|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 24, 2020 12:01:36 GMT -5
mattfinney I haven't hunted Iowa, but have hunted Kansas, which I feel has a similar approach to producing mature deer (long archery season, late and short gun season). Places like that are great to visit for a weeklong hunt because you get to reap the rewards of their more limited seasons. I much prefer to live somewhere like this though, with long periods of opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:01:51 GMT -5
What percentage of Iowa is public land? The total % can be misleading, because Iowa has a private access program that opens up a lot of prime acreage in some areas. Right, just another example of how Iowa DNR/regs is superior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 12:06:20 GMT -5
The total % can be misleading, because Iowa has a private access program that opens up a lot of prime acreage in some areas. Right, just another example of how Iowa DNR/regs is superior. You meant to say how Indiana DNR regs are superior...right?
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:08:11 GMT -5
mattfinney I haven't hunted Iowa, but have hunted Kansas, which I feel has a similar approach to producing mature deer (long archery season, late and short gun season). Places like that are great to visit for a weeklong hunt because you get to reap the rewards of their more limited seasons. I much prefer to live somewhere like this though, with long periods of opportunity. I feel that Iowa is much more favorable to the blue collar hunter. To have anything even remotely similar to the quality of Iowa's public land, most hoosiers would have to fork over thousands for a private lease or outfitted hunt. As a blue-collar type myself, I much prefer Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:10:48 GMT -5
Right, just another example of how Iowa DNR/regs is superior. You meant to say how Indiana DNR regs are superior...right? No, I actually wish Indiana had a program that would open up more private lands to the public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 12:14:11 GMT -5
You meant to say how Indiana DNR regs are superior...right? No, I actually wish Indiana had a program that would open up more private lands to the public. There already is a registry that you can sign on, that allows landowners to choose from registered hunters, and allow them access, if they so choose. Why would any landowner allow a stranger to hunt his ground for free when they can get paid by a leasing agent to allow strangers on and make a quick buck to boot? All this "pay to hunt" business is bad for not just the average hunter, but for the proper management of the herd.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:18:02 GMT -5
No, I actually wish Indiana had a program that would open up more private lands to the public. There already is a registry that you can sign on, that allows landowners to choose from registered hunters, and allow them access, if they so choose. Why would any landowner allow a stranger to hunt his ground for free when they can get paid by a leasing agent to allow strangers on and make a quick buck to boot? All this "pay to hunt" business is bad for not just the average hunter, but for the proper management of the herd. So you think it's bad that Iowa has a program that helps open up private lands to the public? And you are for the average hunter? Perhaps i misunderstood your post...
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 24, 2020 12:20:22 GMT -5
mattfinney I haven't hunted Iowa, but have hunted Kansas, which I feel has a similar approach to producing mature deer (long archery season, late and short gun season). Places like that are great to visit for a weeklong hunt because you get to reap the rewards of their more limited seasons. I much prefer to live somewhere like this though, with long periods of opportunity. I feel that Iowa is much more favorable to the blue collar hunter. To have anything even remotely similar to the quality of Iowa's public land, most hoosiers would have to fork over thousands for a private lease or outfitted hunt. As a blue-collar type myself, I much prefer Iowa. Blue collar bow hunters, yes. Not necessarily for gun only guys or kids. I agree with you on the access program, it would be great if Indiana had something similar. But, given Indiana's population and supply/demand scenario for hunting ground, I don't know if it's feasible or not.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Jan 24, 2020 12:21:34 GMT -5
Bow season has roughly 52 days including the week between gun and muzzleloader. Gun season/muzzleloader have 32 days total. Drop 20 days off bow season to make it equal amount of time between each so there will be no more they have more/less time than us. Anything after muzzleloader season you can choose a weapon of your choice. Same as it is now. Reduction/doe bonus. Youth season could start a few weeks later in middle of October before bow. Just throwing out ideas. Don’t hate. Anyone can go buy a crossbow and be ready to hunt after a few shots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 12:32:36 GMT -5
There already is a registry that you can sign on, that allows landowners to choose from registered hunters, and allow them access, if they so choose. Why would any landowner allow a stranger to hunt his ground for free when they can get paid by a leasing agent to allow strangers on and make a quick buck to boot? All this "pay to hunt" business is bad for not just the average hunter, but for the proper management of the herd. So you think it's bad that Iowa has a program that helps open up private lands to the public? And you are for the average hunter? Perhaps i misunderstood your post... I apologize if I`ve misunderstood you, or, been ambiguous myself. Certainly, it`s a great thing if there are ways to get land owners to open up their properties to regular hunters in order to deer hunt for free. In today`s world, at least from what I`ve seen personally and heard from others, the days of driving around and knocking on doors and gaining permission to deer hunt are all but a thing of the past. Nearly everyone either hunts themselves, or have family and friends that hunt, or both. Add to that the entrepreneurs that have made a living either locking up hunting rights on other`s property, or, bought up large swaths of property to own and lease themselves, and the ability to gain access to private ground is become more and more difficult to impossible everyday. I don`t know the particulars as to how exactly Iowa is getting pubic access to private ground, but I`m all for that type thing so long as it doesn`t increase the pressure on the regular, working guy, to somehow find a way to cough up even more money to be able to simply go deer hunting.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:32:59 GMT -5
I feel that Iowa is much more favorable to the blue collar hunter. To have anything even remotely similar to the quality of Iowa's public land, most hoosiers would have to fork over thousands for a private lease or outfitted hunt. As a blue-collar type myself, I much prefer Iowa. Blue collar bow hunters, yes. Not necessarily for gun only guys or kids. I agree with you on the access program, it would be great if Indiana had something similar. But, given Indiana's population and supply/demand scenario for hunting ground, I don't know if it's feasible or not. If we listened to gun-only hunters, there wouldn't even be a separate archery season. They're not happy about bowhunters having even any extra days at all. If we had just a single any-weapon season, it would have to be very short and the quality would still suck, and the DNR would still have money problems due to lack of interest in hunting. If you want to keep people interested in hunting, increasing quality is the way to go. Again, just look at Iowa. The quality is so good there, people will pay $600 to $800 for a tag that takes 3-5 years to draw. The Iowa DNR shouldn't see any money problems, and if they ever do, they can add a slight increase to NR quotas to immediately remedy it.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 24, 2020 12:35:08 GMT -5
Iowa has fewer licensed hunters than Indiana, and is about 1/3 again larger than Indiana. Basic rule of supply and demand dictates that ground will be harder to get access to here. Price per acre for a state run program would likely be much higher here than in Iowa. Why would a landowner allow open access to his ground by the public, when he can lease for $40+ per acre to just one or two people? Compensation by the state would need to be significantly better than going lease rates in order to garner much interest.
I don't say this to mean that an access program here in Indiana would be impossible, or that improvements can't be made, just that Indiana will never be Iowa due to factors beyond anyone's control.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 12:38:58 GMT -5
So you think it's bad that Iowa has a program that helps open up private lands to the public? And you are for the average hunter? Perhaps i misunderstood your post... I apologize if I`ve misunderstood you, or, been ambiguous myself. Certainly, it`s a great thing if there are ways to get land owners to open up their properties to regular hunters in order to deer hunt for free. In today`s world, at least from what I`ve seen personally and heard from others, the days of driving around and knocking on doors and gaining permission to deer hunt are all but a thing of the past. Nearly everyone either hunts themselves, or have family and friends that hunt, or both. Add to that the entrepreneurs that have made a living either locking up hunting rights on other`s property, or, bought up large swaths of property to own and lease themselves, and the ability to gain access to private ground is become more and more difficult to impossible everyday. I don`t know the particulars as to how exactly Iowa is getting pubic access to private ground, but I`m all for that type thing so long as it doesn`t increase the pressure on the regular, working guy, to somehow find a way to cough up even more money to be able to simply go deer hunting. Gotcha. If I'm not mistaken most Hoosiers cite lack of access as the main reason for quitting hunting. I'm all for increasing access. I also think you and I are in agreement in regard to leasing and outfitters. I'd be fine if both went away. I think a lot Hoosiers wouldn't feel any need at all to lease if they could find public land that was even half as good as the public land in Iowa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 12:39:15 GMT -5
Blue collar bow hunters, yes. Not necessarily for gun only guys or kids. I agree with you on the access program, it would be great if Indiana had something similar. But, given Indiana's population and supply/demand scenario for hunting ground, I don't know if it's feasible or not. If we listened to gun-only hunters, there wouldn't even be a separate archery season. They're not happy about bowhunters having even any extra days at all. If we had just a single any-weapon season, it would have to be very short and the quality would still suck, and the DNR would still have money problems due to lack of interest in hunting. If you want to keep people interested in hunting, increasing quality is the way to go. Again, just look at Iowa. The quality is so good there, people will pay $600 to $800 for a tag that takes 3-5 years to draw. The Iowa DNR shouldn't see any money problems, and if they ever do, they can add a slight increase to NR quotas to immediately remedy it. Is Indiana having money problems at the DNR? I mean more than any other government agency routinely has? As far as I know, Indiana has zero issues with interest or participation with hunting, from small game, to turkeys, to white-tail deer. There is a very healthy hunter population, with the youth hunts and the addition of the use of center-fire, pistol cartridge rifles and crossbows, bringing in more hunters, and keeping other aging hunters who might have to drop out otherwise. I like what we`re doing here in Indiana today, and really don`t care what others states do. I lie our status, and really just want to keep the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 24, 2020 12:43:16 GMT -5
I don't know about y'all, but for me living off the land is something I cherish even if I don't get to as much as I want or need. I guess 3 months is plenty of time to enjoy what we are so blessed to partake in and we shouldn't take it for granted. Yes, I had a tough year this year and I'm certain I'm not the only 1, but the INDNR set the regs for a reason, and every year the county quota goes up or down depending on the deer check in stats for that County.
|
|
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 24, 2020 12:51:11 GMT -5
I don't know about y'all, but for me living off the land is something I cherish even if I don't get to as much as I want or need. I guess 3 months is plenty of time to enjoy what we are so blessed to partake in and we shouldn't take it for granted. Yes, I had a tough year this year and I'm certain I'm not the only 1, but the INDNR set the regs for a reason, and every year the county quota goes up or down depending on the deer check in stats for that County. As for extending seasons, we can all sit here and discuss it but is it really going to change anything. We are a select breed of people who obviously have different thoughts and ideas, but at the same time share the same love and passion for Mother Nature.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 13:27:56 GMT -5
If we listened to gun-only hunters, there wouldn't even be a separate archery season. They're not happy about bowhunters having even any extra days at all. If we had just a single any-weapon season, it would have to be very short and the quality would still suck, and the DNR would still have money problems due to lack of interest in hunting. If you want to keep people interested in hunting, increasing quality is the way to go. Again, just look at Iowa. The quality is so good there, people will pay $600 to $800 for a tag that takes 3-5 years to draw. The Iowa DNR shouldn't see any money problems, and if they ever do, they can add a slight increase to NR quotas to immediately remedy it. Is Indiana having money problems at the DNR? I mean more than any other government agency routinely has? As far as I know, Indiana has zero issues with interest or participation with hunting, from small game, to turkeys, to white-tail deer. There is a very healthy hunter population, with the youth hunts and the addition of the use of center-fire, pistol cartridge rifles and crossbows, bringing in more hunters, and keeping other aging hunters who might have to drop out otherwise. I like what we`re doing here in Indiana today, and really don`t care what others states do. I lie our status, and really just want to keep the status quo. "The state's wildlife preservation programs rely on the sale of hunting licenses as a main source of funding, so Indiana's decline in hunting over the past decade is threatening conservation efforts along with communities and businesses that profit from the sport." www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-indiana-hunting-decline-st-0121-story.html
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 24, 2020 14:11:14 GMT -5
First thought, if you live hunting Iowa so much and already do, please continue and stop trying to take opportunities away from single season hunters here.
Second, there are a bunch of factors involved with creating a program to opening private ground to public hunting. Population centers and sprawl, parcel size, and viable ground to name a few.
Third, I have never heard a gun only hunter say they want to shorten archery season unless it's in response to archery hunters wanting to shorten or move gun seasons.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 24, 2020 14:15:36 GMT -5
First thought, if you live hunting Iowa so much and already do, please continue and stop trying to take opportunities away from single season hunters here. Second, there are a bunch of factors involved with creating a program to opening private ground to public hunting. Population centers and sprawl, parcel size, and viable ground to name a few. Third, I have never heard a gun only hunter say they want to shorten archery season unless it's in response to archery hunters wanting to shorten or move gun seasons. People also seem to forget every time this subject comes up is that Iowa has less than half the population of Indiana, living in a state that is 55% larger than Indiana (on a square mile basis). I hope Indiana does what Indiana has done for years. Leave the season dates, and length alone...
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jan 24, 2020 14:16:35 GMT -5
If your hunting and not seeing deer then most likely your area DON’T need MORE Hunting! This! A longer gun season means even more deer get taken in your area, which means even less are around. Compound that for a few years and you wont see a thing This I seriously doubt. If that is the case, then with as long of a season here in Indiana we should be wiping out the herd, not killing over 100,000+ deer per year. Habitat, predator numbers and weather factor into the deer population much more than hunters and the length of deer season. Look at some areas of Wi. Wolves killed more deer in a few counties than hunters did in 2019. I'd love to see some numbers on how many coyotes are here in Indiana, and how many deer each one kills per month (on average), including fawns.
|
|