|
Post by countrystyle56 on Jun 9, 2011 12:29:37 GMT -5
I am not sure, but don't Illionis kill just as many if not more buck deer in their short gun seasons as we do in our two week season? How would killing just as many buck deer in a shorter amount of time solve anything? The season lenght isn't the biggest issue. The buck only tag is! Illinois has either sex tags so the hunter doesn't have to shoot a small buck just to keep from eating a tag. If, at the end of the season, they haven't filled their tag, they can shoot a doe for the meat. But, you can't compare Illinois and indiana like that. Deer hunting is a huge draw in Illinois. The reason so many bucks are killed in in Illinois has a lot to do with hunting lodges. If Indiana went to a 3 day gun season, I doubt we would even come close to the number of bucks that are killed in Illinois.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Jun 9, 2011 13:32:03 GMT -5
No. Are we not currently limited to one deer per seaons other than military, refuge and park hunts?
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jun 9, 2011 14:11:57 GMT -5
So if what Illinois is doing is producing big bucks, and we need to emulate them, then we are going to go to a two buck limit, right? Indiana's bucks simply don't run as big on average as those in Illinois. The books prove it. It's silly to compare the two states, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by deweydutchmen on Jun 9, 2011 14:23:04 GMT -5
just somewhat curious, whats the "trophy" deer in Indiana PER SQUARE MILE in the books compared to other states PER SQUARE MILE? more of an apples to apples comparison than saying state x has this many entries. State x may be texas which is several Indianas in size....and Indiana is the SMALLEST state east of the Smokeys Sorry Dave but Indiana is not east of the Smokeys!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 9, 2011 15:29:56 GMT -5
just somewhat curious, whats the "trophy" deer in Indiana PER SQUARE MILE in the books compared to other states PER SQUARE MILE? more of an apples to apples comparison than saying state x has this many entries. State x may be texas which is several Indianas in size....and Indiana is the SMALLEST state east of the Smokeys See attached from 2003.. State Rankings .... Not sure the relevence to today.... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 9, 2011 15:32:12 GMT -5
Square miles records... from 2003... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 9, 2011 15:35:24 GMT -5
more 2003 Record book entries to number in harvest.. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 9, 2011 15:36:33 GMT -5
More 2003... Record buck entries by number of hunters.. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 9, 2011 15:37:34 GMT -5
More 2003..by state populations.. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2011 17:02:22 GMT -5
Assuming Dave wanted to say EAST of the Miss. R., then Indiana is not the smallest state, and compares in size to Ky.
As per comparing Illinois to Indiana, that is a poor comparison. Illinois has a lot more hunters and sells 3 times as many deer licenses as Indiana. The harvest is higher, but not portional to the numbers of hunters and tags sold. Illinios manages for 75 deer per sq. mi., which is as hgh as any state I've ever heard of. Apparently, with a lot of landowner making extra money from deer and hunting, it's socially acceptable to have crop damage in majpr porportions.
The difference is in management scheme, more deer over all equals more bucks in the herd, and more carry over each year, and ultimately more trophy bucks. Obviously, Indiana does not manage for the same number of deer that Illinois does, and even though it could produce as well as Illinois, it simply has less deer overall.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jun 9, 2011 17:13:39 GMT -5
As per comparing Illinois to Indiana, that is a poor comparison. Illinois has a lot more hunters and sells 3 times as many deer licenses as Indiana. [glow=red,2,300] The harvest is higher, but not portional to the numbers of hunters and tags sold. Illinios manages for 75 deer per sq. mi., which is as hgh as any state I've ever heard of.[/glow] Apparently, with a lot of landowner making extra money from deer and hunting, it's socially acceptable to have crop damage in majpr porportions. [glow=red,2,300]The difference is in management scheme, more deer over all equals more bucks in the herd, and more carry over each year, and ultimately more trophy bucks. Obviously, Indiana does not manage for the same number of deer that Illinois does, and even though it could produce as well as Illinois, it simply has less deer overall.[/glow]And there my friends is the rest of the story, you know the story that some bow hunters don't want you to know because they simply want to keep gun hunters out of the woods. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Jun 9, 2011 22:44:19 GMT -5
I meant to WEST of the smokies LOL, and we are the smallest
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jun 10, 2011 7:25:47 GMT -5
Study has shown that IF a buck survives until he is 2.5 yrs. old, he is most likely going to die of old age than other factors. His chance of being killed goes down each year that he ages. And not all of them will continue the risking breeding ritual that puts them at risk of neing killed. IMO, there are a lot more 150+ deer in Indiana than hunters think there are, but they don't get seen often and few make it into the harvest logs because of their nature and abilities to avoid trouble. I would agree that 4.5 yr old and older bucks are elusive, but not 2 and 3 year olds, they make plenty of mistakes and a ton of them are killed every year. That leads to less mature bucks and there aren't very many around most areas with hunters.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 10, 2011 7:52:12 GMT -5
I am of the opinion there are a lot more 4.5's out there than most people think.
My own personal experiences .... catching an antler tip of a mature buck bedded 15 feet away in the switchgrass watching me instead of running. Watching a mature buck swim to an island in the river to bed down for the day where nobody can get to him.
Im sure there are 20 similar cases that I have not seen to every one I am lucky enough to witness.
They are smart. Smarter than me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2011 8:25:53 GMT -5
This study will tell you approximately how many are out there, the unknown is the number of deer in Indiana, which the DNR wants to keep secret for some reason that is also unknown. One can guess that the number is somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million. If you knew that number, it's simple math to est. the number of bucks that might be out there. Not to say that your area might have more or less, depending on several factors. www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/deer-biologymanagement/buck-movements-mortality/
|
|
|
Post by buddylee on Jun 14, 2011 8:00:41 GMT -5
You'll never kill a big one if you keep shooting the little ones.
One reason hunters are seeing more big deer is they are finally catching on and and not shooting the first thing with bone on it's head the first day. They are waiting for something better. The longer they are out there the better chance they have at seeing a big old good one.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Jun 14, 2011 10:43:44 GMT -5
You'll never kill a big one if you keep shooting the little ones. One reason hunters are seeing more big deer is they are finally catching on and and not shooting the first thing with bone on it's head the first day. They are waiting for something better. The longer they are out there the better chance they have at seeing a big old good one. I'll agree but......for those that were not hunting 30-40 years ago and in between, there is ALSO the reasoning most wait is because there is a MUCH larger chance of seeing MORE bucks now with the population increase being what it is. A huge amount just know they WILL SEE several bucks a season. Compare that back to the 60s-70s and opinions of what a "nice buck" is would change. SEEING more than one per season was not common. Letting one "walk" was unheard of. Not to be throwing any tar at those "catching on" and waiting but NOW......there IS that option and wont reduce your odds of a buck as much as decades past. ANY buck with a recurve was a proud moment years ago and done legally and ethically now, some of us still have that same opinion..........not to downgrade other equipment in any way either though. I dont know if Jay Massey "coined" the phrase but did repeat something of this nature. "Satisfaction of an accomplishment is directly proportional to the amount of effort it takes to achieve it". I'm not talking about effort in reference to type of equipment but rather the effort it takes, by comparison, hunting a large herd over a much smaller one. It just ain't no big trick to see A buck like it was decades (and not so many of em either) ago. The laws of averages will give us more opportunities simply because there ARE more deer and more bucks. Waiting is an allowable and rational action simply because there almost always WILL BE another chance unless LATE in the season. We CAN wait, at least is makes some sense NOW, and still have good odds of a crack at another one like that one or one bigger BUT the deer population is a KEY factor in that equation as well as hunters catching on about letting little ones walk. Some of us, by reports here, do NOT have the population in their hunting area, it seems anyway. For THEM......depending upon the number OF deer in their area, the number of times they can let one walk and expect a successful season or two occasionally, is limited. I know I pass up LOTS of bucks that as short as 15 years ago I would have zinged at first glance. It isnt ME that has changed either. I am not a "trophy hunter" per se yet like bigger ones. I just know that recent years hunting in the same area indicate I will.....WILL see several bucks a season otherwise?..........POW! I'm good. If not feeling like there are bunches around, my challenge is increased dramatically...PER buck but fortunately I don't face that in areas presently. I can tell you honestly that if I felt I was going to SEE 2-3 bucks a season, picky would go OUT The window. Seeing 2-3 DOZEN bucks makes a world of difference. If we had the herd of decades past this would be a moot conversation. We simply have the option now because OF the number of deer, otherwise we wouldnt worry so much about "bigger and better". A "scoring" buck is indeed a way to increase the above mentioned "effort" to increase satisfaction. It is far "easier" to take a smaller, normal buck. This is, IMHO, a direct effect of all of the technology to make things "more successful" actually working. Somewhere, the "challange" has to remain. If it's too easy, it flat aint as much fun nor as satisfying so we hunt for bigger racks. That works, is great, most are using it, however the larger herd, longer seasons, better technology etc, ALL have the reverse effect on the effort required. Think about THAT a second. lol! If we all had to hunt our keisters off for three seasons to get a shot at ANY buck..........be danged sure your chest would be sticking WAY out there in pride when you dropped one. I have to say, no offense to those thinking otherwise, but often I have to wonder if it wasn't a simpler, more peaceful sport then. I guess that explains the "turning back" of my own ways and equipment to that time yet the large herd is still the main factor which governs what "size buck is acceptable" even in my mind and is DIRECTLY affected by the number of bucks I see annually. Gimme a couple crap years on buck sightings and Illl whack the first set of antlers that walks by! (and feel pretty tickled!) Just thoughts to keep it all in perspective.......I hope. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 14, 2011 10:53:20 GMT -5
You'll never kill a big one if you keep shooting the little ones. One reason hunters are seeing more big deer is they are finally catching on and and not shooting the first thing with bone on it's head the first day. They are waiting for something better. The longer they are out there the better chance they have at seeing a big old good one. I'll agree but......for those that were not hunting 30-40 years ago and in between, there is ALSO the reasoning most wait is because there is a MUCH larger chance of seeing MORE bucks now with the population increase being what it is. A huge amount just know they WILL SEE several bucks a season. Compare that back to the 60s-70s and opinions of what a "nice buck" is would change. SEEING more than one per season was not common. Letting one "walk" was unheard of. Not to be throwing any tar at those "catching on" and waiting but NOW......there IS that option and wont reduce your odds of a buck as much as decades past. ANY buck with a recurve was a proud moment years ago and done legally and ethically now, some of us still have that same opinion..........not to downgrade other equipment in any way either though. I dont know if Jay Massey "coined" the phrase but did repeat something of this nature. "Satisfaction of an accomplishment is directly proportional to the amount of effort it takes to achieve it". I'm not talking about effort in reference to type of equipment but rather the effort it takes, by comparison, hunting a large herd over a much smaller one. It just ain't no big trick to see A buck like it was decades (and not so many of em either) ago. The laws of averages will give us more opportunities simply because there ARE more deer and more bucks. Waiting is an allowable and rational action simply because there almost always WILL BE another chance unless LATE in the season. We CAN wait, at least is makes some sense NOW, and still have good odds of a crack at another one like that one or one bigger BUT the deer population is a KEY factor in that equation as well as hunters catching on about letting little ones walk. Some of us, by reports here, do NOT have the population in their hunting area, it seems anyway. For THEM......depending upon the number OF deer in their area, the number of times they can let one walk and expect a successful season or two occasionally, is limited. I know I pass up LOTS of bucks that as short as 15 years ago I would have zinged at first glance. It isnt ME that has changed either. I am not a "trophy hunter" per se yet like bigger ones. I just know that recent years hunting in the same area indicate I will.....WILL see several bucks a season otherwise?..........POW! I'm good. If not feeling like there are bunches around, my challenge is increased dramatically...PER buck but fortunately I don't face that in areas presently. I can tell you honestly that if I felt I was going to SEE 2-3 bucks a season, picky would go OUT The window. Seeing 2-3 DOZEN bucks makes a world of difference. If we had the herd of decades past this would be a moot conversation. We simply have the option now because OF the number of deer, otherwise we wouldnt worry so much about "bigger and better". A "scoring" buck is indeed a way to increase the above mentioned "effort" to increase satisfaction. It is far "easier" to take a smaller, normal buck. This is, IMHO, a direct effect of all of the technology to make things "more successful" actually working. Somewhere, the "challange" has to remain. If it's too easy, it flat aint as much fun nor as satisfying so we hunt for bigger racks. That works, is great, most using it however the larger herd, longer seasons, better technology ALL have the reverse effect. Think about THAT a second. lol If we all had to hunt our keisters off for three seasons to get a shot at ANY buck..........be danged sure your chest would be sticking WAY out there in pride. I have to say, no offense to those thinking otherwise, but often I have to wonder if it wasn't a simpler, more peaceful sport then. I guess that explains the "turning back" of my own ways and equipment to that time yet the large herd is still the main factor which govern what "size buck is allowable" even in my mind and is DIRECTLY affected by the number of bucks I see annually. Gimme a couple crap years on buck sightings and Illl whack the first set of antlers that walks by! lol Just thoughts to keep it all in perspective.......I hope. God Bless Good post (as usual) Steve... Yes, we definetely have a LOT more bucks to choose from and can be more selective.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Jun 14, 2011 16:51:12 GMT -5
Thanks, ye olde leader of us all!
I voted "no" to the poll, should that be lost within my wordy (also as usual, hehe) post.
What each hunter wishes to gain from hunting is not necessarily, nor always, nor needs to be.......measured in "inches' and inches ARE related to the buck hunting in question.
Limiting bucks taken lends itself too easily to "growing" your own buck herd and Im sorry. Im in my own "rut" and feel "natural" means NATURAL aka free roaming, un "culled" animals of the wild as big or little as God allows them to be.
Tongue in cheek, I would like to add that "today's" deer hunters are spoiled and WANT MORE. Such regulations are proof positive of such.
"Let us regulate EVERYONE else to give US more of what WE want" (even though we've GOT "more" than Indiana's history has EVER SHOWN.)
All fine and good ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY CONTROLLED.......not state wide.
It is the HUNTING they would be limiting more than anything else. THAT, my friends, is a reduction we cannot approve.
It is the HUNTING of our game that is the true "trophy".......NOT "only" the racks on the wall! Such a regulation would DEFINATELY reduce the time honored enjoyment of many to gain "something" for everyone else......maybe.
I will never give a vote of consent to any regulation that reduces ANYONE's time afield EVEN IF greater results were carved in stone for someone else.
WHILE I love to hunt my "one annual buck" my face to face, normally losing, encounters with the ladies of the deer herd are GREAT "teachers" and EVERY deer hunter needs to pit himself or herself against one of the grand ladies on their own turf sans "special" equipment should they feel them "unworthy" of time spent afield.
With feet firmly planted on terra firma hunting as our fore fathers did slipping through the woods, weapon of choice in hand, it will lend itself to another "unforgetable memory" or two.....I PROMISE!
ANY regulation that even remotely steers the hoards towards only "one goal" being acceptable or "worthy" will never BE acceptable in my book of hunting morals. It simply "indicates" that the taking of a "smaller" animal is somehow of lesser respect, importance and/or "not notworthy"... FOR EVERYONE!
Should I be fortunate enough to be here for my first grandchild's hunt whom is due come October 1st (ahem...note date!) I hope I am able to portray, teach and someday leave behind the truth........the truth being that hunting is a conquest of one's own limitations over the vast abilities of the chosen game hunted and that for each, and every shot taken there is but ONE whom choses "right and wrong" and ONE that will or will not reap the rewards of each encounter, and no one else.
The hunter taking the shot.
It is ultimately and completely THEIR memory they are building and it's only wrong if illegal. No one sets your standards, nor should you ever put yourself on any kind of self built pedestal thinging that YOU should set someone else's.
Therefore, such a regulation would get, forever, my "NO WAY" vote.
God Bless (3.5 months and counting!!!) Steve
P.S. (ha,,,,,,,,you thought I was done? hehe) I am PROUD to see the posts of this thread. I see most agree and will add this.
For every TRUE trophy hunter out there, there is at LEAST 100 brethren of the deer fields who takes just as much pride in the deer they hunt......and choose to take using THEIR "standards" for THEIR satisfaction and just as happy with a nice meaty 145lb 6 point.
Let us all remember......there once was a time.......where that was "you".
|
|
|
Post by countrystyle56 on Jun 14, 2011 20:38:32 GMT -5
What I dislike about the new era hunting community is the thought that in order to have a successful season you HAVE to kill a buck! I have been hunting for 25 years now, and I know for a fact, more of those seasons have ended with buck tags in my pocket than bucks in the freezer. AND THAT IS FINE!!! Shooting small bucks does nothing for me anymore, other than make me think "I wonder how big he would have been in a few years".
just curious, what are some of your definitions of a successful season. As long as I am able to get afield, see some deer and put some does in the freezer, I'm good.
But my true drive is monster bucks! Maybe thats the product of hunting some monster bucks in Illinois for 24 years. But what irritates me is that Indiana is a carbon copy of Illinois. The monster bucks could grow here if they were allowed to get that old!
|
|