|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 21, 2010 22:14:17 GMT -5
Really....that's a very interesting view point!!!!! I don't think many other's see him that way  Many/most view him as a "Breath of fresh air" or "new thoughts on the Horizon"......now that we moved from the Mitchell & Olson days  Well, is that not pizz poor gratitude for you? Dr. Mitchell and John Olson managed the deer herd from almost nothing to where it is is today. I don't think you are old enough to have bene around when just seeing a deer was something. Now if a hunter doesn't see a dozen every time he goes out he whines. Show a little respect for the men that was able to grow this herd to a point where anyone can kill a deer. Yes I am I started hunting in 1975 thank you so am quite old enough fella. The men you spoke of did fine and we worked hard to see deer and kill them and grow a great deer herd. I was as much a part of those herd growing years as you were sir . This is a differnt time indeed where legislators influence or deer herd more than those who were hired to make it greater than it was the year before. Sorry you do not like the fact I think legislators and politicians should remove themselves from or wildlife and hunting regs and proccess and let those who are paid by hunters and the hunters decide what is best, It seems many missed my point here perhaps this cleared it up a tad. |
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Feb 21, 2010 22:16:06 GMT -5
Well not quite !! For example the 1. 5 Sq mile block of land south west of me has about 25 acres of wooded cover and any given day maybe 3 or 4 deer staying there it is all corn and beans stubble with 4 fence lines and about 3 dozen homes on it . Th block due west of me is much like that one with even less woods and a few more homes.. It is deceiving to here that many deer as an number on one farm but when you look at land that has cover for deer and that land that does not it becomes clear as to how it is so easily done to keep track of the deer here on our farms . The only real cover is the large creek bottom that is 1 mile north of me that is where the deer numbers are highest in the summer but it overrun with hunters and has homes the whole distance of it on the top of th creek bottom that is mostly farm Fields. So in fact I would guess that if our county was broken down deer per Sq mile it would likely only be 5 or 10 per Sq mile if averaged over the entire county that is vast crop feilds or urban and city sprawl. But with the decided lack of cover in the form of large woods it becomes clear that they stack up where the best cover and feed is when the crops start to fall .In the summer they disperse to the vast crop fields and very very small wood lots away from the creek bottoms. Deerman, I was born during the day but it wasn't yesterday. If you in fact had 82 deet on 100 acres, you would have a serious browse line in your woods. As you know, even with large field of corn and beans, a deer daily intake is still 60% browse. No matter what you post about your deer, your neighbors have some also even without wooded cover. Deer don't have to have until the crops are harvested. Corn and high beans make excellent bedding and large fild make a secure place to lay up, even when slick from the harvest. And once agin you did not read my post as I stated that they "disspersed " in the warm weather when the crops grew!!!!!!!!!!!! Also ther is no such browse line as you elude to they feed freely all around the farm and feilds surrounding it . As I stated . You have no idea about my land or its capacity you sir are not a claivoiant and Have no clue what you are talking about in this case and the amount of cover and food we supply them every year in plantings . It is what ity is and perhaps you are simply eithr stymied or a little jelouse that I do indeed have the deer and hunting I have stated I have on my farm. I also said that it varies from 40 to 70 most days and 40 being the low and the 82 were a high . They will indeed dispurse in about a month as it all greens up and the small plants start to grow you may want to get away from southern Indiana and KY and see there is different habbitat and deer herds than you are used to in your area. I just do not get you people on this site it can only be what you guys see ,think ,or like wher you hunt if anyone and in this case you are very wrong beyond beliefe and I have had enough of the ignorance on this site as well its just some little 12 or so clique that likes to argue rather than learn or compair nots and it is sad really . Souther Indiana is not the End all when it comes to deer hunters and deer hunting it mearly is a heavily wooded over run under fed area in spots down ther . I know I have hunted ,Greene , Orange ,and Muskatituck,crain ,and newport also . Your deer down there could use some decent feed is all I can say because they areon the average 20 pounds liter than our northern corn and alfalfa feed deer at the same age .Good luck all!! As one guy said to me earlier in general about half of ya have a pizzzz poor attitude . Hope your shoulder don't hurt timex from patting yourself on the back over you vast knowledge of the properties of other that live 100 plus miles from you !! |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 21, 2010 23:09:01 GMT -5
Hmmm....
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Feb 22, 2010 4:55:40 GMT -5
Well, having woke up early this morning, I had some time to go over all these posts that state the biologist don't know how to age a deer, the way they are doing it is wrong, the herd population count is wrong, but what I failed to find in all those posts was, "What is the real, proper, and accurate way to age a deer?" So many wrong, wrong, wrong, but no right, right, right. As the hippies back in the 60's used to say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Looks like some of the nay sayers should stand with a biologist all day long at those check stations and show him [or her] just how it should be done. Problem solved with a little on the spot interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Feb 22, 2010 7:45:13 GMT -5
Deerman,
C'mon man we can all have a disagreement from time to time. This time we have a misunderstanding too.
Your counting deer on your place sounds interesting. Lots of deer biologists have a hard time figuring out how many deer are in a given area so I'm sure some on here had a hard time accepting those numbers. No doubt the topography there has a lot to do wth it.
Now for the "pizz poor" remark. I did not direct that at you at all. That was directed at Greghopper as he is always cutting down Jim Mitchell and John Olson. Of course most times he is just polly parroting what someone else had posted elsewhere.
The posts
Your statement was accidently included in the qoute. I agree with you on that the deer biologist should be making the decisions.
Stick around , you have a lot to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Feb 22, 2010 7:53:28 GMT -5
You misunderstood my post. It was NOT directed at you at all. It was directed at GregHopper who likes to cut down Jim and Johh every chane he gets. These type of people do not undestand that Jim and John made ths herd what it is today.
Just because Jim and John did not agree with the growing trophy deer and concentrated on a healthy herd they get lamblasted by these people.
Yes, let the biologists make the decsions. They are the ones trained for it and paid for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 22, 2010 7:59:25 GMT -5
You misunderstood my post. It was NOT directed at you at all. It was directed at GregHopper who likes to cut down Jim and Johh every chane he gets. These type of people do not undestand that Jim and John made ths herd what it is today. Just because Jim and John did not agree with the growing trophy deer and concentrated on a healthy herd they get lamblasted by these people. Yes, let the biologists make the decsions. They are the ones trained for it and paid for it. Deerman, I was agreeing with racktracker' post to GregHopper. I also agree with you on your position of letting the biologists do the decision making. I've met Chad, had several discussions in person and over the net and I do believe that he is a good one. The reports that he puts out are top notch. Stick around. WW |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 22, 2010 8:35:54 GMT -5
Well, having woke up early this morning, I had some time to go over all these posts that state the biologist don't know how to age a deer, the way they are doing it is wrong, the herd population count is wrong, but what I failed to find in all those posts was, "What is the real, proper, and accurate way to age a deer?" So many wrong, wrong, wrong, but no right, right, right. As the hippies back in the 60's used to say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Looks like some of the nay sayers should stand with a biologist all day long at those check stations and show him [or her] just how it should be done. Problem solved with a little on the spot interaction. There are other and more accurate ways of doing it but they way are too time and dollars consuming. The cementum annuli technigue involves extracting the bottom front tooth or incisor and emerging it in formic or nitric acid. The acid actually decalcifies the tooth so the examiner can literally cut the tooth in half with a sharp knife. A very thin cross-section is cut out of the tooth and stained with a colored dye. The stained tooth section is mounted on a microscopic slide and the number of annual rings are counted. Just like rings on a tree, a growth ring is added every year of life. Thus, if the tooth has 3 rings, it's 3 1/2 years old. Another method involves the eye lens weight. Throughout the deer's life their eye lens increases in weight. Biologists extract the lens from a harvested deer and weigh the lens. The heavier the eye lens weigh the older the animal, whereas the lighter lens' are younger deer. The aging by looking at the teeth is subjective, but it is the very best in the field way of doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 22, 2010 9:03:57 GMT -5
Well, having woke up early this morning, I had some time to go over all these posts that state the biologist don't know how to age a deer, the way they are doing it is wrong, the herd population count is wrong, but what I failed to find in all those posts was, "What is the real, proper, and accurate way to age a deer?" So many wrong, wrong, wrong, but no right, right, right. As the hippies back in the 60's used to say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Looks like some of the nay sayers should stand with a biologist all day long at those check stations and show him [or her] just how it should be done. Problem solved with a little on the spot interaction. Woody described the beth methods going.. Not sure mr. DNR at the check station is going to consider this, it is up to you to send in the tooth and pay for the process if you want the true age of your buck. I would agree the tooth aging is going to be accurate for judging if a buck is older than 1.5 years, most of the time. Just know that alot of the experienced guys killing mature deer know the age and don't want anyone tooth-wear aging their buck (they have watched the buck, or have cam pics and sheds, or just know what their bucks look like at a certain age). Kentucky actually tries to educate hunters and puts pics of what a certain age buck looks like in the hunting guide, I would like to see us head in this direction with tele-check and age related questions. See ya Deerman, you gotta have alligator skin to jump in a deer management discussion around here! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2010 9:45:22 GMT -5
Tooth wear aging is fairly accurate up to 3.5 yrs....at least better than 70% Over that the average goes lower, but it doesn't matter in the grand scope of overall management.
To grow a well managed deer herd, you really only need to protect young bucks for a couple of years, after that most of them will survive on their own merits.
I've learned that very few hunters can successfully field judge a deers age. Most don't care how old he is, just that he has a good rack.
The management program in Indiana is sound and works. Random sampling and field aging give them the data needed to keep it in good shape. IMO, Indiana has a good number of older bucks in it's herd presently. If the herd keeps growing, and the harvest keeps growing, it would make sense to reinstate the second buck to keep hunters in the field longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Feb 22, 2010 18:40:28 GMT -5
2,048 adult male deer were aged in 2009 so about 4% of the antlered harvest.
2,600 adult male deer were aged in 2008 so about 5% of the antlered harvest.
Pretty neat that they can determine how many were what age by sampling only 4 or 5%...
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 22, 2010 18:49:45 GMT -5
I am guessing an adult deer is just antlered or is it more refined then that?
If they sampled the same amount of adult females and juvinle deer that means they sampled 10 to 15% of the total harvest which would be much greater then I would have ever guessed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 22, 2010 19:11:10 GMT -5
I am guessing an adult deer is just antlered or is it more refined then that? If they sampled the same amount of adult females and juvinle deer that means they sampled 10 to 15% of the total harvest which would be much greater then I would have ever guessed. H arvest Age and Sex StructureThe age and sex structure of the 2009 deer harvest was 40% adult males (antlered bucks), 36% adult females, 10% male fawns (button bucks), and 14% female fawns (Table 5). These percentages are similar to the harvest in 2008. About 36% of the antlered bucks and 34% of the adult does harvested during 2009 were yearlings (1.5 years old) (Figure 8). Adult and doe fawns are figured differently..* Number of adult and fawn females is projected from the % fawns of all females aged at the biological check stations (not from the ratio of fawn doe to fawn bucks in the total deer harvest). |
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Feb 22, 2010 20:02:18 GMT -5
I am guessing an adult deer is just antlered or is it more refined then that? If they sampled the same amount of adult females and juvinle deer that means they sampled 10 to 15% of the total harvest which would be much greater then I would have ever guessed. 663 female deer in 2009, 1000 in 2008. |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 22, 2010 20:42:18 GMT -5
Ok so that is about 5% total for 09 and 6% for 08. That is still a good chunk considering how few biologist they have out there aging the deer on one or two days of opening weekend. Somebody better at stats could give us a lesson on confidence levels and how much additional sampling would be required to improve your confidence levels.
Take the county by county example on the other thread. Woody posted 7 counties and when you took the average change from last year to this year it was nearly the same for the entire state. Those 7 counties represent just under 8% of Indiana's counties yet we got the same growth rate for that 8% as we did if we used all 92 counties.
Lots of number crunching for sure but that is what alot of the schooling is for these biologist. It's not just about catching animals and squeezing fish. It's how to present the data that was collected.
|
|
|
|
Post by buster on Feb 22, 2010 21:39:43 GMT -5
My God!!!! Give deerman a friggin break! You got a guy who puts in more time, money, blood, sweat, tears, more homework and more hard work on his hunting land than 90% of you on here, not to mention the intimate knowledge of the land he hunts and the deer on it and all you want to do is bash the guy! PPLLEEAASSEEEE!
Its been kinda nice reading what a hardworking hunter, who locally knows his stuff, has to say instead of all the 'deer experts' that rant and rave about every other topic on here!
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Feb 23, 2010 8:17:40 GMT -5
To quote the now retired "Big John Olsen", the definition of a deer biologist is a person who has a subscription to Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine, and has sat in a deer stand for at least 30 minutes. Right Buster?
|
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Feb 23, 2010 10:29:14 GMT -5
My God!!!! Give deerman and friggin break! You got a guy who puts in more time, money, blood, sweat, tears, more homework and more hard work on his hunting land than 90% of you on here, not to mention the intimate knowledge of the land he hunts and the deer on it and all you want to do is bash the guy! PPLLEEAASSEEEE! Its been kinda nice reading what a hardworking hunter, who locally knows his stuff, has to say instead of all the 'deer experts' that rant and rave about every other topic on here! Well said Buster.....two thumbs up |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyantler on Feb 23, 2010 13:05:27 GMT -5
To quote the now retired "Big John Olsen", the definition of a deer biologist is a person who has a subscription to Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine, and has sat in a deer stand for at least 30 minutes. Right Buster? A minor correction in the quote. Some deer hunters believe that they are deer biologists because they sat in a deer stand for thirty minutes instead of spending many 6-8 years in college. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 23, 2010 13:21:58 GMT -5
A minor correction in the quote. Some deer hunters believe that they are deer biologists because they sat in a deer stand for thirty minutes instead of spending many 6-8 years in college. VERY TRUE!.......  |
|
