Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 17:42:06 GMT -5
It is a bit more complicated than that ...... an example .... I have an extremely high deer density on my place which in turn creates a bit lower densities on the neighboring properties. If a person on those properties kill based on what they are "seeing" they are missing the boat on what needs to be done in that county or in that square mile. Neighboring owners would not shoot anything while it would be impossible for me to shoot enough. Properties vary .... and where deer live varies. Trying to do the right thing is not a sure thing. There are many variables. That is why one should try to coop with their neighbors and set a common goal. ^^^^^ Yep
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 9, 2014 17:52:29 GMT -5
It is a bit more complicated than that ...... an example .... I have an extremely high deer density on my place which in turn creates a bit lower densities on the neighboring properties. If a person on those properties kill based on what they are "seeing" they are missing the boat on what needs to be done in that county or in that square mile. Neighboring owners would not shoot anything while it would be impossible for me to shoot enough. Properties vary .... and where deer live varies. Trying to do the right thing is not a sure thing. There are many variables. Your argument at first seems ok .But at second glance your neighbors are "right" by not shooting what they do not have or think they have .However if like you say have too many deer and can not shoot enough and need them removed then it is entirely up to you to get enough hunters in there to get the job done .So in fact because a few landowners have deer issues over a area but the rest of the landowners do not and the vast majority of hunters have or see few deer the DNR must reduce the tags in a county or state wide ont increase them and there is an answer here as to why . If the DNR lowers the county limit or state wide limit on deer to get more deer to the have nots that is the right call in this case since you even with lower tag numbers as landowner /hunter can simply invite how many hunters you need to reduce that herd on your land to where you want it .More pressure and harvest will also cause some deer to simply move off your land thus giving you what you want lower deer numbers ,the hunters next to you more deer numbers and give some lucky hunters who little or no land to hunt a place to hunt . Really simple when you look at it the DNR /state should never set a county limit because a few places have too many deer and that is exactly what they have done and by doing so have shot hunters in the foot and themselves as well by not in an indirect way forcing landowners to allow more hunters because now one or 3 can do what should take maybe twice that number to do . This is exactly why as the harvest and tag rises the availability to farm land to hunt declines they just do not need as many hunters to do the job anymore .
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 9, 2014 17:59:58 GMT -5
Not really. They don't "see" as many deer simply because the deer spend most daylight hours on my property. The food sources are on neighboring properties.....
They should/could kill what they "see" and not hurt what might be perceived as low numbers.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 9, 2014 18:06:38 GMT -5
Not really. They don't "see" as many deer simply because the deer spend most daylight hours on my property. The food sources are on neighboring properties..... They should/could kill what they "see" and not hurt what might be perceived as low numbers. You can tell people what ever you like but they if their eyes tell them the oposit will never beleive ever ..But you can show them .Take them hunting on your land a limited number of time or take them on a bed scouting trip now that season is closed .The only way to get deer dead on your property is too kill them on your property the added presure will move some off the property perminatly if the pressure becomes too great .Either way you want to show them your right and proff is the only way to do that .Just saying On a side note if they start shooting every deer that crosses the line when will it be enough they have no way of knowing and you have no way of knowing when its enough either .
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 9, 2014 18:10:13 GMT -5
Where did I say they didn't believe me or that they didn't know how many deer were around?
They know. We talk. All is well. My point still stands even if it is misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 9, 2014 18:13:15 GMT -5
And I do not believe I have any sort of exceeded capacity issues. Considering the majority of a deers diet is natural browse..... I provide security, cover and ample browse. They use the neighboring ag fields for those needs.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Jan 11, 2014 18:33:18 GMT -5
I guess that would mean that just zbout every hunter in Marion County would either have to quit or pay up, not to mention any hunter who depends on public ground and doesn't live in a county with some..... a I like it even better. They could always hunt in their own county. They got their fancy urban zone and extra special anterless permits and the highest bonus permit allowance as any one in the state. Stay home and kill the deer where you live instead of traveling through counties with 8 and 4 bonus permit zones to wipe out every doe in a 2 or 3 or less county. It's a great idea. You guys want to kill every deer in sight just for the fun of giving them away. Do it at home.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 11, 2014 20:45:01 GMT -5
You guys have won my support. It's time for me to get on board with suggesting the Indiana DNR ban all deer hunting tools except vertical bows. It is time that the only thing legal to kill a whitetail in Indiana is a self-made wood bow, hand-hewed wooden arrows with napped stone broad heads, and all of the deer killing can only happen on land that the hunter owns and lives on.
Oh, I guess we will still have to allow all those speeding vehicles and of course mother nature herself.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jan 12, 2014 10:28:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2014 11:46:08 GMT -5
"There is no question that over-harvesting the does has caused the herd to hit low levels and then you throw EHD on top of that and potentially some predation from coyotes on fawns and you have an implosion".The statement above, from the article, is pretty much accurate along with habitat loss.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 12, 2014 13:09:39 GMT -5
"There is no question that over-harvesting the does has caused the herd to hit low levels and then you throw EHD on top of that and potentially some predation from coyotes on fawns and you have an implosion".The statement above, from the article, is pretty much accurate along with habitat loss. Exactly right The issues I have with our DNR is the denial they show in every word when they say that there is no serious problem here.I note this when speaking to them that there is no real problem here by their accounts of it .They lack the ability to act suddenly and in the interest of the der and hunters . They are unwilling to what is right in or before a season. They lack leadership they are paid yes men . And for the vast majority of hunters and counties nothing could be farther from the DNR truth of our herds and hunter types. Our deer management And DNR and how the respond to this issue and others we will have is shameful .They have no desire to suck it up and do what they know they should do and that is be more willing to rein things back in .Like cancel the late season and antlerless bonus tags for a few years everywhere . Honestly there are places here that has not caught up with the rest of "yet" but it will not be long as hunters start to seek areas with more deer and they have to share the harvest in their areas with many more hunters . Then again we are talking about a gov agency that will base a plan on a fictional number deer that they have no estimate for state wide or by the county .And they will not publish either number or the goal .There is something very wrong here with our DNR and those in charge .Time to get them out or make them change they way to do that is speak with their bosses not them .They are sharp as used car salesmen and use the same sort of shaded and guarded language .
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 12, 2014 14:25:08 GMT -5
From what I got from the article. the author seems to think that "trophy" hunting is wiping out "trophy" animals. I think we need to institute a rotating "trophy" harvest. If a hunter kills a "trophy" animal, or one that "could have been a trophy if it was allowed to get older", they have to wait 5 years or so before they are allowed to kill another one. That way Indiana can truly become a trophy state and every resident hunter and all those high dollar out of state hunters have an equal chance to get one.
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Jan 12, 2014 16:31:36 GMT -5
I see where you are going with this one firstwd, up to and including the harvest of button bucks, because every button buck has the potential to grow up to be a trophy!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2014 16:38:32 GMT -5
Female deer are trophies too..... say many a hunter each year.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Jan 12, 2014 16:50:04 GMT -5
1. I can't think of anyone that wants to see LESS deer when they go hunting.
2. I do not know anyone that has ever said, "I wish I would see SMALLER bucks instead of BIGGER bucks.
3. The state allowed the deer herd to grow TOO LARGE in the minds of some people they (the DNR) have to answer to.
4. They (the DNR) are not going to let the herd get NEAR that point again.
5. Crying daily about it on the Internet and arguing over whose PLAN is the best is not going to change any of this.
Lease ground, buy ground or whatever it takes, the DNR is not going to start producing deer for you.
Heck, hunting out of state isn't even a much better option if you look around on the net at different state specific deer hunting boards and disagree with what Indiana is doing. It's happening everywhere around us.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 12, 2014 17:09:17 GMT -5
I'm don't have a dog in the fight as far as Iowa is concerned, and I know people are really upset in Iowa, but it's not like they didn't know this is the direction the DNR was taking the herd. This is from Iowa's harvest report.....
"The goal is a stable population at a level comparable to the mid-to-late 1990s. A population at this level should sustain an estimated annual harvest of 100,000 to 120,000 deer." Herd reduction is the goal for many states.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 12, 2014 17:17:08 GMT -5
Herd reduction is a necessary position most all states have to take, if for no other reason than to try offset the continued habitat loss.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 12, 2014 17:19:11 GMT -5
I'm don't have a dog in the fight as far as Iowa is concerned, and I know people are really upset in Iowa, but it's not like they didn't know this is the direction the DNR was taking the herd. This is from Iowa's harvest report..... "The goal is a stable population at a level comparable to the mid-to-late 1990s. A population at this level should sustain an estimated annual harvest of 100,000 to 120,000 deer." Herd reduction is the goal for many states. Yes it was indeed but To be honest about it .But this reduction has gotten away from them way too fast with all the external factors and they have over done it in many areas of this state .You know that and I know that .Truth is that the modern hunter and weapons we use are far more effective than the DNR wants to admit and that is all weapons and hunters .This is not 35 or 40 years ago when we were throwing sticks and stones basically at them . They still will have no choice but to retreat from their current path of opportunity and liberal limits .Or the cash cow of every DNR in the Midwest will simply die and the back accounts will go dry .It is what it is .They are in business and do not want to be out of business that makes lots of money for the state. Thats where this is headed if change does not come soon .Its not habitat,or damage , its politics and money . Lets put this exactly where it belongs .The DNR has used the reduction is due to "SOCIAL" issues .They did not say habitat ,capacity, Disease ,or sex ratio. This is the exact same reason we now have the dam OBR "a social" reasons . I am sick and tired of my hunting and our deer herd being ran and ruined due to supposed social reasons over a few people with connections or supposed power. That translates to money and politics .
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jan 12, 2014 18:42:49 GMT -5
On a positive not , just pulled photo cards from couple trail cams. Cam 1 had 2496 photos in 10 days. It is set overlooking feeder that spreads corn in a.m. and p.m. shutter set at 1 min intervals. Lotta antlerless and a few small bucks that have mostly already shed. Cam 2 overlooks turnip food plot and it had 596 pics in 10 days. Reset Cam 2 to overlook mineral lick I just reopened today to see watch shows up there.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2014 5:15:46 GMT -5
Female deer are trophies too..... say many a hunter each year. In the "eyes" of some Deer Hunters, maybe. However we should take into account that when one harvest a Doe or several, they take away the population of future Deer, that would have been born. While there might be nothing wrong to harvest a few Doe in areas, with an over population of Deer; however those county areas, which had excess Deer, are becoming fewer each coming Deer season.
|
|