|
Post by swilk on Oct 19, 2016 5:29:46 GMT -5
In the county you hunt, how many deer do you think there are? How many do you feel there should be? How did you arrive at those two numbers? by going of the dnr deer density per county statistics. If I go off of that its low . I go by my hunting area. So....you have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 19, 2016 5:35:58 GMT -5
Again, my opinion is that bonus antlerless tags play a minor part in the total equation. Reduce them all you want, and you'll still see the same outcome. To be blunt, I feel that the true problem is there are too many hunters for the size of our herd, coupled with too little suitable habitat.
Take northern Indiana for example -- it's where most of the complaints of low deer numbers arise. You have small woodlots crammed with a dozen hunters. The quota could be reduced, yet the harvest remain static. The number of hunters remains the same, but instead of a few killing the majority, some that these particular hunters would have killed are taken by other hunters who usually get little or none. It's socialism at its finest -- taking deer from those who have many and giving them to those who have few. The number of deer killed doesn't change, only who kills them. This scenario is quite plausible as long as the number of hunters exceeds the number of deer available.
People love to lay the blame on some poor schmuck who kills his county quota, but statistics have shown that the number of people who kill more than 3 deer a year are very minute -- and probably even more astronomically small when narrowed down to those whose deer were all tagged with bonus antlerless tags. Those three could be two archery tags and a firearm tag, with nary a bonus tag used.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 19, 2016 7:01:06 GMT -5
by going of the dnr deer density per county statistics. If I go off of that its low . I go by my hunting area. So....you have no idea. Exactly ....... And folks say the DNR is lost! LOL
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 19, 2016 7:13:52 GMT -5
If a person goes by the DNR data that is available .... and then makes a decision that does not align with the DNR, they are essentially saying the DNR is incorrect in its interpretation of its own data. I would think that in order to have a chance a different data set would be needed to offer evidence to the DNR as to why they have not been making the correct decisions.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 19, 2016 7:16:42 GMT -5
In the county you hunt, how many deer do you think there are? How many do you feel there should be? How did you arrive at those two numbers? 9361,,18722 --- I counted the number of deer I see on any given day Took average seen x 365 assuming every one has same amount Deer I have ,, I need to see twice as many deer to have a quality hunt thanks for asking
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Oct 19, 2016 7:29:54 GMT -5
Exactly..... "But it's for the Kids"..... SMH...one of the Biggest lies in this BS...IMO why do you think its a lie? Getting a stable deer herd in Every county is bad? Nobody wants a stable deer herd, that is the problem. You will get a lot of attacks and tongue-in-cheek responses from guys that have some awesome ground to hunt and really don't care (already happening). Not worth it. The unintended consequence of DNR management is what I see all the time in my line of work, guys that use money to create what DNR will not, and that means locking up thousands of acres to get around poor management by the state.
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Oct 19, 2016 7:39:42 GMT -5
Again, my opinion is that bonus antlerless tags play a minor part in the total equation. Reduce them all you want, and you'll still see the same outcome. To be blunt, I feel that the true problem is there are too many hunters for the size of our herd, coupled with too little suitable habitat. Take northern Indiana for example -- it's where most of the complaints of low deer numbers arise. You have small woodlots crammed with a dozen hunters. The quota could be reduced, yet the harvest remain static. The number of hunters remains the same, but instead of a few killing the majority, some that these particular hunters would have killed are taken by other hunters who usually get little or none. It's socialism at its finest -- taking deer from those who have many and giving them to those who have few. The number of deer killed doesn't change, only who kills them. This scenario is quite plausible as long as the number of hunters exceeds the number of deer available. People love to lay the blame on some poor schmuck who kills his county quota, but statistics have shown that the number of people who kill more than 3 deer a year are very minute -- and probably even more astronomically small when narrowed down to those whose deer were all tagged with bonus antlerless tags. Those three could be two archery tags and a firearm tag, with nary a bonus tag used. And remove the number of guys that claim they shoot County limit. And the, I know a guy that knows a friend that...
|
|
|
Post by span870 on Oct 19, 2016 7:40:44 GMT -5
Oh to see this passion and effort and money put into something other than the almighty whitetail.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 19, 2016 7:44:14 GMT -5
If we had Elk in Indiana Id put my money and effort into them .....
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 19, 2016 7:46:36 GMT -5
If we had Elk in Indiana Id put my money and effort into them ..... ^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Oct 19, 2016 7:56:51 GMT -5
freedomehunter
And that's the great thing about this country. If a person wants to "lock up thousands of acres" to try and hold deer on their property that's certainly their right. But what we all need to remember is that the deer herd is to be managed not just for trophy hunters, or bow hunters or gun hunters, but ALL residents of the state of Indiana.
Another point that keeps getting lost is the fact that (agree with it or not) the state has undergone a deer reduction program. And while it's unpopular with some hunters, no one is forcing them to kill a single deer as they can sit on their acreage, feed and surveil "their" deer if they so choose.
Unfortunately, one consequence of "locking up thousands of acres" is that it forces more hunters onto surrounding smaller parcels and public ground and that can lead to over harvesting in many areas.
And the cycle starts all over again....
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 19, 2016 8:15:08 GMT -5
why do you think its a lie? Getting a stable deer herd in Every county is bad? Nobody wants a stable deer herd, that is the problem. You will get a lot of attacks and tongue-in-cheek responses from guys that have some awesome ground to hunt and really don't care (already happening). Not worth it. The unintended consequence of DNR management is what I see all the time in my line of work, guys that use money to create what DNR will not, and that means locking up thousands of acres to get around poor management by the state. If anyone thinks that every county in this state will ever be the same as the next, there living in a fantasy world.... As said before you could put folks on/in the best ground in the state and they still be ed about someone on something the next fence row over and blame there bad hunting skills and lack of deer sightings on that problem!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 19, 2016 8:19:57 GMT -5
Still waiting on a valid answer on what a stable herd is in any county.....
BTW..... If anyone thinks a more stable herd will stop folks from leasing and locking up ground your only fooling yourself! The rich get richer..
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 19, 2016 8:22:07 GMT -5
Oh to see this passion and effort and money put into something other than the almighty whitetail. And meanwhile THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of Catfish at going to Paylakes as we speak to die and the back to the river for more I know what you mean
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Oct 19, 2016 12:08:12 GMT -5
Another thing is they claim their is currently zero public input to setting quotas....false IMO. Harvest totals, which are a defined and measurable data source are committed by the public. Also the random surveys of all hunters done by the DNR, again public input. Also the DNR does have an email and throughout the year at times seek public input on many different topics. I stated this yesterday but will reiterate today as well....as the group released a post claiming ZERO public input occurs. I still fail to see this as fact. Any and all opinions/thoughts welcome on this please.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 19, 2016 12:10:00 GMT -5
Did you really walk the halls of the asylum and now want to discuss what the patients said?
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Oct 19, 2016 12:24:55 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be a good idea to let NEW Deer Bio have some room on this first ? Curious what he thinks
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 19, 2016 12:42:54 GMT -5
Another thing is they claim their is currently zero public input to setting quotas....false IMO. Harvest totals, which are a defined and measurable data source are committed by the public. Also the random surveys of all hunters done by the DNR, again public input. Also the DNR does have an email and throughout the year at times seek public input on many different topics. I stated this yesterday but will reiterate today as well....as the group released a post claiming ZERO public input occurs. I still fail to see this as fact. Any and all opinions/thoughts welcome on this please. Yeah.... That a compete lie for sure.... Maybe KP44 EDIT can enliten us on this information ! No identifying names please...
WW
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Oct 19, 2016 16:35:31 GMT -5
If only the DNR had a way to know how many deer and other critters hunters are seeing while hunting. Oh, wait...
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Oct 19, 2016 17:18:18 GMT -5
Still waiting on a valid answer on what a stable herd is in any county..... BTW..... If anyone thinks a more stable herd will stop folks from leasing and locking up ground your only fooling yourself! The rich get richer.. Wrong. I know for fact in more than a few situations these are good hunters that are just trying to manage for better hunting. And, would be completely fine with smaller acreage with better regulations. They honestly end up buying or leasing ground they really could do without. Just trying to make lemonade with lemons.
|
|