|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 24, 2006 22:08:57 GMT -5
There is a wonderful article in the April issue of American Hunter called Whitetail Nation. It speaks mostly to the dilemma in Pennsylvania, with their Game Commission, and the trouble encountered by Gary Alt-once head of that Game Commission, as he tried to properly manage that state’s deer herd. Very good read, and the thing that I got from it that I feel relates to potential issues with Indiana’s deer herd, in that the non-professionals, (you reading this joe bacon?) need to let the wildlife biologists manage the herd. The other thing the article addresses, and I`ve read this before, is the real threat that development poses to the deer herd, and not necessarily the way you might think. It talks about how all the housing popping up in urban, and even rural areas cuts down the land available for hunting, yet it creates excellent edge and cover, a few of the things that let white-tails thrive. With the herds already way past the carrying capacity of the habitat in most areas, this will create even another issue to be solved. That just reinforces to me, that even with all the other issues that pose a threat to hunting, loss of huntable land is the number 1 issue facing us today, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.  |
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Mar 24, 2006 22:15:14 GMT -5
And how do we solve that?
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 24, 2006 22:55:07 GMT -5
And how do we solve that? Jack Great question-you get the answer be sure to let me know. Obviously, the government isn`t going to step in and halt development, it creates more tax base, but damn, it`s got to stop at some point. I honestly don`t know if there are any ways to slow development/loss of hunting areas, or not without some sort of government intervention. In Indiana it`s hitting alarming proportions. I had a guy give me grief as I moaned about all the freakin development, and he chastised me. He said that the heavy development only occurred along major thoroughfares. I said-Boy, good thing we don`t have too many of those, I-74, US 40, US 36, I-70, 39, 267, 41, 236, 240, 136, etc. I don`t know what the answer is, unless I hit Powerball, but not likely. I believe development is the greatest threat to hunting today, more than peta, anti-gunners, you name it. Is there anyplace in Indiana that you could seriously call rural anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Mar 25, 2006 3:26:43 GMT -5
I've been following the situation between the PGC and the state's resident hunters , and the hunters are convinced that they know better than the folks that they pay to manage their game for them . Dangerous thinking at best since a lot of what they base their thinking on is QDM dogma . What they fail to realize is that state game agencies don't exist to manage a game population for trophy potential , they exist to create a balance between the wishes of the public and reality . Reality has a lot harsher view of what should be than the public realizes .
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 25, 2006 7:12:19 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more!  |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 25, 2006 15:02:38 GMT -5
I've been following the situation between the PGC and the state's resident hunters , and the hunters are convinced that they know better than the folks that they pay to manage their game for them . Dangerous thinking at best since a lot of what they base their thinking on is QDM dogma . What they fail to realize is that state game agencies don't exist to manage a game population for trophy potential , they exist to create a balance between the wishes of the public and reality . Reality has a lot harsher view of what should be than the public realizes . Well said. It`s a frightening thing that they could even get a court to hear the case. If ever there was a case of the kids wanting to run the candy store, this would be it. |
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Mar 25, 2006 15:53:44 GMT -5
One of the many hats I wear is on a committee that addresses legislative issues. The last two sessions we have had a short list of issues (easier to get folks to agree on a short list and easier to get legislators to focus on a short list) to work on. Each session we have had 3 of the 4 issues pass. The 4th has always been we what we call Rural Land Development. I keep fighting to make it our number one issue and never get it done. Maybe this year it will happen.
Anyway there is a group - the Indiana Land Use Consortium - that addresses this very issue. I've never met with them, don't know much about them but I intend to find out. If they are after what I hope they are after (saving rural Indiana for Hoosiers and keeping industrial development in the already built-up areas of Indiana) then I plan on wearing still another hat if they will have me.
Jack
By the way some of the actions of the past legislative session will make it easier for the DNR to buy land in the future (access to the Heritage Trust Fund, access to the Lifetime License Fund, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 25, 2006 17:02:54 GMT -5
One of the many hats I wear is on a committee that addresses legislative issues. The last two sessions we have had a short list of issues (easier to get folks to agree on a short list and easier to get legislators to focus on a short list) to work on. Each session we have had 3 of the 4 issues pass. The 4th has always been we what we call Rural Land Development. I keep fighting to make it our number one issue and never get it done. Maybe this year it will happen. Anyway there is a group - the Indiana Land Use Consortium - that addresses this very issue. I've never met with them, don't know much about them but I intend to find out. If they are after what I hope they are after (saving rural Indiana for Hoosiers and keeping industrial development in the already built-up areas of Indiana) then I plan on wearing still another hat if they will have me. Jack By the way some of the actions of the past legislative session will make it easier for the DNR to buy land in the future (access to the Heritage Trust Fund, access to the Lifetime License Fund, etc.). Jack-don`t know what the requirememnts are to work with a group like that, but I`d love to help some way. |
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 27, 2006 9:31:36 GMT -5
I've been following the situation between the PGC and the state's resident hunters , and the hunters are convinced that they know better than the folks that they pay to manage their game for them . Dangerous thinking at best since a lot of what they base their thinking on is QDM dogma . What they fail to realize is that state game agencies don't exist to manage a game population for trophy potential , they exist to create a balance between the wishes of the public and reality . Reality has a lot harsher view of what should be than the public realizes . Well put, and so true. |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Mar 27, 2006 10:21:51 GMT -5
That is true of at least some hunters in every state not just Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Mar 27, 2006 11:03:04 GMT -5
That is true of at least some hunters in every state not just Pennsylvania. Got anybody special in mind ?  ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 27, 2006 11:33:55 GMT -5
;D That is true of at least some hunters in every state not just Pennsylvania. Got anybody special in mind ? ;D I do, but don`t want to drop any names. Gotta go, I`m cookin breakfast and don`t want to burn the BACON. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Mar 27, 2006 11:44:11 GMT -5
Jack,
Have there been any discussions about introducing LID, or Low Impact Development legislation? Clustered development cuts down on lot size and leaves room for habitat and riparian corridors for wildlife to utilize.
This leaves room for economic development while lessening encroachment concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 27, 2006 12:36:35 GMT -5
Jack, Have there been any discussions about introducing LID, or Low Impact Development legislation? Clustered development cuts down on lot size and leaves room for habitat and riparian corridors for wildlife to utilize. This leaves room for economic development while lessening encroachment concerns. Leaving room for habitat isn`t a help when the development occurs since you can`t hunt there any longer. It only increases the ideal edge cover the white-tails thrive in, with no way to control the herd. The answer has got to be some way of halting development entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Mar 27, 2006 13:50:07 GMT -5
Jack, Have there been any discussions about introducing LID, or Low Impact Development legislation? Clustered development cuts down on lot size and leaves room for habitat and riparian corridors for wildlife to utilize. This leaves room for economic development while lessening encroachment concerns. Leaving room for habitat isn`t a help when the development occurs since you can`t hunt there any longer. It only increases the ideal edge cover the white-tails thrive in, with no way to control the herd. The answer has got to be some way of halting development entirely. I disagree. Conservation design principles can leave plenty of room for hunting, if that is the wish of the people. www.greenerprospects.com/products.htmlThe only way of stopping development is to buy the land your self. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 27, 2006 15:30:02 GMT -5
Leaving room for habitat isn`t a help when the development occurs since you can`t hunt there any longer. It only increases the ideal edge cover the white-tails thrive in, with no way to control the herd. The answer has got to be some way of halting development entirely. I disagree. Conservation design principles can leave plenty of room for hunting, if that is the wish of the people. www.greenerprospects.com/products.htmlThe only way of stopping development is to buy the land your self. love to buy the land myself-if only I had hit powerball. Please explain tho how development leaves room for hunting? In the area I live it`s already becoming a concern and a topic of debate how safe slug gun and muzzleloader hunting are due to the close proximity of housing. |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 27, 2006 16:00:44 GMT -5
More incentive to move people back into the towns and cities, instead of moving the city boundry to include the rural areas. When a city with a discharge ordinance anexes a new chunk of rural area it very well could stop all hunting and shooting in that rural area. Pendleton, Fishers are 2 that I am familular with, I am sure there are hundred other towns attempting the same thing. Same with factories and shopping. It will cost us a lot for sure, new design for roads, tax breaks to get enough interest and the likes.
Lets face it no chance to slow growth even in some of the depressed areas the land continues to be chopped up and towns continue to spread and annex more land. I know in Madison Co. a new house can not be built on anything less then a 5 acre plot, unless on sewer system. Mainly due to septic issues. This does limit some people from buying and building new homes out in the country, but not many. Not sure how other counties face these types of issues.
What a problem to ponder. We don't want to be too prosperous, but don't want to be the bottom of the barrel either. And I'd agree with Greg, anytime you have any amount of people setting up shop on 5 acre plots or small groups of dense housing there will be a few who oppose hunting and hunters for various reasons. Or due to safety purposes limits a hunters option for even hunting.
|
|
;D
