|
Post by boonechaser on Mar 1, 2015 17:57:11 GMT -5
Not buying the habitat loss excuse. Yes with corn price's pushing 9.00 and 10.00 bushel many CRP acre's were put back into crop land's, but with record surplus's now and corn price's down to under 5.00. (5.00 pretty much break even price for corn)I would expect some of those acre's to go back into CRP and or warm season grass field's. Over harvest, EHD outbreak's are main cause's of declining deer number's in Indiana. The rest of the excuse's are just smoke and mirror's IMO.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 2, 2015 5:47:00 GMT -5
However, with the decrease in CRP land along with rapid development of remaining lands & habitat, isn't good for wildlife species. Also might add the number of farms are either shrinking or disappearing at an alarming rate, due to regulations, land grabs, & taxes. Buddy up here in the northern part of the state There is little in the way of farms disappearing over the last 25 or so years to be truthful and little loss of habitat due to development .Its really a non issues for most the area north of INDY . Just loss of deer due to EHD , Coyotes and mostly Way way too many antlerless tags being sold and too big of antlerless deer limits over the last 10 or so years .Time for change IMHO with seasons and limits .I'm with the majority here in our state calling for shorter seasons and a 2-3 deer limit one of which has to be a Buck per hunter and be done . The size of habitat, necessary for establishing/keeping a huntable Deer herd, and cases/outbreaks of EHD and other diseases are unrelated. Failure of your DNR to establish prudent harvest limits, in many areas, also contribute to low Deer populations. From what I hear and read Family Farms are decreasing and have been for years and those left are owned by large companies. Don't know which county you live in, but my Sister & Brother-in-law live in Clinton Co., Indiana, and they told me they see fewer Deer each year. Also when I lived in Northern Vanderburgh County, I personally saw several farms disappear to Housing & Industrial developments. Also land that was posted "NO HUNTING" began to "pop-up". Just my observation here.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 2, 2015 6:45:11 GMT -5
For anyone that believes we are not experiencing a loss of suitable deer habitat, you really need to get out more or at least take a Google Earth tour around the state. Just looking at Johnson County is proof in itself.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 2, 2015 7:19:46 GMT -5
For anyone that believes we are experiencing a loss of suitable deer habitat, you really need to get out more or at least take a Google Earth tour around the state. Just looking at Johnson County is proof in itself. Johnson County is only one county. True, there are still a few Indiana Counties, especially in the Southeastern portion of the State that are still rural, but for how long (?) It's funny that in the past few years, on this and other Hunting Forums; members were complaining about losing their hunting areas and the fact they aren't see as many Deer as they did in the past few years.(?) But then they turn around their observations and say everything is great, so which is it?? I don't need to "Google" anything related to this topic and I certainly get out enough. I am just glad I have the proper habitat, here in my area of Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 2, 2015 8:07:14 GMT -5
For anyone that believes we are experiencing a loss of suitable deer habitat, you really need to get out more or at least take a Google Earth tour around the state. Just looking at Johnson County is proof in itself. Yep. Suitable quail habitat .... suitable rabbit habitat .... but not suitable deer habitat. If deer needed trees to survive there would be millions of deer in western states in a bunch of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Mar 2, 2015 9:20:25 GMT -5
In some areas where development is big it would be fair to say that deer numbers are down because of habitat loss. I agree that we are losing HUNTER habitat but not necessarily deer habitat. Look how well the deer do in urban environments like Eagle Creek. I would even argue that they thrive in these places due to lack of predators and hunting pressure. However, where I and my fiance have noticed the largest decline of deer numbers is in state forests... no fear of habitat loss there. Some places are completely devoid of deer sign, even after hunting season, which is quite disturbing as they have been well established hot spots in the past.
I do find it interesting that the DNR promoted coyote hunting so heavily this past season. Wonder if that is going to be their next reason for why numbers are down. I can see it now... "Well deer numbers are down due to coyote predation, so that is why we have been encouraging it so heavily."
Honestly I think the real reason why numbers are down is that EHD hit harder then expected and the liberal doe permits are finally starting to catch up with us, along with the ease of poaching due to the advent of the printable licenses. I hate to say it but our system makes it really easy to take multiple deer with one license without ever getting caught.
I realize deer are quite prolific creatures but you need to leave at least a few does behind to repopulate.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 2, 2015 12:21:56 GMT -5
Supposed to be a NOT in there. I was a bit tired when I typed that and missed it.
It's fixed now.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Mar 2, 2015 22:10:10 GMT -5
So in 2015 we have a larger deer herd than we did in 1965, but in 1965 we had more deer habitat than we do in 2015. HHMMM confusing argument. Doesn't matter what amount of deer habitat you have if you shoot all the antlerless deer you will have very few deer in your area. (Not rocket science folk's.) Land in the CRP is heavily dependent on price of field crop's vs. amount subsidy paid by gov't. Corn price's were at all time high's a few year's ago which led to several CRP acre's being pulled out of program. Price's have since nose dived to the point of break even at best and with record corn surplus's those price's will no doubt get worse before better. I expect the trend of decreasing CRP land to reverse if the low corn price's continue. Want more deer??? My advice would be to shoot less of them.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 3, 2015 11:01:26 GMT -5
Considering deer are just about as happy living in a subdivision as they are in the wooliest of swamps Im not sure anything less than the actual ground where concrete, asphalt and buildings now stand counts as loss of habitat.
And while there has been some of that for sure ..... not a tremendous amount.
If what people really mean is they have less places to hide and therefore are getting killed more easily there might be a bit more merit to that. But I have seen deer vanish in the middle of what appear to be wide open fields. They are masters at using even the most subtle terrain feature to hide.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Mar 3, 2015 13:42:03 GMT -5
Deer adapt. Better than human's or hunter's it seems. Most urban zones are crawling with deer. Guess they didn't read about all the habitat loss and that they shouldn't be there?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 3, 2015 16:29:17 GMT -5
Maybe they should have gotten a little more descriptive about the habitat and said loss of "huntable" habitat. It truly doesn't matter how adaptive deer are with all the urban sprawl. If hunting is not allowed in 20 to 30 percent of the state, the QDMA way of getting bucks up for hunters to kill simply won't work.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Mar 3, 2015 17:33:55 GMT -5
Maybe they should have gotten a little more descriptive about the habitat and said loss of "huntable" habitat. It truly doesn't matter how adaptive deer are with all the urban sprawl. If hunting is not allowed in 20 to 30 percent of the state, the QDMA way of getting bucks up for hunters to kill simply won't work. Well then apparently their way of doing things don't work everywhere or much at all .IMHO the number one thing needed to help deer especially buck deer to a trophy age class is to be protected and grow older .So by that the if 20% - 30% of the state is unhuntable then by definition its deer sanctuary .LOL IMHO if only 20-30 percent of the land in this state is no hunting then we are doing better than most every other state in the union .FYI CRP is not very good huntable habitat for deer unless its ringed with trees or has timber in it ..RP by definition has to be planted and cut twice a year at least . So its not the very best deer habitat going anyways as hunting goes .
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 3, 2015 18:41:54 GMT -5
I Indianapolis, Gary, Fort Wayne, Evansville, and other metropolitan areas seem like a deer sanctuary for growing big antlers to you, then good luck.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 3, 2015 19:50:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 3, 2015 21:49:22 GMT -5
Great! Too bad all cities don't hold huge huntable whitetails.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 4, 2015 5:12:29 GMT -5
Maybe they should have gotten a little more descriptive about the habitat and said loss of "huntable" habitat. It truly doesn't matter how adaptive deer are with all the urban sprawl. If hunting is not allowed in 20 to 30 percent of the state, the QDMA way of getting bucks up for hunters to kill simply won't work. Well then apparently their way of doing things don't work everywhere or much at all .IMHO the number one thing needed to help deer especially buck deer to a trophy age class is to be protected and grow older .So by that the if 20% - 30% of the state is unhuntable then by definition its deer sanctuary .LOL IMHO if only 20-30 percent of the land in this state is no hunting then we are doing better than most every other state in the union .FYI CRP is not very good huntable habitat for deer unless its ringed with trees or has timber in it ..RP by definition has to be planted and cut twice a year at least . So its not the very best deer habitat going anyways as hunting goes . Your post here, shouldernuke, is what I've been trying to convey to the folks here. I have trouble trying to explain basic wildlife management, typing on a computer in a hunting forum. Some parts of that article were correct while other parts were "iffy" by my standards. Your idea of increasing trophy sized Bucks would, and I think you'll agree, an antler point restriction, and reducing antlerless harvest of Deer, as they have in many States which Colorado comes to mind, Starting back in 1985. Also you mention CRP is not really a solution to holding a population of Deer, due to the fact it has to be restored/mowed every year. It may help, but one cannot substitute planted food plots for natural and suitable habitat that Deer and other wildlife require. They, wildlife, need natural habitat along with man made habitat to sustain their populations.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 4, 2015 5:22:58 GMT -5
Deer adapt. Better than human's or hunter's it seems. Most urban zones are crawling with deer. Guess they didn't read about all the habitat loss and that they shouldn't be there? Deer may very well adapt in Urban Zones. HOWEVER one can't hunt in many areas due to the "People Population", Housing Developments, Strip Malls, and other Industry developments. The reason there are a number of Deer in Urban areas is that their normal habitat has been eliminated due to economic development, as mentioned above. Anyone that hunts these areas are usually restricted to using archery equipment and normally find their best hunting near Urban areas. But those areas are usually posted with no hunting signs, and even these lands are shrinking. Vehicles kill a greater number of the Deer in these areas than Hunters.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 4, 2015 10:37:08 GMT -5
what has to be planted and cut twice a yr SN also Most CRP is for endangered birds and in some places in Indiana Quail the Deer part in CRP is a collateral benefit its not intended for Deer its intended purpose is for soil erosion in marginal farm ground FIRST
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 4, 2015 10:40:45 GMT -5
what has to be planted and cut twice a yr SN also Most CRP is for endangered birds and in some places in Indiana Quail the Deer part in CRP is a collateral benefit its not intended for Deer its intended purpose is for soil erosion in marginal farm ground FIRST I deer hunted in the middle of numerous CRP fields in Illinois. Had a couple nice cover trees in an old fence row. These fields were never cut/bush hogged. In fact we were told to not do much driving through them and leaving paths.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Mar 4, 2015 16:29:14 GMT -5
what has to be planted and cut twice a yr SN also Most CRP is for endangered birds and in some places in Indiana Quail the Deer part in CRP is a collateral benefit its not intended for Deer its intended purpose is for soil erosion in marginal farm ground FIRST True CRP is not to be mowed between Ma1 and Sept 1 here is a small Q&A on cutting also weed control is important in the CRP program .FYI not all set aside is paid for crp many places is a poor excuse for game and deer cover only .FYI on the farms I have been on and associated with the CRP is mowed in April and then again in Sept about 6-10 inches tall . farmprogress.com/story-follow-rules-maintaining-crp-acres-16-100351FYI two of the farms I hunted in Cass county did this in the below post one grazed cattle the other cut hay ... www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2008/0710barnhart.htmNow who cuts CRP ? Crp when used correctly is about proper usage and management not just letting a field go into unusable weeds Throwback .
|
|