|
Post by greghopper on Apr 14, 2014 19:39:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Apr 14, 2014 20:41:55 GMT -5
I find it interesting how the author plays down the fact that 36 % were not happy at all with the DNR and another 3o some percent said they were adequate .I will tell you adequate in natural resources and or any gov agency is not a good thing at all .It means they are not doing the job the way they should .If they are not getting good or great reviews its not a good thing .JMHO they need to get with it.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 15, 2014 11:06:51 GMT -5
While I'm not 100% satisfied with the IDNR @ times....overall, I think they have done a good job.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 15, 2014 12:17:29 GMT -5
Sorry but I tend to give more credibility to hunters that do not have to "see at least a dozen deer in order to have a satisfactory hunt" than those that do.
It seems to me that the hunters needing to see "at least a dozen deer in order to have a satisfactory hunt" just want the DNR to provide them with more targets.
Whatever happened to the hunt? Has it just turned into a kill game?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 15, 2014 12:33:12 GMT -5
I would think that if a person needs to see at least a dozen deer to have a satisfactory hunt there will be an awful lot of disappointment.
I am lucky enough to have about as good a chunk of dirt to deer hunt as a guy can imagine and there are many, many, many, many days where I do not see near a dozen deer.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Apr 15, 2014 13:14:21 GMT -5
I like to see deer just like the next guy and I manage my property the best I can. I do not depend on the DNR to manage my property for me. Ultimately the people that control the deer herd are us HUNTER'S ourselves. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If your area is low in deer number's then don't shoot up the antlerless deer. You have to start somewhere, so how about looking in the mirror and start by doing your part. Just because a county has a high quota or has a late antlerless season doesn't mean you have to take part or shoot the quota. There are many area's of the state that have high deer population's and there are many area's that have low number's and as a hunter you have to be able to adjust. I'm satisfied with our state's DNR managing of the deer herd in general and I believe they are in process of making changes to address some counties low population issue's. Like Swilk I am blessed to have a farm to hunt in a high deer population area and many good neighbor's that don't over harvest our local deer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 13:44:34 GMT -5
I hunt some of the best areas of the state. I have a few magical days a year where the deer seem to be crawling from behind every tree. I had a couple like that last year where I saw 20+ deer from stand in one sit. However, that happens 1, 2, maybe 3 times a season if I am lucky. I still think I've had a successful hunt if I see some deer. I'd guess that my average sit on stand for my 15 years of deer hunting would yield 4 or 5 deer sightings. That number has remained pretty much unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 15, 2014 14:05:37 GMT -5
I ponder what these "need to see a dozen deer" folks would have done back in the late 60s and 70s when if you saw one deer you were ecstatic? They probably would have never become deer hunters.
We've become spoiled deer shooters..
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Apr 15, 2014 18:43:48 GMT -5
Yup
A good day around here you might see five or six deer. More days are blanks than not. I'm content.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 15, 2014 20:47:46 GMT -5
As far back as I can go on the yearly deer kills..
What do you all see there?
Year - Antlered - Antlerless - Total 1999 - 46,371 - 53,247 - 99,618 2000 - 44,621 - 54,104 - 98,725 2001 - 48,357 - 54,806 - 103,163 2002 - 47,177 - 57,251 - 104,428 2003 - 49,533 - 57,453 - 106,986 2004 - 54,768 - 68,290 - 123,058 2005 - 52,490 - 73,036 - 125,526 2006 - 49,094 - 76,287 - 125,381 2007 - 49,367 - 75,060 - 124,427 2008 - 50,834 - 78,914 - 129,748 2009 - 52,980 - 79,772 - 132,752 2010 - 53,007 - 80,997 - 134,004 2011 - 50,717 - 78,301 - 129,018 2012 - 45,936 - 90,312 - 136,248 2013 - 46,240 - 79,395 - 125,635
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Apr 16, 2014 5:27:01 GMT -5
As far back as I can go on the yearly deer kills.. What do you all see there? Year - Antlered - Antlerless - Total1999 - 46,371 - 53,247 - 99,618 2000 - 44,621 - 54,104 - 98,725 2001 - 48,357 - 54,806 - 103,163 2002 - 47,177 - 57,251 - 104,428 2003 - 49,533 - 57,453 - 106,986 2004 - 54,768 - 68,290 - 123,058 2005 - 52,490 - 73,036 - 125,526 2006 - 49,094 - 76,287 - 125,381 2007 - 49,367 - 75,060 - 124,427 2008 - 50,834 - 78,914 - 129,748 2009 - 52,980 - 79,772 - 132,752 2010 - 53,007 - 80,997 - 134,004 2011 - 50,717 - 78,301 - 129,018 2012 - 45,936 - 90,312 - 136,248 2013 - 46,240 - 79,395 - 125,635 Actually if you look at page 12 on this PFD the harvest info goes back to 1989 .Also the doe / antlerless harvest is higher than the buck harvest . You can not sustain a deer herd at a constant level by taking more female deer than male deer over the long term and its been very long term .And we are now taking almost twice as many Antlerless deer as we are antlered .So by reasoning its time to loosen the reins on buck harvest and add a buck buck because of a glut of them and time to tighten the reins on Antlerless harvest . Thats just how management works or at least should but thats too much to ask our officials to do .. www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdf
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 16, 2014 5:57:44 GMT -5
As far back as I can go on the yearly deer kills.. What do you all see there? Year - Antlered - Antlerless - Total1999 - 46,371 - 53,247 - 99,618 2000 - 44,621 - 54,104 - 98,725 2001 - 48,357 - 54,806 - 103,163 2002 - 47,177 - 57,251 - 104,428 2003 - 49,533 - 57,453 - 106,986 2004 - 54,768 - 68,290 - 123,058 2005 - 52,490 - 73,036 - 125,526 2006 - 49,094 - 76,287 - 125,381 2007 - 49,367 - 75,060 - 124,427 2008 - 50,834 - 78,914 - 129,748 2009 - 52,980 - 79,772 - 132,752 2010 - 53,007 - 80,997 - 134,004 2011 - 50,717 - 78,301 - 129,018 2012 - 45,936 - 90,312 - 136,248 2013 - 46,240 - 79,395 - 125,635 Actually if you look at page 12 on this PFD the harvest info goes back to 1989 .Also the doe / antlerless harvest is higher than the buck harvest . You can not sustain a deer herd at a constant level by taking more female deer than male deer over the long term and its been very long term .And we are now taking almost twice as many Antlerless deer as we are antlered .So by reasoning its time to loosen the reins on buck harvest and add a buck buck because of a glut of them and time to tighten the reins on Antlerless harvest . Thats just how management works or at least should but thats too much to ask our officials to do .. www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdfReally? ... The herd is down so now we need to kill MORE Bucks...... Good luck with that!!! LMAO
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 16, 2014 6:36:45 GMT -5
As far back as I can go on the yearly deer kills.. What do you all see there? Year - Antlered - Antlerless - Total1999 - 46,371 - 53,247 - 99,618 2000 - 44,621 - 54,104 - 98,725 2001 - 48,357 - 54,806 - 103,163 2002 - 47,177 - 57,251 - 104,428 2003 - 49,533 - 57,453 - 106,986 2004 - 54,768 - 68,290 - 123,058 2005 - 52,490 - 73,036 - 125,526 2006 - 49,094 - 76,287 - 125,381 2007 - 49,367 - 75,060 - 124,427 2008 - 50,834 - 78,914 - 129,748 2009 - 52,980 - 79,772 - 132,752 2010 - 53,007 - 80,997 - 134,004 2011 - 50,717 - 78,301 - 129,018 2012 - 45,936 - 90,312 - 136,248 2013 - 46,240 - 79,395 - 125,635 Actually if you look at page 12 on this PFD the harvest info goes back to 1989 .Also the doe / antlerless harvest is higher than the buck harvest . You can not sustain a deer herd at a constant level by taking more female deer than male deer over the long term and its been very long term .And we are now taking almost twice as many Antlerless deer as we are antlered .So by reasoning its time to loosen the reins on buck harvest and add a buck buck because of a glut of them and time to tighten the reins on Antlerless harvest . Thats just how management works or at least should but thats too much to ask our officials to do .. www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdfIf you take a closer look @ those numbers and add the buttons into the buck numbers, you'll see that the male/female harvest numbers since 2005 has been very close to being a ratio of 1/1 buck to doe. The one year that shows a significant increase in our ratio of buck to doe harvest is 2012 and that was the first year of the bundle license. In that year the buck harvest was approximately 62,000 bucks (antlered and buttons) and the doe harvest (adult does and doe fawns) was 74,000. But last year was back to more a more normal ratio.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 16, 2014 8:05:36 GMT -5
Actually if you look at page 12 on this PFD the harvest info goes back to 1989 .Also the doe / antlerless harvest is higher than the buck harvest . You can not sustain a deer herd at a constant level by taking more female deer than male deer over the long term and its been very long term .And we are now taking almost twice as many Antlerless deer as we are antlered .So by reasoning its time to loosen the reins on buck harvest and add a buck buck because of a glut of them and time to tighten the reins on Antlerless harvest . Thats just how management works or at least should but thats too much to ask our officials to do .. www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdfIf you take a closer look @ those numbers and add the buttons into the buck numbers, you'll see that the male/female harvest numbers since 2005 has been very close to being a ratio of 1/1 buck to doe. The one year that shows a significant increase in our ratio of buck to doe harvest is 2012 and that was the first year of the bundle license. In that year the buck harvest was approximately 62,000 bucks (antlered and buttons) and the doe harvest (adult does and doe fawns) was 74,000. But last year was back to more a more normal ratio. Quite true and we had our first "special antlerless hunt" in December of that year where 9,842 antlerless deer were taken. I know some hunters had a really tough season last year but looking at the entire state it was not all that far out of the norm. Averaging the kills since 2002 (when we went to a one buck rule)shows: Antlered - Antlerless - TotalAverage - 50,178 - 74,589 - 124,768 In 2013 the kill was: Antlered - Antlerless - Total2013 - 46,240 - 79,395 - 125,635 Difference - Antlered - Antlerless - TotalDiff - -3,938 - +4,806 - +867 867 more deer killed is less than 1% change from the average total yearly kills.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 16, 2014 8:17:04 GMT -5
BTW - The jump from 2011 total kill to the 2012(record year)total kill was +5.3%.
The drop from 2012 (record year)total kill to 2013 total kill was -7.8%.
IMHO - The sky is not falling for the state herd..
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 16, 2014 8:29:30 GMT -5
BTW - The jump from 2011 total kill to the 2012(record year)total kill was +5.3. The drop from 2012 (record year)total kill to 2013 total kill was -7.8 IMHO - The sky is not falling for the state herd.. I agree...the sky isn't falling and IMHO harvesting bucks/does on a nearly 1/1 ratio (year in and out) is about as good as it gets in a wild herd. Having said that, I'm sure there are counties (or certain areas within counties) that have been over hunted and hit with EHD that could use a break. Hopefully the DNR will lower bonus permits in those counties, we won't have to endure another year with EHD killing so many deer and hunters will ease up on areas that they aren't seeing good numbers of deer in.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 16, 2014 8:33:22 GMT -5
A lot of variables go into what we hunters see .... many think there is only one. Population.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 16, 2014 8:46:16 GMT -5
Woody Williams
That's a very good point. If you look @ the harvest data from 2012 and 2013 you will find that (more or less) the late antler less season accounts for the uptick in the overall buck/doe ratio being skewed slightly towards a higher doe harvest.
In 2012, there were 10,091 antler less deer killed in the late antler less season of which 8313 were does. In 2013, there were 6,436 antler less deer killed in the late antler less season of which 5244 were does.
If you look @ the overall harvest data in....
2012 There were approximately 12,000 more does killed than bucks.
2013 there were approximately 5,000 more does killed than bucks.
And those doe kill numbers being higher are a direct result of the late antler less season which is exactly what is was designed to do, which is raise the doe harvest and reduce the herd.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 16, 2014 9:08:00 GMT -5
The late "special antlerless season" is a very powerfull management tool. One that can easily be turned off and on like a water spigot. Before the management was all done by tweaking just the county bonus permits and now they have that AND the "special antlerless season".
One thing I would suggest to the DNR is to more closely follow the possible EHD dead deer found reports in counties where the bonus limit is 4 and more and consider canceling the "special antlerless season" for any high numbers of dead deer found. IOW - be more proactive.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Apr 16, 2014 16:22:17 GMT -5
Actually if you look at page 12 on this PFD the harvest info goes back to 1989 .Also the doe / antlerless harvest is higher than the buck harvest . You can not sustain a deer herd at a constant level by taking more female deer than male deer over the long term and its been very long term .And we are now taking almost twice as many Antlerless deer as we are antlered .So by reasoning its time to loosen the reins on buck harvest and add a buck buck because of a glut of them and time to tighten the reins on Antlerless harvest . Thats just how management works or at least should but thats too much to ask our officials to do .. www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdfReally? ... The herd is down so now we need to kill MORE Bucks...... Good luck with that!!! LMAO All the OBR did was put pressure on the antlerless herds for some who would of never shot a doe but taken a second buck .Also since when is a buck able to give birth ??Once a buck breeds the doe in the area there job is done and they are replaced the very next year when the fawns are born .Sorry it is what it is and the Buck herd here has nothing to do with the growing of the deer herd .Only the doe herd does that .So yep lets open up that second buck and really stick it in the rear end of the antler greed mongers in this state . You will never get me to buy into the OBR it was all a ploy and done by the very same groups that have brought us to the point we are at the .The insider good ol boy club alive and well in the DNR and the bait and switch of or hunters and deer herd and the rules that we hunt by .OBR Trophy antler hunters and supporters are the worst that our sport has to offer and are very poor deer hunting Representatives to all new hunters and the non hunting public across this country .
|
|