|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2010 15:58:50 GMT -5
I would go with a earn a BUCK only if it was for the ONE we get now...Never the second buck folks could/would phantom check a antlerless deer to get an additional buck license.Check in stations now dont looks at deer checked or have to for that fact
I will venture to say that 95% of the people that want a ANTLERLESS season in the start of gun season. Are the very same GROUP that wants to "shorten and move" the gun season ......Which is the smoke and mirror in any proposal that has Antlerless in the start of GUN Season...IMO
If it wasn't there would not be a quest to put a antlerless season in the start of gun season and "reduce" the days gun folks have to shoot a BUCK... IMO
|
|
|
Post by evolutionsthunder on Mar 28, 2010 16:10:24 GMT -5
i picked #1 the weather would be nicer to get the kids out. but i think lowering the price for doe tags would do more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by vectrix on Mar 28, 2010 16:31:19 GMT -5
This is really a no brainer if the state authorities really want to hit the antler less deer herd at their easiest to get time it is when they herd up into the yarding herds of as many as 20 - 199 deer depending where you are at in the state . That is the late season . at the end of DEC .This is when the majority of deer hunters are off work because of holiday vacations the gun hunters would love to get the guns out one more time and at no other time of year are deer so visible or easy to take . Around traditional gun season the rut has the deer stirred up and off pattern also it would likely drive the bucks into a nocturnal or survival type mode just prior to gun season and this would likely make the majority of the gun hunter who want a good buck very very angry I know it would be . . The early season has patterns but way way too much cover and crops up it will only serve to push the whole deer herd into a more nocturnal pattern long before they should be and honestly it is very dangerous to be shooting in the small wood lots throughout the state when the cover and crops are up it would likely result in bad things happening t o good people in the long run. The archery season is just that the archery season and its tuff enough for most archery hunters to score more pressure is not going to help them out in the least this would anger every archery hunter in the state. Lat archery season is covered over by the ML season for two weeks so moving there would be redundant and really just silly . So in fact that lest week of DEC into JAN would be perfect to catch sportsmen a break and allow then a respite from the holidays and chance at multiple deer where its needed due to the ease of hunting deer at this vulnerable time of herding up. What happens to the KAZZILLION bonus tags DNR already allow's used to slaughter the doe herd? Will the bonus tags still be allowed on top of this extra antlerless season? I think if an extra season is opened it should only be opened in the counties with the herd issue not state wide. Leave archery alone, it's the only time of year you can hunt natural patterns in relative peace without all the brown it's down weekend warrior idiots stomping around.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 28, 2010 16:41:28 GMT -5
IF a special antlerless season is deemed necessary by the IDNR Fish and Wildlife here are my answers to each "Proposal'..
Proposal #1 (7) day between youth/early archery - This is my number TWO choice that I can live with. Get it over early and out of the way. Freezers will be empty. It will make for a more intense rut.
Proposal #2 (3) day between youth/early archery - I can live with this, but I don’t think 3 days is enough to make a significant impact.
Proposal #3- (7) day at traditional firearms start - I don’t like this one at all. It moves the gun buck season further out of the rut than it already is. It would also push the buck nocturnal.
Proposal #4- (7) day at end of December - I can live with this, but I think it would not be as effective as this is a very busy holiday time of the year. Lots of family functions going on.
Proposal #5- (7) day after late archery - My FIRST choice that I can live with. The downer is that some bucks have already started dropping their antlers.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Mar 28, 2010 16:50:20 GMT -5
A couple of the guys from "another site" told me about your site and that I should get in on a great thing over here. As I've been involved in this discussion over "there" too, I thought I'd drop my .02 cents in. Hope you don't mind. There is a group of folks discussing changing the first week of gun season to an antlerless only, any weapon season. While I think the state has provided plenty of tags to manage the herd and the harvest data supports the fact that hunters are killing more deer every year, apparently for the state it isn't enough. Now, I personally think that many of these deer that are causing the car accidents/crop depredation and what not are located in areas that either don't allowing hunting/won't allow doe hunting/are located in subdivisions/behind shopping malls/industrial areas that type of thing. Having said that, I feel that if the state is bent on doing it, why not have a short, any weapon, antlerless season the first weekend of October that's financed with a special 3 day tag that costs....say less than $15.00? The deer are on predictable patterns, if the does are thinned in October it will allow for a more compact, intense rut. The bucks won't run themselves ragged trying to breed the excess does and bow hunters and gun hunters will get to enjoy the seasons as is. Less deer means more available food during the fall/winter and less stress on the does means healthier fawns. The fawns born the next year won't be dropped so late and will have a better chance @ survival the next fall/winter. So if it's necessary (according to the state) what do you guys think about the proposal outlined above? Thanks. Jim Do you not see how opening up a gun season before the bow hunters will cause the deer to go underground prior to the rut and destroy any hope for bow hunters that worked all summer to capitalize on that big undisturbed buck that they have been watching Also It would seem most I want it early types have never seen or hunted the late season over the most predictable deer herd and most condensed of the year!!?? I guess it boils down to if a hunter only gun hunts or bow hunts or a combination of both as to how they want this fictitious season scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Mar 28, 2010 16:58:21 GMT -5
HOW ABOUT JUST LEAVE THE SEASON THE WAY IT IS!!!!.............turkey scout I agree! IDNR has always gotta be tinkering with the regulations..Leave well enough alone..Identify high concentrations of deer, and have " doe days" in urban areas or where ever populations are out of control.. Honestly,I haven't killed a doe in two years cause I see more bucks , and our doe numbers are as low as I've seen em in 25 yrs.....The doe have been taking a beating..we can kill 8 a piece in our county...My doe numbers are really low round these parts..What are they trying to do wipe em out? Insurance Co's. must be lobbying hard again.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 28, 2010 17:26:26 GMT -5
A couple of the guys from "another site" told me about your site and that I should get in on a great thing over here. As I've been involved in this discussion over "there" too, I thought I'd drop my .02 cents in. Hope you don't mind. There is a group of folks discussing changing the first week of gun season to an antlerless only, any weapon season. While I think the state has provided plenty of tags to manage the herd and the harvest data supports the fact that hunters are killing more deer every year, apparently for the state it isn't enough. Now, I personally think that many of these deer that are causing the car accidents/crop depredation and what not are located in areas that either don't allowing hunting/won't allow doe hunting/are located in subdivisions/behind shopping malls/industrial areas that type of thing. Having said that, I feel that if the state is bent on doing it, why not have a short, any weapon, antlerless season the first weekend of October that's financed with a special 3 day tag that costs....say less than $15.00? The deer are on predictable patterns, if the does are thinned in October it will allow for a more compact, intense rut. The bucks won't run themselves ragged trying to breed the excess does and bow hunters and gun hunters will get to enjoy the seasons as is. Less deer means more available food during the fall/winter and less stress on the does means healthier fawns. The fawns born the next year won't be dropped so late and will have a better chance @ survival the next fall/winter. So if it's necessary (according to the state) what do you guys think about the proposal outlined above? Thanks. Jim Do you not see how opening up a gun season before the bow hunters will cause the deer to go underground prior to the rut and destroy any hope for bow hunters that worked all summer to capitalize on that big undisturbed buck that they have been watching Also It would seem most I want it early types have never seen or hunted the late season over the most predictable deer herd and most condensed of the year!!?? I guess it boils down to if a hunter only gun hunts or bow hunts or a combination of both as to how they want this fictitious season scheduled. You convinced me. I just changed my number one early pick to the after late archery pick.. Maybe a few freezers will empty by then..
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Mar 28, 2010 17:28:04 GMT -5
if the does are thinned in October it will allow for a more compact, intense rut. The bucks won't run themselves ragged trying to breed the excess does Whether the extra does are there or not, the bucks will still be looking for them. I don't think I'm getting what you are trying to say. On one hand you say the rut will be more compact and intense, and on the other you say the bucks wont run themselves ragged trying to breed excess does. I'm cornfused! Which is it, more intense rut, or bucks won't be chasing does?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2010 17:36:52 GMT -5
Don't know but deer are born almost 1 to 1 bucks/does, so if you have plenty of bucks, you've got plenty of does. You should kill some of each.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Mar 28, 2010 17:44:44 GMT -5
if the does are thinned in October it will allow for a more compact, intense rut. The bucks won't run themselves ragged trying to breed the excess does Whether the extra does are there or not, the bucks will still be looking for them. I don't think I'm getting what you are trying to say. On one hand you say the rut will be more compact and intense, and on the other you say the bucks wont run themselves ragged trying to breed excess does. I'm confused! Which is it, more intense rut, or bucks won't be chasing does? You have stumbled onto the fallacy and one key phrase that leaves the QDMers stammering when you asked that same question I ask them . They have no real answer as its a conundrum or riddle they can not defend . It takes lists of does to keep bucks moving because if there is just a few the rut will end after the 2 or 5 does that they would have keep are bred . I mean I don't care if the big buck I just shot is a little tired and run down from covering his 5 th ,6th or 7th doe as long as he keeps moving an the does I have keep him trailing till I can put a hole in him . I think this whole the bucks heve to be in perfect physical condition because they look better and will recover and grow bigger antlers next year smoke screen is bull puckus at best.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Mar 28, 2010 18:12:58 GMT -5
Earn a buck sounds good...Shoot two doe, and you earn a buck tag..
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Mar 28, 2010 19:28:58 GMT -5
Don't see what I would like so I'll give it anyway: Maybe I'm a little biased since I don't archery hunt (at least right now) but would love to see the muzzleloader (combined with archery) season extended at least to the end of Dec with the archery season for another two weeks after that....maybe even do an early one week muzzleloader too before gun opens. Quite frankly I get a little fed up with counting the multiple shots on opening morning of gun season (from what sounds like it's coming from the same gun) and wonder just how many of those deer will even be recovered and if they are just how much actual meat is still edible on them-but then I mostly hunt for the meat anyway. Wouldn't want to count how times I've seen deer at the check-in station that had multiple holes in them with the majority of the multiple holes from the rib cage on back But like I said I'm pretty biased since I only smokepole hunt ...if that isn't obvious
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2010 19:33:07 GMT -5
Interesting question. i dont think that the worlds of "best way to control deer numbers" and "most popular way among hunters" will ever arrive at the same place.
Want to best control numbers ..... have an "any weapon" hunt in September or January.
I would selfishly have a problem with either of those.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 28, 2010 19:37:36 GMT -5
I say all of us with LL or land owner tags just fill them all even if we don't shoot one. The phantom checking for another buck made me think of that. It is a great way to increase the numbers with no effect on local population.
It is DNR's reaction to the legislators and I don't think it has anything to do with insurance companies but more to do with a few legislators that are in possition to bully the DNR.
From what I have seen in my various hunting areas I am not in an overrun area, my parents are not in an over run area, and my brother in law is not is an over run. This covers SW Indiana (Lawrence), East Central (Madison), and North Central (Laport). Madison and Laport were 8 bonus last several years as well.
DNR had better do something if they are serious about increasing the harvest. Many of us will need an incentive to shoot another deer. I know I probably won't shoot any more then I normally would.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 28, 2010 19:45:19 GMT -5
snares are the best, cheap, easy, and they hunt 24/7.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 28, 2010 20:01:20 GMT -5
I say all of us with LL or land owner tags just fill them all even if we don't shoot one. The phantom checking for another buck made me think of that. It is a great way to increase the numbers with no effect on local population. It is DNR's reaction to the legislators and I don't think it has anything to do with insurance companies but more to do with a few legislators that are in possition to bully the DNR. From what I have seen in my various hunting areas I am not in an overrun area, my parents are not in an over run area, and my brother in law is not is an over run. This covers SW Indiana (Lawrence), East Central (Madison), and North Central (Laport). Madison and Laport were 8 bonus last several years as well. DNR had better do something if they are serious about increasing the harvest. Many of us will need an incentive to shoot another deer. I know I probably won't shoot any more then I normally would. Interesting... but....will a higher number of deer killed mean we are controlling/reducing the herd or that the herd is growing and thus there were more deer to kill? Until the IDNR can have a good estimate of before and after a deer season ther is really no good way to tell, that I know of. I do not think that the IDNR has the manpower and dollars to do a before count. Yes, forget the insurance companies. They are not pressuring the IDNR. They don't care what the deer/auto rate is . They will just increase our premiums to cover them. hey WILL make money. I do think that any " doe season" should be problem area specific..
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 28, 2010 20:09:09 GMT -5
I totally agree Woody. It will take knowing where we are currently, where DNR would want to set as a goal to reach to say they were successful.
What will happen if next year the harvest drops by 1% or 2%? Does that mean anything? If we don't know where we are how do we get where we want to be? Seems simple but not likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 28, 2010 20:29:31 GMT -5
I totally agree Woody. It will take knowing where we are currently, where DNR would want to set as a goal to reach to say they were successful. What will happen if next year the harvest drops by 1% or 2%? Does that mean anything? If we don't know where we are how do we get where we want to be? Seems simple but not likely to happen. I cant blame the IDNR though as they do not have the manpower nor the dollars to do a good accurate count - pre or post season
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Mar 28, 2010 20:42:18 GMT -5
Do you not see how opening up a gun season before the bow hunters will cause the deer to go underground prior to the rut and destroy any hope for bow hunters that worked all summer to capitalize on that big undisturbed buck that they have been watching Also It would seem most I want it early types have never seen or hunted the late season over the most predictable deer herd and most condensed of the year!!?? I guess it boils down to if a hunter only gun hunts or bow hunts or a combination of both as to how they want this fictitious season scheduled. Apparently not many bucks have gone “underground” because of a few thousand Youth Season gun hunters in late September and tens of thousands of squirrel season gun hunters from August 15 through all of the deer seasons until January 31. If an Antlerless “Season” for deer were limited to 2 or 3 days in late September or early October, limited to a specified quota per area or county designated (specifically targeted) by DNR, limited to one antlerless deer per hunter, hunters selected by drawing (like now for state park and military area hunts), the bucks would have plenty of time to calm down and return to their normal behavior well before the rut begins. By the way, I would call what is needed by DNR a Special Hunt, rather than a statewide season, because in my opinion it should be limited to DNR designated problem areas/counties.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 28, 2010 20:49:42 GMT -5
It just has to be defendable. not good or accurate. It sounds bad but really you have to have a baseline in order to say you want to change directions or set new management style. I don't blame DNR either but I don't want them bending over everytime the legislators tell them to reduce the herd. We don't even know if the herd is growing for sure. Most of the field reports are fewer deer seen while hunting.
I have no idea what the DNR biologist know or don't know but really hope they have a decent idea where we are right now and where they would like to see Indiana deer herd in the future. Some of that info must be shared to Indiana hunters so that we can make it happen. As it sits now I won't be killing any more then I already would have.
Free hunters feeding the hungry isn't really free. I agree that it would help if the hunters didn't have to foot the bill but the processors have to be paid so it isn't "free" Those cost money and if you expect the state to foot that bill you're sadly mistaken. It won't happen.
Either way, I like the 3 day early doe season, but I don't know if that will result in more dead deer.
|
|