|
Post by tynimiller on Oct 18, 2016 8:57:09 GMT -5
m4madness, me and others have harped on it time and time again and I loved what m4 said above again.
Suitable habitat and habitat loss is a much bigger issue than many in IWDHM wants to admit. When I brought it up I got ragged on due to the simple fact I offer habitat consulting on Small Acre Hunting...guess what? I've taken one onsite job over the last 2 and half years due to working 2 other jobs and have offered countless free consultation ideas over the internet via email and videos set to the people asking advice...yeah big money maker there. Never even crossed the $600 line to report on taxes yet (made less than $400 that year), I know I could if I devoted the time but just can't.
However I'm getting sidetracked. m4 nailed it when he described Northern Indiana. It is a random assortment of small clusters of timber and wood lots rarely reaching 100's of acres in succession and in contiguous nature. The deer here are different, and you hunt them different for sure. It amazes me how small of a pocket (couple acres) can daytime hold a number of deer.
Habitat loss comes in multiple fashions up here.....the obvious is just sheer loss to building development.
The second is loss due to crop farmers desiring more tillable ground, removing wood lines/fence lines/cover to be able to increase plantable acreage and in turn provide for their livelihood more.
The third is the maturing of the woods to the point good habitat is lacking or completely gone. So many woodlots are barren on the understory, providing zero cover, zero food and zero resources.
It isn't shocking to learn that people I know that say have 10 or 20 acres that do habitat improvement see more deer than their surrounding neighbors...it is plain and simple: provide better habitat the deer naturally and instinctively will come.
No it doesn't create deer, which is what I think IWDHM thought I meant. Whatever deer you have in your area, you will up your chances of seeing them more consistently if they know they have security, food and water.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 18, 2016 11:45:26 GMT -5
The woods around me down here are big enough to get turned around in sometimes. Lol! In most spots where I climb a tree around my place, I cannot even see a field through the trees. We have fields down here too, but the forests are usually larger.
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Oct 18, 2016 16:12:25 GMT -5
I really don't have a problem with this group if their main goal is a healthy deer herd for every county in the state by increasing or decreasing bag limits. I would have a problem if their only goal is to increase the size of antlers the male deer can grow by restricting time spent afield and when that time is spent. I'm amazed at what some will do to keep me and you from killing "their" deer as seen when the "stakeholders" several years ago laid their prop 1 deer rules on the table.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 18, 2016 16:59:19 GMT -5
I really don't have a problem with this group if their main goal is a healthy deer herd for every county in the state by increasing or decreasing bag limits. I would have a problem if their only goal is to increase the size of antlers the male deer can grow by restricting time spent afield and when that time is spent. I'm amazed at what some will do to keep me and you from killing "their" deer as seen when the "stakeholders" several years ago laid their prop 1 deer rules on the table. They say their propose is to increase the deer herd and preserve a healthy population for future generations. During this CDAC discussion, I have seen the push to move and shorten gun season, shorten the muzzleloader season, and eliminate the late doe season completely. But hey, removing the main deer management tool the DNR has won't cause any extreme repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Oct 18, 2016 17:20:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 18, 2016 17:34:22 GMT -5
Didn't Wisconsins deer herd have a lot of issues with cedar with several Depopulation counties ?
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Oct 18, 2016 17:37:56 GMT -5
Didn't Wisconsins deer herd have a lot of issues with cedar with several Depopulation counties ? Most of the post I've seen blame it on earn a buck, too many doe tags and wolves.
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Oct 18, 2016 18:20:03 GMT -5
That's are problem in IN. To many doe tags and to many wolves, and not the 4 legged kind.
|
|
|
Post by wesb81219 on Oct 18, 2016 18:21:38 GMT -5
I live in extreme northern Indiana, right on lake Michigan. I may be new to deer hunting but it would be my observation and opinion habitat is our main issue up here. There are some great properties that are Slightly under 100 acres up to a few hundred acres. Not much of great size and vast amounts of forest. I had permission on a 237 acre property that was just phenomenal and was great habitat and only 50 acres was ag field. It had tons of oak trees, a great ridgeline with a brook running through it, a portion of some very thick stuff. I mean you honestly couldn't ask for better. Well now it's going to be lost and broken up because the family put it in an auction and my guess would be in smaller parcels as to sell more quickly. That is the problem we face up north.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 18, 2016 18:25:06 GMT -5
Honestly the old CDAC, that I was a part of for a VERY brief time, is nothing like what they are proposing. The old CDAC was a group of us that met in Indy and was comprised of different folks from various backgrounds. I was an unaffiliated (belonging to no organized hunting group) deer hunter.
What they are proposing is statewide, but they will meet locally.
In my opinion, it is not the results that they will come up with, but the process itself that is on trial. Contrary to some beliefs the DNR is not made up of a bunch of dummies. They will recognize a process for what it is – good or bad. Time will tell.
By being around this for quite a while I do know that any deer management input meeting will attract more disgruntled deer hunters than ones that are fat and happy. That in and of itself could swing a bias.
Personally I am more impressed with the deer hunter and land owner surveys that the DNR conducts ever couple years or so than a bunch of deer hunters going to a meeting. Those results are verifiable. But that is me..
As I said – Time will tell…
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Oct 18, 2016 18:31:45 GMT -5
I live in extreme northern Indiana, right on lake Michigan. I may be new to deer hunting but it would be my observation and opinion habitat is our main issue up here. There are some great properties that are Slightly under 100 acres up to a few hundred acres. Not much of great size and vast amounts of forest. I had permission on a 237 acre property that was just phenomenal and was great habitat and only 50 acres was ag field. It had tons of oak trees, a great ridgeline with a brook running through it, a portion of some very thick stuff. I mean you honestly couldn't ask for better. Well now it's going to be lost and broken up because the family put it in an auction and my guess would be in smaller parcels as to sell more quickly. That is the problem we face up north. Although not as bad YET, we in the southern part of the state have lost a lot of ground to the very same thing. Especially small game habitat. It is something that is being lost daily. My favorite deer hunting spot while growing up is now a city owned camp ground with paved walking trails though it.
|
|
kp44
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by kp44 on Oct 18, 2016 18:34:18 GMT -5
Cdac provides a recommendation to maintain,increase or decrease every 3 years. Bonus quotas every year. No changes on season length or weapons used. IWDHM is not trying to do anything but get hunters voices back so they can help get a stable deer herd in their county. The info for the cdac is on IWDHM web site. Iwdhm.com look it up and do some research. To answer another question...unless you hunt every county you can't speak for everybody. The hunters on the cdac will have to fill out an application to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by wesb81219 on Oct 18, 2016 18:46:28 GMT -5
I live in extreme northern Indiana, right on lake Michigan. I may be new to deer hunting but it would be my observation and opinion habitat is our main issue up here. There are some great properties that are Slightly under 100 acres up to a few hundred acres. Not much of great size and vast amounts of forest. I had permission on a 237 acre property that was just phenomenal and was great habitat and only 50 acres was ag field. It had tons of oak trees, a great ridgeline with a brook running through it, a portion of some very thick stuff. I mean you honestly couldn't ask for better. Well now it's going to be lost and broken up because the family put it in an auction and my guess would be in smaller parcels as to sell more quickly. That is the problem we face up north. Although not as bad YET, we in the southern part of the state have lost a lot of ground to the very same thing. Especially small game habitat. It is something that is being lost daily. My favorite deer hunting spot while growing up is now a city owned camp ground with paved walking trails though it. It's a shame to say the least. I understand providing for your family, living a better life and all that money brings. It's really a 2 headed monster. What if people didn't sell their land and joined in on the lease to hunt. It's already bad enough as it is, most including myself can't afford to lease and I believe if more people jumped on the bandwagon prices would soar even higher. Then there's public land hunting as I do. the hunting pressure on public land is just astronomical compared to private land hunting. So thus it is really a 3 headed monster.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 18, 2016 18:51:16 GMT -5
Cdac provides a recommendation to maintain,increase or decrease every 3 years. Bonus quotas every year. No changes on season length or weapons used. IWDHM is not trying to do anything but get hunters voices back so they can help get a stable deer herd in their county. The info for the cdac is on IWDHM web site. Iwdhm.com look it up and do some research. To answer another question...unless you hunt every county you can't speak for everybody. The hunters on the cdac will have to fill out an application to be considered. Who makes the decision on those wanting to be considered
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 18, 2016 18:57:08 GMT -5
To answer another question...unless you hunt every county you can't speak for everybody. And someone from my county can speak for other residents of the same county? Lawrence County is literally crawling with deer, yet I can guarantee that someone somewhere in this county will say that all of the deer have been killed off. Lol! Deer sightings are VERY subjective. Moving a mere 100 yards can make a difference between seeing 0 deer and seeing 12, let alone the other side of the county. I could care less if they reduce the bonus antlerless quota, but I do grow weary of hearing people talking like deer are extinct. Hunters today have become spoiled when it comes to deer sightings and complain when they don't see a half dozen a sit. There's probably 50+ deer per square mile where I hunt, but I sometimes go days without seeing any.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 18, 2016 19:06:38 GMT -5
You can put some hunters on prime ground and they will still have difficulty seeing deer for a variety of reasons....
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Oct 18, 2016 19:10:32 GMT -5
Cdac provides a recommendation to maintain,increase or decrease every 3 years. Bonus quotas every year. No changes on season length or weapons used. IWDHM is not trying to do anything but get hunters voices back so they can help get a stable deer herd in their county. The info for the cdac is on IWDHM web site. Iwdhm.com look it up and do some research. To answer another question...unless you hunt every county you can't speak for everybody. The hunters on the cdac will have to fill out an application to be considered. Don't bring up your last point to them...bringing up the fact of diverse localized deer herds is something classified as disharmony and has resulted in bannings. Again though I think the motives for the most part are good and valid. My issue is though they attack instead of discuss...and someone said they want the ability to discuss and increase or decrease bonus numbers every year....this group has NEVER brought up the concept of increasing quotas, they have made it absolutely crystal clear in their opinion quotas are too high and that if we keep it up our childrens children may not have deer to hunt. CDAC by nature are great however one HAS to ensure random and equaitable input. If doing County surveys one must pool randomly or entirely every hunter in the county that spent a day in the field and someone quanitify or weight the results by time spent in the field as well. (Guy hunts 1 day vs one who hunts 30) Neither has a more important opinion but one definitely "should" have a greater data source to pull from. Another thing is they claim their is currently zero public input to setting quotas....false IMO. Harvest totals, which are a defined and measurable data source are committed by the public. Also the random surveys of all hunters done by the DNR, again public input. Also the DNR does have an email and throughout the year at times seek public input on many different topics. In the end, so long as it stays absolutely unbias, gets greater hunter input than surveys already conducted and is rain in a professional and respectful way...and they do what jjas outlined earlier I say good deal and go for it.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Oct 18, 2016 19:11:35 GMT -5
You can put some hunters on prime ground and they will still have difficulty seeing deer for a variety of reasons.... Amen....I lose one spot in gun season just like you describe.
|
|
kp44
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by kp44 on Oct 18, 2016 19:18:09 GMT -5
Cdac provides a recommendation to maintain,increase or decrease every 3 years. Bonus quotas every year. No changes on season length or weapons used. IWDHM is not trying to do anything but get hunters voices back so they can help get a stable deer herd in their county. The info for the cdac is on IWDHM web site. Iwdhm.com look it up and do some research. To answer another question...unless you hunt every county you can't speak for everybody. The hunters on the cdac will have to fill out an application to be considered. .Who makes the decision on those wanting to be considered in Wisconsin the secretary of dnr does. Indiana will be similar position if enacted statewide. Dnr can override cdac goes off base
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 18, 2016 19:37:03 GMT -5
You can put some hunters on prime ground and they will still have difficulty seeing deer for a variety of reasons.... Exactly..... "But it's for the Kids"..... SMH...one of the Biggest lies in this BS...IMO
|
|