|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 19, 2010 17:17:55 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 I am sure you will probably be right. I just thought EHD had taken a pretty good toll the last couple of years. I know I saw evidence of it. It seems like I talked to a lot of people that didn't see as many this year. I am glad the herd is growing though. I can't wait till next season!
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 19, 2010 17:23:19 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. Of course next year actual sightings by actual hunters will be down but the number of deer killed will be another record year. It's in the state's interest to keep the kill numbers up as it keeps the insurance companies happy, the sportsmen happy and buying more tags, the legislature happy and off their arse and it hides any errors in the current management style. Record years are win, win, win, wins so why not have one every year! Yes. It could be like a lake when it is past its peak for producing fish. They will tell you the fishing is good for several years after until you finally figure it out for yourself. I don't know. I would hate to think they would do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2010 22:18:30 GMT -5
It is amusing that some of the same guys that are calling b.s. about the state's numbers and estimates of age structure based on sampling are in the same breath saying they figured the harvest numbers would be thousands less based on their observations!
What gives...you can give statewide estimates based on what you saw from a deer stand and the state is making outlandish claims based on actual field data and simple mathmatical extrapolations?!?
Stop and think about it for a second guys.
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 20, 2010 0:53:07 GMT -5
Your right. The Harvest numbers have to be right. Does that mean that the population is up this season or were we more effective at harvesting this season? Surely by looking at the doe kills they will know whether the herd is continueing to grow. I see we had a record number of doe kills this season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 9:21:37 GMT -5
In field deer observations are a lot less accurate than is the time tested tooth wear aging science. No, it's not totally accurate, but it's better than 70% most of the time. Deer over 3.5 are often the ones that are underaged. It's pretty much 100% on those younger than 3.5.
If the harvest is up, especially when hunters are reporting fewer sightings, it would obviously signify an increased number of deer in the herd. Hard to explain otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 20, 2010 10:35:46 GMT -5
There is more to judging the herd then harvest figures. One important judge is to determine how much effort was put into those deer that were recorded. Did a hunter log 1/2 an hour or 30 hours to bag the deer. It is essentially the same info a creel clerk gathers from fisherman. Once you get a good sample size of hunters to include the most effecient and least effecient with all inbetween you can make the assumption on average amount of time spent, area hunted, type of weapon. That will tell you the density better then record harvest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 12:50:58 GMT -5
While that's true, you have to assume that as long as hunter numbers are constant, that the other factors are about the same as in past years. Past models tell us the hunter success rate pretty much being the same each year, with exceptions to adverse weather conditions. All things considered, when the harvest goes up, it means more hunters had a chance to harvest a deer. Translated, that means a larger herd overall.
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 20, 2010 13:08:28 GMT -5
While that's true, you have to assume that as long as hunter numbers are constant, that the other factors are about the same as in past years. Past models tell us the hunter success rate pretty much being the same each year, with exceptions to adverse weather conditions. All things considered, when the harvest goes up, it means more hunters had a chance to harvest a deer. Translated, that means a larger herd overall. When hunters are not filling their tags in the county they normally kill deer in and they move to another county to fill their tags, does that constitute a change in a constant?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 13:15:54 GMT -5
No....county harvest is always within a few of the previous year no matter who kills them. Someone moves out, someone else moves in.
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Feb 20, 2010 13:30:00 GMT -5
No....county harvest is always within a few of the previous year no matter who kills them. Someone moves out, someone else moves in. So that variable would be factored in.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 20, 2010 14:56:39 GMT -5
Back to the real subject. IMHO - Aging - There is no way that the IDNR deer biologists can age sample every deer killed. They can make statistically valid sampling and that is what they do. Numbers - Pretty well shows that we have a growing deer herd IN SOME AREAS. Other areas might not be as fortunate. The EHD epidemics just slowed the growth progress down for awhile. Look for some more drastic deer control as the biologists know that a big herd is harder to control than a small herd. They need to get a handle on it pronto. I spoke with Mr. Stewart today in depth and I would not look for any real jumps or changes in the seasons or tag numbers in any counties "Other than the Youth Buck law". He also indicated that "Are you ready for this " in a couple of years it may be very likely that the DNR will do the unpopular thing and , return for a 3 or 4 year period of two buck rule as they need some sort of proof that the OBR did make any real difference in age advancement as opposed to the simple fact that the overall deer herd is at least twice or mere the size it was when the OBR was made law. It will be brought before the legislative committee in just a short couple of years . He said he actually "hated " to report the harvest numbers because he was "sure " that it would be way down with the wet ,warm ,crop filled fields . But he said he "Had" to report what he saw .He also said that the age thing was actually i a slight decrease the last year as well. I found that interesting that it disputed the age part of the news release. On an interesting note he said that there was a disturbing trend taking place with a quickly rising number of out of state hunters and lots of outfitter and hunter land leases that are getting in the way of the herd management plane . His reason was it was making it more difficult for average local hunters that would harvest extra does to get hunting land permission and it was causing inflated bubbles of deer populations, that are not being managed well. In other words not nearly enough does taken that need to be . He said that the land improvements on most leases and heavily managed lands were drawing deer in like a sponge . He seemed genuinely concerned about the above issues and agreed that the OBR was a popularity /political rule that may need to be altered to help get numbers for comparison and to influence greater deer herd management and more successful hunter participation later in the season. Whhhhhhheew that was in short pieces of the long conversation we had. Oh yha he said that the raising of bonus county tag quotas in alot of the counties were actually not the reason for the rise in harvest ,it was more deer herd numbers , and likely alot more hunters bought tags this year . He seemed to think the same reason for increased numbers of hunters as I did this year was likely the unemployment of tens of thousands young hunters and those who wanted to try to hunt . There you go fellers from the horses mouth.,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 15:01:44 GMT -5
No....county harvest is always within a few of the previous year no matter who kills them. Someone moves out, someone else moves in. So that variable would be factored in. It wouldn't vary much....not enough to make any difference in the big picture. States manage on a statewide basis, not many micro manage.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 20, 2010 15:11:22 GMT -5
Back to the real subject. IMHO - Aging - There is no way that the IDNR deer biologists can age sample every deer killed. They can make statistically valid sampling and that is what they do. Numbers - Pretty well shows that we have a growing deer herd IN SOME AREAS. Other areas might not be as fortunate. The EHD epidemics just slowed the growth progress down for awhile. Look for some more drastic deer control as the biologists know that a big herd is harder to control than a small herd. They need to get a handle on it pronto. I spoke with Mr. Stewart today in depth and I would not look for any real jumps or changes in the seasons or tag numbers in any counties "Other than the Youth Buck law". He also indicated that "Are you ready for this " in a couple of years it may be very likely that the DNR will do the unpopular thing and , return for a 3 or 4 year period of two buck rule as they need some sort of proof that the OBR did make any real difference in age advancement as opposed to the simple fact that the overall deer herd is at least twice or mere the size it was when the OBR was made law. It will be brought before the legislative committee in just a short couple of years . He said he actually "hated " to report the harvest numbers because he was "sure " that it would be way down with the wet ,warm ,crop filled fields . But he said he "Had" to report what he saw .He also said that the age thing was actually i a slight decrease the last year as well. I found that interesting that it disputed the age part of the news release. On an interesting note he said that there was a disturbing trend taking place with a quickly rising number of out of state hunters and lots of outfitter and hunter land leases that are getting in the way of the herd management plane . His reason was it was making it more difficult for average local hunters that would harvest extra does to get hunting land permission and it was causing inflated bubbles of deer populations, that are not being managed well. In other words not nearly enough does taken that need to be . He said that the land improvements on most leases and heavily managed lands were drawing deer in like a sponge . He seemed genuinely concerned about the above issues and agreed that the OBR was a popularity /political rule that may need to be altered to help get numbers for comparison and to influence greater deer herd management and more successful hunter participation later in the season. Whhhhhhheew that was in short pieces of the long conversation we had. Oh yha he said that the raising of bonus county tag quotas in alot of the counties were actually not the reason for the rise in harvest ,it was more deer herd numbers , and likely alot more hunters bought tags this year . He seemed to think the same reason for increased numbers of hunters as I did this year was likely the unemployment of tens of thousands young hunters and those who wanted to try to hunt . There you go fellers from the horses mouth., Interesting to say the least...
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 20, 2010 15:13:22 GMT -5
So that variable would be factored in. It wouldn't vary much....not enough to make any difference in the big picture. States manage on a statewide basis, not many micro manage. Umm the county by county post shows some counties with huge differances . So where does that take the teroy that numbers are within a few every year??? And what does that do to age structure there??? See this is not a set science that is slow moveing and steady . It is changeing rapidly and will continue to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 15:57:19 GMT -5
There are maybe 7 counties that had a drop in "over" 100 deer. I wouldn't call that a huge difference. The age structure wouldn't change much, maybe slightly each year. There's carry over every year even in counties with increased or decreased harvests.
I'd like to see the data on what you posted on the NR and leased property and where the DNR got that info on the later. I doubt that they have any frankly. If they did, it would have to be by survey?
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 20, 2010 16:49:07 GMT -5
Everyone I talked too in my area which is N.E. Indiana said they saw less deer this year than in the past and most of them didn't kill as many deer for that reason. N.E. Indiana is a heavy hunted area.
I not sure how our state can see an increase in killed deer with states on both sides having a decrease in harvest numbers.
Telecheck will give true results of harvest numbers.
Doing away with the OBR will correct the promised myth of big antlers behind every tree and increase revenue for the IDNR by increasing license sales. h.h.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 17:20:06 GMT -5
Telecheck will give true results of harvest numbers. . I don't see how? The same people that don't follow the rules now won't under telechek either. Also, there will be an increase in non-compliance, least it's been that way in other states.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 20, 2010 17:51:51 GMT -5
There are maybe 7 counties that had a drop in "over" 100 deer. I wouldn't call that a huge difference. The age structure wouldn't change much, maybe slightly each year. There's carry over every year even in counties with increased or decreased harvests. I'd like to see the data on what you posted on the NR and leased property and where the DNR got that info on the later. I doubt that they have any frankly. If they did, it would have to be by survey? Strait from Mr.Stewart today . Man I think you need to read the whole deer reasults especially the part about out of state license sales increaseing over the last 3 years . Also why would he lie about the lease thing??? A person would either need to live in a box or are just centered on an argument to denie it or not know about the out of state and in staters leasing increase hurting locals and drawing in deer with huge habbitat improvements .Lets face it if you payed 500 or 1000 dollers a man to lease land you would not just go out and shoot every doe out there they will hold for a buck .That is why they leased it from out of state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 19:31:39 GMT -5
ot Strait from Mr.Stewart today . Man I think you need to read the whole deer reasults especially the part about out of state license sales increaseing over the last 3 years . Also why would he lie about the lease thing??? A person would either need to live in a box or are just centered on an argument to denie it or not know about the out of state and in staters leasing increase hurting locals and drawing in deer with huge habbitat improvements . Lets face it if you payed 500 or 1000 dollers a man to lease land you would not just go out and shoot every doe out there they will hold for a buck .That is why they leased it from out of state. First off, NR's aren't the only hunters leasing land in Ind. That's easily proved if you doubt it. Second, not all NR's lease land. Third, most people now days know and understand the importance in shooting does. Last, if Mr. Stewart wants any hunter to shoot more does, then he needs to make it more financially possible. Some people and NR's will be more than happy to shoot them, but not for what it costs ($150) when they can do it for $10 or so at home. Also, it's not factual that food plots and habitat improvement will increase the number of deer on an area, they may make them easier to see and make them healthier, but it doesn't make them have sex more often. I'm sure Mr. Stewart knows this well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 19:38:10 GMT -5
Looks like the NR harvest was 1.93% of the total. Plenty left for the residents.
NR hunters increased by 810 from the previous year. Hardly anything to be concerned with on a statewide basis.
|
|