|
Post by bullwinkle on Jul 7, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
I see many on here speculating as to why the DNR is changing the rules. Below is the conclusion that the DNR came to. It is their document. Some of these proposals came from the NRC and it's meetings. Some came out of the stakeholder meetings but most came from the DNR with opinions from biologist and those in law enforcement. They looked at data and what other staes are doing. Some are accusing some of the organized deer groups as being the driving force. That is far from reality. The legislature primarily pushed by Rep. Bill Friend is what primed the pump and started the DNR to make changes. Everyone that has commented at DNR meetings and through written comments have influenced some of the outcome. You can't honestly point the finger at IBA, the IDHA, QDMA and say they they controlled the outcome of the changes when you have expansion of the crossbow, a new gun season in early archery and more gun hunting in late archery season. You can but it's not honest. I would encourage all to be involved in the process be it talking to your legislator, the DNR or the NRC but those groups that were part of the stakeholders meeting are not the boogymen calling the shots. If it were only that simple.
From the IDNR Implementation of an early antlerless season - The proposal calls for the addition of an early October antlerless season. Studies have shown that early antlerless seasons have a positive effect on removing additional antlerless deer, provided participation is satisfactory. Additionally, this season has the potential to remove a great number of deer early in the fall season, when the number of deer-vehicle accidents are beginning to spike. This has the added benefit of altering the buck-doe ratio prior to the onset of the rut, creating a shorter and more intense breeding season, which is often desirable for hunters.
Shortening of the firearms season - The proposal calls for the shortening of the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, from 16 days in each season to 9 days. Biologists across the nation are coming to the conclusion that fewer hunting days may actually promote an increased harvest. Though this seems counterintuitive, the reasoning behind this is valid. Hunters tend to procrastinate in harvesting a deer, producing missed opportunities earlier in the season. As the season drags on, the opportunity for success in harvesting a deer decreases. By reducing the number of days available to hunters, a greater sense of urgency in harvesting a deer results. States with shorter seasons exhibit a similar ratio of antlered to antlerless harvests as Indiana’s longer season, and with 4 weekends combined in the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, Indiana still will maintain one of the more liberal seasons for firearms use in the Midwest .
Delaying the opening of the firearms season - The proposal calls for a delay in the start of the firearm season, from the first Saturday after November 11 to the weekend before Thanksgiving. We all agreed we wanted the Thanksgiving weekend to remain within the deer firearms season due to the tradition associated with hunting during that holiday period. In addition, the current firearms season was established when the Division was trying to grow the deer herd. By providing hunters the opportunity to use firearms early in November, the pressure was taken off of the antlerless component and placed on the antlered component of the deer herd. Now that our mission has changed and we are trying to strategically reduce the deer herd, more female deer should be harvested by delaying the start of the firearms season. This can be seen in recent years (1999-2000 and 2005-2006) as the start of the firearms opener varies from November 12th or 13th in the first year of each series to November 18 the following year. The antlered buck harvest declined from the first year in the sequence to the second (~10% each year), while the antlerless harvest increased. This is strong evidence that a later start date will help increase the antlerless harvest.
The online survey-I have heard concerns from several stakeholder groups that the online survey results would influence the rules to be proposed to the NRC. As you can see from the above, they have not. That was not the purpose of conducting the survey. The only purpose of the survey was to attempt to measure the support for, or opposition to, the rule change proposals adopted by the DFW in conjunction with the stakeholder group.
Thanks again for your contribution of time and effort to produce these proposals. This would have been impossible without you.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jul 8, 2010 5:34:34 GMT -5
Sounds like a load of crap to me. If the majority don't want the changes then why is the DNR proceeding? This is just a major push by a small number of hunters to get the DNR to legislate them a big buck because they don't want to spend the time nor the effort to get one the old fashioned way. If the majority don't want anything changed then why is the DNR changing unless it's for a small number of wannabe hunters that can't kill a decent deer the old fashioned way? Just remember as the deer get bigger it takes even bigger deer to make a "trophy". In the end all the policy changes will do is decrease opportunity for the working men and women to get in the field and enjoy hunting the way it's supposed to be. There is so much more to hunting than bone, maybe you need to concentrate your efforts learning what hunting is all about instead of promoting policies that are overall very bad for our sport! ' I'm absolutely sick to death over these proposed changes. We have had record harvests the last few years with the current system so why change so drastically? I barely get to spend enough time afield doing something I immensely enjoy the way it is with all my other family and job obligations. And before you start running your mouth I hunt bow, gun and muzzle loader so I can't pick up another tool. So tell me oh wise one, did the OBR not work as intended? Is that the reason we are making so many drastic changes at once? Is it because the OBR didn't produce monster bone behind every tree? Are you upset because no matter how much money you spend you can't kill a something with a little bone? This whole thing p@##%$ me off to no end. It's almost to the point I hate all you sons of #$@#$% that support this load of crap, that's how strongly I feel about it. *edit* this wasn't meant for you personally and I realize hate is a very strong word but you must realize I feel very strongly about these proposed changes. Between work and other obligations I barely get to spend any time in the field the way it is, I don't work for the government so I don't have 350 days off a year nor do I have an over abundance of vacation time so anytime I get to spend in a treestand is very very precious and to just take it away from working people like me is something that I take very personal. I work my arse off and pay my taxes and all the other fees and I feel the least the DNR can do is listen to the little people like me and it really ![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/Woowoo1/censored.gif) es me off when I feel like I'm being shrugged off because I believe trophy deer should truly be trophy deer and they shouldn't be hiding behind every tree and I don't need the guberment to legislate me a big buck. When I get one I want the feeling I worked my arse off and paid my dues outsmarting that old buck not because it's one like everyone else is shooting. The only thing this policy will be good for is outfitters. In a few years when we are like Illinois and the only people that can afford to hunt here is doctors and lawyers from other states you will have no one to thank but yourself. When you can't find a place to hunt other than over run public ground don't come whining here.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jul 8, 2010 6:24:24 GMT -5
Sounds like a load of crap to me. If the majority don't want the changes then why is the DNR proceeding? This is just a major push by a small number of hunters to get the DNR to legislate them a big buck because they don't want to spend the time nor the effort to get one the old fashioned way. If the majority don't want anything changed then why is the DNR changing unless it's for a small number of wannabe hunters that can't kill a decent deer the old fashioned way? Just remember as the deer get bigger it takes even bigger deer to make a "trophy". In the end all the policy changes will do is decrease opportunity for the working men and women to get in the field and enjoy hunting the way it's supposed to be. There is so much more to hunting than bone, maybe you need to concentrate your efforts learning what hunting is all about instead of promoting policies that are overall very bad for our sport! ' I'm absolutely sick to death over these proposed changes. We have had record harvests the last few years with the current system so why change so drastically? I barely get to spend enough time afield doing something I immensely enjoy the way it is with all my other family and job obligations. And before you start running your mouth I hunt bow, gun and muzzle loader so I can't pick up another tool. So tell me oh wise one, did the OBR not work as intended? Is that the reason we are making so many drastic changes at once? Is it because the OBR didn't produce monster bone behind every tree? Are you upset because no matter how much money you spend you can't kill a something with a little bone? This whole thing p@##%$ me off to no end. It's almost to the point I hate all you sons of #$@#$% that support this load of crap, that's how strongly I feel about it. *edit* this wasn't meant for you personally and I realize hate is a very strong word but you must realize I feel very strongly about these proposed changes. Between work and other obligations I barely get to spend any time in the field the way it is, I don't work for the government so I don't have 350 days off a year nor do I have an over abundance of vacation time so anytime I get to spend in a treestand is very very precious and to just take it away from working people like me is something that I take very personal. I work my arse off and pay my taxes and all the other fees and I feel the least the DNR can do is listen to the little people like me and it really ![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/Woowoo1/censored.gif) es me off when I feel like I'm being shrugged off because I believe trophy deer should truly be trophy deer and they shouldn't be hiding behind every tree and I don't need the guberment to legislate me a big buck. When I get one I want the feeling I worked my arse off and paid my dues outsmarting that old buck not because it's one like everyone else is shooting. The only thing this policy will be good for is outfitters. In a few years when we are like Illinois and the only people that can afford to hunt here is doctors and lawyers from other states you will have no one to thank but yourself. When you can't find a place to hunt other than over run public ground don't come whining here. You nailed it! ![>:(](https://www.indianagunowners.com/images/smilies/woot.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 8, 2010 6:27:15 GMT -5
Well said Mrfixit!!!
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jul 8, 2010 6:33:41 GMT -5
I'm thinking you're not going to have much luck trying to sell that.
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Jul 8, 2010 8:45:33 GMT -5
Please read this again from the DNR.
"Shortening of the firearms season - The proposal calls for the shortening of the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, from 16 days in each season to 9 days. Biologists across the nation are coming to the conclusion that fewer hunting days may actually promote an increased harvest. Though this seems counterintuitive, the reasoning behind this is valid. Hunters tend to procrastinate in harvesting a deer, producing missed opportunities earlier in the season. As the season drags on, the opportunity for success in harvesting a deer decreases. By reducing the number of days available to hunters, a greater sense of urgency in harvesting a deer results. States with shorter seasons exhibit a similar ratio of antlered to antlerless harvests as Indiana’s longer season, and with 4 weekends combined in the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, Indiana still will maintain one of the more liberal seasons for firearms use in the Midwest .
Delaying the opening of the firearms season - The proposal calls for a delay in the start of the firearm season, from the first Saturday after November 11 to the weekend before Thanksgiving. We all agreed we wanted the Thanksgiving weekend to remain within the deer firearms season due to the tradition associated with hunting during that holiday period. In addition, the current firearms season was established when the Division was trying to grow the deer herd. By providing hunters the opportunity to use firearms early in November, the pressure was taken off of the antlerless component and placed on the antlered component of the deer herd. Now that our mission has changed and we are trying to strategically reduce the deer herd, more female deer should be harvested by delaying the start of the firearms season. This can be seen in recent years (1999-2000 and 2005-2006) as the start of the firearms opener varies from November 12th or 13th in the first year of each series to November 18 the following year. The antlered buck harvest declined from the first year in the sequence to the second (~10% each year), while the antlerless harvest increased. This is strong evidence that a later start date will help increase the antlerless harvest."
This came from the DNR and was supported by it's staff including their deer biologist with evidence from other states. Those people that you reference as "a small number of hunters" did not put this on the table. IDNR deer biologist Chad Stewart also suggested earn a buck as a way to reduce doe population. He backed it up with evidence that it has worked in some state to reduce deer population. Several among the group did not like earn a buck, some did, however you might see that looked in the future if these plans do not produce. Everything that was looked at was with the preference does this help reduce the deer population. Nothing was put foward that addressed trophy or quality deer. It was all about getting hunters to shoot more does.
I personally don't careone way or the other. It's just fine now. However ther are problems with the size of the deer herd in some areas, percieved or real, that the IDNR are going attempt to do something about. Access is a key componet everyone agress on that. But the government can not force people to let others on their land to hunt. So you are left with trying to control hunter behavior by regulation. People forget hunters are a small minority 7% of the population. They are only vocal within their ranks and that % is even small for those that hunt. Hunters as a group disagree to a great extent and do not speak as one voice which is why the legislature ignors them. The legislators all say this. When they do here from sportsmen the discussion is all over the place. Like this issue. You all my not like it but educate yourself to the reasoning instead of just shooting at everyone who comes near. At least put the blame and effort where it is most likely to hit the mark when you shoot.
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Jul 8, 2010 8:53:43 GMT -5
So tell me oh wise one, did the OBR not work as intended? Is that the reason we are making so many drastic changes at once? Is it because the OBR didn't produce monster bone behind every tree? Are you upset because no matter how much money you spend you can't kill a something with a little bone? I was never a proponet of the one buck rule nor do I need the state to put a big buck in front of me to shoot. You assume too much.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jul 8, 2010 9:40:19 GMT -5
Please read this again from the DNR. "Shortening of the firearms season - The proposal calls for the shortening of the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, from 16 days in each season to 9 days. Biologists across the nation are coming to the conclusion that fewer hunting days may actually promote an increased harvest. Though this seems counterintuitive, the reasoning behind this is valid. Hunters tend to procrastinate in harvesting a deer, producing missed opportunities earlier in the season. As the season drags on, the opportunity for success in harvesting a deer decreases. By reducing the number of days available to hunters, a greater sense of urgency in harvesting a deer results. States with shorter seasons exhibit a similar ratio of antlered to antlerless harvests as Indiana’s longer season, and with 4 weekends combined in the firearms and muzzleloader seasons, Indiana still will maintain one of the more liberal seasons for firearms use in the Midwest . If it produces a similiar ratio to our season now what exactly is the advantage of switching?? Oh that's right it's all about bone and leasing land and selling ourselves out....silly me! We already have one of the shorter seasons in the midwest so when you cut that in half you think gun hunters shoot up the woods now... You don't have to be a freekin genuis to see right through th BS, this is about bigger bucks, selling more out of state tags, more land being leased up etc etc. Again, what a line of crap and it doesn't take a freekin genuis to see through this line of BS either. So if the earn a buck works so well why did Wisconsin discontinue the program? Oh that's right they had bucks coming out of every single oriface they could think of and nary a doe in sight. Yep works real well doesn't it? Tell me again how this isn't about more bucks, more out of state licensing, more land being leased etc etc etc. Again, don't take a freekin genuis to see through the BS. If you didn't care either way then you wouldn't be on here defending a proposed policy that will do nothing but hurt deer hunting and most of all hurt the resident hunters of the state of Indiana. So tell me again how great these new propasals are and how we are going to have a giant boned buck behind every tree like we do now with the OBR.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Jul 8, 2010 9:58:02 GMT -5
Why worry about something that is "PROPOSED"? Means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jul 8, 2010 10:18:12 GMT -5
Bullwinkle,
Do you think that we are stupid here in that you needed to copy and paste this twice? Isn’t once enough?
Now, if the DNR truly looked at data from other states to make a decision on the deer season what happened to them looking at the data for crossbow inclusion in the early archery seasons? They state that these deer harvest changes "may actually promote an increased harvest"
There is overwhelming positive evidence (no "may" to it) that crossbows do recruit hunters, retain the older hunters, help raise revenues and help control the deer herd in every state that has them. The DNR has all this data. So why did they not OK a full or even a partial inclusion with this gauranteed data?
The ONLY reason that they did not go with full or partial inclusion in the early archery season is because the "stakeholders" in the meetings and behind the scenes would not give on that subject. You know and we know it.
I’ve been reading what Dave Delaney is posting on HH and it pretty well confirmed what everyone knew already. This anti-crossbow stuff was done deal a long time ago. I also read Bowsite where the inidha, who claims to be the president of the IDHA, said he "secured the crossbow license and crossbows in the firearm season" way back in 2007. It does not matter that this was just now up for consideration. It was a done deal. It did not matter what the other state’s good crossbow data was or what any crossbower said or did it was DONE DEAL. They should have just let us know and we could have saved a lot of time, effort and money.
Why not cut to the chase and fire all the IDNR Game managers and let the "stakeholders" run the show. I'll bet Our Man Mitch would go for that.
BTW – This is what a DNR employee said about the online deer crossbow survey. He said,”42% supported or strongly supported full inclusion of crossbows, 32% opposed or strongly opposed and 26% didn't care one way or the other". Still this wasn’t enough. It was a done deal, like so many other done deals in Indianapolis.
Let me ask you a question. If the IDNR wanted “stakeholders” and they were going to talk about crossbow hunting why did they not invite someone that has crossbow experience and could provide some insight into crossbows? Instead they asked anti-crossbowers to give input on a crossbow season. That is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Why not give it some semblance of impartiality and balance, even though it was a done deal?
It all stinks Bullwinkle. You can say it doesn’t, but that wont perfume it.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jul 8, 2010 10:22:08 GMT -5
Why worry about something that is "PROPOSED"? Means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things. I haven't seen too many things that the IDNR "proposed" that did not become a fact. The NRC will rubber stamp this proposal unless they hear overwhelming negative resonses to it. It has to be OVERWHELMING to even consider saying no. You see a lot of it was what they and the "elites" wants.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 8, 2010 11:19:35 GMT -5
Bullwinkle,
When did Chad change his mind? He supposedly assured Joe Bacon that he woudl not support any EAB on the first or second buck at any time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 11:49:05 GMT -5
Can someone link to any credible source that shows a state reduced their days afield by half and actually increased their harvest numbers? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jul 8, 2010 12:00:12 GMT -5
Glad i am a bowhunter 90% time. But am afraid some Mr. Suit and Tie will think up some brillant idea that shortening bow season next will increase deer harvest also!!!! These people get paid for these idea's? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) STARTS AT TOP WE NEED A DEPREDATION HUNT COME NEXT ELECTION AND IT START AT THE TOP R.I.P. MR. DANIEL'S AND YOUR APPOINTED SAR'S.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jul 8, 2010 13:01:59 GMT -5
If the IDNR keeps going with this type of crap, I can see average folks ignoring the law & going hunting when they can with whatever weapon they have.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Jul 8, 2010 13:25:45 GMT -5
Hate to say this guys, but I am thrilled about moving the firearm opener to the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Having had the misfortune of marrying a woman whose birthday falls on November 14, there have been too many seasons when her birthday came either the day before the opener, the day of, or the day after. She comes from a family that makes a big deal of birthday parties so in order to stay out of the dog house, my deer hunting or preparation had to stop for a day. What a pain in the posterior! There is nothing worse than the distraction of a mandatory birthday party during the best part of the season. Thank you IDNR! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 8, 2010 14:21:57 GMT -5
You like that we all suffer to keep you from suffering the loss of one evening? Not to mention we are losing two weeks!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 8, 2010 20:44:47 GMT -5
Bullwinkle, When did Chad change his mind? He supposedly assured Joe Bacon that he would not support any EAB on the first or second buck at any time.Exactly I Spoke to Chad personally on more than one occasion and he assured me that he did not support any EAB someone is fantasizing here or flat out lieing which is it ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) I am calling you out in ppublic put Chad on here before you post any DNR garbage that supposedlty this and that was said .Yip I said it .So take your threat of a EAB if we all do not fall in line liketh sock pupets you want and shoot em all and Shove it so deep it hurts you do not scare me Boys!! The more you post the more defiant I get . WHOA!!
I know Bullwinkle personally and he is not a liar. No way, shape or form.
I do not know what transpired in that meeting. BUT Chad could have brought that up in a bainstorming session where anything can be talked about, evaluated and subsequently accepted or discarded.
Bullwinkle 'might' be mistaken on what Chad said, but I doubt it.. Bullwinkle does take copious and accurate notes.
Yes, I am defending him.
I think you need to get a little less "defiant" before you say something that you shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 8, 2010 20:49:31 GMT -5
Someone doesn't seem to realize how insignificant he is.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jul 9, 2010 5:34:40 GMT -5
That seems to be the root of the problem..... a majority of insignificant working taxpaying tag buying fools. Fools because we think the guberment/DNR will do what's best and find a happy medium between the tag buying public and managing the deer herd. Somehow things got all screwed up and now it's only about bone growth. We have a happy medium now with both sides wanting more but it is fairly balanced with the bow only hunters having a somewhat better deal but hey its close enough so instead of the status quo the DNR/NRC/IBHA is going to stick a fork in the majority. Unfortunately, this will be like the OBR, the majority will wake up one day with less opportunity and by then it will be to late. In five years the minority will be telling us how much bigger our bucks are and how much healthier our deer herd is because the average kill is still 2 months older than before the big screwing etc etc etc. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors and the average hunter is getting screwed. Since we can't all work together to better our sport soon the sport will be only for the rich that can afford it and land owners.
|
|