|
Post by duff on Aug 16, 2009 19:18:03 GMT -5
Who came up with the notion that we are over-run with deer? Sure, there are a few areas that are heavily populated, maybe even over populated, but it sure isn't that way state wide. In my opinion, the population is about right in my neck of the woods. They aint starving, and they aren't dying of disease. That's the million dollar question in my mind. Based on the few that have claimed legislation is being pushed that will take away the little control DNR has over the seasons and deer mgmt and moving it to the elected officials. There has been some buzz about making efforts to increase the harvest to squelch the legislators. That is where the deer herd is out of control theory has come from. I had a 15 page comment typed out earlier today on this exact topic. Who defines a problem and how do we manage for problems? The deer are certainly not in trouble biologically. Is there any surveys being conducted on private land to determine the effects of deer on the available habitat? If the herd is hurting or damaging the other resources then biologically I'd say we have a problem. If we let the legislators define the problem that means focusing on the areas where the ones pushing this represent IMO. And we all know most laws are emotional and not logical. There is no defence to emotional and regardless of the the outcome we all lose. If we need to be serious about shooting more deer then we really need to look at all options that will put more hunters in the woods or let the current hunters kill at least one more deer each year. Like it or not getting rid of the OBR is a potential option, sorry to point that out to you guys. As there are several other options if needed. The best option is to keep the statehouse out of wildlife mgmt. They are not the right people to make this type of decision. Not really sure what they are qualified for other then stealing our money and wizzing it away on stupid stuff!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 16, 2009 19:43:29 GMT -5
Who came up with the notion that we are over-run with deer? Sure, there are a few areas that are heavily populated, maybe even over populated, but it sure isn't that way state wide. In my opinion, the population is about right in my neck of the woods. They aint starving, and they aren't dying of disease. That's the million dollar question in my mind. Based on the few that have claimed legislation is being pushed that will take away the little control DNR has over the seasons and deer mgmt and moving it to the elected officials. There has been some buzz about making efforts to increase the harvest to squelch the legislators. That is where the deer herd is out of control theory has come from. I had a 15 page comment typed out earlier today on this exact topic. Who defines a problem and how do we manage for problems? The deer are certainly not in trouble biologically. Is there any surveys being conducted on private land to determine the effects of deer on the available habitat? If the herd is hurting or damaging the other resources then biologically I'd say we have a problem. If we let the legislators define the problem that means focusing on the areas where the ones pushing this represent IMO. And we all know most laws are emotional and not logical. There is no defence to emotional and regardless of the the outcome we all lose. If we need to be serious about shooting more deer then we really need to look at all options that will put more hunters in the woods or let the current hunters kill at least one more deer each year. Like it or not getting rid of the OBR is a potential option, sorry to point that out to you guys. As there are several other options if needed. The best option is to keep the statehouse out of wildlife mgmt. They are not the right people to make this type of decision. Not really sure what they are qualified for other then stealing our money and wizzing it away on stupid stuff! Antlerless deer is the key to population control,we don't need a second buck as "bait" to get Hoosiers to manage the deer herd... The WHOLE STATE is not over populated, just a few pocket area's..... ...
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Aug 16, 2009 19:44:24 GMT -5
First, let me state that I am in favor of keeping the OBR. And, if DNR is serious about reducing the deer numbers in selected counties I believe they will need to emphasize the taking of additional antlerless deer in those counties. Apparently, the current approach (just specifying a high number of bonus antlerless licenses) is not working well enough to satisfy several farmers and others who have recently enlisted help from the General Assembly to significantly reduce the deer population in certain counties. Therefore, if DNR is serious about further deer reductions, another approach (could be in addition to current approach) should be used. I saw one post suggesting a short (5 days) muzzle loader season for antlerless deer in October. I have heard and discussed other possibilities, such as an antlerless season weekend (2 days) in September or October in which any weapon currently allowed in any deer season would be legal. To work properly, such a proposal may entail a drawing, similar to what is done for military and park hunts, but in which bonus antlerless licenses would be used. Regardless of all the details, I believe the following four elements of a “special season” would be appropriate. One, it should be antlerless only. Two, it should allow the use of any weapon currently permitted in any deer season. Three, it should be of relatively short duration (minimum 2 days, maximum 5 days). Four, the special season should be early in the fall in order to get adequate participation of hunters and to take the antlerless deer when they can be relatively easily taken, i.e. before they become essentially nocturnal late in firearm and muzzle loader season and the weather turns cold and nasty. I believe using the special season (in conjunction with existing Urban Zones, bonus antlerless licenses, youth season, and improving hunter access to problem areas) would make a measurable difference and still preserve the OBR.
|
|
dsg69
Full Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by dsg69 on Aug 16, 2009 20:00:33 GMT -5
One easy question what or who will it hurt to kill two bucks?
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Aug 16, 2009 20:03:22 GMT -5
So I'll see all of you at the legislative summer study committee meetings starting next month right?
Jack
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 16, 2009 20:12:40 GMT -5
One easy question what or who will it hurt to kill two bucks? No one at all it never did hurt anyone but those who struggled to take a buck in the first place thought it did. It boiled down to the age old haves vs the have nots what a shame yip I said it first and meant it ;D
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 16, 2009 21:58:49 GMT -5
So I'll see all of you at the legislative summer study committee meetings starting next month right? Jack LOL..Heck the summer is almost over... thank goodness... Good question though...
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 17, 2009 4:46:11 GMT -5
OK OK I have read enough, I can't sit here and keep quite any longer.
First of all as most of you know I am no longer an ANTI-OBR guy. I don't care because it has not affected my hunting since we started OBR. I still hunt just as much as I always have. Keep in mind I was not in support of OBR when it started though.
Here is the thing I want to say,............ why don't we want the statehouse managing our deer herd?......whats the difference?.........we are not allowing our biologist to manage it now!!
There is no biological need for a OBR, yet we as uneducated folks insists we use it. There is no biological threat to allow the use of crossbows in October, nor is there a threat to allow an early muzzleloader season, yet we always complain that we don't want it.
I personally see no differance in allowing the statehouse to manage the herd over the armchair biologist that currently manage it.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 17, 2009 7:55:33 GMT -5
Jack,
What is the process for getting an idea on the table for discussion? I have always been of the opinion that a second buck "earn a buck" rule would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 17, 2009 8:15:25 GMT -5
Jack, What is the process for getting an idea on the table for discussion? I have always been of the opinion that a second buck "earn a buck" rule would be a good idea. I would get on board with that one...not on the first buck, but a second buck.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 17, 2009 8:19:39 GMT -5
I think it will fill a lot of "needs" and a few "wants" .......
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 17, 2009 8:47:20 GMT -5
OK OK I have read enough, I can't sit here and keep quite any longer. First of all as most of you know I am no longer an ANTI-OBR guy. I don't care because it has not affected my hunting since we started OBR. I still hunt just as much as I always have. Keep in mind I was not in support of OBR when it started though. Here is the thing I want to say,............ why don't we want the statehouse managing our deer herd?......whats the difference?.........we are not allowing our biologist to manage it now!! There is no biological need for a OBR, yet we as uneducated folks insists we use it. There is no biological threat to allow the use of crossbows in October, nor is there a threat to allow an early muzzleloader season, yet we always complain that we don't want it. I personally see no differance in allowing the statehouse to manage the herd over the armchair biologist that currently manage it. Difference is the DNR made the decisions to make these rules and they have the power to revoke or modify these rules. When the legislators make State Laws to manage a resource it takes the ability away from the DNR to change or modify that rule.
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Aug 17, 2009 9:18:00 GMT -5
Jack, What is the process for getting an idea on the table for discussion? I have always been of the opinion that a second buck "earn a buck" rule would be a good idea. I would get on board with that one...not on the first buck, but a second buck. Seems we talked a bit about this before, definitely think it would help with the need to harvest more Does AND those that want more than one buck...a win win in my book!
|
|
|
Post by birddog on Aug 17, 2009 9:33:22 GMT -5
Jackc,
If the state held these meetings when eveyone could attend I'd be there you can count on that but as a "working" person, I as well as many others don't have the enjoyment of just taking off work to attend...so I'd say that you should see about getting the times changed!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2009 9:48:15 GMT -5
That's why folks like Jack need some praise every now and then. Those that show up at these meetings often take vaction time or what ever to get off from work. Most people feel under appreciated and soon reach the burn out stage. I know, because I've spent many days in boring meetings when others are out hunting or fishing. It doesn't take long to get old. Thanks to those that are doing our work. Even if you don't always agree with the results.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Aug 17, 2009 10:23:21 GMT -5
Jackc, If the state held these meetings when eveyone could attend I'd be there you can count on that but as a "working" person, I as well as many others don't have the enjoyment of just taking off work to attend...so I'd say that you should see about getting the times changed!!!!!!!!!! No matter when the meeting is you'll never make "Everyone" happy. I thought the last meeting time of early evening would have been ideal for most?
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 17, 2009 11:55:52 GMT -5
That's why folks like Jack need some praise every now and then. Those that show up at these meetings often take vaction time or what ever to get off from work. Most people feel under appreciated and soon reach the burn out stage. I know, because I've spent many days in boring meetings when others are out hunting or fishing. It doesn't take long to get old. Thanks to those that are doing our work. Even if you don't always agree with the results. Well said. These guys are our voice like it or not. If I can't make time to go I concede to thier opinions just a fact of life. If I or you felt strong enough we'd all make time to attend. I know those guys who regularly attend these meetings get tired of representing us for nothing but grief. It's their time their decision and good job for attending. I for one choose not to go to most of these meetings because of other time constraints that I have as priority over hunting/fishing rules. Don't hate me for it When my obligations/priorities change I would love to devote time to Indiana hunting/fishing/trapping like JackC does, right now I just can't.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Aug 17, 2009 13:19:53 GMT -5
Jackc, If the state held these meetings when eveyone could attend I'd be there you can count on that but as a "working" person, I as well as many others don't have the enjoyment of just taking off work to attend...so I'd say that you should see about getting the times changed!!!!!!!!!! Sorry that the times work just fine for me (not really). Why don't YOU get them changed if you want to be there? Jack P.S. That deer meeting last week had exactly 5 people and the DNR staff there. It was held at 6 Pm in the evening near Spencer, IN.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Aug 17, 2009 13:25:34 GMT -5
Jack, What is the process for getting an idea on the table for discussion? I have always been of the opinion that a second buck "earn a buck" rule would be a good idea. The DNR is going through a rule review right now. They requested suggestions last year and got over 1000. The deer meeting on those ideas was last month. Several from this board were at that meeting. I'd guess your next opportunity will be a year or two away. Jack
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 17, 2009 13:31:10 GMT -5
Thank you.
1000?? Good grief ..... I cant even think of 10 valid requests let alone 1000.
If that is the case I assume that the idea has already been considered.
|
|