|
Post by cambygsp on Jul 29, 2006 7:21:44 GMT -5
I seen on another site owned by the IDHA, that they have wrote the IDNR Director complaining about the new antlerless limits in Indiana.
I always thought their position was that "when you think you have shot enough doe deer, to shoot another"
Director Hupfer did write a response....basicly saying that it simplifies the system, and VERY FEW deer hunters take more than 3 antlerlss deer anyway.
Whats your thoughts on the new limits and how they came to be?
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jul 29, 2006 8:31:23 GMT -5
I like the new antlerless regs as long as the DNR sticks with them and resists the urge to tweak them every other year at the whim of certain groups.
As for how we got to this point, I believe the record antlerless harvests of the mid-nineties followed by the decline shortly there after caused the knee jerk reaction of lowering the antlerless quotas, which left us with the surplus of antlerless deer we have now.
Funny that anyone would bash the DNR for allowing the deer herd to expand and then complain when they make an attempt to do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Jul 29, 2006 17:14:20 GMT -5
Speaking as a meat hunter I'm tickled pink with the new limits , I just wish I had a bigger freezer . ;D Who really cares what a bunch of bush league head hunters think anyway ? They all think they're smarter than the degreed biologists whom they're paying to manage our game , so how smart does that make them ? More does means more bucks in the future , or have those dipsticks forgotten that ? They're so wrapped up in their big antler fantasies that they forgot where bucks came from , you can't have a booner behind every tree without does behind every tree giving birth to them . Idiots ...
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Jul 29, 2006 18:03:48 GMT -5
Of course i am glad about the limits...just bump my county up to 4 and i will be REALLY satisfied........... Solo
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jul 30, 2006 6:02:36 GMT -5
No problem with them. Let the DNR do what is needed to manage the herd.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jul 31, 2006 7:28:10 GMT -5
No problem.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 31, 2006 16:39:08 GMT -5
I trust the DNR on MOST issues (OBR not withstanding). Let them do what they think is right.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 31, 2006 16:55:18 GMT -5
The IDNR just sets the upper limit of what we can do. That gives us a LOT of leeway, but that does not mean that we do it 100%. I don't know of anyone that has tagged completely out at any time.
They have the antlerless permits down by the county.
But as hunters we can break it down further.
We know what the herd siutation is in our own areas.
My area sevaral years ago needed some does whacked.
Unfortunately a farmer did it for us with nuisance deer permits.
The sex ratio is pretty decent shape in my area and so i really dont need to take any does yet.
The "shoot them all" at all costs just doesn't fly in all instances.
YMMV..
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Jul 31, 2006 17:04:36 GMT -5
From reading several posts over there it seems that the problem aint the new limits themselves, but the fact that the IDNR did not ask for input (permission) to set the new limits.
I like the fact that our DNR is making good sound decisions, THATS WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR!
I think Mr. Hupfer is doing a great job, I have been very impressed with his work.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 1, 2006 8:40:07 GMT -5
From a friend of mine that does this stuff for a living.. a very good living at that..
"Doe harvest recommendations are always site specific. How much land are you hunting/managing? How is it arranged? How productive is the habitat? What is the relationship between the current herd density and the food production of the habitat at the lowest food production time of year (usually late winter)? What are your management goals? How important are over-all deer sightings to the enjoyment of your hunting experience? How many does are your neighbors shooting each year? Etc., etc....
In some habitat situations, such as flat, wide-open agriculture with little cover, intense doe harvests could put a world of hurt on the local deer population in short order. However, in the habitat/terrain situations of much of southern Indiana (hilly woodland), you would be hard-pressed to put much of a dent in the population, even with the most intense harvest pressure.
Again, each situation is unique."
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Aug 1, 2006 8:51:22 GMT -5
I like the increased limits. It helps out both sets of hunters: meat and horn hunters. Meat hunters get enough meat to last throughout the year and we all know that by decreasing the amount of does we'll see more bucks as they'll have to travel farther to find the does.
I think it's a win-win situation for all but it does become incumbent upon us to do our part and harvest does. Seems that in the groups I've talked with, doe harvest was down this past year. That I think is due to different factors but I try to live by a self-imposed regulation of taking 1-2 does for every buck I shoot (course now it's only 1 buck unless I get drawn for a special hunt).
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 1, 2006 8:58:43 GMT -5
I shot three does from my own property, 2 bonus and 1 muzzleloader. Then shot three on a park reduction hunt and one on the military hunt. This year the upped my county to three bonus deer. More than likely I'll kill two to three again this year. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2006 9:52:56 GMT -5
For those that aint seen it..........
This letter is from Mr. Hupfer....in response to the questions being raised about the new antlerless limits.
Someone pointed me to the posts that are on your board regarding the new antlerless permit structure. Particularly the fact that there is no longer a statewide limit. This proposal was suggested to me by F&W, not as a way to increase harvest, but instead to simplify regulations. When we went to the 8 antlerless deer counties, we encountered not count against the statewide limit. The fact is that our data indicates very few people kill more then 3 antlerless deer. We do not anticipate this change affecting the harvest. My and F&W's request for hunters to harvest antlerless deer I do believe is increasing harvest, but the number of deer one could take last year compared to this year are really both well outside of the level that anyone will really harvest. This refined structure simply makes the harvest limits easier to comprehend. As for public comment, the deer advisory council has not met for sometime. While we considered restarting, we instead intend to use the newly reformed natural resources advisory committee as a mechanism to seek additional comment on issues before taking them to the NRC. As for me receiving public comment, I will let my record stand on its own. The number of meetings I have attended with constituent groups represents a substantial increase over prior folks, and to date, I have still not turned down a requested meeting. You yourself have been at a few, including the one to establish a youth deer season--a really unprecedented meeting of interested parties. To the extent that you or anyone on your board or organization ever has questions or concerns, feel free to email or call and I will do my best to provide a response.
Feel free to post the above on your site in connection with the antlerless deer issue if you like. Let me know if I can ever be of help.
Kyle J. Hupfer Director, Indiana Department of Natural Resources Telephone: (317) 232-4020 Fax: (317) 233-6811
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 2, 2006 11:29:07 GMT -5
Camby - it would seem that you've missed nearly all the points made on "the other site" (Hoosier Hunting), so let me see if I can make things clearer... First, your cut-and-paste of the beginning of Kyle's statement is incomplete... here's the correct paragraph.... "Someone pointed me to the posts that are on your board regarding the new antlerless permit structure. Particularly the fact that there is no longer a statewide limit. This proposal was suggested to me by F&W, not as a way to increase harvest, but instead to simplify regulations. When we went to the 8 antlerless deer counties, we encountered some confusion from hunters as to exactly how many deer could be killed and where, as some of the deer last year did not count against the statewide limit. " Dave Delaney called the Director, and here's part of Dave's post regarding that conversation: "I wanted to relay some of the conversation that I had with the Director yesterday via email. First, in regard to the increasingly liberal doe harvest, it appears that the biologists say that it won't hurt the biology of the deer, so why not do it? Clearly, in the Directors own words, he indicated that the biologists didn't think there was any biological threat here, so he, the Director, thought it was a good idea." So, the first and most obvious problem with this change is that IDNR has eliminated a bag limit for deer based not on biologicial principles of herd management, but for administrative simplicity's sake.
So, why not set a state-wide limit of 8 bonus antlerless deer? What's so hard to comprehend about that? BTW - the statement Kyle made about other confusion of deer not counting against the statewide limit was related to urban deer zone and park depredation harvests, and the rule change does nothing to change those rules, nor does it "simplify" the bag limit chart in the hunting reg booklet, which still lists various weapons and limits like "one deer of either sex" etc., and then leaves it to the reader to find the asterisk about OBR being in effect... how is that simplification? GAME MANAGEMENT 101 - Why do we have bag limits for game animals? Bag limits were established as a means of ensuring that game harvest levels were not so great as to decimate a given population to the point of extinction. Have we forgotten the lessons of history, and that deer were eliminated from Indiana by the late 1800's/early 1900's, reintroduced in the 1930's, and regulated hunting not started again until the 1950's. Without bag limits, there is nothing to stop hunters using lifetime licenses or landowner/leasee exemptions from killing dozens of deer on a given property. For all other hunters, the "bag limit" is set by the size of their checkbook. For any farmer that wants to eliminate deer on their property, this rule change has opened the door. Are you guys saying this is a prudent way to manage the Indiana deer herd? ? On another note, unless IDNR has suddenly changed computer systems and data collection methods, Kyle's statement about data indicating few hunters took more than 3 deer is hogwash. About three years ago at one of our last DAC meetings, I specifically asked Jim Mitchell and one of the senior ICO's whether data was collected on landowner exempt harvests or if the kill sheets collected at local meat processors were cross-matched against hunter names/phone numbers/check tag #'s to catch people exceeding the bag limits. THE ANSWER WAS NO!!!!!!! "It's an honor system," was the response. So, is this "data" anecdotal, or where is it coming from? Unless the system has changed, IDNR has absolutely no idea how many license exempt hunters are out there or how many deer exempt hunters were taking even under the old rules!!!! To Kevin1 and others of a similar mindset... DAC was established by IDNR F&W, including deer biologists, to gather input from not only deer hunting groups, but from landowners, independent hunters and non-hunters about deer numbers in there areas and regarding proposed rule changes. In fact, the county-by-county bonus quota system rules WERE A DIRECT RESULT of input from DAC meetings. Furthermore, there were several of us on DAC who did in fact have biology backgrounds, plus years of hunting experience in Indiana and other states, so there was no one "second guessing" the IDNR deer biologists, hence your statements could not be more wrong. Woody, Joe Bacon and I all had conversations with Kyle last summer during the high fence hearings about the status of DAC, and were told that once the new F&W management personnel were in place, they would likely start having meetings again. That has not happened, and IMHO, today's IDNR has turned a blind eye to a valuable information resource. Bottom line is that this is a stupid rule change and I fear that many local deer herds will be decimated as a result... Kirk PS... below is my original post on this from HH... and BTW, neither Woody or I want to get into a "my site versus your site" situation.... you are all welcome to see all the posts on HH and make your comments known... as Red Green says, "We're all in this together..." ********************************** I find Kyle's statements about DAC a bit amusing, since DAC has never met since he came in as Director. There's one big difference between what DAC was and the NRAC... DAC's mission solely related to deer management issues, and it's members were composed of folks who had extensive experience in the field with deer either through hunting experience or farming. You will not have that level of expertise on the NRAC. It might have been prudent for the new IDNR management to have had at least one DAC meeting to get some idea of the membership dynamics and knowledge base available before deciding to not continue the efforts that Glenn and John spent years developing. Regarding the rules simplification logic, that doesn't explain why one wouldn't just set a state limit, e.g. 8 antlerless deer statewide, if someone thought hunters couldn't grasp last year's 4+4 bonus limit. Unlimited antlerless bag limits also doesn't deal with the issue of linking up farmers who want more hunting pressure with hunters who are looking for more/different property to hunt. DAC had suggested several years ago establishing a hunter referral on-line system in which property owners with high deer populations could post available properties and then match those owners up with hunter ed certified hunters to hunt those properties. This system would have put hunting pressure where it was needed most, and enhanced hunting opportunities at the same time. For example, Marion County is an 8 (I don't have my booklet in front of me, but that's my recollection) and is an urban deer zone, but as a Hamilton County hunter, how do I go about finding property owners in Marion CO. looking for hunters? I also think that having no state limit de-values deer as a game resource, and sets a questionable standard for our younger hunters. My 12 y.o. son asked me the other night... "If they're doing this with deer, why have bag limits on any game at all?" Good question...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 2, 2006 12:17:36 GMT -5
Eliminating the DAC,which cost them a lunch every 6 months, is the IDNR's loss. Nowhere will they be able to feel the pulse of the state's deer hunters as well or so cheaply.
Absolutely. I concur 100%..
.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 2, 2006 15:00:45 GMT -5
Looks pretty accurate to me....
I think you missed my point.
We have been told for about 5 years now....."when you think you have shot enough doe deer.....shoot another"
The IDNR is now making THAT possible.....and they are getting complaints from the person that is known to say that...lol lol
The point IS NOT about what site is what...its about not being able to make "someone" happy........REGARDLESS!!!!!!
geeeze!
|
|
|
Post by powderfinger on Aug 2, 2006 18:02:44 GMT -5
I think someone has a secret, dare I say closet, love for "someone".
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 3, 2006 10:14:11 GMT -5
Camby:
Compare your cut/paste of this phrase... "deer counties, we encountered not count" with mine or Kyle's original on HH.... there was text missing...
I fully understood your point, and I'm saying you mis-characterized what was said on the HH posts... there were many concerns, not just about lack of limits, but regarding the fact that unlike every other major rules proposal put out by IDNR in the past decade or more, there was no public input specific to this proposal...
The meetings that Kyle references did not deal specifically with a "no limit" proposal, hence the complaints...
I'll leave it to Joe to defend his quote specifically, but my understanding of that statement was that in high deer population areas, we needed to take more does in order to improve the quality of the deer in those areas and reduce habitate damage... (and this info is posted on another thread on this board), more and more does is not going to result in more bucks, because too many does result in habitat damage and inadequate gestational nutrition, resulting in more aborted fawns and low birthweight fawns.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 3, 2006 10:23:00 GMT -5
Camby - it would seem that you've missed nearly all the points made on "the other site" (Hoosier Hunting), so let me see if I can make things clearer... First, your cut-and-paste of the beginning of Kyle's statement is incomplete... here's the correct paragraph.... "Someone pointed me to the posts that are on your board regarding the new antlerless permit structure. Particularly the fact that there is no longer a statewide limit. This proposal was suggested to me by F&W, not as a way to increase harvest, but instead to simplify regulations. When we went to the 8 antlerless deer counties, we encountered some confusion from hunters as to exactly how many deer could be killed and where, as some of the deer last year did not count against the statewide limit. " Dave Delaney called the Director, and here's part of Dave's post regarding that conversation: "I wanted to relay some of the conversation that I had with the Director yesterday via email. First, in regard to the increasingly liberal doe harvest, it appears that the biologists say that it won't hurt the biology of the deer, so why not do it? Clearly, in the Directors own words, he indicated that the biologists didn't think there was any biological threat here, so he, the Director, thought it was a good idea." So, the first and most obvious problem with this change is that IDNR has eliminated a bag limit for deer based not on biologicial principles of herd management, but for administrative simplicity's sake.
So, why not set a state-wide limit of 8 bonus antlerless deer? What's so hard to comprehend about that? BTW - the statement Kyle made about other confusion of deer not counting against the statewide limit was related to urban deer zone and park depredation harvests, and the rule change does nothing to change those rules, nor does it "simplify" the bag limit chart in the hunting reg booklet, which still lists various weapons and limits like "one deer of either sex" etc., and then leaves it to the reader to find the asterisk about OBR being in effect... how is that simplification? GAME MANAGEMENT 101 - Why do we have bag limits for game animals? Bag limits were established as a means of ensuring that game harvest levels were not so great as to decimate a given population to the point of extinction. Have we forgotten the lessons of history, and that deer were eliminated from Indiana by the late 1800's/early 1900's, reintroduced in the 1930's, and regulated hunting not started again until the 1950's. Without bag limits, there is nothing to stop hunters using lifetime licenses or landowner/leasee exemptions from killing dozens of deer on a given property. For all other hunters, the "bag limit" is set by the size of their checkbook. For any farmer that wants to eliminate deer on their property, this rule change has opened the door. Are you guys saying this is a prudent way to manage the Indiana deer herd? ? On another note, unless IDNR has suddenly changed computer systems and data collection methods, Kyle's statement about data indicating few hunters took more than 3 deer is hogwash. About three years ago at one of our last DAC meetings, I specifically asked Jim Mitchell and one of the senior ICO's whether data was collected on landowner exempt harvests or if the kill sheets collected at local meat processors were cross-matched against hunter names/phone numbers/check tag #'s to catch people exceeding the bag limits. THE ANSWER WAS NO!!!!!!! "It's an honor system," was the response. So, is this "data" anecdotal, or where is it coming from? Unless the system has changed, IDNR has absolutely no idea how many license exempt hunters are out there or how many deer exempt hunters were taking even under the old rules!!!! To Kevin1 and others of a similar mindset... DAC was established by IDNR F&W, including deer biologists, to gather input from not only deer hunting groups, but from landowners, independent hunters and non-hunters about deer numbers in there areas and regarding proposed rule changes. In fact, the county-by-county bonus quota system rules WERE A DIRECT RESULT of input from DAC meetings. Furthermore, there were several of us on DAC who did in fact have biology backgrounds, plus years of hunting experience in Indiana and other states, so there was no one "second guessing" the IDNR deer biologists, hence your statements could not be more wrong. Woody, Joe Bacon and I all had conversations with Kyle last summer during the high fence hearings about the status of DAC, and were told that once the new F&W management personnel were in place, they would likely start having meetings again. That has not happened, and IMHO, today's IDNR has turned a blind eye to a valuable information resource. Bottom line is that this is a stupid rule change and I fear that many local deer herds will be decimated as a result... Kirk PS... below is my original post on this from HH... and BTW, neither Woody or I want to get into a "my site versus your site" situation.... you are all welcome to see all the posts on HH and make your comments known... as Red Green says, "We're all in this together..." ********************************** I find Kyle's statements about DAC a bit amusing, since DAC has never met since he came in as Director. There's one big difference between what DAC was and the NRAC... DAC's mission solely related to deer management issues, and it's members were composed of folks who had extensive experience in the field with deer either through hunting experience or farming. You will not have that level of expertise on the NRAC. It might have been prudent for the new IDNR management to have had at least one DAC meeting to get some idea of the membership dynamics and knowledge base available before deciding to not continue the efforts that Glenn and John spent years developing. Regarding the rules simplification logic, that doesn't explain why one wouldn't just set a state limit, e.g. 8 antlerless deer statewide, if someone thought hunters couldn't grasp last year's 4+4 bonus limit. Unlimited antlerless bag limits also doesn't deal with the issue of linking up farmers who want more hunting pressure with hunters who are looking for more/different property to hunt. DAC had suggested several years ago establishing a hunter referral on-line system in which property owners with high deer populations could post available properties and then match those owners up with hunter ed certified hunters to hunt those properties. This system would have put hunting pressure where it was needed most, and enhanced hunting opportunities at the same time. For example, Marion County is an 8 (I don't have my booklet in front of me, but that's my recollection) and is an urban deer zone, but as a Hamilton County hunter, how do I go about finding property owners in Marion CO. looking for hunters? I also think that having no state limit de-values deer as a game resource, and sets a questionable standard for our younger hunters. My 12 y.o. son asked me the other night... "If they're doing this with deer, why have bag limits on any game at all?" Good question... C'mon JKD, you don't really expect anyone willing to give it half a thought to buy the " There Is No Bag Limit" idea, do you? The bag limits are set by county, which I might add is better idea in the first place, if someone does actually tag out in more than one county then they still have only harvested the reccommended amount in each county. So are you questioning the individual county limits? If you accept the reasoning behind the county quotas in the first place then having an overall quota is redundant. I believe the director Hupfer's statement was that the new rules would simplify the regulations AND would not have any serious impact on the deer herd. Given all the talk about a population explosion in our deer herd and all the complaints about the DNR's mis-management of it, I don't think I will hold my breath while I wait for the herd to be decimated.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 3, 2006 10:37:06 GMT -5
It is my opinion and is shared by quite a few biologists that any deer hunter will only kill X amount of deer a year no matter what the limits are.
A full freezer is a full freezer..
Not very many deer hunters want get into culling, instead of hunting. BIG difference. It cheapens the aninmal we are pursuing.
We will only hunt, kill, gut, drag out, skin, process and eat so many deer a year and then it becomes WORK.
The IDNR sets seasons and limits according to what the herd can stand biologically speaking. If Jim and company said it would not hurt the herd to have such limits and it simplifies the regulations I don't have a problem with it.
With that said , I do wish that the DAC was still operational and could give the average John Q. Deer Hunter's opinions on these subjects.
|
|