|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 12, 2006 9:16:40 GMT -5
Good for you Tenring , keep up the good work ! Nobody should condone poaching , regardless of the rationale that others use to engage in it . There are more than enough legal solutions at hand to deal with excess deer , all that needs to happen is that people use them .
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 12, 2006 10:59:28 GMT -5
Theoretical [hypothetical] situation- southern Indiana, farm country, not that many people out in the sticks, "economically depressed area" according to Mitch, houses few and far between, lot of folks work outside the home, farm at night, weekends, etc. Target shooting all the time on weekends, so gunfire raises no eyebrows at any time of the year. Lot of tractors have centerfire rifles on board, if it's brown, it's down. Had more than one farmer tell me[during the hey day of the high population period] that they "got rid" of at least 20 or more of those dang things. It many areas deer are considered pests, no different than a groundhog. Had one tell me it didn't matter what manner of take I preferred, would not check my truck to see how many I had, come down in the spring, summer, did not matter to him. If I did not want them for the freezer, informed me of some deep ditches to throw them into. Naturally I smiled, thanked him for allowing me to hunt on his land, but stuck to the rules. Stick your head in the sand if you will and pretend it doesn't happen, but it does. Not right, but it still goes on. How does the CO stop this? Good question, but if all the neighbors in one area do it, who is going to drop the dime? If it would be anywhere it would be here in the southern part of the state. I can't say with any certainty and I do hear about far more poaching that I would like to, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of deer poached annually exceeds the number of deer taken by archers.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Aug 13, 2006 13:31:22 GMT -5
I have a problem with the new regulation of ZERO statewide limit on anterless deer, and even Kyle`s reply that he doesn`t “think” the harvest will be any greater-wow, thanks for that scientific analysis.
I can guarantee you that there will be some imbeciles that will slaughter all the anterless deer they can from an area just to brag about their hunting prowess. And as for the idea that a full freezer is a full freezer, they`ll be giving meat to food banks and friends at work, but you can bet your last deer slug, it`s gonna happen. Maybe not to a large extent, and hopefully not, but the DNR needs to understand that there are a lot of less than scrupulous guys out there hunting, and they`re already abusing the system, some of it I`ve heard about first-hand, and it`s a crying shame.
I just think this new regulation is heading in the wrong direction, and I believe it`s fair to challenge it.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Aug 13, 2006 16:31:29 GMT -5
Continuing the topic of poaching, this came from the Colorado DOW site. A lot of people seem to be wrapped up in what another state is doing, so i thought I would pass this on.
By the Colorado Division of Wildlife Poaching continues to be a major issue in Colorado. Studies indicate that poachers kill almost as many animals as legitimate hunters do during legal seasons. If poachers kill even half that number each year, the problem is serious because they are stealing game from licensed sportsmen, robbing businesses and taxpayers of revenues generated by hunting and depriving us all of a valuable resource - our wildlife. And it�s not just game animals that poachers steal, but also threatened, endangered and nongame species. Rob Firth, chief of law enforcement for the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), says most poachers are not poor people trying to feed their families. Some kill for the thrill of killing, others for trophies. Some kill for money - trophy heads, antlers and bear gall bladders can be worth thousands of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 15, 2006 13:20:05 GMT -5
To be more precise jkd, what you mean is not that their isn't a limit, it is that the limit is higher than what the IDHA thinks it should be, correct? FYI - I'm not even a member of IDHA, IBA, etc.... I just run the IDHA website as a contractor... So, no... I AM SAYING that the problem with the new rule IS that there is no limit... has nothing to do with what any organization or group thinks... my own independent opinion... do you get it yet??? IndianaDan - a large part of the decision-making process by IDNR deer biologists is based on hunter input, e.g. the recent hunter survey that went out... the problem with this rule change (no limit) was that it WAS NOT discussed with or presented to hunters (individuals or groups) for input prior to implementation. No one is upset that a given individual or given group wasn't consulted... THEY DIDN'T CONSULT ANYONE!!!!!! BTW - I'm still waiting for the answer to the question... why do we need a NO LIMIT antlerless rule...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 15, 2006 13:36:06 GMT -5
Well Kirk.. We aren't to that magic 1 to 1 sex ratio that the antler growers want so maybe the IDNR is listening to them - AGAIN. I doubt very seriosuly if an unlimited amount of antlerless permits will make much of a difference anymore. We seem to have reached our limits already. Zone 1 in KY has been that way for years and years.. .
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 15, 2006 15:40:34 GMT -5
Woody - I agree, and I think the reality is that for hunters who are not license exempt, their available funds will set their limit... but maybe the real concern is continual annual tweaking of bag limits and license structures without allowing a season or so to see the results...
I think the increase in bonus tag fees the past two years has done a lot to set up the current high population densities many counties are seeing, as many hunters were never taking does in the first place, and higher tag costs give them no incentive to start now... IDNR is going to have to come to a decision point soon as to which is more important - tag revenues or controlling the herd population... I don't think they can have it both ways...
I also think it's an odd juxtaposition of herd management theories to have OBR and then implement an unlimited bag structure on antlerless... and I'm not saying that as an argument against OBR, but rather as pointing out that the antlerless thing is taking matters to far...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 15, 2006 15:52:05 GMT -5
Woody - I agree, and I think the reality is that for hunters who are not license exempt, their available funds will set their limit... but maybe the real concern is continual annual tweaking of bag limits and license structures without allowing a season or so to see the results... I think the increase in bonus tag fees the past two years has done a lot to set up the current high population densities many counties are seeing, as many hunters were never taking does in the first place, and higher tag costs give them no incentive to start now... IDNR is going to have to come to a decision point soon as to which is more important - tag revenues or controlling the herd population... I don't think they can have it both ways... I also think it's an odd juxtaposition of herd management theories to have OBR and then implement an unlimited bag structure on antlerless... and I'm not saying that as an argument against OBR, but rather as pointing out that the antlerless thing is taking matters to far... You get no disagreement from me on that. The bonus tag different levels of prices "might" help, but I doubt it. Some one on here asked for the justification of 8 bonus antlerless tags in a county and we can only kill one buck. Doesn't make sense at all to me. They should go back to two bucks.. have the tags be dual in that you get one buck tag and one antlerless tag at $35 or $40 for each purchase - firearm and archery.. After that $10 a pop on antlerless tags. As many as you want, while still setting county limits. Really I'd like to see township limts, but that is too far fetched and probably too expensive to figure out. Ther has to be a way out of this deer madness..
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 18, 2006 11:09:08 GMT -5
Because it is redundant and pointless to have one.
|
|
|
Post by polypros on Aug 18, 2006 11:53:11 GMT -5
All good comments, but I think the most accurate were about Mr. Hupfer doing a great job (and it is his job) and what Woody said about breaking down the counties into particular tracts and what is in them. After that is depends on what you want or need or what you want to give to someone else. I'm the only one in my house that eats back straps, therefore one deer per year is more than enough. I usually shoot a flathead (doe) and then hold out for a nice buck (which I rarely get)
|
|