|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 27, 2010 7:48:03 GMT -5
jjas I didn't get the article was aimed at trophy hunting. (That's a individual hunter's choice.) But more about hunter's in general do not take their fair share of doe's. And basically saying our deer herd is to large and growing to fast and we hunter's won't shoot doe's because we all wait on a big buck. Which is not true and total BS. 1.) Most hunter's do shoot doe's 2.) The average guy does not wait on a big buck. 3.) Our deer herd is not to large in Indiana. 4.) Our deer herd is not growing out of control. These point's are based on my personal observation's after 32 year's of hunting whitetailed deer in Indiana. No scientific data to back up claim's just good ole experience in the wood's. For the record I am a "TROPHY HUNTER" and I did not like the majority of the proposal's that were on the table. I alway's shoot a doe , most year's several. (Have shot as many as 8 in a season.) Just depend's on what my local deer herd is doing. Thought article was very 1 sided and did not represent or shine a very good light on the average deer hunter in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 27, 2010 7:55:56 GMT -5
Ditto...
Just looking at us "Average Deer Hunters" in the HI deer contest I can see that the take so far is:
50 antlered deer
10 button bucks
100 does
So much for waiting on Mr. Big..
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 27, 2010 8:02:07 GMT -5
Yep exactly and thank's for information Woody. Look's to me like hunter's are doing a pretty good job of shooting their share of antlerless deer.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Nov 27, 2010 10:13:39 GMT -5
So I take way too long trying to find email contacts for our local news stations, type my thoughts, then realize I hadn't read the entire actical. I just finished the artical and I don't feel a bit bad about what I sent. Here is my letter. Again, If my thoughts shed a bad light on any other hunter, I apologize.
Dear journalist professionals,
I am writing this letter due to the coverage lately of the DNR/NRC’s deer hunting proposals being thrown out and reworked. Honestly I must say that I am appalled by the complete lack of work that any of the news paper of television reporters put into this story. From the coverage I have read and seen, every one involved with this story simply copied the propaganda pamphlet the Indiana Department of Natural Resources had for their press release. If any reporter on this story would have done a simple internet search they would have found the entire proposal package that was presented, the alternative proposals that were sent to the DNR, and seen the “special interest” groups that the DNR had used to develop their package. I truly would love to see someone in this State’s news coverage community step up and do a little research and actually get all the facts to cover both sides of this story. As the coverage stands now, everyone involved should be ashamed to have their name attached to it.
If the DNR is truly wanting to lower the deer population by harvesting more female deer, there is no reason to lower the number of “either sex” deer hunting days. This was reported as lowering the number of “antlered deer” hunting days. The “average deer hunter” did not tell the DNR “No” to adding additional “doe hunting” days as was reported. What was done is the “average deer hunter” told the DNR that they did not favor trading “either sex” hunting days during the peak time of the season to harvest deer for “doe only” hunting days during a slower time of the season when weather can become very bad for deer hunting and taking the risk of less deer being taken.
The DNR has been asked for several years now to include crossbows during the early archery season. This is something that the DNR’s “Stakeholder” group adamantly refuses to even discuss and simply will not allow. However this is a simple rule change that will increase the number of anterless deer being harvested, bring more hunters into the sport, and increase the incoming money to the DNR. According the DNR’s own data, the hunter success rate is about 48%. If the hunters we currently have are not harvesting enough deer each year, then something must be done to increase the number of hunters in the field.
Chad Stewart, the State Deer Biologist was at the “Town Hall” meetings the DNR had this past summer. I personally gave him a suggestion that could be used for the short term to show the State Legislature that the DNR was serious about controlling the herd and one that every deer hunter in the state would be giving up equally with, make one year an “anterless only” year for all deer hunters. His response was to laugh and say he would never suggest such a thing because “everybody would be screaming at him then”. This reaction was the final one that I needed to know the DNR is not trying to lower the deer herd with these proposals. The “Stakeholder Groups” seem to have an agenda to get Indiana recognized as one of the greatest “Trophy Buck” states in the nation. The prestige and financial gain that this status will acquire can be enormous. Currently it looks like the DNR has fallen in step with this thinking and coming down hard on the residents and average deer hunters of this state.
I encourage someone from each of the news outlet to take some time to research this story and actually do some reporting. Just because someone has a nice State supplied uniform doesn’t mean the information they hand you to publish is the entire truth.
Sincerely,
Rob McIntyre.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Nov 27, 2010 11:03:23 GMT -5
........... hornographers........... huxbux likes this term ;D
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Nov 27, 2010 11:41:38 GMT -5
You don't mean that to some hunters, a nice set of antlers appears as a phallic symbol?
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Nov 27, 2010 17:28:13 GMT -5
Boonechaser
The hunter referenced in the article was a gun hunter (on purpose I'm sure) but the part the writer left out (when whining about that hunter letting 3 does walk by) was that with the standard firearms tag being buck only, the hunter in the article COULDN'T have legally shot one of those does.
But then for the writer to say that hunters aren't killing does is a joke. There were 67K does killed last year alone (and the vast majority of them killed by by gun and muzzleloader hunters and @ extra cost for the the gun hunters I must add). Does, not "antlerless deer" but does (according to the state's data). Yet this guy says no one is killing does? Did the writer think that 67K does drank the "kool-aid" last year?
I think this article (like the proposal) is nothing more than a way to push an agenda that wishes to keep the unwashed masses killing does (and paying extra for the privilege) while limting the buck hunting opportunities for these same gun hunters.
Now don't get me wrong. I like killing a big buck as much as the next guy does. But I don't think that taking opportunties from one group of hunters to try and improve the odds of killing a big buck for another group of hunters is what hunting should be about.
All this talk about herd reduction would be taken more seriously by me (and others) if the numbers were shown that proved it's necessity, xbows were allowed for all hunters during the entire archery season, and the firearms tags were made either sex.
Until then, I ain't buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Nov 27, 2010 20:21:25 GMT -5
Boonechaser The hunter referenced in the article was a gun hunter (on purpose I'm sure) but the part the writer left out (when whining about that hunter letting 3 does walk by) was that with the standard firearms tag being buck only, the hunter in the article COULDN'T have legally shot one of those does. But then for the writer to say that hunters aren't killing does is a joke. There were 67K does killed last year alone (and the vast majority of them killed by by gun and muzzleloader hunters and @ extra cost for the the gun hunters I must add). Does, not "antlerless deer" but does (according to the state's data). Yet this guy says no one is killing does? Did the writer think that 67K does drank the "kool-aid" last year? I think this article (like the proposal) is nothing more than a way to push an agenda that wishes to keep the unwashed masses killing does (and paying extra for the privilege) while limting the buck hunting opportunities for these same gun hunters. Now don't get me wrong. I like killing a big buck as much as the next guy does. But I don't think that taking opportunties from one group of hunters to try and improve the odds of killing a big buck for another group of hunters is what hunting should be about. All this talk about herd reduction would be taken more seriously by me (and others) if the numbers were shown that proved it's necessity, xbows were allowed for all hunters during the entire archery season, and the firearms tags were made either sex. Until then, I ain't buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 28, 2010 7:55:26 GMT -5
The same AP article, minus Mr. Hall's comments, was in the Evansville paper again this morning . This time in the sports section.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 28, 2010 17:56:45 GMT -5
Nicely written letter Rob. You have my support 100 %
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Nov 29, 2010 14:02:27 GMT -5
It's the DNR's own fault nobody takes does during the "firearm season" - if they would pull their collective heads out of their behinds they might see the fact a "firearm" tag is good for a buck only. Want to kill more does, make the tag either sex. It is so obvious! Many folks will just purchase the one tag and shoot the first buck they see.
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Nov 29, 2010 15:32:08 GMT -5
Tickman I hear what you are saying and agree totally! Or make it a combination tag of a buck and two or three does at a reduced price. But it is not under the control of the DNR. Anything that has to do with money, ie, fees has to go through the state legislature.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Nov 29, 2010 18:34:47 GMT -5
Tickman I hear what you are saying and agree totally! Or make it a combination tag of a buck and two or three does at a reduced price. But it is not under the control of the DNR. Anything that has to do with money, ie, fees has to go through the state legislature. That needs to be one of the first things to get changed to start putting things on track.
|
|