best for our deer herd first and the hunters second .BTW we were never over populated remember per the DNR press statement the OBR and herd` reduction is a "Social Issue " not a management issue or der herd issue . So who is pushing the social issue ?Is it who we think or is it some spoiled crybabies .I remember some here claiming that the Insurance COs were not pushing for reduction but have since posted about it with factual press release .who is the good guys here ? good luck all and fight nice I will not argue my post at all it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by mrbuckfly1 on Jan 6, 2014 15:19:02 GMT -5
Good post shouldernuke!If I can support you in anyway,feel free to get in touch with me.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jan 6, 2014 16:37:29 GMT -5
Groups come and go. I was a Charter member of Indiana Whitetail Lobby back in early 1990's and our main objective was to reduce hunting pressure on antlered deer in Indiana. At the time you could harvest 2 bucks with bow and one with firearm. Eventually it went to 1 bow and 1 firearm to where we are today OBR. That group was not solely responsible but a effort of many group's. IWL is no longer but there are lot's of groups out there. IDHA, IBA, QDMA, WTF and several smaller groups. The only problem I see is that most groups arn't lobbying for what's best for deer herd but whats best for their group. (The deer herds best interest becomes secondary) Personally I would support shorter hunting season's (Many wouldn't) I would support less antleress harvest ( Many wouldn't) I support OBR ( Many don't ). I would support doing away with or limiting park hunt's (Many wouldn't). My point is I'm uncertain one group can gain enough support and apply enough pressure to get IDNR to go back to a 1 buck 1 doe limit per season. Let alone some counties being 0 antlerless. ( Maybe I'm wrong.) Evidently some northern counties are seeing really low deer numbers?? ( Going from post's on here. ) While at the same times I am seeing good numbers and good quality bucks down here in southeastern part of state. (Actually some of best hunting i've seen in my lifetime) So my question is what is going on in the north that isn't in south. Pretty much all counties in my area are 8 bonus antlerless. Yet I am seeing lots of antlerless deer. I would support any rule or regulation that is good for our states deer herd. If that mean's shorter season's or less harvest opportunities then so be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 17:03:45 GMT -5
The only problem I see is that most groups arn't lobbying for what's best for deer herd but whats best for their group. (The deer herds best interest becomes secondary) BINGO!!!! Nail hit squarely on the head!
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 6, 2014 17:10:43 GMT -5
Its simple the far north and far southern part of the state had a big head start over the North central part of the state.They actually had about a 25 -30 year head start the deer numbers we have up here .The harvest or herd have never been what it is at either end of the state especially the southern part south of Indy .We lack the large amounts of stable heavy cover we never had it to compair to the south part and far northwest corner . But the one thing we have is large antlerless quotas and just as big if not bigger hunting population in our counties since it is where half the states population lives and works in the north central 1/3 of the state its mainly large open swaths of Ag land .
Thats what is wrong .If you need to really want to know simply look at the harvest info for these counties over the last 40 years .LOL then compair to the southern counties .Its clear at that point what is going on up here .Yet we are treated as if we have the deer numbers as the most deer populated south has .This is a sign of a totally out of touch DNR and mismanagement at the top down. The DNR has no herd estimates either by state or county ,they do not know where the hunters hunt mainly per county or counties nor do they listen to the hunters and land owners here .Just the special little groups who drink coffee with them the pat my back I will pat your back to get what I want buddy system is alive and well as it pertains to the DNR and money groups .Its time for change here .
|
|
|
Post by beehunter on Jan 6, 2014 17:31:18 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see the harvest numbers this year and over the next couple. The only real difference I was able to see in last season's numbers were the antlerless deer killed in the new late season. Regardless...hunters ultimately have to make the decision to kill deer or not to kill deer. If numbers are low, one would think that hunters would ease up on the deer. I agree. I cant remember the last time I shot a doe, its not been high on my list since the population is low where I hunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 17:38:30 GMT -5
Arguably the most coveted hunting land in Indiana is in the Southeastern quarter of the state. Lots of hunters, including out of state hunters flock to those counties (Franklin, Dearborn, Ohio, Ripley, Switzerland, Jefferson, Washington, Scott, etc.) Those counties are consistently in the top harvest as well as top trophy buck counties in the state, yet there still seem to be a lot of deer there. Many of those counties also have been hit hard by EHD outbreaks in recent years.
All of those counties are 8 bonus antlerless counties too (I believe). So what is the difference that makes Northern Indiana so lacking in deer? Is it shrinking habitat? Is it hunters who over harvest? Is there a different mindset among hunters in different areas of the state?
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 6, 2014 17:51:57 GMT -5
Arguably the most coveted hunting land in Indiana is in the Southeastern quarter of the state. Lots of hunters, including out of state hunters flock to those counties (Franklin, Dearborn, Ohio, Ripley, Switzerland, Jefferson, Washington, Scott, etc.) Those counties are consistently in the top harvest as well as top trophy buck counties in the state, yet there still seem to be a lot of deer there. Many of those counties also have been hit hard by EHD outbreaks in recent years. All of those counties are 8 bonus antlerless counties too (I believe). So what is the difference that makes Northern Indiana so lacking in deer? Is it shrinking habitat? Is it hunters who over harvest? Is there a different mindset among hunters in different areas of the state? Our hunter numbers are not that far off from north to south especially with the huge amount of hunters and people here in this area of the state.Over harvest low deer densities ,late start growing a herd and the fact that the terrain and cover is not even remotely the same . We are also 8s here to and 4s so we get the same hunting pressure .You just can not kill what is not here .The 2 counties I hunt have likely between 5000 -10000 hunters respectively .if not more since the land is broken into small properties and the human population here is much higher than most of the southern counties.Yet we kill in one around 400 deer total and the other a touch over 1000 .Funny though the 400 county is an 8 and the 1000 plus is a 4 and a county with the same harvest we have next to us is a 3 .The fact is no two counties are the same and the deer herd is much lower per sq mile in the north central part of the state than the south part .But its funny you have counties down there that have smaller area and likely harvest more deer per season than we have in my home county . The problem is there is little facts to base antlerless limits on that make any sense and there even less facts about who hunts where and how many deer there actually are in any given county let alone our state .The way that they set limits is more a grab bag attempt than a scientific attempt at it with no real herd numbers data and hunter per county data they have no clue what they should set limits at its just a guess at best with them now .Something else that must change is they need hunter input for at least a good feel of what is being seen in a county and not being seen.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 6, 2014 17:54:14 GMT -5
In 2012 The counties with the highest harvests were Switzerland, Dearborn, Harrison, Franklin, Steuben, Parke, Washington, Kosciusko, Marshall, and Noble. The counties with the lowest harvests were Tipton, Benton, Blackford, Hancock, Rush, Clinton, Shelby, Wells, Marion, and Howard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 17:56:48 GMT -5
Shouldernuke, I'm sure there are some issues on which you and I may part ways, but I certainly agree with your last paragraph and I appreciate your input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 18:02:02 GMT -5
The thing I notice that is a common factor within the counties in the top and bottom harvest lists is cover and habitat. The counties with the highest harvests have abundant cover and great habitat. The counties in the low harvest list have a lack of cover, generally speaking. At least that is true of those on the list I am most familiar with.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 6, 2014 18:59:31 GMT -5
In 2012 The counties with the highest harvests were Switzerland, Dearborn, Harrison, Franklin, Steuben, Parke, Washington, Kosciusko, Marshall, and Noble. The counties with the lowest harvests were Tipton, Benton, Blackford, Hancock, Rush, Clinton, Shelby, Wells, Marion, and Howard. True, true...The Good Lord did not make all deer habitat alike... Warrick has been a pretty decent county for deer for at least one reason - there are a LOT of refuges called - stripper pit spoil banks...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 6, 2014 19:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 6, 2014 19:40:27 GMT -5
In 2012 The counties with the highest harvests were Switzerland, Dearborn, Harrison, Franklin, Steuben, Parke, Washington, Kosciusko, Marshall, and Noble. The counties with the lowest harvests were Tipton, Benton, Blackford, Hancock, Rush, Clinton, Shelby, Wells, Marion, and Howard. TY for the post I hunt two of the counties in the lowest counties .Funny though with those horrible numbers the DNR has made Howard an 8 and Clinton a 2/Tipton is an A and Carroll a 3 . There is not a dimes difference in those counties and frankly the DNR has lost all credibility with me and most those who hunt or own ground up here .Plea's over the past few years have gone unheard even after frank discussions with Chad . Truth is in most of howard maybe has a deer herd at the start of season this year was 1/4th what it was just 4 years ago and cass county had a hard` hit maybe half the deer they had . The issue is no reasoning or parody with our officials and common sense has left the DNR about 14 years ago IMHO. Is the deer herd in trouble in every county ?I have no way of knowing but I do know about this area and the der hunting here will be dismal at best for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jan 7, 2014 1:18:50 GMT -5
shouldernuke you make some valid points and from your post I can sense the passion you have for this sport we love. I can't relate to hunting up north as you can't to my hunting down here in the south. But I feel your pain with low deer sightings and high antlerless bonus permits. I agree it would appear that there may not be any reason some counties have high bonus permits. I suspect possible special interest group pressure EX. Local Farm Bureau's / large farmer's etc. I hope things get better for you and your local deer herd. Speaking out and making your voice heard is only way thing's will ever change.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 7, 2014 5:40:04 GMT -5
I have stayed out of the fray for a while .I am compelled to post against my better judgment but here goes you can bash me and this post after I leave I will not get into some long winded insult filled rant with anyone over it .Know this I am not alone in this and its well thought out by many who are pushing for real change here outside the two main sides of the arguments . First this is not the 1980s or even the early 2000s the rules and limits were completely different than today back then. Back then the limit was 1-3 deer a year period and in later years it was 2 bucks and 2 doe or 1 buck and 3 doe depending on the year we are talking about in the early 1980s. The state was building a herd back then .Now the state over the last 5 years have been hell bent to reduce this fine herd and the OBR was the start of that trend to push hunters to focus on the doe herd . You and I as well as others here know that and tend to play things down by using past experience here in our state or use antidotal responses to waive uncomfortable truths away. The happenings and events of today have little to nothing to do with those of 20-40 years ago .EHD has played the roll that maybe 5 or 10 hunting seasons would of under the current rules its been a major player in this issue .The DNR has to react quicker to this .But then again they want to reduce the deer population 25% from a mythical herd estimate that don't exist . Unless the DNR closes the late antlerless season and takes bonus limits down to 0 in many of the counties in the northern 2/3rds of our state the deer herd in those areas will be at near 1970s early 1980s lows in most areas of those counties involved .Sorry that is fact . Another fact is that if hunters were able to conserve animals and control themselves there would not be the need for set seasons and limits controlling the hunting like there are today .So putting this back on the shoulders of hunters with little or no self control is silly and unrealistic they will do what they are allowed to do . The vast majority of hunters simply lack self control . This peeing match between prop 1 and prop 2 supporters is doing nothing buck destroying deer and driving a wedge between hunters .I suggest that the DNR distance themselves between these two small groups as quick as possible they are like two groups of 5 year olds fight over control of the ball crybabies does not describe it .Its sad adults cant leave things alone that worked like the years prior to 2000.I was going to post this on HH but they don't want the other kids to come play on their site and muddy their water they are not accepting members. They think that the majority of hunters will ask for a shorter gun season they are wrong we know that will not fix this at all. The deer herds will not rebound at all until the limits and seasons lengths and dates go backwards about 20 years . Now there are those who say leave it as it is for 4 or 5 years who all lay on the need for more opportunity hunting banner .They are wrong as well if we do remain the same with the the reduction efforts roll on after the EHD for two years and season additions we in many areas will not have the hunting we had 25 years ago. Sorry but that's the way it is and to argue its the same now as was back then until the rules and bag limits change back to those of 35 -40 year ago is silly to say the least .As for Chad to admit that the herd might not rebound back quickly or at all would mean hunters would see flaws in DNR reduction plans and prove that the DNR will not manage the herd in a proactive way when they did not immediately close or alter seasons and limits on antlerless deer . Now all you can bash away at me and my post but know that there are many of us forming to get changes that will result in less deer hunting seasons and opportunity here in our state and that will just get uglier in the next year or two when the numbers come out .We will gain support as other groups lose it . Good luck all and just fight the fight you feel will be best for our deer herd first and the hunters second .BTW we were never over populated remember per the DNR press statement the OBR and herd` reduction is a "Social Issue " not a management issue or der herd issue . So who is pushing the social issue ?Is it who we think or is it some spoiled crybabies .I remember some here claiming that the Insurance COs were not pushing for reduction but have since posted about it with factual press release .who is the good guys here ? good luck all and fight nice I will not argue my post at all it is what it is. Not a thing wrong with your post, shouldernuke, nothing at all, as we all have a right to express our concerns & advice on topics discussed here. I thought it was fine and accurate. Much of what you posted mirrors my own opinions in pertaining to the State's ability to manage its Deer herd. I do believe that the harvest, or should I say the over harvest of Doe, is occurring in many Indiana counties, that should be "Bucks Only". In addition to your list of what needs to be addressed is the fact that Habitat is shrinking in Indiana as well as in many states. You have to have the proper habitat to sustain a population of any game animal. One other thing that I feel should be addressed is there really needs to be a study dealing with the effects of GMO crops (round-up ready) on wildlife. Do these type of GMO crops weaken the Deer immune system to the point that EHD is more prevalent nowdays??? Also we can't leave out farming practices, as these certainly do affect habitat, along with developments. (I'll most likely get "rosted" here for my belief too)
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 7, 2014 8:56:27 GMT -5
In 2012 The counties with the highest harvests were Switzerland, Dearborn, Harrison, Franklin, Steuben, Parke, Washington, Kosciusko, Marshall, and Noble. The counties with the lowest harvests were Tipton, Benton, Blackford, Hancock, Rush, Clinton, Shelby, Wells, Marion, and Howard. In Kentucky, those counties you listed as having the highest harvests, would be classified as Zone #1, #2, or even #3. The counties you listed as having low harvest numbers would be Zone #4 if they were in Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jan 7, 2014 10:12:57 GMT -5
this state could go to at least 3 different zones (made up of counties)according to habitat and deer numbers. Each zone would have a biologist and it's own regs. We already have districts with dnr biologists so it wouldn't take too much to have deer and turkey zones. All that probably makes too much sense, though.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Jan 7, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5
this state could go to at least 3 different zones (made up of counties)according to habitat and deer numbers. Each zone would have a biologist and it's own regs. We already have districts with dnr biologists so it wouldn't take too much to have deer and turkey zones. All that probably makes too much sense, though. Best idea yet. For deer, not sure why it needs to be done with turkey when indiana has (and should keep) a one bird limit. It's hard to get on board with a lot of these people talking about making changes statewide when you are still seeing plenty of deer. Not as many as the mid-late 90's, but enough to keep most people happy. On the other hand, if they get their way and changes are made that increase the herd in their area, then we will be over ran with deer again. Oh wait, that's what got us to this point in the first place.
|
|