|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 9, 2014 19:28:05 GMT -5
I sent our biologist some concerns about the urban zone and got a reply and there are several things I find interesting: 1. He says comments are 2 to 1 against rifles 2. He says the urban zone will still be archery. DNR page below totally contradicts this. 3. He says they need to hear from hunters more. 4. He says you don't have to kill the bonus quota. I haven't even had a chance to.  DNR page says: Allows firearms to be used during the deer reduction (formerly urban deer zone) season, where legal to discharge a firearm, from the first Saturday after November 11 through January 31 of the following year. Use of firearms in deer reduction zones would give communities greater flexibility to manage deer-related problems and should improve deer-harvest success rates. Hi. Thanks very much for taking the time to contact me. I need input from hunters as to what they are seeing out there. I tend to hear from farmers and home owners complaining about deer, and not enough from hunters. The Div. of Fish and Wildlife is trying to find the right balance between what hunters and landowners want, and what’s good for the environment. We in Tippecanoe County seem to have turned the corner on the deer population. It seems the herd is down some based on our data and my perception (I’m seeing fewer deer). That is why we went from a bonus antlerless quota of 8 to 4 this fall. We realize this isn’t a big change, but our administrators like to do a “step down or step back” process and not make too great a change at once. In mid-February I hope to have the results of this falls deer harvest. If the downward trend continues we will likely drop back to a bonus of 3 which will end the late special season. There is some discussion of altering the urban zones around the state. We’ll see on that. As you might imagine, there are plenty of deer in some areas of the county still, and the herd is down in other areas. At a check station opening day, I had about half of hunters tell me they saw fewer deer this year, but still saw a good number. Other hunters said they saw plenty of deer, with one hunter stating he saw 31 deer opening day in his deer stand. If you are seeing too few deer in your area, talk with neighboring hunters and your landowner, and feel free to shoot fewer does. Just because we say you can kill 4 antlerless deer, you don’t have to. Comments I hear from hunters are about two to one against the addition of more center fire rifles. The urban zone will still be archery only, by the way. I will send you a separate email with information on how to email comments to the Natural Resource Commission and the Div. of Fish and Wildlife about the proposed changes. I encourage you to send in comments. As for deer/vehicle accidents, they seem to be coming down indicating fewer deer. Those accidents are not driving more liberal bag limits. I am attaching our deer history sheet for Tippecanoe County (and Montgomery and Fountain Co.). Tippecanoe is the last page. It contains harvest information and deer/vehicle accident information for the past ten years. I think you will find it interesting to look at the trends. We are not far from where we’d like to level off the herd. When at that point, we will try to allow deer harvest at a “maintenance mode.” I trust this helps. Thanks again for writing. If you have more comments, feel free to get back. Dean Dean Zimmerman DNR District Wildlife Biologist 4112 East SR 225 West Lafayette, IN 47906 Ph: 765-567-2152 |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 9, 2014 19:38:30 GMT -5
As you stated Dean is incorrect on the proposed use of guns in what is called "urban zones" and now the proposed "deer reduction zones".
He stated that the comments were two to one in hunters he has heard from. That is not the same as the comments that are going to the NRC..From what I have read here and other sites it is more like two to one in favor.
I'll give it a couple weeks and then ask for the NRC input file. That is where the rubber meets the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 9, 2014 21:07:31 GMT -5
The vocal group of facebook hunters seem to be mostly against the addition of more rifles. Of course, most of them do not understand the proposal, current regulations or ballistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by majyang on Dec 9, 2014 21:34:02 GMT -5
Just wondering, (I doubt it but) does the voice/input of a valid card carrying hunter i.e. a licensed hunter, carry any more weight than "Joe the non-hunter but concerned citizen"? Specifically when it comes to center fire weapons? This is a definite stereotype but what I'm implying is that "Joe" probably doesn't even know the difference of a .22 round to a 12 gauge. let alone the trajectory, velocity and range of say a 30-06.
|
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 9, 2014 22:02:29 GMT -5
Just wondering, (I doubt it but) does the voice/input of a valid card carrying hunter i.e. a licensed hunter, carry any more weight than "Joe the non-hunter but concerned citizen"? Specifically when it comes to center fire weapons? This is a definite stereotype but what I'm implying is that "Joe" probably doesn't even know the difference of a .22 round to a 12 gauge. let alone the trajectory, velocity and range of say a 30-06. No, it doesn't make a difference if they own a license or not. I do wonder if most of the opposed are shooting themselves in the foot by using safety as their reasoning for opposing the proposal instead of just saying they oppose it though? I would think that since it has been proven to be no more unsafe than what we currently have the DNR would overlook their opposing view the same as they should overlook the view of the guy that said today, "if high powers become legal, nothing within 1200 yards will be safe". Either way, I'm still hearing and have since summer that it is a done deal. We shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by boman on Dec 9, 2014 22:22:07 GMT -5
hes right about not hearing from enough deer hunters and not filling doe tags. I have had the opportunity the last two years and passed. just sent this to Dean---we will see what he says Dean, just read the below reply to an email sent you on hunt-indiana.com/board/24/deer-hunting and have a couple of questions. Where are you coming up with the 2 to 1 against comments on the use of rifles? I am in favor of the change by the way and already hunt with a “358 Hoosier”rifle. Its my understanding that most hunters I have talked too have no objection to the proposed rule change as it is worded and approved by the NRC. Secondly, could you please elaborate on your understanding of the proposed change from “urban deer zone” to “deer reduction zone” also in the proposed rule change. One of us or both of us are misunderstanding this one. FWIW---I hunt Tippecanoe Co. on the Wabash next to Ross Park, and have so for several years, and my observations are pretty much in line with your response to the original e-mail, deer numbers down but still seeing deer. I will say that most hunters you talk to at the check station have had a “satisfactory experience” with their hunt or they wouldn’t be at the check station and agree that you need to hear from more deer hunters who are “still hunting”Smile(the unsatisfied guys?). I am one of the “satisfied guys” by the way but wouldn’t mind if there was a moratorium on does next year in Tippecanoe Co. although I know that won’t happen. your response would be appreciated Sincerely---Steve Bowman---Wildlife Biologist---Class of 72---Purdue University |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 7:55:46 GMT -5
Just wondering, (I doubt it but) does the voice/input of a valid card carrying hunter i.e. a licensed hunter, carry any more weight than "Joe the non-hunter but concerned citizen"? Specifically when it comes to center fire weapons? This is a definite stereotype but what I'm implying is that "Joe" probably doesn't even know the difference of a .22 round to a 12 gauge. let alone the trajectory, velocity and range of say a 30-06. No, it doesn't make a difference if they own a license or not. I do wonder if most of the opposed are shooting themselves in the foot by using safety as their reasoning for opposing the proposal instead of just saying they oppose it though? I would think that since it has been proven to be no more unsafe than what we currently have the DNR would overlook their opposing view the same as they should overlook the view of the guy that said today, "if high powers become legal, nothing within 1200 yards will be safe". Either way, I'm still hearing and have since summer that it is a done deal. We shall see. Supposedly the NRC does not count noses of for and against the proposals put forward. The are supposed to just look at the facts presented by the individuals on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 8:13:20 GMT -5
What do they do when there are very few "facts" associated with it?
This is not a matter of fact either for or against .... it is a matter of want and nothing more. Some folks want them and some folks dont want them.
There is no need .... there are no facts.
So if they dont count hands, both for and against, why have input at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 10, 2014 8:45:22 GMT -5
What do they do when there are very few "facts" associated with it? This is not a matter of fact either for or against .... it is a matter of want and nothing more. Some folks want them and some folks dont want them. There is no need .... there are no facts. So if they dont count hands, both for and against, why have input at all? I'm sure the DNR has facts regarding the use of HPR's as opposed to the use of what we have now. Such as safety and how it will affect harvest numbers or not. Public meetings/input could be a courtesy or legally required. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 8:53:09 GMT -5
The fact that they are just as safe as other weapons currently in use does not make a compelling argument to make them legal.
The fact that antlerless permits have been cut back and harvest might be starting a slight downward trend means that no additional weapons are needed to keep pace with what the DNR is trying to do.
Your last sentence is what I am wondering about ... has the decision already been made regardless of public input?
Considering this is a hunter want vs dont want regulation .... whichever way the input falls is how the proposal should follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 9:16:14 GMT -5
The fact that they are just as safe as other weapons currently in use does not make a compelling argument to make them legal. The fact that antlerless permits have been cut back and harvest might be starting a slight downward trend means that no additional weapons are needed to keep pace with what the DNR is trying to do. Your last sentence is what I am wondering about ... has the decision already been made regardless of public input? Considering this is a hunter want vs dont want regulation .... whichever way the input falls is how the proposal should follow. Maybe it is just a "social issue" like several others in the past? biggrin2 |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 9:18:45 GMT -5
"Social issue" being another way to say some want them and some dont?
No biological reason they are needed and no biological reason not to allow them.
No safety reason not to allow them and no safety reason they are needed in addition to what we already have.
I assume with the most recent "social issue" of crossbows that the amount of "wants" actually outweighed the "dont wants"?
Why would it be done any other way on these kind of issues is all I am asking .... and maybe I am jumping the gun considering the regulation I am wondering about isnt even done yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 9:26:36 GMT -5
"Social issue" being another way to say some want them and some dont? No biological reason they are needed and no biological reason not to allow them. No safety reason not to allow them and no safety reason they are needed in addition to what we already have. I assume with the most recent "social issue" of crossbows that the amount of "wants" actually outweighed the "dont wants"? Why would it be done any other way on these kind of issues is all I am asking .... and maybe I am jumping the gun considering the regulation I am wondering about isnt even done yet. OH BOY!! "A Crossbow debate"!! biggrin2 As stated by the DNR they wanted crossbows so that it would help in recruiting more hunters, retain older hunters and help manage the herd. Specifically taking more deer out of the herd before the peak vehicle and deer collision time. And yes, more hunters wanted them than didn't. As ShoulderNuke says - "Fact..." |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 9:28:07 GMT -5
BTW - The ONLY proposal I ever recall that the DNR said it was a "social issue" was the OBR...
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 10, 2014 9:33:57 GMT -5
$$$$$$$$$$$ this is what matters, not what hunters want.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 9:33:59 GMT -5
Unlike some folks I dont chose to believe someone or something just because its what I want to hear ..... the DNR said something you wanted to hear so therefore you believe and repeat it whether it is / was true or not.
As long as more hunters wanted them than didnt want them thats what really mattered ..... as it should be in a social issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 9:35:25 GMT -5
$$$$$$$$$$$ this is what matters, not what hunters want. Which gets back to my concern .... if public input is greatly against rifles, which it may or may not be but certainly appears that way, what would be the excuse for passing them. There shouldnt be any more money associated with them considering there is no separate license like the crossbows. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 10, 2014 9:39:05 GMT -5
The fact that they are just as safe as other weapons currently in use does not make a compelling argument to make them legal. The fact that antlerless permits have been cut back and harvest might be starting a slight downward trend means that no additional weapons are needed to keep pace with what the DNR is trying to do. Your last sentence is what I am wondering about ... has the decision already been made regardless of public input? Considering this is a hunter want vs dont want regulation .... whichever way the input falls is how the proposal should follow. Maybe it is just a "social issue" like several others in the past? biggrin2 Might very well could be a social issue, but I think a lot of Folks, especially in larger Indiana cities, that aren't hunters would vote against the H.P. R. issue, in favor of a safety factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 10, 2014 9:41:56 GMT -5
Unlike some folks I dont chose to believe someone or something just because its what I want to hear ..... the DNR said something you wanted to hear so therefore you believe and repeat it whether it is / was true or not. As long as more hunters wanted them than didnt want them thats what really mattered ..... as it should be in a social issue. But you choose to disbelieve it because it s not what you want? LOL.... I can assure you that the DNR went to great lengths to look at all the crossbow facts before issuing that proposal as it went against what the "organized hunting groups" stance. Of course they had several Indiana deer hunter surveys that backed them up on the proposal.. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 10, 2014 9:43:38 GMT -5
No, I chose to look at all the variables surrounding it and make my own conclusion. Has nothing to do with my feelings on crossbows or anything else ... be it politics, hunting or any other topic of discussion.
Im pretty consistent ... If I dont like something I give my own reasons for it instead of looking for what others have said on the topic and using their reasoning. Even if my reason is a simple " I dont want it".
But our opinions on crossbows have nothing to do with the topic at hand .... it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
|
|
