|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jul 13, 2010 12:31:03 GMT -5
I care if bucks get older and I manage the deer on our property best as I can. Don't believe I have too many deer in my area either. Try to keep as close to 50/50 buck to doe ratio as possible. Took up bowhunting 31 year's ago because i like to spend time in woods. First started gun hunting but liked the longer season and more of a challenge bow offers to bag a deer. Have taken more does than I can count with both gun and bow and have 15 bucks on my wall that score 120 up to 155. I'm not disagreeing with you guys that shortning firearm's is a good thing. I oppose that. Just stating that for me personally that the proposed changes will probably have a positive effect. Since i choose to trophy hunt. And it would not bother me if bow season was shortened a couple weeks. 90% time i have my buck by time firearm's start's anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jul 13, 2010 14:17:58 GMT -5
How do you manage the poachers that sneak around busting bucks just for the antlers, like that bunch the CO's finally busted a while back. Youngins' from Indiana and Kentucky if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 13, 2010 16:21:54 GMT -5
So fellas with the new rule proposals looking like they will pass and become the law of the deer woods here what do ya think ? Who says that they're going to pass at all? Nothing is carved in stone until IDNR carves it, and those same silly proposed changes have been shot down every single year for as far back as I can remember. IDNR will not institute any change that they feel restricts their ability to do their job effectively, and unlike allowing OBR reducing the gun and ML days will directly impact herd numbers in a bad way. Every year these two get proposed, and every year IDNR shoots them down. This year they're also considering broadening the types of firearms that will be allowed, including possibly high powered centerfire rifles like other states. That doesn't sound like they plan to shorten the gun seasons to me. If you want a big clue as to how serious the IDNR wants this to pass and the likely hood that it will .Then look no further than the County bonus antler less quotas for 2010 as compared to 2009 season they have raised most every county that was a 2 or 3 to a 4 most counties are now 4 or higher .That was simply not the case if you look at the 2009 reg book last season. The new antler less deer gun seasons will be held in 4 = counties only so they have not so smoothly set the plate for 2011 by raising most counties to 4 plus tags they are not good poker players at all they just showed their hand big time. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 13, 2010 16:28:20 GMT -5
Do you have a list of counties that were changed? Neither my county, or the three surrounding it changed any.
|
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 13, 2010 16:32:02 GMT -5
Do you have a list of counties that were changed? Neither my county, or the three surrounding it changed any. The best way for you would be to go to the DNR web site look at the rules and compair it to the book from last year . I will see if I have time to do a compairison for ya and post the counties that changed. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 13, 2010 16:33:59 GMT -5
I assumed you had already done that since you were saying they "raised most every county"?
|
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 13, 2010 16:54:41 GMT -5
I assumed you had already done that since you were saying they "raised most every county"? OK I looked em over sorry here is a list of what I saw right off the top!! And I may have exagerated but it is now set up for the next year movement as it were there were several however . Cass went from 3 to 4 Wayne 3 to 4 Boone 3 to 4 Hamilton 3 to 4 Sullivan 3 to 4 Lawrance 3 to 4 Owen 3 to 4 Fayette 3 to 4 Martin went to 2 to 3 Union 2 to 3 clinton 2 - 3 Allen 4 to 8 Putnam 4 to an 8 And most of the rest of the state is already a 4 or 8 and the few that are less are poised to go from a 3 to a 4 with the s troke of a of a pen .There are 7 counties that are 2 or less that is all . |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 13, 2010 17:07:48 GMT -5
I assumed you had already done that since you were saying they "raised most every county"? OK I looked em over sorry here is a list of what I saw right off the top!! And I may have exagerated but it is now set up for the next year movement as it were there were several however . Cass went from 3 to 4 Wayne 3 to 4 Boone 3 to 4 Hamilton 3 to 4 Sullivan 3 to 4 Lawrance 3 to 4 Owen 3 to 4 Fayette 3 to 4 Martin went to 2 to 3 Union 2 to 3 clinton 2 - 3 Allen 4 to 8 Putnam 4 to an 8 And most of the rest of the state is already a 4 or 8 and the few that are less are poised to go from a 3 to a 4 with the s troke of a of a pen .There are 7 counties that are 2 or less that is all . Thanks for looking up the data. I'm not a bit surprised and would imagine that the numbers for the few counties that aren't 4+ will be by next season when all this takes effect. I can say this....if the state thinks I'm going to help them kill every "antlerless" deer in the state they are sadly mistaken. I (along with the landowner) will decide how many does (if any) need to be killed. Last year I saw a third the number of does I saw the previous years in Washington county. I guess the 8+ tags and bouts of EHD have taken their toll. This whole thing is ridiculous and getting out of hand. But I guess the DNR has given the insurance lobby, the politicians and the bowhunting lobby what they wanted. BTW, if this doesn't "work" look for EAB to be next. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 13, 2010 19:32:35 GMT -5
Guys,
I think that Chad Stewart will use the very same criteria that he has used for years to establish county bonus tags. It is possible that he could get over ruled, but I doubt it.
There is enough 4 and up counties already to make a dent IF they get the Indiana deer hunters to go along with it..which may be a tough sell if they take away hunting on the other hand.
IMO - IF they had left the gun season alone and made it a 9 day antlerless hunt in October and the Christmas hunt the Indiana deer hunters would have responded positively and helped the IDNR out. They took away with one hand and asked for help with the other. Not exactly a good partnership basis, is it?
Not too sure how good of a response they will get with that tact..
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 13, 2010 19:55:02 GMT -5
I assumed you had already done that since you were saying they "raised most every county"? OK I looked em over sorry here is a list of what I saw right off the top!! And I may have exagerated but it is now set up for the next year movement as it were there were several however . Cass went from 3 to 4 Wayne 3 to 4 Boone 3 to 4 Hamilton 3 to 4 Sullivan 3 to 4 Lawrance 3 to 4 Owen 3 to 4 Fayette 3 to 4 Martin went to 2 to 3 Union 2 to 3 clinton 2 - 3 Allen 4 to 8 Putnam 4 to an 8 And most of the rest of the state is already a 4 or 8 and the few that are less are poised to go from a 3 to a 4 with the s troke of a of a pen .There are 7 counties that are 2 or less that is all . Thanks. I stand corrected. I didn't realize Allen used to be a four county. (I live in Adams) |
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Jul 14, 2010 9:28:06 GMT -5
[ If you want a big clue as to how serious the IDNR wants this to pass and the likely hood that it will .Then look no further than the County bonus antler less quotas for 2010 as compared to 2009 season they have raised most every county that was a 2 or 3 to a 4 most counties are now 4 or higher .That was simply not the case if you look at the 2009 reg book last season. The new antler less deer gun seasons will be held in 4 = counties only so they have not so smoothly set the plate for 2011 by raising most counties to 4 plus tags they are not good poker players at all they just showed their hand big time. Shortening the firearm and ML seasons will drastically reduce the overall harvest, I don't see them going for that since the population is too high. If anything they would lengthen them, not shorten them. Fact is that bow hunting can't make up for lost gun hunters, never has and never will. If anything DNR should lengthen the firearms seasons temprorarily and institute an EAB for a second buck in high bonus counties if they want to reduce the herd, I didn't see any of the "stakeholders" voting for that, did you? Of course not, this is the same small tribes of antler worshippers trying to grow a booner behind every bush because they have profit to make if they own enough land to lease or businesses tied to deer hunting such as the accursed outfitters. Trophyism is all about the bens, nothing more. There fantasis will actually increase herd numbers since less folks will hunt and fewer deer other than bucks will get killed. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 14, 2010 11:59:05 GMT -5
 Kevin! |
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jul 14, 2010 13:03:59 GMT -5
+2
|
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Jul 14, 2010 13:36:54 GMT -5
Shortening the firearm and ML seasons will drastically reduce the overall harvest, I don't see them going for that since the population is too high. If anything they would lengthen them, not shorten them. Fact is that bow hunting can't make up for lost gun hunters, never has and never will. If anything DNR should lengthen the firearms seasons temprorarily and institute an EAB for a second buck in high bonus counties if they want to reduce the herd, I didn't see any of the "stakeholders" voting for that, did you? Of course not, this is the same small tribes of antler worshippers trying to grow a booner behind every bush because they have profit to make if they own enough land to lease or businesses tied to deer hunting such as the accursed outfitters. Trophyism is all about the bens, nothing more. There fantasis will actually increase herd numbers since less folks will hunt and fewer deer other than bucks will get killed. I think you are correct about the harvest decreasing as the season is shortened only as long as the number of hunters afield doesn't increase (which I don't think will happen) and the amount of land available to non-land owning hunters remains the same. Access to hunting land is the key because hunting habits ("If it's brown, it's down") aren't going to change dramatically. I also agree with the premise that as an area's reputation for producing trophy bucks increases, the cost of hunting leases will rise. If that means the highest and best use for the land is for hunting, then other species will benefit. That is the trade-off when landowners maximize utility. |
|
|
|
Post by UrbanArcher82 on Jul 15, 2010 8:59:22 GMT -5
Then move the bow season back out of the rut, fair is fair. Do you not see the difference between gun and bow??? Im a bow and gun hunter but alot more deer get taken with a gun then bow and this is not a slam to anyone but alot of people who have no clue what they are doing harvest big deer with a gun every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 15, 2010 9:13:18 GMT -5
Then move the bow season back out of the rut, fair is fair. Do you not see the difference between gun and bow??? Im a bow and gun hunter but alot more deer get taken with a gun then bow and this is not a slam to anyone but alot of people who have no clue what they are doing harvest big deer with a gun every year. It is not about the number of bucks harvst as it is about fairness of who gets the "prized rut time". All these years it has been pretty well shared with the gun seasons cycling in and out of the peak rut. That has worked until now.. What changed? |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 15, 2010 9:17:02 GMT -5
Woody .... just curious ..... If the proposed change had been "two" Saturdays before thanksgiving would that have made a difference to you?
That would have put it pretty squarely peak of the rut year in and year out.
All other proposed changes being the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 15, 2010 9:28:28 GMT -5
Woody .... just curious ..... If the proposed change had been "two" Saturdays before thanksgiving would that have made a difference to you? That would have put it pretty squarely peak of the rut year in and year out. All other proposed changes being the same. Personally I thonk it was fine the way it was. The gun opener basically moved from November 12th to November 18th. That SHOULD have satisfied bowhunters and gun hunters alike. Basically sharing the peak of the rut - which I always considered to be about November 10th.. at least in southern Indiana. Now it will pretty well always be in the bowhunters favor. Don't get me wrong as I am predominately a bowhunter (even if I do use a crossbow  ) so i will be out there that peak week with crossbw in hand. I see this flat out as a fairness issue. The harvest data pretty well points out that there will be no gain in antlerless harvest no matter what the opening date is.. I am having avery difficult time wrapping my mind around their using a couple years to come up with what they did. Make absolutely no sense to me at all. Can anyone explain that to me? |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 15, 2010 9:44:42 GMT -5
I cannot. One place where we are in complete agreement is "how in the world did they come up with this number of drastic changes all at once"
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jul 15, 2010 9:54:10 GMT -5
If the peak of the "rut" is generally around the 10th, how could moving the gun season to the 18th be sharing the "peak" of the rut? Did I not read that correctly? I read that as giving in some more to the other side of the aisle.
|
|
) so i will be out there that peak week with crossbw in hand. I see this flat out as a fairness issue. The harvest data pretty well points out that there will be no gain in antlerless harvest no matter what the opening date is..