New Indiana deer regs.
 

I'd like to know what you Hoosier hunters think of the proposed deer regs for 2011. Personally I am in favor of them. I have thought for a long time that our firearms/muzzleloader seasons are to long. There is no reason that we cannot produce the same amount and quality of trophy bucks on a year to year basis as our neighbors in Illinois and Ohio. I think the greatest factor that is preventing this is the length of our gun seasons. You look at states such as Wisconsin, who have more than 3x the number of deer we do, and their gun season is only nine days, the same as the proposal here. These are my opinions only, I'd like to hear yours.

Blessings.....Pastorjim

The proposal was taken off the table at the Meeting on the 16th of Nov. They are working on a new proposal now. My opinion though the original proposal was fine minus they were trying to reduce the number of deer dramatically but with the other goals they were trying to achieve this was necessary. In order for this state to become a trophy deer state like they are wanting we would need to reduce the number of does by quite a bit then continue taking a large number of does for a while until the buck to doe population was properly in check which would result in more bucks available than currently and result in more deer making it into higher age classes. Most hunters however felt like the state was tryign to screw them so they voiced their opinions and the proposal was eliminated.

In a lot of areas in the state {mine} the doe population is down to early seventies numbers, and still it is a eight bonus tag area.

Thanks for the update. I kinda had my doubts about it when I started seeing so much opposition on some of the forums. I really don't think alot of hunters understand what it could mean in the long run if we shorten those gun seasons. I believe if that takes place, it will make for a better hunting experience for everyone. One thing is for sure, if the DNR doesn't come up with a plan in response to the insurance companies, the state legislature will and that won't be a good thing.

Blessings.....Pastorjim

IMO Indiana is doing just fine as a trophy deer state.

2001-2006 Indiana ranks 6th in B&C/P&Y entries per square mile, pretty darn good. I haven't seen an updated figure, but I can't imagine it getting any worse.

What needs to be done instead of the proposed shortening of firearms season, move the start back 1 week, get it out of the chase/peak rut.

A lot of the reason Il, OH and a couple of other states harvest more book bucks is because they have 2-3 times more hunters than Indiana.

I just don't want it to become difficult as a resident hunter to find prime hunting ground, or have to jump through hoops to get a tag like some of these "trophy" states.

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.........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 bowhunt 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. With Illinois' management at least I get to see B&C's every year! And eventurally I will get lucky and arrow 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?!?!?! :)

"2001-2006 Indiana ranks 6th in B&C/P&Y entries per square mile, pretty darn good. I haven't seen an updated figure, but I can't imagine it getting any worse."

VERY deceptive stat. During those years Indiana was not even close to the top 2 states, Iowa and Kansas, in that statistic. It barely topped Michigan which is pitiful and dead last in the midwest. The midwest has everything a buck needs to grow a big rack, so you really need to compare it among other MIDWEST states.

In my 10 years of hunting Indiana public land and premium private land in NW Indiana, I harvested a total of zero P&Y bucks. This year I took my 5th P&Y buck in Illinois, in only 6 years, all off public land. I even passed on a 2nd one this year, gambling for one of the booners in the area we saw.

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

I feel like a long season vs. a short one doesn't mean much, it's rather rifle season covers the rut, or both ruts.

Although maybe I'm wrong, and guys just hunt until they can't anymore, ie give a resident a week, and he'll hunt a week, give him 6 weeks, and he'll hunt 6 weeks.

I bow hunt and have over 3 months to hunt, I don't hunt 3 months....maybe 2 weeks total in general.

I believe IA gun season misses the rut, not sure about KS, but know both IA and KS do some great managing.

IL and IA also are slug states which I heard lends to growing bigger bucks as guys aren't taking 500yd shots on deer. Not sure what the IN rifle regs are etc...? pistol cartridge only?

Also a state I feel can only do so much, unless they really got specific on regs, even then a state can only do so much. You'll always have poachers, etc...or guys not caring about antler size, or just guys cheating the system, sharing tags, etc...doing some shady stuff maybe not full on poaching but alot goes on out there.

I feel like big bucks come when enough land is locked up by quality land owners and they get a system going. A small landowner can only do so much.

But nice to see IN sounds like it's trying to improve the quality of it's heard!

In what statistic, book bucks per square mile?

Here is the top ten during that time period.

1. Illinois
2. Kentucky
3. Wisconsin
4. Ohio
5. Iowa
6. Indiana
7. Missouri
8. Kansas
9. Maryland
10. Minnesota

Here are the top ten typical P&Y states.

1. Wisconsin
2. Illinois
3. Iowa
4. Minnesota
5. Ohio
6. Kansas
7. Michigan
8. Missouri
9. Indiana
10. Texas

Top ten non typical

1 Illinois
2 Wisconsin
3 Iowa
4 Kansas
5 Minnesota
6 Ohio
7 Missouri
8 Indiana
9 Nebraska
10 Kentucky

Now this is Indiana with a total deer hunter count that is a fraction of what some of these other states have.
How can this not be a good thing?
Could it be better, sure give Indiana 250,000 more hunters a year and book buck entries are sure to increase.

BTW in the same time period you were skunked, I killed 3 P&Y bucks.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cool2:

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?

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?

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

Thanx, that one scored 321 1/8 5X5 got it with a muzzleloader area 16 New Mex. Got a 387" 6X7 in area 12 the next year. New Mexico has defintely got it together on their management ideas.

That is a great score and probably biggest 5x5 I have seen. I have been jinxed in NM in 5 trips. Did take a 320 in UT rifle, 340 in AZ bow and 350 in NV bow. Don't know much about unit 12 but you were very lucky to draw 16. 387's don't grow on trees. I've only seen 2 that big, both in Nevada. Had to pass though both were quartering towards me at 40 yards.

@ZIM
3 archery bucks on priv land, 2 gun bucks, 1 140" on priv land and the buck in my avy on state land.

So has anyone else heard 2 bucks with the second buck tag being earned through a doe harvest?

How many years are you talking for your harvests?

Haven't heard of this one but most every option has been hashed and rehashed over and over. OBR is still the way to go.

See? This is what I'm pointing out. I took 5 P&Y bucks in 6 years off PUBLIC land. Quality of statewide game management is far better judged by public land results rather than private. Find me a guy that took 5 P&Y/6 years off INDIANA public land. Good luck with that, because you are going to need a lot of it!

I've hunted public in 12 different states and have seen the difference quality state regulations make. All were quite heavily hunted, but guns were not allowed in the peak rut in the quality states. There is absolutely no comparison between the quality levels of Iowa, Kansas & Illinois to Indiana or Michigan. None. Numbers of hunters had little to do with it. Guns in the rut did.

'01-present, still haven't connected this year.

I was at Muscatatuk this weekend on a special hunt, ran into a CO and asked him about the latest, other than it being shelved he mentioned 2 bucks with the second buck being earned.
But yeah, ORB all the way.

Not directed at you, just my general thoughts..
Indiana will never put up the numbers of these super buck states due the sheer numbers stacked against us, i.e. herd size and number of hunters.
But that's not to say we can't catch them in book bucks per sq. mile, per xx acre, per xx hunters.
Look at what Kentucky is doing with their trophy quality recently.


@ZIM, just saw your post.
There's no way for me to get solid numbers of priv. vs pub. land trophies.
But public land down here in my region gives up great bucks every year.
Be nice during check in if they asked public or private land.
Quick question, hom many bucks in Il are harvested by non residents, is that an easily obtained figure?

Another thing, how many public acres available for deer hunting in Il, is pub. hunting walk in or special type hunts?

Another thing, how many public acres available for deer hunting in Il, is pub. hunting walk in or special type hunts?[/quote]

Onion, So you took one book buck off public in 10 years. That is about what I figured. BTW I have hunted many of the IN public lands to compare, including Muscatatuk.

I agree it is obvious IN won't match the numbers of P&Y these other states have. I am only referring to book bucks taken/square mile as you mention. You can easily compare numbers of P&Y taken for similar sized counties with similar habitat. It's not close. Pull out a P&Y/B&C county-by-county map and you will see a lighter shaded area where IN & MI are.

You don't need statistics on public vs. private land entries. If you just go out there and hunt there like I do, the difference jumps out and bites you in the a$$.

To answer your question, virtually 100% archery season deer on public land is wide open for both residents and nonresidents. I know of only one that does not allow NR and one that has a draw out of 300. For gun it's different. Most public properties are on quotas and sell out permits. Nonresidents can apply in 2nd lottery but 95% of the permits are gone by then.

Are you saying that the # of IL B&C bucks taken during firearms season, that the rut was completely over and done with and had no effect on these numbers? Indiana may not take the quantity of B&C buck as IL, do to the fact that we don't have the number of hunters as IL, for now and I myself like this. I live in Pike County, Indiana. There's not an outfitter among us .

Onion, how did you do at the Refuge. I live right by there and hunt in there a lot during late bow. Last year I saw over 100 deer in 6 days of hunting.

ALso lots of good discussion on Antlertalk.com about the new regs. Lots of super nice Indiana guys on there.

I am saying exactly what my words stated if you review my prior posts. Mature bucks are most vulnerable during the "5 prime peak rut days" and increase/decrease incrementally before and after those 5 days. Experienced hunters know what those days are. They vary a bit by region. However, all of November is the active. Kansas and Iowa allow no firearms in November. Illinois has only 3 days, which typically occur after the peak 5 days.

Indiana has 16 gun days in November which routiely include the 5 peak days depending on the year.

Fewer number of P&Y bucks harvested in Indiana has virtually nothing to do with numbers of hunters, when you evaluate it on a county-by county basis. The farm country counties of IN & IL have similar human densities and hunter efforts. If you followed your population theory then Indiana should produce better buck quality on public land than Illinois because there are less hunters. That is clearly not the case. Heck, little IN public land has any quotas on gun hunters except some the first 2 or 3 days. So by your theory there should be more big bucks harvested because there are more hunters hunting them.

The exact opposite is true though. More hunters mean fewer bucks live long enough to become mature to be harvested by anybody, andywhere, anytime.

Saw no deer in the am, hunted the Stanfield lake east side.
Saw about 20 at 5pm, 3 bucks among the does, one was borderline shooter, but I didn't purchase a refuge tag and didn't want to waste my state tag when there are a couple of giants on our properties.
Oh and the pm hunt was behind the persimmon ponds.

I've never taken a deer there, saw a few dandies, friends have taken some nice bucks.
I normally only go when a friend can't find a buddy to go with them.
I'm supposed to go again on Sat, but I have a slight problem with my T/C, and I've got to find time to sight in a loaner.

@ ZIM, I've probably only hunted state land 15-20 times total over the past 10 years.
Does IL track public land harvests?

Yes there are stats on the ILDNR website, but like I said there's no substitute for just getting out there and seeing the difference for oneself.

Found this little set last weekend 12-11. Saw two more bucks this weekend that had shed both sides. So watch what your shooting. Got my 6th doe yesterday.

Excellent find!

BS

You went to Illinois and found those :biggrin:

What county?

Jefferson. Saw 2 more bucks with both sides gone. There were small bodied