|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 2, 2018 7:29:49 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... I do believe you are on to something... I went back and looked @ the data from three seasons....2009,2012,2016. In 2009, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 79,772. Of that number, 59,053 were killed during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons (as there wasn't a late antlerless season that year). That total (59,053) equates to 74% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2012, (the first season after the reg changes), the total number of antlerless deer killed was 90,312. Of that number, 63,825 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (63,825) equates to 71% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2016, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 67,694. Of that number, 49,355 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (49,355) equates to 73% of the total harvest. Point being...(on a percentage of total antlerless harvest basis), that number has totaled somewhere between 71-74 percent of the total antlerless harvest (for the three seasons, I cited) with a firearm whether that season included a late antlerless season or not. In other words, it certainly appears that there aren't more antlerless deer being killed (as a percentage of total antlerless harvest) with a firearm because of the late antlerless season, it has just spread the number of antlerless deer killed with a firearm out... FWIW, I went back and checked from 2009-2016. Before the reg change in 2012, the percentage was 2009-74%, 2010-75%, 2011-74%, for an average of 74%. Since 2012 (after the reg change), the percentage was 2012-71%, 2013-69%, 2014-68%, 2015-69%, 2016-73%, for an average of 70%. So in actuality, the percentage of antlerless harvest with a firearm has actually dropped since 2012, even with the addition of the late antlerless season... interesting numbers... Thanks for doing the research and posting. I'll file that away on my PC for later use for sure... |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 2, 2018 7:31:16 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jan 2, 2018 8:29:58 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... I liked this post and felt it deserved a re-quote as well...this is about as true as true can get. |
|
|
|
Post by treetop on Jan 2, 2018 10:14:54 GMT -5
Anybody know how many tags were sold I know you have LTL and land owners but even as a land owner I still buy tags as I hunt more than just my place
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 3, 2018 17:35:02 GMT -5
With Ky in overall second place for the Best "2017 STATE/PROVINCE WHITETAIL DEER SEASON REPORT CARD"... could someone give a break down on their Season lengths/Bag limits/antlerless permits? Might be interesting to compare!  |
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 3, 2018 17:44:55 GMT -5
With Ky in overall second place for the Best "2017 STATE/PROVINCE WHITETAIL DEER SEASON REPORT CARD"... could someone give a break down on their Season lengths/Bag limits/antlerless permits? Might be interesting to compare! One big difference I have seen with Kentucky is they fund their DNR. They are always working on projects to improve habitat and work well with landowners. |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 4, 2018 6:30:44 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... I do believe you are on to something... I went back and looked @ the data from three seasons....2009,2012,2016. In 2009, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 79,772. Of that number, 59,053 were killed during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons (as there wasn't a late antlerless season that year). That total (59,053) equates to 74% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2012, (the first season after the reg changes), the total number of antlerless deer killed was 90,312. Of that number, 63,825 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (63,825) equates to 71% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2016, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 67,694. Of that number, 49,355 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (49,355) equates to 73% of the total harvest. Point being...(on a percentage of total antlerless harvest basis), that number has totaled somewhere between 71-74 percent of the total antlerless harvest (for the three seasons, I cited) with a firearm whether that season included a late antlerless season or not. In other words, it certainly appears that there aren't more antlerless deer being killed (as a percentage of total antlerless harvest) with a firearm because of the late antlerless season, it has just spread the number of antlerless deer killed with a firearm out... FWIW, I went back and checked from 2009-2016. Before the reg change in 2012, the percentage was 2009-74%, 2010-75%, 2011-74%, for an average of 74%. Since 2012 (after the reg change), the percentage was 2012-71%, 2013-69%, 2014-68%, 2015-69%, 2016-73%, for an average of 70%. So in actuality, the percentage of antlerless harvest with a firearm has actually dropped since 2012, even with the addition of the late antlerless season... Wait....did you just use real data to prove a point? Thin ice, very thin ice! |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 4, 2018 9:07:59 GMT -5
I do believe you are on to something... I went back and looked @ the data from three seasons....2009,2012,2016. In 2009, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 79,772. Of that number, 59,053 were killed during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons (as there wasn't a late antlerless season that year). That total (59,053) equates to 74% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2012, (the first season after the reg changes), the total number of antlerless deer killed was 90,312. Of that number, 63,825 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (63,825) equates to 71% of the total antlerless harvest that season. In 2016, the total number of antlerless deer killed was 67,694. Of that number, 49,355 were killed during the firearms, muzzleloader AND the late antlerless seasons. That total (49,355) equates to 73% of the total harvest. Point being...(on a percentage of total antlerless harvest basis), that number has totaled somewhere between 71-74 percent of the total antlerless harvest (for the three seasons, I cited) with a firearm whether that season included a late antlerless season or not. In other words, it certainly appears that there aren't more antlerless deer being killed (as a percentage of total antlerless harvest) with a firearm because of the late antlerless season, it has just spread the number of antlerless deer killed with a firearm out... FWIW, I went back and checked from 2009-2016. Before the reg change in 2012, the percentage was 2009-74%, 2010-75%, 2011-74%, for an average of 74%. Since 2012 (after the reg change), the percentage was 2012-71%, 2013-69%, 2014-68%, 2015-69%, 2016-73%, for an average of 70%. So in actuality, the percentage of antlerless harvest with a firearm has actually dropped since 2012, even with the addition of the late antlerless season... Wait....did you just use real data to prove a point? Thin ice, very thin ice! I used the data provided by the DNR, so I'm sure some will question it's authenticity, and I have been accused by someone on "another" site, of "massaging" the data.... Whatever that means...LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 4, 2018 9:48:22 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... Yep .... every year, we hope for 60% of hunters that take the field to be unsuccessful. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 4, 2018 10:17:00 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... Yep .... every year, we hope for 60% of hunters that take the field to be unsuccessful. ...........and they don't let us down..  |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jan 4, 2018 10:23:54 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... I know I already quoted this...but dangit if it isn't perfect and worthy of a re-read for any visiting this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jan 4, 2018 10:55:04 GMT -5
The state may as well lower all counties to 2 bonus antlerless, since VERY few use more than that. It won't really affect the herd size, but maybe it'll finally get the naysayers to see that the problem is way bigger than bonus antlerless and depredation tags. Then again, after seeing no real herd growth after a few years of reduced tags, they'd probably just say that the DNR was too late and still not admit that predators, loss of habitat, and the biggest problem of all -- too many hunters for Indiana's herd -- are what's really to blame. If every hunter in Indiana took a single deer annually, we'd be in big trouble... I know I already quoted this...but dangit if it isn't perfect and worthy of a re-read for any visiting this thread. The million dollar question(s) would seem to be... Do the landowners and farmers want to restore the deer habitat so as to increase deer numbers? If they do, would you be able to offset the crop money losses from removing part of the ground from farming by returning it to a CRP type program? Would that type of program be funded by the government or are hunters going to have to step up and figure out a way to either pay for part (or all) of it? |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 4, 2018 12:12:50 GMT -5
Some hunters saw that writing on the wall long ago and have been paying for their own way ever since. According to ability.
Those who lease. Owners who own for no other reason than hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 4, 2018 18:59:04 GMT -5
I know I already quoted this...but dangit if it isn't perfect and worthy of a re-read for any visiting this thread. The million dollar question(s) would seem to be... Do the landowners and farmers want to restore the deer habitat so as to increase deer numbers? If they do, would you be able to offset the crop money losses from removing part of the ground from farming by returning it to a CRP type program? Would that type of program be funded by the government or are hunters going to have to step up and figure out a way to either pay for part (or all) of it? Crop prices are down, so now is a perfect time to start an incentive program. |
|
