Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Midwest
New Indiana deer regs. >

New Indiana deer regs.

Midwest OH, IN, IL, WI, MI, MN, IA, MO, KS, ND, SD, NE Remember the Regional Forums are for Hunting Topics only.

New Indiana deer regs.

Old 12-09-2010, 06:57 PM
  #11  
Spike
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Originally Posted by PastorJim08 View Post
Zim, very well written and thought-out opinion. I agree with most of what you said but I must disagree with you and onion on pushing back the gun season opener by one week unless you were going to make that the only week of firearms. But there again, you would be reducing the firearms season by almost half. So I don't see how that would be much different than the proposed changes that are drawing so much flack. The stated purpose of the rule changes were to reduce the deer herd due to pressure from the insurance companies. I believe the proposed changes would have done little to accomplish this. The proposed mid-October doe only season would serve to cause room for abuse from those who would take that opportunity to kill a buck with a firearm and then claim it as a bow-kill. The proposed second doe only season would be nearly useless as most guys are not going to brave the cold of the late season with only the oportunity to take a doe. Is this right...maybe not but it is reality. I hope the DNR can come up with solutions because if they fail to address this issue, the insurance companies will begin pressuring the state lawmakers for a solution and I don't think any of us want that. One more thing. When it comes to class basketball, lay off. lol. We had the greatest most watched high school tournament in the US until the eggheads got ahold of it. One thing we all need to remember is that we are not each others enemy. We need to bind together and work with the state game agencies to work out the issues that we as hunters and game managers are facing. Thank you for your responses.

Blessings.....Pastorjim
The insurance companies were not the driving force behind the scrapped deer regulations. A few of the states legislators were. Insurance companies do not loose money from car-deer accidents. They just raise your rates.
I feel our state has no issues, especially with an over population of female deer. In 2007 EHD wiped out 50% of the herd in my county. It still has not recovered. It' is getting better, but no where near prior 2007. I do think the state has pockets that have a human deer conflicts, mostly urban areas and areas were hunting access is not granted.
I'm personally happy IL is known as a trophy state and gets all the pressure from non resident. hunters. I don't have to pay 30-50 bucks an acre to hunt private land here.
The biggest reason I didn't support the the rules was the ploy used to try and get them enacted. Reducing deer numbers as claimed by those that supported them was a farce and not the intended results. Growing large antlers was. I myself hunt mature deer, but that is my choice and not every hunter makes this choice.
Shortening the muzzle loader season and not allowing cross bows in early archery proved my point. 80% of the muzzy season harvest is does, why cut that out?
blackoak is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 07:15 PM
  #12  
Spike
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Originally Posted by Zim View Post
Haha. This never ending battle is why I am glad I moved to Illinois 4 years ago and picked up a LL.

After living 45 years in Indiana and hunting in 12 different states, I gave up on Indiana. Bottom line is it is near impossible to retract entitlements (for anything) once they are handed out for free. The reason Iowa, Illinois & Kansas have superior trophy hunting is because they never allowed firearms in the peak deer rut to begin with. There are far more firearm hunters than bowhunters, and they raise holy hell any time their opportunity is reduced. Politicians and conservation departments don't want to fight the battle necessary for change. Why game management is put in the hands of public opinion instead of wildlife professionals is beyond me to begin with!?

Crappily managed states are slowly recognizing their faults, but they are stuck with trying to fix things via less desirable options that step on the fewest toes. Several examples in the last 10 years:

Indiana - Went to one buck rule about 6 years ago. You see they got this through (barely) because this rule did not infringe on the majority of gun hunters. They were only allowed one buck via gun anyway, and most did not bowhunt. Thus it did not affect them personally other than benefit, and only took opportunity from dual weapon hunters. But that is why it passed.

Missouri - Went to antler restrictions on a very gradual county-by-county basis, each year adding 5-10. You see, the amount of people objecting to it in any one year was kept very low.

Pennsylvania - Went to antler restrictions statewide in one year but I believe it cost the conservation director his job due to too many hunters objecting all in one year.

There are a few others I can't remember now.........I Arkansas tried.

It will take an act of god to reduce the ~32 gun days in Indiana.............or move the gun season out of peak rut. Any possible imrovement will have to be done with less than optimum effectiveness options.

I think the thing most people fail to realize is it really only comes down to about 5 days per year...........the absolute peak rut. I hunt Illinois public land and I can't tell you how many truly monster bucks I have seen going bonkers during those 5 days, which I could have easly shot if guns were allowed during those prime dates. I am very glad for the statewide seasons we have, even though I have not gotten to harvest one of those toads. At least I get to see B&C's every year! And eventurally I will get lucky and tag one, likely during one of those 5 days.

Onion is right about moving the IN gun opener back one week (it currently includes those 5 magic days I refer to) but it will never happen due to public gunhunter outcry.

At one point in time some in IDHA asked me to spearhead an effort to change, but I recognized a lost cause when I saw it. I had even gone to one public meeting where two CO's believed moving guns from the rut would not improve age class distribution. They even had the opinion older age class bucks were not a necessary component of a "healthy' deer herd!!! Who the hell would want to take on mentality like that!

Indiana was the last state in the nation to phase out single class HS basketball and almost daylight savings time. Why beat my head against a wall?!?!?!
Indiana went to a one buck rule in 2001 and actually most that gun hunt also bow hunt.
The "five magic days" you quote in reality are in the last week of bow season.
Phasing out single class Indiana HS basketball was a huge mistake and hurt the tradition of what it means to be the true champion.
According to the IDA the new proposed rules was about getting the doe population in check. Your statement proves it wasn't.
Good luck in your quest of tagging an Il B/C buck.
blackoak is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 04:35 AM
  #13  
Zim
Nontypical Buck
 
Zim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
Default

All are welcome to present the statistics any way they want. The only one that is even close to displaying a reasonable comparison is P&Y/B&C bucks taken per acre or hunter effort. No way I'm going back in the archives to scrape up the numbers, but I did at one point. Most would be shocked at the wild difference between states like Iowa compared to Indiana or Michigan. The disparity is not close. Your individual odds of taking a P&Y buck in Iowa was something like 200:1 compared to Michigan which was last in the midwest. Indiana was 2nd to last.

A great indication of effectiveness of a state's buck management is the quality available on public land. So I want to ask you Onion..........how many of your 3 P&Y bucks in 10 years were taken on PUBLIC land? Of the 5 P&Y bucks I have taken, all 5 were from public land.

As I mentioned, I have hunted public land in 12 different states, including 15 years in Indiana, 6 years in Illinois, 5 in Iowa, 3 in Kansas. There is absolutely no comparison when it comes to quality. In IA, KS & IL I typically see one P&Y per day, where in Indiana I would see 2 or 3 per entire season. I know it has improved some since OBR, but not THAT much.

Last edited by Zim; 12-10-2010 at 04:39 AM.
Zim is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 04:58 AM
  #14  
Typical Buck
 
Roger46982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 667
Default

Originally Posted by Zim View Post
All are welcome to present the statistics any way they want. The only one that is even close to displaying a reasonable comparison is P&Y/B&C bucks taken per acre or hunter effort. No way I'm going back in the archives to scrape up the numbers, but I did at one point. Most would be shocked at the wild difference between states like Iowa compared to Indiana or Michigan. The disparity is not close. Your individual odds of taking a P&Y buck in Iowa was something like 200:1 compared to Michigan which was last in the midwest. Indiana was 2nd to last.

A great indication of effectiveness of a state's buck management is the quality available on public land. So I want to ask you Onion..........how many of your 3 P&Y bucks in 10 years were taken on PUBLIC land? Of the 5 P&Y bucks I have taken, all 5 were from public land.

As I mentioned, I have hunted public land in 12 different states, including 15 years in Indiana, 6 years in Illinois, 5 in Iowa, 3 in Kansas. There is absolutely no comparison when it comes to quality. In IA, KS & IL I typically see one P&Y per day, where in Indiana I would see 2 or 3 per entire season. I know it has improved some since OBR, but not THAT much.
If you are now an Illinos resident why do you give a damn what Indiana does? I for one do not want Indiana to end up like Ill. Iowa, Wisconsin and or Kansas where either you lease for high dollar or hunt public land.
Roger46982 is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 08:07 AM
  #15  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 222
Default

The high dollar leases are already starting to happen in Indiana. I've been edged out of a couple of places that I hunt because of leases and looking at the prices being charged they are continuing to go up because people are willing to pay. I know one guy who leases close to 10,000 acres a year in the state I have no clue how someone can afford to do that unless they are offering guided/semi guided hunts on these properties. So whether we like it or not leasing of property is going to be something we learn to live with or we won't have private ground to hunt unless you are lucky enough to own land or have family that owns land. The old way of knocking on doors and asking for permission and doing some chores around the farm and sharing some venison is no longer enough for farmers. They found out they can make a nice bit of money off of their non-tillable land. Most farmers are charging $8-$12/acre of land leased but how they catch you with that is you have to lease all of their land even if they only have 40 acres of woods but 200 acres of crops. You have to pay $8-$12/acre for 240 acres. Which equals out to $48-$72 per acre of woods. If that is not high cost I'm not sure what is. For those type of prices you can go on an outfitted hunt which is exactly what the outfitters want you to do. So as you can see these leases are a nasty vicious cycle. You are going to pay to hunt or you are going to hunt public land which currently in Indiana is not a great option because of how our regulations are structured and the number of hunters hunting public land is already extremely high. Its not at all uncommon to see 1 hunter for every 30-50 acres of land on public land on the places I hunt makes for a miserable hunt when every direction you turn you see orange during gun season. It was so bad this year for gun season that I didn't even sight in my muzzy to go out during muzzleloader season. 9 out of 10 guys I spoke with at the parking lots all said they will be back during muzzleloader season.
ACutting is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 08:43 AM
  #16  
Zim
Nontypical Buck
 
Zim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
Default

Originally Posted by Roger46982 View Post
If you are now an Illinos resident why do you give a damn what Indiana does? I for one do not want Indiana to end up like Ill. Iowa, Wisconsin and or Kansas where either you lease for high dollar or hunt public land.
Because I would like for ALL states to manage their deer herds responsibly. As mentioned, leasing is happening everywhere anyway, you just hear about it more in the publicized states. It just makes more economic sense for farmers. If you think you will avoid it, you are wrong.

Also if every state did a responsible job managing, it would take the pressure off the more publicized states.
Zim is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 08:49 AM
  #17  
Typical Buck
 
Roger46982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 667
Default

Originally Posted by Zim View Post
Because I would like for ALL states to manage their deer herds responsibly. As mentioned, leasing is happening everywhere anyway, you just hear about it more in the publicized states. It just makes more economic sense for farmers. If you think you will avoid it, you are wrong.

Also if every state did a responsible job managing, it would take the pressure off the more publicized states.
I guess everyone has a different opinion of what is responsible.
HOW BOUT THEM BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger46982 is offline  
Old 12-10-2010, 10:06 AM
  #18  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 542
Default

Let me get this straight, regulations are being put in place to produce trophy deer at the expense of getting a deer of any kind? I hunt for fun and meat and a trophy is down on my list of reasons for hunting. Why should non-trophy hunters, which is probably the majority of hunters, give in to the minority?
ADVWannabee is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 09:47 AM
  #19  
Zim
Nontypical Buck
 
Zim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
Default

Why game management is put in the hands of public opinion instead of wildlife professionals is beyond me to begin with!? Look at all the size limits they gave on fish. Why the difference?

Hey Roger, that is a nice bull you have on your avatar. I have been lucky enough to get a few nice elk too. What did that score?
Zim is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 11:14 AM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
PastorJim08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,372
Default

Originally Posted by ADVWannabee View Post
Let me get this straight, regulations are being put in place to produce trophy deer at the expense of getting a deer of any kind? I hunt for fun and meat and a trophy is down on my list of reasons for hunting. Why should non-trophy hunters, which is probably the majority of hunters, give in to the minority?
It is not the stated purpose of the DNR to produce trophy deer. They state that the reason they are doing this is to reduce herd size in response to pressure from insurance companies. I am saying that the proposed regulations would result in an increase in trophy-sized bucks because the firearms seasons would be reduced by almost half. Currently, between the shotgun and muzzleloader seasons, there are a total of 32 days of hunting. The proposed regs. would have reduced that to 18 days, plus two 3 day doe only seasons.

Blessings.....Pastorjim
PastorJim08 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.