|
Post by bobrooney on Dec 19, 2016 16:56:57 GMT -5
I agree that northern Indiana doesnt, nor should it, ever produce the numbers of deer that southern Indiana does. However, the farming boom, in agricultural northern Indiana, has produced an all out onslaught of habitat destruction, clear cutting, fence rows and vast drainage ditches being stripped of trees and grass/riparian buffers etc. Responsible and environmentally sound farming practices are not just devastating to water quality and soil consevation, or simply the deer herd, but all wildlife is at risk. Any land that a tractor can get to, will be planted. Acreage costs are incredibly inflated and average, and even well off families can't afford to purchase meaningful acreage. There's a difference between number of deer tagged...and number/activity witnessed.
|
|
|
Post by scrobertson on Dec 19, 2016 17:10:08 GMT -5
I agree that northern Indiana doesnt, nor should it, ever produce the numbers of deer that southern Indiana does. However, the farming boom, in agricultural northern Indiana, has produced an all out onslaught of habitat destruction, clear cutting, fence rows and vast drainage ditches being stripped of trees and grass/riparian buffers etc. Responsible and environmentally sound farming practices are not just devastating to water quality and soil consevation, or simply the deer herd, but all wildlife is at risk. Any land that a tractor can get to, will be planted. Acreage costs are incredibly inflated and average, and even well off families can't afford to purchase meaningful acreage. There's a difference between number of deer tagged...and number/activity witnessed. Excellent post! Just look at quail and pheasant. Haven't herd a quail in my area for a few years now. Not the case 10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 19, 2016 17:43:14 GMT -5
A little research will show anyone who truly wants to know, that the Northern half of the state(with exception to a couple counties) have ALWAYS been the lesser producing counties for deer harvest. ALWAYS!! why is this just now a concern for people? I see nothing but consistency in harvest tendencies from my 25 years Monday morning quarterbacking. Overall harvest fluctuate up and down but the individual county numbers seem to correlate. Am I wrong on this? I'm going off my memory of paying attention to the harvest totals that were printed in every yearly IN hunting Reg magazine and could definitely be wrong. Which ties back to what I said earlier.... I know that there are exceptions, but when you look @ the numbers for many northern counties over the last few seasons, while they are down a bit it's nothing I would consider drastic considering that herd reduction has been a priority. So why haven't the harvest numbers in many of these counties dropped to the point that it would match the reports you read from hunters saying they just aren't seeing deer anymore? How does that happen?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 19, 2016 19:39:55 GMT -5
I agree that northern Indiana doesnt, nor should it, ever produce the numbers of deer that southern Indiana does. However, the farming boom, in agricultural northern Indiana, has produced an all out onslaught of habitat destruction, clear cutting, fence rows and vast drainage ditches being stripped of trees and grass/riparian buffers etc. Responsible and environmentally sound farming practices are not just devastating to water quality and soil consevation, or simply the deer herd, but all wildlife is at risk. Any land that a tractor can get to, will be planted. Acreage costs are incredibly inflated and average, and even well off families can't afford to purchase meaningful acreage. There's a difference between number of deer tagged...and number/activity witnessed. Yes, farmers use their property to produce their products and take care of their families. Oh, and yours as well. If you want to complain about farmers using their land, go right ahead and complain about all the habitat that is lost every year in housing developments, strip malls, and factories.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 20, 2016 8:30:48 GMT -5
I agree that northern Indiana doesnt, nor should it, ever produce the numbers of deer that southern Indiana does. However, the farming boom, in agricultural northern Indiana, has produced an all out onslaught of habitat destruction, clear cutting, fence rows and vast drainage ditches being stripped of trees and grass/riparian buffers etc. Responsible and environmentally sound farming practices are not just devastating to water quality and soil consevation, or simply the deer herd, but all wildlife is at risk. Any land that a tractor can get to, will be planted. Acreage costs are incredibly inflated and average, and even well off families can't afford to purchase meaningful acreage. There's a difference between number of deer tagged...and number/activity witnessed. Yup, which no one can blame the farmers at all, they're merely doing what they are supposed to in order to ensure their families and business (farm for some of them is primary) are successful and taken care of. The irony is when folks hunt these large crop fields and complain of not having high deer density...well...once harvest occurs your ground seriously offers ZERO to the whitetail deer (once residuals are cleaned up). The concept of some is, "If my neighbors would stop shooting a couple does I would have a chance then...well not exactly...perhaps your property simply isn't conducive to much deer use.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 20, 2016 8:32:00 GMT -5
And With no bonus tags period you can still kill 4 deer ? With the bundle available I'm not sure why they even offer bonus antlerless tags. I'd like to see them do away with them completely. I know many places that taking just 1 buck and then 2 does off wouldn't be enough...and other places where it is too much. I can't justify either way of thinking...
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 20, 2016 8:59:45 GMT -5
Just my opinion but I have noticed a more cordial attitude amongst the ranks on the IWDHM site. I'm all for lowering deer county antlerless tags and elimination of late antlerless season and would be perfectly fine with a 1 buck 2 doe limit with additional antlerless tags available in area's of high deer population's. EX. Urban area's and counties with high deer population's. Bottom line though, no matter what the IDNR does in regard's to county limits and late antlerless season, some group of hunters will not be happy.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 20, 2016 9:02:48 GMT -5
Sure they might be realizing the unprofessional and immature approach achieves nothing...The DNR has been lowering quotas overall last couple years, I expect even more counties to drop again and more out of the late season antlerless season as well.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 20, 2016 9:15:50 GMT -5
tynimiller
Exactly. People think that areas with marginal habitat and high hunter densities not having deer all over the place is somehow the fault of the DNR.
Even if there wasn't a late antlerless season and bonus antlerless tags, the reality is (and this has been said dozens of times) a person can still kill 4 deer a year in this state every year.
Finally, if you aren't seeing deer in the numbers you think you should be...how about easing up on the deer and trying to improve the habitat?
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Dec 20, 2016 11:08:32 GMT -5
tynimiller Exactly. People think that areas with marginal habitat and high hunter densities not having deer all over the place is somehow the fault of the DNR. Even if there wasn't a late antlerless season and bonus antlerless tags, the reality is (and this has been said dozens of times) a person can still kill 4 deer a year in this state every year. Finally, if you aren't seeing deer in the numbers you think you should be...how about easing up on the deer and trying to improve the habitat? This. Even on this site ive seen a few people complain they arent seeing deer in the numbers they used to, then tag 3 or 4 this season. WE do have control over the deer population. DNR merely sets limits, doesnt mean we have any obligation to meet those limits.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 20, 2016 11:14:16 GMT -5
medic22
I've noticed the same on most forums and facebook pages. You read posts from people who b*tch and moan about bonus antlerless permits, season lengths/date and equipment choices, yet when it's advantageous to them, they seem to have zero problem taking advantage of the very things they complain constantly about...
It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude some seem to have.....
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Dec 20, 2016 12:05:01 GMT -5
medic22 I've noticed the same on most forums and facebook pages. You read posts from people who b*tch and moan about bonus antlerless permits, season lengths/date and equipment choices, yet when it's advantageous to them, they seem to have zero problem taking advantage of the very things they complain constantly about... It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude some seem to have..... What would be the point in their passing one just so their neighbor could shoot two through the guts and never even bother to look for either one? "There it is dip." "Oh that's the one I shot yesterday."
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 20, 2016 13:24:19 GMT -5
It is a unknown when passing a deer if it will live to see another day. It is a certain it won't if you kill it today. Worry about what you can control and not what other people do. If you want to attempt to manage deer at a local level. STEP 1 is communicating with neighbor's and getting them on same boat. Seen it first hand and it work's. Passed on over 20 different bucks this season, several multiple time's, and a couple in the high 120's range, before harvesting my biggest buck to date a 166" 12 point. Already have trail cam pics of both of the 120 class bucks I passed since firearms ended. I only have 140 acre's.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 20, 2016 13:37:07 GMT -5
medic22 I've noticed the same on most forums and facebook pages. You read posts from people who b*tch and moan about bonus antlerless permits, season lengths/date and equipment choices, yet when it's advantageous to them, they seem to have zero problem taking advantage of the very things they complain constantly about... It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude some seem to have..... What would be the point in their passing one just so their neighbor could shoot two through the guts and never even bother to look for either one? "There it is dip." "Oh that's the one I shot yesterday." While I find your example a bit disturbing and not germane to the subject @ hand, for the sake of argument if someone wants to shoot any legal deer that passes by them (without violating game laws and bag limits)...I really don't care. But...as I said before...it gets old reading posts from people who b*tch and moan about bonus antlerless permits, season lengths/dates and equipment choices, yet when it's advantageous to them, they seem to have zero problem taking advantage of the very things they complain constantly about... IMO, it makes them a hypocrite....
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 20, 2016 14:20:46 GMT -5
With the bundle available I'm not sure why they even offer bonus antlerless tags. I'd like to see them do away with them completely. I know many places that taking just 1 buck and then 2 does off wouldn't be enough...and other places where it is too much. I can't justify either way of thinking... Do you have any pictures of these many places? I've been on some great deer ground in southern Indiana and never (outside of state parks) have I seen where the deer were in need of being reduced due to overpopulation. It seems most hunters want to reduce the numbers to their own satisfaction rather than the health of the heard.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Dec 20, 2016 14:36:48 GMT -5
I know many places that taking just 1 buck and then 2 does off wouldn't be enough...and other places where it is too much. I can't justify either way of thinking... Do you have any pictures of these many places? I've been on some great deer ground in southern Indiana and never (outside of state parks) have I seen where the deer were in need of being reduced due to overpopulation. It seems most hunters want to reduce the numbers to their own satisfaction rather than the health of the heard. Me personally? What is a picture going to do? I can take a picture of a food plot with 1 doe or that same field another time with 15? I'll use an example of the 3 main spots I hunt, although I hunt some others these are the main 3: -1 of them has a very healthy deer population and with no one else around really taking does, it could see us harvest 3 or more from the one 70 acre property and not miss a beat next year (haven't taken any yet, but planning late season plot hunting will give 1 atleast) -Another spot used to be just loaded with deer...now there are over double the amount of hunters encircling it (downside to habitat work) and we most likely will not take more than one doe off it a year unless a high fawn recruitment happens, not many neighbors will take a doe here either. -The 3rd is my New Property I bought....I have 3 does that seriously live on the thing every day....however outside of them one other doe family comes around consistently...but this is also the first year of owning and observing. We're holding off doe harvesting this year off it until we get a better gauge of the property. I know a few fellas on this site that I know do amazing habitat work that takes 4-8 does off their property seemingly each year without any issues...it is all location. Some areas no does should be harvested, shoot I've never taken more than 1 doe in a season other than one year if memory serves and some of those years I very easily could have justified it. May yet this year, but only at the one spot most likely where population is surging.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 20, 2016 14:52:03 GMT -5
I know many places that taking just 1 buck and then 2 does off wouldn't be enough...and other places where it is too much. I can't justify either way of thinking... Do you have any pictures of these many places? I've been on some great deer ground in southern Indiana and never (outside of state parks) have I seen where the deer were in need of being reduced due to overpopulation. It seems most hunters want to reduce the numbers to their own satisfaction rather than the health of the heard. We harvested 7 doe's off my 140 acre property in Switzerland County this season. Easily could have harvested several more. I took 3 but I had no need for more. Invited 2 friends over and they each took 2. The last doe harvested my friend had 21 antlerless in the field when he shot her. I realize my situation is much different than most as I have 2 large adjoining farms of 230-240 acres respectively and they rarely shot a doe off either. Both hunt but are older and hunt only for bucks. I plant over 15 acres in food plots and plant a couple fields in addition for the two neighbor's as well. Have a friend that lives 8 miles away with 180 acres and he has more deer than I do. I have it good and he has better. He killed a monster 195" NT this season and 3 doe's along with a 155" by a land partner and a 130" buck by his step son. He already has 8 bucks on trail cam over 130" since gun season ended.
|
|
|
Post by 10point on Dec 20, 2016 15:59:29 GMT -5
[/quote]We harvested 7 doe's off my 140 acre property in Switzerland County this season. Easily could have harvested several more. I took 3 but I had no need for more. Invited 2 friends over and they each took 2. The last doe harvested my friend had 21 antlerless in the field when he shot her. I realize my situation is much different than most as I have 2 large adjoining farms of 230-240 acres respectively and they rarely shot a doe off either. Both hunt but are older and hunt only for bucks. I plant over 15 acres in food plots and plant a couple fields in addition for the two neighbor's as well. Have a friend that lives 8 miles away with 180 acres and he has more deer than I do. I have it good and he has better. He killed a monster 195" NT this season and 3 doe's along with a 155" by a land partner and a 130" buck by his step son. He already has 8 bucks on trail cam over 130" since gun season ended. [/quote] I would like to be your friend.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Dec 20, 2016 16:36:49 GMT -5
Do you have any pictures of these many places? I've been on some great deer ground in southern Indiana and never (outside of state parks) have I seen where the deer were in need of being reduced due to overpopulation. It seems most hunters want to reduce the numbers to their own satisfaction rather than the health of the heard. Me personally? What is a picture going to do? I can take a picture of a food plot with 1 doe or that same field another time with 15? I'll use an example of the 3 main spots I hunt, although I hunt some others these are the main 3: -1 of them has a very healthy deer population and with no one else around really taking does, it could see us harvest 3 or more from the one 70 acre property and not miss a beat next year (haven't taken any yet, but planning late season plot hunting will give 1 atleast) -Another spot used to be just loaded with deer...now there are over double the amount of hunters encircling it (downside to habitat work) and we most likely will not take more than one doe off it a year unless a high fawn recruitment happens, not many neighbors will take a doe here either. -The 3rd is my New Property I bought....I have 3 does that seriously live on the thing every day....however outside of them one other doe family comes around consistently...but this is also the first year of owning and observing. We're holding off doe harvesting this year off it until we get a better gauge of the property. I know a few fellas on this site that I know do amazing habitat work that takes 4-8 does off their property seemingly each year without any issues...it is all location. Some areas no does should be harvested, shoot I've never taken more than 1 doe in a season other than one year if memory serves and some of those years I very easily could have justified it. May yet this year, but only at the one spot most likely where population is surging. Pictures of obvious browse lines, starving deer, ect. Something that proves a place NEEDS more than 3 does taken off of it for the health of the herd. About dark I could probably get a picture of 20+ does (32 the other evening) feeding in the cornfield next to my house. They are all healthy as can be though.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Dec 20, 2016 20:28:02 GMT -5
What would be the point in their passing one just so their neighbor could shoot two through the guts and never even bother to look for either one? "There it is dip." "Oh that's the one I shot yesterday." while I find your example a bit unrealistic, for the sake of argument if someone wants to do what you are saying and shoot whatever walks their way (as long as it's legal)...I really don't don't care. But...as I said before...it gets old reading posts from people who b*tch and moan about bonus antlerless permits, season lengths/dates and equipment choices, yet when it's advantageous to them, they seem to have zero problem taking advantage of the very things they complain constantly about... IMO, it makes them a hypocrite.... You can find it or think what ever you want but I could point right at the guy here in this forum if I wanted to. Not that it matters he's just one of hundreds out there and there's more in every other forum. If there's a hunting forum there is the "wounded one guy" and the "killed all I could use and then some just for fun" guy. It's a waste of time in areas with a lot of public land. It's not the habitat, the disease, or the law, it's the PUBLIC. As a general rule, they are low class. Just think about the AVERAGE hunter out there and remember half are even worse than him.
|
|