And It's A New State Record (Harvest)

[cambygsp]

www.in.gov/activecalendar_dnr/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=5965&information_id=11980&type&syndicate=syndicate


Looks like crossbow hunters killed all the deer !

LOL..............................

[Deleted]

So, crossbows only accounted for 6% of the total harvest. Not a huge impact after all.

[swilk]

With the introduction of on-line and phone check in the harvest numbers were likely to grow no matter what the harvest actually was.

[jjas]

Here's a breakdown...

Antlered bucks.....46k or 34% of deer killed.
Button bucks.......16k or 12% of deer killed.

Adult does.........55k or 40% of deer killed.
Doe fawns..........19k or 14% of deer killed.

Totals

Bucks....62k or 46% of deer killed.
Does.....74k or 54% of deer killed.

[daneowner]

If I read the report correctly, the "new late antlerless only" season had a harvest of 10,091. Take that out of the total and Indiana would of had a harvest of approx. 2800 less then last year.

[js2397]

Quick break down

Youth +1278

Archery +8286

Gun -5230

Muzzleloader -7195

Late Antlerless +10091

Total +7230

[cedarthicket]

Regarding harvests by equipment type -- archery (vertical bow) and crossbow:

From 2012 Deer Harvest Summary:
www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdf


“Harvest by equipment type is illustrated in Figure 8. Shotgun harvest decreased 5% from 2011, while muzzleloader decreased 12%. Harvest by archery and handguns were nearly equal to 2011, while reported harvest by crossbow and rifle increased 675% and 49% from 2011, respectively (Table 3). This was the first year that crossbows were allowed to be used throughout the archery season without restriction, facilitating the rapid increase in use in 2012.”

PERSONAL NOTE: If I am reading this correctly, IDNR harvest data attributed to archery equipment does NOT include crossbows. In other words, using data from Table 3, the harvest with vertical bows actually increased somewhat (from 26,715 in 2011 to 27,580 in 2012). However, because this was the first year of inclusion of crossbows in all of archery season without restriction, one should be very cautious in speculating about future archery (vertical bow) and crossbow harvests.

[js2397]

Feb 21, 2013 15:58:20 GMT -5 cedarthicket said:

Regarding harvests by equipment type -- archery (vertical bow) and crossbow:

From 2012 Deer Harvest Summary:
www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2012_Deer_Season_Summary.pdf


“Harvest by equipment type is illustrated in Figure 8. Shotgun harvest decreased 5% from 2011, while muzzleloader decreased 12%. Harvest by archery and handguns were nearly equal to 2011, while reported harvest by crossbow and rifle increased 675% and 49% from 2011, respectively (Table 3). This was the first year that crossbows were allowed to be used throughout the archery season without restriction, facilitating the rapid increase in use in 2012.”

PERSONAL NOTE: If I am reading this correctly, IDNR harvest data attributed to archery equipment does NOT include crossbows. In other words, using data from Table 3, the harvest with vertical bows actually increased somewhat (from 26,715 in 2011 to 27,580 in 2012). However, because this was the first year of inclusion of crossbows in all of archery season without restriction, one should be very cautious in speculating about future archery (vertical bow) and crossbow harvests.

I would say your assumption is correct. The archery season total does include the deer taken with crossbows but the equipment type would only include that hunting tool.

[Woody Williams]

“Despite the record harvest, trends within the harvest data showed that deer numbers were down this year,” Marcus said. “The number of antlered deer in the harvest was at its lowest point since 2000, an indicator of a reduced deer herd.”

Stewart said the antlered deer harvest tracks the total population about as well as anything because there are fewer variables to consider.

“Year-to-year hunter efforts don’t change much, so people aren’t all of a sudden taking three bucks or eight bucks; they’re locked into one buck,” he said, noting the one-buck limit in Indiana. “If there are fewer bucks to kill with the same amount of hunter effort, not as many bucks get killed, which tells us the overall population is down.”

Personally I do believe a good portion of the decrease in bucks taken is because more and more deer hunters are willing to eat a buck tag than take a small buck..That is a change from the past when a rack was a rack was a rack.....PLUS - we can kill a dump truck full of antlerless deer every year..No need to drop the hammer on a yearling buck. The "bundle" also gave the gun hunter a choice on that last weekend to drop a doe instead of a yearling buck.. Hopefully the DNR and NRC will see their way clear to makes that a two anterless and one either sex bundle tag next year..


.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 14:55:09 GMT -5 daneowner said:

If I read the report correctly, the "new late antlerless only" season had a harvest of 10,091. Take that out of the total and Indiana would of had a harvest of approx. 2800 less then last year.

In reality, it doesnt work out like that. The easier the check in is, the more its abused. Been that away in every state that has gone to one like it.

To me, these numbers are pretty good but could be misleading.46/54 is very good if its true. I suspect that a lot of bucks didnt getchecked under the new system and the totals are actually closer to 55/45.

I predicted a record and if the lower buck numbers are really true then it was because of the trickle rut and extra doe hunts.

[jjas]

Feb 21, 2013 17:30:29 GMT -5 @timex said:

Feb 21, 2013 14:55:09 GMT -5 daneowner said:

If I read the report correctly, the "new late antlerless only" season had a harvest of 10,091. Take that out of the total and Indiana would of had a harvest of approx. 2800 less then last year.

In reality, it doesnt work out like that. The easier the check in is, the more its abused. Been that away in every state that has gone to one like it.

To me, these numbers are pretty good but could be misleading.46/54 is very good if its true. I suspect that a lot of bucks didnt getchecked under the new system and the totals are actually closer to 55/45.

I predicted a record and if the lower buck numbers are really true then it was because of the trickle rut and extra doe hunts.

All we have to go on is the data provided.

As a matter of fact if you look @ the antlered vs antlerless numbers, you'll see that 66% of the deer killed this past season were antlerless.

And killing more antlerless deer was the goal...wasn't it?

[Deleted]

How many bucks weren't checked in, Timex? Go ahead and tell us so we can make the necessary adjustments to our charts.

[woodswalker56]

Timex has been on the "easier" creates more abuse kick since Indiana decided to go with electronic check in. Still can't read into his logic. If I want to avoid checking in a deer what does it matter the type of system?

[Deleted]

You could come up with a number but it would be an estimate based on other states that have adopted a nonphyiscal check in system. I doubt that anyone not exposed to these things before would believe the number either. After 3 or 4 years, the non compliance number will be consistent anyway, so it wont matter to the data collectors. The real number might be as high 30% but it probably closer to 12-15% in the first year. Ky found it to be 18% after 5 years but it continued to get higher.

Even with the noncompliance its a better system. But in 3-5 years you'll start seeing the effects of multiple years of skewed data. The natives will get restless and several areas will see some over harvest. A lot of folks will really hate not seeing deer and it will beblamed on telechek. If you dont believeme just go to the kyhunting site and ask what people think about it. You might get a eye opener.

[Deleted]

And how, pray tell, in Kentucky, for instance, do they come up with consistent numbers of "non-compliance"? I assume then that those caught in "non-compliance" are charged with breaking the law. Or, are these hard and consistent numbers merely someone's estimates?

The numbers you cited from KY indicate that 18% of deer killed go unreported. I don't see how that is knowable unless a whole bunch of people are caught and busted every year.

[Deleted]

When ky first went to telechek you had until 9pm to make the call. After receiving hundreds of reports of abuse, enforcement efforts were stepped up across the state. Deer camp raids and road block checks at major intersections and processorinspections revealed that a lot of deer otherwise legally harvested simply were not checked in. That went on for about 4 years each year with bigger numbers. Eventually the Supreme court ruled that hunter only road blocks were illegal and the whole thing was stopped. Later they added telechek review and that helped with enforcement. Still our deer managers use the telecheck data and as long as the noncompliance is consistant year to year u can still manage tbe herd based on the estimate of the noncompliance. If you understand how wt deer multiply you can look at the estimated total harvest and estimated prehunt number and come up with a good post hunt estimate to make management decisions on. Ky has one of the best managers in the business and one of the best herds going.

[Deleted]

About ten years After-telechek, and lots of unhappy customers, Ky zeroed out their three deer models and started from scratch. Deer managers dont do those things unless they know they have issues.

Anyway, good numbers hope tbey are true or close to it. Anybody out thers know somebody that killed so.ethi g and didnt call it in?

[jjas]

One would think that if non-compliance was running as high as 18 percent that @ some point (over a few years) the reported deer kill numbers would drop quite a bit from year to year as overharvesting would begin to show.....

[Deleted]

You would be right. Guys that hate the 8 county limit will see some relief, but it might hit rock bottom first. At one time, about 2/3 of Ky had unlimited doe hunting. Not now.

[daneowner]

Indiana set a new state harvest record for deer. Was it the type of check-in system? IMHO, no, it was because of the additional hunting days, without the late antlerless season the harvest would of been lower then last year. Then some say the reason the buck harvest was down and the doe count up was because people checked in bucks as does. You can blame the "type" of check-in system all you want but the real problem is the "type" of hunter. Let's hope that Indiana doesn't have as many "bad apples" as Ky. LOL!