|
Post by huxbux on Feb 18, 2010 16:26:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 18, 2010 16:55:40 GMT -5
Hunters push deer harvest to record number Indiana deer hunters had unprecedented success during the 2009 seasons, shattering the previous state record by taking more than 130,000 deer for the first time in the 59-year history of the modern era. Reports submitted from 453 check stations across Indiana placed the 2009 total at 132,752 deer – more than 3,000, or 2 percent, above the 2008 harvest of 129,748, which was the previous record. “It’s kind of predictable any more,” said Chad Stewart, DNR deer management biologist. “We’re going to have a record or near-record harvest every year unless things change. “For a couple of years now we’ve had increased license sales. We’ve also had high unemployment. Maybe people have more time to be out. I wish I could say.” One thing Stewart is sure of is there were no reports of epizootic hemorrhagic disease in 2009 after outbreaks the previous three years. EHD is an insect-borne virus that affects white-tailed deer. It is transmitted by biting insects called midges. EHD is not transmitted to humans and is not normally found in domestic animals. “That means going into the season there were more deer on the ground available to hunters rather than disease getting them first,” Stewart said. The full season report can be viewed at......... www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2009_Deer_Season_Summary.pdfThe 2009 total was bolstered by a record 79,771 antlerless deer, 60 percent of the harvest. The hunting season began in urban deer zones on Sept.15, followed by a two-day youth only weekend (Sept. 26-27) and the early archery (Oct. 1-Nov. 29), firearms (Nov. 14-29), muzzleloader (Dec. 5-20) and late archery (Dec. 5 to Jan. 3) segments. Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older. Hunters found the most success in the northeast corner of the state, where Steuben, Kosciusko and Noble counties ranked first, second and fourth, respectively. Steuben hunters bagged 4,102 deer to mark the fifth straight year that county has led the state. It also was the first time any county topped the 4,000 mark in a single year. Kosciusko recorded 3,652 deer, followed by Switzerland with 3,223; Noble, 3,086; and Franklin, 3,063. Modern-era records were set in 33 counties, and another 22 counties showed harvest increases from the 2008 season. Harvest totals declined in 36 counties compared to 2008. Compiling the data is a lengthy process that begins in October when check stations are supplied envelopes for returning pink carbon copies of hunter-reported deer. Some stations submit reports on a weekly basis as requested; a few wait until the end of the season to return the information at one time. DNR staff members in the Bloomington field office enter the early data, but the volume increases dramatically once the firearms season begins and additional staff from other locations is called upon to assist in entering everything from tag numbers assigned to reported deer to the sex and age of the deer, equipment used by the hunter, and the county where the deer was taken. The information is merged into one data base in early to mid-February. The pink carbon copies are sorted by county and stored in Bloomington for three years. The data base is then checked for accurate spelling and to ensure there are no duplicate tag entries. “That’s when my work really begins,” Stewart said. “It takes a couple of weeks to analyze the information and prepare the final report.” The 2009 season also gave the DNR an opportunity to continue its ongoing surveillance for signs of chronic wasting disease in deer. Testing failed to detect CWD in tissue samples collected from 835 deer and has not been found in more than 11,000 specimens tested since 2002. CWD is a brain-wasting disease that is fatal to deer. It has been reported in deer in Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia and several other states. The DNR also began surveillance for bovine tuberculosis by collecting tissue samples from 431 hunter harvested deer from Franklin, Harrison and Wayne counties. The DNR is awaiting results of testing on those samples from the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. -30-
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 18, 2010 17:17:42 GMT -5
Well there you go !! In a year of bad to horrible hunting conditions when hunters were compleatly at a loss to where the deer deer were and what they were going to do to better their odds . Only Indiana found a way to post an all time harvest record . How the heck do they know that age structure of the deer deer harvest when only less than 1% of the deer taken were aged by a state biologist The amazeing Kreskin hard at work. The amazeing world of estimations strikes agin. LOL
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Feb 18, 2010 17:22:30 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older."
How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older?
|
|
|
Post by vectrix on Feb 18, 2010 17:40:41 GMT -5
Amazing, and that's only the ones that were checked in!!!
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 18, 2010 17:57:53 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older." How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older? They really have no clue it is all guesses after the very very very small sampling they take at check stations.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 18, 2010 17:59:04 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older." How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older? Well most don't want to believe it's a valid tool because they've never had a deer aged by a biologist, but it is based on the field verifications. IDNR biologist will randomly sample so many checked in deer and use the ratio based on their sampling. They actual sample size might only be equal to 5% (just a guess) of the harvest but they can use that data to make assumptions over the entire harvest. It's a legit tool and since it has been done that way for years and years it is a good way to view trends such as age class distribution in the harvest.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 18, 2010 18:00:51 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older." How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older? They really have no clue it is all guesses after the very very very small sampling they take at check stations. And this proves my first statement ;D
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Feb 18, 2010 18:16:21 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older." How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older? Well most don't want to believe it's a valid tool because they've never had a deer aged by a biologist, but it is based on the field verifications. IDNR biologist will randomly sample so many checked in deer and use the ratio based on their sampling. They actual sample size might only be equal to 5% (just a guess) of the harvest but they can use that data to make assumptions over the entire harvest. It's a legit tool and since it has been done that way for years and years it is a good way to view trends such as age class distribution in the harvest. Interesting science for sure, just boggles my mind how they can come to a number with that approach...way over my head!Wonder how many deer were actually aged.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 18, 2010 18:48:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Feb 18, 2010 18:58:18 GMT -5
Very surprising ..... I would have guessed several thousand less than last year based on my personal observations.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 18, 2010 19:00:52 GMT -5
Well most don't want to believe it's a valid tool because they've never had a deer aged by a biologist, but it is based on the field verifications. IDNR biologist will randomly sample so many checked in deer and use the ratio based on their sampling. They actual sample size might only be equal to 5% (just a guess) of the harvest but they can use that data to make assumptions over the entire harvest. It's a legit tool and since it has been done that way for years and years it is a good way to view trends such as age class distribution in the harvest. Interesting science for sure, just boggles my mind how they can come to a number with that approach...way over my head!Wonder how many deer were actually aged. The rub here and devil dwells in the details. The fact is that there is no two counties or check stations that receive the same age or has the same type hunters .Say you take the age structure from a low hunter number county it will be a higher age in most cases .But you take the age average in a high hunter number county the age will likely be much lower . Sorry no two areas produce with any reasonable comparison the same age class deer taken by hunters .This number despite the fluff is just fantasy yep its a way to estimate some sort of number .But hay if you live by estimations then its not likely that your new Toyota has higher odds of being in a catistrophic wreck because of all the recalls than it was just 1 year ago isnt it !!!! Answer "no" its still the same broken junk it was 2 years ago . You just had some body estimate your chance of a wreck higher is all. Answe
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Feb 18, 2010 20:00:39 GMT -5
They must have missed 234 filled deer tags somewhere, they will probably find them on the recount in three years ;D
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 18, 2010 20:27:10 GMT -5
;d
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 18, 2010 20:35:17 GMT -5
I would have guessed the numbers would be low. I killed two, but I didn't have that many sightings. Seemed like everyone I talked to thought the population was down. Amazing! What is everyone predicting next year? I hate to say it, but it seems like this has got to drop off a cliff sometime.
|
|
|
Post by huntingman on Feb 18, 2010 20:46:34 GMT -5
"Adult males (antlered bucks) made up 40 percent of the total, of which 64 percent were 2.5 years old or older." How do they know what percentage was 2.5 yrs old or older? You can telll by their teeth its like a kids they lose their front teeth and keep on goin back you can alos tell the ages of goats and sheep like that too they lose a pair every year
|
|
|
Post by huntingman on Feb 18, 2010 20:47:40 GMT -5
it is easy relitively easy to tell
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 18, 2010 21:01:50 GMT -5
Interesting science for sure, just boggles my mind how they can come to a number with that approach...way over my head!Wonder how many deer were actually aged. The rub here and devil dwells in the details. The fact is that there is no two counties or check stations that receive the same age or has the same type hunters .Say you take the age structure from a low hunter number county it will be a higher age in most cases .But you take the age average in a high hunter number county the age will likely be much lower . Sorry no two areas produce with any reasonable comparison the same age class deer taken by hunters .This number despite the fluff is just fantasy yep its a way to estimate some sort of number .But hay if you live by estimations then its not likely that your new Toyota has higher odds of being in a catistrophic wreck because of all the recalls than it was just 1 year ago isnt it !!!! Answer "no" its still the same broken junk it was 2 years ago . You just had some body estimate your chance of a wreck higher is all. Answe The fact is everything in our lives comes down to estimates and assumptions, like it or not. The IDNR has the proven several times over that they are gathering enough data year in and year out. The goal is to collect enough samples to get within an acceptable error rate. The fewer the samples the larger the percent error. The more the samples the smaller the percent error. Ideal is 100% sample but logistics prevent that so and based on your population size there are calculations to do that will tell you how many samples to collect to get a 1%, 5%, or 10% percent error or what ever you decide is acceptable. I don't know what IDNR has set for their goal but it is set to be the most accurate and that is within their budget and most realistic...I am sure Mr. Stewart would provide you with the details if you were really concerned.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 18, 2010 21:05:47 GMT -5
I would have guessed the numbers would be low. I killed two, but I didn't have that many sightings. Seemed like everyone I talked to thought the population was down. Amazing! What is everyone predicting next year? I hate to say it, but it seems like this has got to drop off a cliff sometime. It will be about the same +/- 1 to 2% from this year. Unless wide spread disease or drastic license change. If they go to telecheck I bet it goes up 5% ;D
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 18, 2010 21:51:27 GMT -5
The rub here and devil dwells in the details. The fact is that there is no two counties or check stations that receive the same age or has the same type hunters .Say you take the age structure from a low hunter number county it will be a higher age in most cases .But you take the age average in a high hunter number county the age will likely be much lower . Sorry no two areas produce with any reasonable comparison the same age class deer taken by hunters .This number despite the fluff is just fantasy yep its a way to estimate some sort of number .But hay if you live by estimations then its not likely that your new Toyota has higher odds of being in a catastrophic wreck because of all the recalls than it was just 1 year ago isn't it !!!! Answer "no" its still the same broken junk it was 2 years ago . You just had some body estimate your chance of a wreck higher is all. Answe The fact is everything in our lives comes down to estimates and assumptions, like it or not. The IDNR has the proven several times over that they are gathering enough data year in and year out. The goal is to collect enough samples to get within an acceptable error rate. The fewer the samples the larger the percent error. The more the samples the smaller the percent error. Ideal is 100% sample but logistics prevent that so and based on your population size there are calculations to do that will tell you how many samples to collect to get a 1%, 5%, or 10% percent error or what ever you decide is acceptable. I don't know what IDNR has set for their goal but it is set to be the most accurate and that is within their budget and most realistic...I am sure Mr. Stewart would provide you with the details if you were really concerned. I spoken to Mr. Stewart and sorry to say I remain unimpressed as I can smell what politicians pile the most from a mile away! IMHO he is one of Mitch's boys first .Also In your opinion they have proven estimates . IMHO they have not proven anything as it pertains to the herd age matrix in a state wide setting by any stretch of the imagination, and they are simply just estimates for one day at a very local spot and incorrect when applied to whole seasons and a state wide pattern estimate . Look at IL. if you look at the top 3 or 4 buck producing counties there you would swear that state wide by "estimates " they were killing bucks older than 3.5 years old state wide by a very high percentage maybe as high as 75% but look at the whole state there they are luck to have a 50% 2.5 year old rate or higher . Numbers are easily made to mean what you want them too. And that is not an opinion that is a fact.
|
|