|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 22, 2010 17:12:49 GMT -5
This is my new plan for deer management in Indiana.
1. Leave all current seasons in place.
2. Add crossbow in all archery with no age discrimination.
3. Since bow hunters aren't killing their share of the deer thus making the DNR wanting to put more responsibility on the gun hunter to pick up their slack, make archery season Earn-A-Buck. Archery hunters have 90+ days to hunt so it should be no problem for them to take a doe, instead of sitting and passing doe, waiting on a big buck. Crossbows would get a pass for two years since its a new season.
4. Add the 9 day any weapon anterless season between Christmas & New Years.
5. Add another 7 day anterless any weapon season the second week of January.
Make this a 3 year trial and see how the numbers come out and then tweak the rules. What do you all think of my plan? h.h.
PS, Before you bow hunters jump down my throat I bow hunt more than I gun hunt so it would affect me too.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Aug 22, 2010 17:19:18 GMT -5
I'm a bowhunter and don't have a problem with your idea's. But DNR's gonna want to make some more $$$$$$$$$$$$ ,so they will want to charge an extra license fee for each new season and tag. Won't effect me (LIFETIME LICENSE) but other's may not like the additional tax or license fee's
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Aug 22, 2010 20:35:54 GMT -5
I would support this plan.
|
|
|
Post by goodyz71 on Aug 22, 2010 20:37:53 GMT -5
I like it!
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Aug 22, 2010 21:13:42 GMT -5
I would support it. Finally some common sense solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 22, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
I could get behind that.
|
|
|
Post by elmo on Aug 22, 2010 21:35:38 GMT -5
I'm thinking that this could kill more deer. supported
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 23, 2010 3:44:06 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. The problem has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with economics.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Aug 23, 2010 4:56:39 GMT -5
So very true!
|
|
|
Post by maddog on Aug 23, 2010 7:00:08 GMT -5
while I agree with thecommisioner, I DO like your plan. It makes a lot more sense than all the current proposals.
maddog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 7:28:41 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. True....partly. Land isn't being made anymore, so any increase in huntable land will be marginable if at all. Once it becomes public land, the increase in deer harvests will be marginal as well. But it's true that the DNR should have found a way to dispose of dead deer over what the hunters normally take, which is less than 2 each average. Should have been the first step. My idea is to have a "free" drop off in each county. At the jail. Every county has one and each can find trustees and train them to cut meat. That meat, once ins[ected by a trained person, can be used by most any public agency that prepares meals for the public.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Aug 23, 2010 7:36:35 GMT -5
I do not like antlerless only hunts in January when many bucks would be anterless.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 23, 2010 7:40:41 GMT -5
That might very well be the best idea I have ever heard .... only I would try and find a safe way to have the occupants of said jail do the cutting.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 23, 2010 7:44:53 GMT -5
Excellent... much better than the present plan.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Aug 23, 2010 7:47:34 GMT -5
I'll buy into that plan. Forget the two day October "season". New or not, I'd say all archery hunters incluidng crossbows should be EAB.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Aug 23, 2010 9:09:28 GMT -5
Much better than what's proposed but I would also change the gun tag to either sex the guy who only hunts the gun opener.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 23, 2010 9:42:35 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. True....partly. Land isn't being made anymore, so any increase in huntable land will be marginable if at all. Once it becomes public land, the increase in deer harvests will be marginal as well. You are correct that land "isn't being made anymore." The problem is that land available for hunting is diminishing because of development and decreasing parcel size and thus is becoming more expensive to access. When access increases, whether through affordability or permission, the number of deer killed will increase. The problem the state has is trying to manage a growing herd on a shrinking (to hunters) acreage.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 23, 2010 10:05:40 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. The problem has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with economics. What this plan does do is kill more doe by the group of hunters that is not being used as a "tool". While it doesn't give access it puts the bow hunter into the "urgency" frame of mind the DNR wanted the gun hunter to be in. Bow hunters who now sit and wait for the big buck will have to kill a doe and what better time to kill them when the deer aren't spooked. Either sex tag is not going to happen because of economics and unless some big incentives are giving to land owners to allow public access that will never happen either. This plan would increase the kill ratio and maybe get the numbers the DNR want if their true goal is doe reduction. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 23, 2010 10:10:10 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. The problem has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with economics. What this plan does do is kill more doe by the group of hunters that is not being used as a "tool". While it doesn't give access it puts the bow hunter into the "urgency" frame of mind the DNR wanted the gun hunter to be in. Bow hunters who now sit and wait for the big buck will have to kill a doe and what better time to kill them when the deer aren't spooked. Either sex tag is not going to happen because of economics and unless some big incentives are giving to land owners to allow public access that will never happen either. This plan would increase the kill ratio and maybe get the numbers the DNR want if their true goal is doe reduction. h.h. Why are you assuming the bowhunter will kill a deer (the doe that earns them a buck) they don't normally kill? How do you know the marginal cost of that deer is one the bowhunter is willing to bear?
|
|
|
Post by schall53 on Aug 23, 2010 10:13:38 GMT -5
My problem with any kind of an EAB statewide is that there are areas in the state that do not have a high deer population. If you force everyone that hunts those areas to kill a doe first those areas will definitely be hurt for a long time to come.
|
|