|
Post by greghopper on Jan 24, 2020 15:26:23 GMT -5
I rather have Kentucky’s regs if were gonna change!! Cool, what are the key differences that you would like to see Indiana adopt? No need in hashing that out.... our regs aren’t changing to what you want any time soon! Guess you can still always wish though..... Christmas be here in 11 more months.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 15:35:33 GMT -5
Tons of deer, balanced sex ratio in the herd, balanced age structure in the herd, big bucks everywhere, need I say more? The dead giveaway is the fact that people will wait 5 years to pay $800 just for the license.... Indiana is already ranked in the top ten in number of both Pope and Young, and Boone and Crocket bucks taken annually. We typically kill over 100,000 deer annually, and some estimate that at least that many are poached each year as well, so we already do have "a ton of deer and big bucks everywhere". I don't see any advantage or attraction to having a flood of nonresident hunters flocking to the state. Indiana residents own, and pay for the deer and deer management here, and again, I believe hunter satisfaction is high, as things are right now, today. When you have hunted both public land in Indiana and Iowa, you will realize how foolish your post sounds. I will always ask that our DNR put Indiana resident hunters first, and not roll out programs that encourage a disproportionate number of nonresident hunters to flood the state. Me too. Indiana has unlimited cheap tags for NR's, Iowa has very expensive limited tags for NR's. If you think Indiana treats its residents better than Iowa, then I want what your smoking!!
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 15:36:18 GMT -5
Cool, what are the key differences that you would like to see Indiana adopt? No need in hashing that out.... our regs aren’t changing to what you want any time soon! Guess you can still always wish though..... Christmas be here in 11 more months. Gotcha, you were just spouting a bunch of nonsense.....good to know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 15:43:10 GMT -5
Indiana is already ranked in the top ten in number of both Pope and Young, and Boone and Crocket bucks taken annually. We typically kill over 100,000 deer annually, and some estimate that at least that many are poached each year as well, so we already do have "a ton of deer and big bucks everywhere". I don't see any advantage or attraction to having a flood of nonresident hunters flocking to the state. Indiana residents own, and pay for the deer and deer management here, and again, I believe hunter satisfaction is high, as things are right now, today. When you have hunted both public land in Indiana and Iowa, you will realize how foolish your post sounds. I will always ask that our DNR put Indiana resident hunters first, and not roll out programs that encourage a disproportionate number of nonresident hunters to flood the state. Me too. Indiana has unlimited cheap tags for NR's, Iowa has very expensive limited tags for NR's. If you think Indiana treats its residents better than Iowa, then I want what your smoking!!Uhhh,ok. The insults are unnecessary. We have a huge difference of opinion, and I'm neither on drugs, or foolish. I hope you enjoy your stay at Hunting Indiana, and we don't need to have any further interaction.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 24, 2020 15:46:48 GMT -5
No need in hashing that out.... our regs aren’t changing to what you want any time soon! Guess you can still always wish though..... Christmas be here in 11 more months. Gotcha, you were just spouting a bunch of nonsense.....good to know. Nope.... just no need in inventing the wheel with you! Your one of the ones that wanted the DNR to reduce/move the gun days to reduce the Deer herd in the past... Most smart folks know how that ended!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 24, 2020 15:51:15 GMT -5
Every year someone tries to push the Iowa regs on Indiana hunters and to this point, it hasn't gained any traction. I personally like Indiana, doing what Indiana is doing. It must be doing something right as the herd is stable, good bucks are killed every season and non-residents are coming to Indiana in good numbers.
If the IDNR needs additional monies they should charge a higher fee like Iowa does. For the sake of argument, let's use Matt's figure of $800 dollars. If 11.540 hunters (the number of non-residents who bought deer licenses in the 2019 season) paid $800 that would result in a grand total of $9,232,000 in revenue.
Who needs Iowa regs when you could make that kind of money without changing a thing?
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 24, 2020 16:00:37 GMT -5
All I see is a bunch of crying. You saw this coming 5 pages ago..
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 24, 2020 16:14:32 GMT -5
What’s your definition of “Best deer hunting”? Do tell , Matt Tons of deer, balanced sex ratio in the herd, balanced age structure in the herd, big bucks everywhere, need I say more? The dead giveaway is the fact that people will wait 5 years to pay $800 just for the license.... We cant have "tons of deer". We have too many people, towns, roads, and then the farmers that would go back to shooting them like rats like we did back in the 90s. We are about 5% of the population and the DNR cannot cater to us, be glad we get to have deer to hunt. Balancing the sex ratio means what in your mind. Just enough does that the big boys have to be on their feet all the time as slaves to their nature so hunters have an easier time killing them? If we as hunters weren't trying to make killing big old deer easier all the time, the age structure would be more balanced like it used to be. Big bucks are everywhere that big bucks should be. I would love to work up the numbers, but there is so much land mass in Indiana that is not and should not be considered good deer habitat that people just seem to not want to admit. Add in the ground that actually is good deer habitat, but not huntable ground and we might have about 1/3 of the state left. Indiana is not, and will never be, any of these "greatest place to kill a monster trophy" deer states. That's okay. We are filled with tens of thousands hard working people that just want to spend some time in the woods alone, with friends, with family, some times with strangers, and have as many opportunities as possible to take a deer home. We aren't Michael Waddel, Bill Jordan, Lee Laskowski, or any of the dozens of other people who get paid to sell products by killing big deer on highly managed properties or behind fences.It's okay, we accept that. Oh, and those big deer are another product they try to sell. That's why the outfitter's contact information is on the bottom of the screen at the end of the show.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 24, 2020 16:19:48 GMT -5
I don't believe that Indiana has the right habitat to mimic Iowa's hunting, even if the seasons and weapons allowed were matched 100%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 16:22:59 GMT -5
I don't believe that Indiana has the right habitat to mimic Iowa's hunting, even if the seasons and weapons allowed were matched 100%. I would think that someone so in awe of Iowa deer hunting would either move there, or hunt these exclusively, as a nonresident hunter.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 24, 2020 16:46:30 GMT -5
I don't believe that Indiana has the right habitat to mimic Iowa's hunting, even if the seasons and weapons allowed were matched 100%. Were closer then most think... are we exact probably not but most ground in the Midwest isn’t that far off from other states. Indiana just didn’t get passed over .. IMO What we are missing is the amount of Huntable land.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 17:10:03 GMT -5
Every year someone tries to push the Iowa regs on Indiana hunters and to this point, it hasn't gained any traction. I personally like Indiana, doing what Indiana is doing. It must be doing something right as the herd is stable, good bucks are killed every season and non-residents are coming to Indiana in good numbers. If the IDNR needs additional monies they should charge a higher fee like Iowa does. For the sake of argument, let's use Matt's figure of $800 dollars. If 11.540 hunters (the number of non-residents who bought deer licenses in the 2019 season) paid $800 that would result in a grand total of $9,232,000 in revenue. Who needs Iowa regs when you could make that kind of money without changing a thing? No one would pay $800 to hunt Indiana UNLESS Indiana had regs more similar to Iowa. The regs are what make Iowa great. People will pay $50 for a steak at a nice restarant, but not for a fast food. Trying to sell Indiana tags for $800 would be like trying to charge $50 for a big mac.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 24, 2020 17:19:06 GMT -5
I don't believe that Indiana has the right habitat to mimic Iowa's hunting, even if the seasons and weapons allowed were matched 100%. Were closer then most think... are we exact probably not but most ground in the Midwest isn’t that far off from other states. Indiana just didn’t get passed over .. IMO Habitat to me in this sense also includes human population per square mile. There are definitely twice as many people living in Indiana as Iowa. I have no idea if hunter densities in the field are similar or not between the two states. Iowa is slowly modernizing their deer hunting to match other Midwest states, finally allowing certain rifles to be used instead of the slug guns of old.
|
|
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 24, 2020 17:23:29 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. Not trying to make anyone butt hole hurt, but if your a gun only deer hunter and want gun season extended then you might want to become more versatile in this sport. Archery starts October 1st and last to the very end, and no breaks in between season changes. Unless your lucky enough to be able to hunt reduction zones. So when everyone else is waiting for the next round to come, you COULD be out taking advantage of the opportunity and trying to seize the moment.
|
|
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 24, 2020 17:26:34 GMT -5
That anything goes late season is only for counties with a 3+ bonus antlerless limit, and it is antlerless only. Is it 3, or is it 4? Depends on the county you hunt. Bundle license is 1 buck and 2 doe or 3 doe regardless of what County you hunt in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 17:29:58 GMT -5
Tons of deer, balanced sex ratio in the herd, balanced age structure in the herd, big bucks everywhere, need I say more? The dead giveaway is the fact that people will wait 5 years to pay $800 just for the license.... We cant have "tons of deer". We have too many people, towns, roads, and then the farmers that would go back to shooting them like rats like we did back in the 90s. We are about 5% of the population and the DNR cannot cater to us, be glad we get to have deer to hunt. Farmers have any easy solution, all they've ever had to do is allow hunting on their properties, and their deer problems go away.
Also, the DNR complains of lower hunter numbers. I would argue that the best way to recruit hunters and keep them interested is to have large deer herd. The DNR knows this, at least to some degree, and they have backed off of the killing spree we've had in recent years. Balancing the sex ratio means what in your mind. Just enough does that the big boys have to be on their feet all the time as slaves to their nature so hunters have an easier time killing them? Believe it or not, it's easier to get new hunters interested in hunting if they see lots of deer. More cruising/chasing will help keep new hunters interested. Recruiting new hunters is of vital importance to our DNR as hunter numbers dwindle. This is going to seem real surprising, but hunting is actually more fun when you see lots of rutting activity.If we as hunters weren't trying to make killing big old deer easier all the time, the age structure would be more balanced like it used to be. I totally agree. I would love to see crossbows and HPR's go away and never return. If adding opportunity made hunting better, Iowa would be the worst, but we all know that Iowa is actually the best.Big bucks are everywhere that big bucks should be. I would love to work up the numbers, but there is so much land mass in Indiana that is not and should not be considered good deer habitat that people just seem to not want to admit. Add in the ground that actually is good deer habitat, but not huntable ground and we might have about 1/3 of the state left. Just based on my own observation from driving across both states, I would say that the habitat in Indiana is at least as good as Iowa. Having hunted public land in both Iowa and Indiana, I can tell you that there are a lot more big bucks on Iowa public, no question about it.Indiana is not, and will never be, any of these "greatest place to kill a monster trophy" deer states. Not with our current regs. With regs more like Iowa, Indiana would absolutely be one of the best states for deer hunting.That's okay. We are filled with tens of thousands hard working people that just want to spend some time in the woods alone, with friends, with family, some times with strangers, and have as many opportunities as possible to take a deer home. We aren't Michael Waddel, Bill Jordan, Lee Laskowski, or any of the dozens of other people who get paid to sell products by killing big deer on highly managed properties or behind fences.It's okay, we accept that. Really not sure what celebrities have to do with this discussion.Oh, and those big deer are another product they try to sell. That's why the outfitter's contact information is on the bottom of the screen at the end of the show.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 24, 2020 17:31:32 GMT -5
Every year someone tries to push the Iowa regs on Indiana hunters and to this point, it hasn't gained any traction. I personally like Indiana, doing what Indiana is doing. It must be doing something right as the herd is stable, good bucks are killed every season and non-residents are coming to Indiana in good numbers. If the IDNR needs additional monies they should charge a higher fee like Iowa does. For the sake of argument, let's use Matt's figure of $800 dollars. If 11.540 hunters (the number of non-residents who bought deer licenses in the 2019 season) paid $800 that would result in a grand total of $9,232,000 in revenue. Who needs Iowa regs when you could make that kind of money without changing a thing? No one would pay $800 to hunt Indiana UNLESS Indiana had regs more similar to Iowa. The regs are what make Iowa great. People will pay $50 for a steak at a nice restarant, but not for a fast food. Trying to sell Indiana tags for $800 would be like trying to charge $50 for a big mac. I was using your $800 figure to illustrate the potential that Indiana is missing out on. In all honesty, I could see an all season bundle selling to non-residents @ the $500 mark. With Indiana's liberal seasons, good numbers of deer and the choices of guns and bows allowed, I think it would be an easy sell. We had 11,540 non-residents in 2019 and with states like Iowa and Illinois making it difficult for resident hunters, Indiana looks like a bargain to me. As a matter of fact I have buddies from Iowa and Kentucky, gun hunt pretty much every year with us. And at $500 for the bundle, that would have raised $5,770,000 for the state without changing a thing.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 17:32:43 GMT -5
I don't believe that Indiana has the right habitat to mimic Iowa's hunting, even if the seasons and weapons allowed were matched 100%. We might not make to Iowa status, but we'd be 10x better than we are currently.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Jan 24, 2020 17:34:21 GMT -5
No one would pay $800 to hunt Indiana UNLESS Indiana had regs more similar to Iowa. The regs are what make Iowa great. People will pay $50 for a steak at a nice restarant, but not for a fast food. Trying to sell Indiana tags for $800 would be like trying to charge $50 for a big mac. I was using your $800 figure to illustrate the potential that Indiana is missing out on. In all honesty, I could see an all season bundle selling to non-residents @ the $500 mark. With Indiana's liberal seasons, good numbers of deer and the choices of guns and bows allowed, I think it would be an easy sell. We had 11,540 non-residents in 2019 and with states like Iowa and Illinois making it difficult for resident hunters, Indiana looks like a bargain to me. As a matter of fact I have buddies from Iowa and Kentucky, gun hunt pretty much every year with us. And at $500 for the bundle, that would have raised $5,770,000 for the state without changing a thing. Why pay that much when you could hunt Ohio, Kentucky, or Missouri for much less?
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 24, 2020 17:38:13 GMT -5
I was using your $800 figure to illustrate the potential that Indiana is missing out on. In all honesty, I could see an all season bundle selling to non-residents @ the $500 mark. With Indiana's liberal seasons, good numbers of deer and the choices of guns and bows allowed, I think it would be an easy sell. We had 11,540 non-residents in 2019 and with states like Iowa and Illinois making it difficult for resident hunters, Indiana looks like a bargain to me. As a matter of fact I have buddies from Iowa and Kentucky, gun hunt pretty much every year with us. And at $500 for the bundle, that would have raised $5,770,000 for the state without changing a thing. Why pay that much when you could hunt Ohio, Kentucky, or Missouri for much less? I guess it would depend on all in what you want and what it was going to cost you to access land.
|
|