|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 16, 2014 11:38:18 GMT -5
I live in southern Wells county, all the proof I need is based on what I've seen and heard in hunting this area for the past 18 years, use to be nothing to see 10-15 each day, this year I've seen 3 deer all year, not just during hunting season mind you, but all year long, last year I saw only 2 all year, 2012 I saw but 1 doe and a fawn......the really bad part of this is that I live in the woods, 2 ponds and a creek that butts up to the Salamonie river, I bought this place 9 years ago not only for a beautiful, peaceful place to live, but for the hunting opportunities it afforded my family in the 9 years before we moved here.....I am out in these woods each and every day, and what I've seen with my own eyes cannot be disputed by someone in a fancy office or written down by someone who has never been here or seen the decline.....I could be wrong though, maybe Aliens came down and sucked up the deer.....but it seems the fellas in our local archery league who bragged about shooting 7-8 deer a year and giving them away, don't have much to brag about anymore, because they too are now lucky to just see a deer let alone shoot one......And few public hunting lands??...Seriously?? What about Mississinewa, Salamonie, and Roush? Is there any chance at all once you moved there and as you state "you're in the woods nearly every day" had any adverse affects on sightings as well? Has the woods changed from thick understory to mature forest canopy and choked out cover? I believe everything you're saying and the answers the questions above may confirm it, but if not then perhaps not everything is because of others over harvesting...land characteristics change, land use changes, neighboring use and pressure changes can have big impacts. I like you thought do as I've shared feel some people desperately needs to rethink the amount of does they take.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 16, 2014 11:39:53 GMT -5
Want to relieve pressure on does? The state should go back to two bucks - one with a firearm and one with archery equipment.. Oh Woody...you know very well that can of worms is something we don't want to open here in this thread bahaha!
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 16, 2014 11:40:11 GMT -5
I might come over to the other side Woody, but would like to see all county quota's lowered to no more than "4". And if state feels a county is "over populated" (if thats possible) they could have a late special antlerless hunt in those counties.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 16, 2014 11:54:03 GMT -5
I might come over to the other side Woody, but would like to see all county quota's lowered to no more than "4". And if state feels a county is "over populated" (if thats possible) they could have a late special antlerless hunt in those counties. That is my opinion as well, atleast for the doe harvests....I'm not a fan of 2 buck and if it was desired by the majority I would fight it has to be 1 archery and 1 firearm (not two with one kind).....but back on topic: I'm all for a flat antlerless allotment for all counties say 3...then in the counties the DNR feels needs more doe harvests simply have a 4 or 5 day window where hunters can take above this spot in the late season.
|
|
|
Post by beermanbrian on Dec 16, 2014 11:57:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 16, 2014 12:01:38 GMT -5
Been around the political world enough to know #9 isn't the truth...at least not so blindly 100% as it is stated.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Dec 16, 2014 12:22:45 GMT -5
Boon The same thing happens all around me also thePeopleFrom out of town come down here for one thing To kill deer and they bring all there friends with them to do the same thing and that's what they do then they go home and that's it for the yrar
|
|
|
Post by beermanbrian on Dec 16, 2014 12:27:38 GMT -5
Been around the political world enough to know #9 isn't the truth...at least not so blindly 100% as it is stated. I get your point. I'm sure insurance companies are heard more than the DNR likes to let on. They don't like paying out for accidents anymore than people like hitting deer. But as stated in #1, the deer herd is not just managed for hunters. If they represent customers in Indiana, they have a right to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 16, 2014 12:35:37 GMT -5
Been around the political world enough to know #9 isn't the truth...at least not so blindly 100% as it is stated. I get your point. I'm sure insurance companies are heard more than the DNR likes to let on. They don't like paying out for accidents anymore than people like hitting deer. But as stated in #1, the deer herd is not just managed for hunters. If they represent customers in Indiana, they have a right to be heard. Oh I agree.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Dec 16, 2014 14:07:30 GMT -5
The toughest part for each hunter to wrap their head around is just because I DID NOT see a bunch of does one year, does not necessarily mean their number is down. It's not like they are spread evenly, even within one farm, let alone an entire county. God Bless x2 Also, Chub...there is no excuse for not calling the DNR. That dude or family is straight up the definition of Wanton Waste and if nothing else knowing the DNR is on to him may lesson his "idiot" tendencies. x2 And few public hunting lands??...Seriously?? What about Mississinewa, Salamonie, and Roush? I was talking about the NE counties of the state like Steuben, Noble, DeKalb, Allen, Lagrange, and Whitley. Yes, I do hunt a private property in Huntington county and I have hunted the Salamonie area before (many years ago, but no more). That area is the exception to what I was talking about because you have 3 DNR properties in close proximity - all of which you mentioned in your post. But there isn't that much in the 6 northeastern counties I just mentioned in comparison to Mississinewa, Salamonie, and Roush. In contrast, look at the southern half of the state: it has A LOT more public properties than the northern half (see page 44 of the Hunting Guide).
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Dec 16, 2014 14:22:02 GMT -5
I'm sure insurance companies are heard more than the DNR likes to let on. They don't like paying out for accidents anymore than people like hitting deer. This is an interesting topic and I'm not doubting what you are saying. But I think the root of the problem here is the LACK of drivers' attention to the road and surroundings. I have people in my own family I've followed down a road who never see that deer standing 5' off the side of the road as they blaze past it at 60mph. I've grown accustomed to "widening my vision" while driving, and since I started doing that, I've seen a lot more deer AND avoided many accidents. What I would say to the insurance companies is this: I don't think getting rid of the deer population will solve ALL of their problems. Drivers need better education and need to get rid of the distractions and tunnel vision most of them have while driving. Because people don't only hit deer on the roads...
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 16, 2014 15:45:29 GMT -5
I have been in the Insurance industry for 25 plus year's and it is not a big issue with insurance carrier's. If a insurance company is paying out more for comprehensive claim's than it's taking in, they simply adjust rates to policy holder's to cover cost. (They make there money regardless of number deer/vehcile claim's.) As previousily stated, most people get confused when they see Indiana Farm Bureau Inc., lobbying for reducing the deer herd. (And they do), but they are seperate from Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance. Indiana Farm Bureau Inc., mainly represent's farmer's and farm families in Indiana. Membership in Indiana Farm Bureau Inc. is required to purchase Indiana Farm Bureau insurance.
|
|
|
Post by beermanbrian on Dec 16, 2014 15:59:55 GMT -5
I never intended to get on conversation about insurance companies. I was merely responding to another user. Anything I said was solely my opinion and not based on any facts. I'm sure insurance companies are low on the list when it comes to deer management. I just simply stated that IF they voiced concerns, they would have the right to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Dec 16, 2014 16:23:50 GMT -5
What would lowering county quota's to 3 or 4 do? Hasn't it been established that most hunters kill one or maybe two deer? Again I've read several posts on here about guys complaining about lack of deer but still say they killed one or two doe off their property. Stop killing the doe if you aren't seeing many deer. Yes even one. Woody seriously are you even going to go there with two bucks. Next you'll want the second to be crossbow only.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 16, 2014 16:55:44 GMT -5
What would lowering county quota's to 3 or 4 do? Hasn't it been established that most hunters kill one or maybe two deer? Again I've read several posts on here about guys complaining about lack of deer but still say they killed one or two doe off their property. Stop killing the doe if you aren't seeing many deer. Yes even one. A lower number gives the hunter a mind set, just as a higher number does. If a county is an 8 county then the hunters in that county might think there is an overabundance of deer and they need to kill as many as possible. Tat "might" be true in portions of the county, but other portions of the county deer very well could be a lot more scarce. The DNR can not manage by townships. Getting to a three bonus is the threshold and takes that county out of the "special antlerless season". That is the biggie in herd management. That would be for the third buck. biggrin2 J/K Seriously - Deer are being born at basically a one to one ratio and we are killing way more does than bucks.. so what is the answer? Bucks cant make babies by themselves..
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Dec 16, 2014 17:27:43 GMT -5
I might come over to the other side Woody, but would like to see all county quota's lowered to no more than "4". And if state feels a county is "over populated" (if thats possible) they could have a late special antlerless hunt in those counties. That is my opinion as well, atleast for the doe harvests....I'm not a fan of 2 buck and if it was desired by the majority I would fight it has to be 1 archery and 1 firearm (not two with one kind).....but back on topic: I'm all for a flat antlerless allotment for all counties say 3...then in the counties the DNR feels needs more doe harvests simply have a 4 or 5 day window where hunters can take above this spot in the late season. Why fight something that would have xero impact on the herd or your personal hunting ?? The taking of 2 bucks by the very few who would do it wont effect anyone directly in the long run .That said I agree it should be as before one with gun one with Bow.JMHO
|
|
|
Post by schall53 on Dec 16, 2014 17:30:41 GMT -5
Seriously - Deer are being born at basically a one to one ratio and we are killing way more does than bucks.. so what is the answer? Bucks cant make babies by themselves..
|
|
|
Post by practicalsportsman on Dec 16, 2014 19:11:23 GMT -5
Want to relieve pressure on does? The state should go back to two bucks - one with a firearm and one with archery equipment.. Woody Couldn't agree more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 19:15:17 GMT -5
I propose a two doe limit, state wide, per hunter...not per county.
If you hunt a property that needs more does removed, bring in another hunter, or two, or three.
How's that grab ya?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 20:42:55 GMT -5
I propose a two doe limit, state wide, per hunter...not per county. If you hunt a property that needs more does removed, bring in another hunter, or two, or three. How's that grab ya? Like some stranger, from behind, at a crowded concert....... :-) Personally, I think the county limits should be left alone but should be a total limit and not a "bonus" limit. My county is a 3 bonus antlerless limit, but we can still kill 2 in archery and one in muzzle loader. That makes our 3 county a 6 county really fast. I would like to see the bonus wording dropped and make the county limits an all seasons antlerless limit.
|
|