|
Post by scrub-buster on May 4, 2010 18:31:11 GMT -5
How about 2 does = 1 extra buck for an incentive.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on May 4, 2010 18:43:14 GMT -5
How about 2 does = 1 extra buck for an incentive. How about xbow legal for all gain a whole bunch of good hunters from gun and those who have given up on archery for any one of many reasons like older hunters women ,kids who have yet to bow hunt due to poundage limits . Then if a hunter takes a doe with archery gear they earn a second buck and doe tag all in one nice neat package for $35.00 that is good or the remainder of the year /all seasons. Then they would see their want list for the deer herd get closer by rewarding what is the states most successfull hunters year in and year out who are usually setting on the couch come gun because they have two or three deer down already. Hunters need rewarded for taking an extra doe . Simple nice and neat but there will be growing pains from both side of the OBR fence the OBRs are not going to want this at all and the second buck guys will just want the second buck back plain and simple with out hoops to jump through but there is no easy road to where this state wants to get this deer herd with such lkow hunter numbers that Indiana has compaire to most every other state in the union.
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on May 4, 2010 19:09:15 GMT -5
Guys and gals, I have seen nothing from anywhere that referenced a "25% reduction in five years" from anyone except this reporter. I emailed her and asked where she got her information from and she emailed back: Nothing in there about a "25% reduction in five years", so I emailed her back and pointedly asked where she got that number.. I'm still waiting on that answer. There will have to be some incentive for hunters to take more deer than they are already taking. . Thanks for rooting this one out Woody! I am looking forward to hearing her official response.
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 5, 2010 7:22:46 GMT -5
Yes, the Deer Herd might be growning in certain area of Indiana; BUT the available or present hunting areas are being posted "NO HUNTING" or shrinking due to developments. Adding more DNR property might help but they will be crowded with Hunters. I know this happened where I use to live in Vanderburgh County, lots of Deer (Limit on Bonus: 8 Anterless) but less hunting grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 5, 2010 7:51:57 GMT -5
As I see it, three big problems:
1) Access - If a hunter does not have access they can not kill deer...period
2) Full freezers - When a hunter's freezer gets full, then what? Donating is fine IF there is an outlet and a low or zero cost to the hunter. A deer hunter is not going to donate a deer that costs him $75 or more to process.
3) Cost of tags - $24 each doesn't sound like a lot to most folks, but to some it is a barrier. Especially if the DNR expects each hunter to kill 4 or 5.
If we are not careful we are going from deer hunting to deer culling. Believe me, deer culling is not fun.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 5, 2010 7:56:44 GMT -5
Guys and gals,
I have seen nothing from anywhere that referenced a "25% reduction in five years" from anyone except this reporter.
I emailed her and asked where she got her information from and she emailed back:
Nothing in there about a "25% reduction in five years", so I emailed her back and pointedly asked where she got that number.. I'm still waiting on that answer.
There will have to be some incentive for hunters to take more deer than they are already taking. I still have not heard back from her. What conclusion can we draw from that? 1) The DNR has told her that and she doesn't want to share that information? Not likely. The DNR issues press releases simultaneously to all press outlets. 2) She pulled that number out of the air or something that she had heard someone else say. Most likely
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on May 5, 2010 8:15:37 GMT -5
we are headed towards earn-a-buck, imo, with leasing and the old-guard gun hunters that don't shoot does, doesn't seem like anything else will work
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on May 5, 2010 10:50:52 GMT -5
As I see it, three big problems: 1) Access - If a hunter does not have access they can not kill deer...period 2) Full freezers - When a hunter's freezer gets full, then what? Donating is fine IF there is an outlet and a low or zero cost to the hunter. A deer hunter is not going to donate a deer that costs him $75 or more to process. 3) Cost of tags - $24 each doesn't sound like a lot to most folks, but to some it is a barrier. Especially if the DNR expects each hunter to kill 4 or 5. If we are not careful we are going from deer hunting to deer culling. Believe me, deer culling is not fun. That about covers it.
|
|
|
Post by jabba on May 5, 2010 11:33:45 GMT -5
How about a partnership between DNR and landowners, where landowners get a tax credit to allow access to their property? It seems to be working out west.
I dunno.. Just a thought.
Jabba
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 5, 2010 12:32:26 GMT -5
As I see it, If we are not careful we are going from deer hunting to deer culling. Believe me, deer culling is not fun. No fun either when your Deer Herd dies off due to starvation, EHD or worse CWD.
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on May 5, 2010 14:50:02 GMT -5
Woody, you may try contacting Rick Bramwell at the Anderson Herald Bulletin. He normally does the outdoor section of our paper on Thursdays, and I was a little bit confused as well when I pulled this article out of the paper and saw this lady's name attached. As for reducing the herd I agree with the statements that hunting access needs to be increased somehow on private land, and tag prices need to be reduced, or go two or three does per license purchased. I like most of the guys on here am still waiting for a phone call from a farmer that needs help reducing the deer population on his property. I would be all for shooting a couple of does to earn an extra buck tag, as I normally shoot a couple of does a year any way. I still would like the option of killing a buck with a bow and another with a firearm, just my own thoughts. ;D
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on May 5, 2010 17:45:07 GMT -5
I hope you guys read the may meeting F&W portion of the meeting they will be discussing EAB .They really are stupid .If they think they are not killing enough deer now wait till a whole bunch of hunter just quit because of one more damn hoop to jump through .I remember that if I am not mistaken Deer licenses fell the first year of EAB and the tag price raise by almost 1/3 wow they are truly some dim bulbs down there indeed .EAB for the second buck sure now that is an incentive for hunters really wanting it .But EAB for a first buck is retarded they may as well just shoot themselves now because the decrease in deer harvest IMHO will be monumental.
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on May 5, 2010 18:09:29 GMT -5
Wow they are proposing the one buck rule go to an earn a buck rule! Guess I'll de whacking the first doe or fawn I see then!
|
|
|
Post by duff on May 5, 2010 20:56:07 GMT -5
If they run the check stations like normal just burn your tag on a phantom doe or your buddies doe, don't think it won't happen if it is for the first buck or the 10th. Might be a way to show a huge doe harvest without really hurting the population in some areas!
|
|
|
Post by tenring on May 5, 2010 21:46:04 GMT -5
If they run the check stations like normal just burn your tag on a phantom doe or your buddies doe, don't think it won't happen if it is for the first buck or the 10th. Might be a way to show a huge doe harvest without really hurting the population in some areas! And when they get TeleCheck in, those "phantom" does counts will really pile up in a hurry for the antler worshipers!
|
|
|
Post by scrub-buster on May 6, 2010 5:29:03 GMT -5
And when they get TeleCheck in, those "phantom" does counts will really pile up in a hurry for the antler worshipers! [/quote]
Good point.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on May 6, 2010 9:41:46 GMT -5
As I see it, If we are not careful we are going from deer hunting to deer culling. Believe me, deer culling is not fun. No fun either when your Deer Herd dies off due to starvation, EHD or worse CWD. None of the three are likely to happen, the two diseases mentioned don't kill entire populations - considering CWD has been in Colorado since the 1960's
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 6, 2010 10:01:28 GMT -5
None of the three are likely to happen, the two diseases mentioned don't kill entire populations - considering CWD has been in Colorado since the 1960's Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) was first seen in North Eastern Colorado, around the Ft. Collins area, back in 1967. You're correct they don't kill off entire herds but it may have an impact on sport hunting as hunters will be reluctant to hunt Deer if they know a disease exists in a herd.
|
|
|
Post by vectrix on May 6, 2010 11:42:18 GMT -5
I don't buy that, guys will shoot and shoot and donate to the "needy". It's not about hunting for a lot of guy's it's about killing. They have the chance to shoot and shoot now and don't there will be no differance in the long run hunters will kill only what they will kill .Yha the DNR is paying for the processing right !! OH "NO" thats right . What?? Who pays for processing, most guys I know cut their own up.
|
|
|
Post by beehunter on May 6, 2010 13:59:07 GMT -5
If they run the check stations like normal just burn your tag on a phantom doe or your buddies doe, don't think it won't happen if it is for the first buck or the 10th. ! Who would do that? ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|