|
Post by Huntnfreak on Jul 25, 2019 13:32:52 GMT -5
Have they released the new doe quota map for 2019 yet?
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jul 25, 2019 14:01:03 GMT -5
Not yet.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 25, 2019 14:02:21 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, last year's harvest data report hasn't been published, nor has this year's (2019/2020) hunting & trapping guide (with the doe quota map) been made available.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Jul 25, 2019 14:50:06 GMT -5
Only thing I have seen are the season dates....everything else is still MIA
|
|
|
Post by Huntnfreak on Jul 25, 2019 16:14:17 GMT -5
Thanks fellas!!
|
|
|
Post by Huntnfreak on Jul 30, 2019 19:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Jul 30, 2019 19:41:19 GMT -5
IDNR maybe listening to the hunters finally. Maybe we can catch up and actually have live harvest numbers soon??? Good grief. Like waiting on a slug for harvest data.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 30, 2019 21:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 31, 2019 11:28:40 GMT -5
Looks like 19 southern counties are eligible for the late antlerless season this year vs 25 last year.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jul 31, 2019 13:48:54 GMT -5
As anyone that has been observing harvest trends and data or blessed to discuss things with Joe ever, the faucet that is "bonus quotas" continues to further the state from a statewide reduction plan we have been coming out of for a few years. Not shocked one bit at any of the numbers truly.
IMO bonus numbers impact VERY few hunters truly...as take 2017 as an example: more than 97% of the deer harvested were by hunters taking only 3 or fewer (1,2) deer. Less than 3% of the harvested deer were for hunters at 4 deer or more.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 31, 2019 14:08:03 GMT -5
Looks like 19 southern counties are eligible for the late antlerless season this year vs 25 last year. You can still kill antlerless with Bow that time of year!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 31, 2019 14:30:33 GMT -5
As anyone that has been observing harvest trends and data or blessed to discuss things with Joe ever, the faucet that is "bonus quotas" continues to further the state from a statewide reduction plan we have been coming out of for a few years. Not shocked one bit at any of the numbers truly. IMO bonus numbers impact VERY few hunters truly...as take 2017 as an example: more than 97% of the deer harvested were by hunters taking only 3 or fewer (1,2) deer. Less than 3% of the harvested deer were for hunters at 4 deer or more. Looking @ the late antlerless harvest numbers for the last four seasons 2015-18, it appears that the late antlerless harvest numbers are holding fairly steady. 2015-5105 2016-4202 2017-4282 2018-4190* *2018's numbers are an estimate utilizing the daily harvest numbers tracked on this site. Until the actual harvest report comes out, we won't know the exact number, but I feel 4190 will be close.
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Jul 31, 2019 16:39:23 GMT -5
As anyone that has been observing harvest trends and data or blessed to discuss things with Joe ever, the faucet that is "bonus quotas" continues to further the state from a statewide reduction plan we have been coming out of for a few years. Not shocked one bit at any of the numbers truly. IMO bonus numbers impact VERY few hunters truly...as take 2017 as an example: more than 97% of the deer harvested were by hunters taking only 3 or fewer (1,2) deer. Less than 3% of the harvested deer were for hunters at 4 deer or more. I agree. I know exactly two people who have harvested a deer during the extended season. Personally, by the time the post-holiday time rolls around, I'm DONE with hunting and everything else. I'm ready to start the new year and, most importantly, fishing weather. With that said, I have no problem with those who chose to take advantage of the extended season. Have at it. I've harvested three deer in a single season a few times and I know a few others who have as well. I can't think of any acquaintances that have admitted/claimed to harvesting more than three. If they have legally, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Jul 31, 2019 16:53:14 GMT -5
I can demonstrate that as those numbers grow from a 2 to a 3 that it DOES impact the harvest. Now I agree that as that number increases to 4 and above the impact is far less felt. My county alone as a 2 average 690 kills county wide...as a 3 that number jumped to 770+ (increase of over 10%). Far more hunters need/want 2 or 3 deer vs 4,5 or 6.... Oh, and for reference this county is 373 square miles....yes, we struggle to average to kill 2 deer every square mile across the entire county!
As far as the state is concerned....just consider that we are currently at harvest levels to those of 2004....and declining. From our peak in 2012 our harvest has declined 18%.
You can't BALANCE a check-book accurately by only recording the debits from it!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 31, 2019 18:18:00 GMT -5
I can demonstrate that as those numbers grow from a 2 to a 3 that it DOES impact the harvest. Now I agree that as that number increases to 4 and above the impact is far less felt. My county alone as a 2 average 690 kills county wide...as a 3 that number jumped to 770+ (increase of over 10%). Far more hunters need/want 2 or 3 deer vs 4,5 or 6.... Oh, and for reference this county is 373 square miles....yes, we struggle to average to kill 2 deer every square mile across the entire county! As far as the state is concerned....just consider that we are currently at harvest levels to those of 2004....and declining. From our peak in 2012 our harvest has declined 18%. You can't BALANCE a check-book accurately by only recording the debits from it! That was their plan when the state went in the reduction mode! We are in a maintain mode now ... here is the 2017-2022 Deer Management Goal. search.in.gov/s/redirect?collection=agencies1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.in.gov%2Fdnr%2Ffishwild%2F9812.htm&auth=me%2FwGwG350EUX4Gtw7RwKg&profile=dnr&rank=2&query=harvest+reports
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Aug 1, 2019 10:01:55 GMT -5
I can demonstrate that as those numbers grow from a 2 to a 3 that it DOES impact the harvest. Now I agree that as that number increases to 4 and above the impact is far less felt. My county alone as a 2 average 690 kills county wide...as a 3 that number jumped to 770+ (increase of over 10%). Far more hunters need/want 2 or 3 deer vs 4,5 or 6.... Oh, and for reference this county is 373 square miles....yes, we struggle to average to kill 2 deer every square mile across the entire county! As far as the state is concerned....just consider that we are currently at harvest levels to those of 2004....and declining. From our peak in 2012 our harvest has declined 18%. You can't BALANCE a check-book accurately by only recording the debits from it! Harvest should be declined from then, if it wasn't the intentional and planned reduction (for or against) was an absolute failure. Let's remember that even without utilizing bonus antlerless tags someone can harvest 4 deer with normal licenses (without park hunts or reduction zones as well). I'm not making an argument for or against anything, merely observations noted. The way Joe is more strategically going about reduction zones makes bonus quota numbers more irrelevant and not overused as of old IMO, which I'm a fan of. Joe understands localized deer herds and density and social acceptance can change just driving a mile in a direction in a county. No longer treating or seeing a county as a whole every case is something I love.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Aug 1, 2019 13:11:07 GMT -5
I can demonstrate that as those numbers grow from a 2 to a 3 that it DOES impact the harvest. Now I agree that as that number increases to 4 and above the impact is far less felt. My county alone as a 2 average 690 kills county wide...as a 3 that number jumped to 770+ (increase of over 10%). Far more hunters need/want 2 or 3 deer vs 4,5 or 6.... Oh, and for reference this county is 373 square miles....yes, we struggle to average to kill 2 deer every square mile across the entire county! As far as the state is concerned....just consider that we are currently at harvest levels to those of 2004....and declining. From our peak in 2012 our harvest has declined 18%. You can't BALANCE a check-book accurately by only recording the debits from it! Harvest should be declined from then, if it wasn't the intentional and planned reduction (for or against) was an absolute failure. Let's remember that even without utilizing bonus antlerless tags someone can harvest 4 deer with normal licenses (without park hunts or reduction zones as well). I'm not making an argument for or against anything, merely observations noted. The way Joe is more strategically going about reduction zones makes bonus quota numbers more irrelevant and not overused as of old IMO, which I'm a fan of. Joe understands localized deer herds and density and social acceptance can change just driving a mile in a direction in a county. No longer treating or seeing a county as a whole every case is something I love. I agree 100% and like direction this is heading.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 1, 2019 14:35:35 GMT -5
tynimiller
I personally like the way things are right now as well.
But....there are people who aren't ever going to be happy no matter what the DNR does.
Some of my favorites are the people who complain about how the does killed during the late antlerless season are pregnant and thus shouldn't be shot. But yet, they never seem to complain about the muzzleloader season, even though the vast majority of deer killed then are does and most of them are already pregnant...
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 13, 2019 6:27:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 6:34:35 GMT -5
EHD most be bad this year since DNR is reacting to it.
|
|