deerhunter1224

I heard Indiana making some changes in the hunting laws. Has anyone heard of anything? A buddy and I were talking about it he said, a lot of states are making it a law you have to shoot a doe before a buck. I think that sounds like a good law Indiana should have. What does everyone else think?

kevin1

As a fellow resident I would agree . The herd would be better managed , there would be less pressure on the bucks , and the chances of taking a trophy buck a few years down the road would be greatly increased . Managing the does by zone would also help in the problem counties .

As a fellow resident you know that it ain't gonna happen . Until the general hunting public understands and accepts that there's nothing wrong with shooting does , and their part in DNR's herd management goals , it will be awhile before DNR gets the stones to make them take does first . Kentucky has already told their hunters that if they don't take enough does this year that they won't issue buck tags next year in certain zones according to several folks that I spoke with while hunting down there this past month .

The drop in tag purchases would be huge , many folks just won't shoot a slickhead , even if it was the only chance they would have to take a buck . DNR couldn't take that kind of revenue loss without making it up somewhere else .

WANATAH

I for one hope they do not enact such a law. I am a meat hunter and take does every year, however, I will not pass up a mature buck. My last two mountable bucks came through before any oppurtunity to take a doe presented itself. I would find it very difficult to let a trophy buck walk by because no doe offered a shot prior to his presence. In the area I hunt I dont often see the same buck more than once.

bantam75

I sure don't like he idea of someone else telling me what I can harvest. If I decide to take a doe it should be on my own terms and not because I was told I have to. In my neighboring state Of OH deer are getting thin in someplaces because of shooting does. I think it is just what the insurance companys want, less deer. Not to mention the amount of fawns the coyote get. I think mandatory doe shooting is a bad thing. I'm a big boy, I can make my own choices within in the law.

Indianahick

Personally I do not care for that law and do not want to see such a rule enacted. Back in the 60-70's when I started you were only allowed to shoot a buck and there was not as many deer to be seen. We used to talk about the does that we seen all year, not to mention what was said if we had seen or even got a shot at a buck. One of the worst things that I beleive to be part of the problem in passing up of does by most hunters is that all of the hunting shows, etc stress the shooting of large racked bucks. And I believe that that has caused most of the younger hunters (anyone under 50) to pass on does because they are not book deer. Little bucks one-two year olds should walk unless they exhibit lousy genes, but then again how can you really tell antlers get their growth because of the availibility of food and nurtiants. A dry year gives lousy racks. I do not like feeding either because I believe that makes them too dependent upon man and not on themselves.
Personally I usually take at least one or two does most years. Better meat in my opinion. And I hunt for meat not antlers, mainly. But I sure would not pass up a big 10-12 pointer. But then it would go on our wall and never get measured for the book either.

KBacon

There are fewer deer in the woods now than there were just a few years back. Habitat is being turned into housing... everyone thinks they need to "live in the woods".. 40' from someone else "living in the woods" Cornfields are turned into housing additions. People shoot as many deer as they want out of their back doors no matter what season it may be. I think we need to do something to protect what we have instead of trying to kill every deer that walks under our stand.

Indianahick

I agree with you there KBacon we are losing acres and acres of woods to development. And the ones buying those wooded lots so that they can live in the woods are the ones screaming for higher and higher bag limits because thier expensive plants are being eaten by deer. And loss of habitat is going to mean less deer in the long run. Here in the farm fields where there are still some wooded areas, because it isn't farmable due to low ground and streams; you still see 10-20 deer in the fields at dusk. But I do not believe that it will stay that way forever. There is much more hunting pressure now than there was back when I started hunting deer in the early 70's. More than likely due to the fact that there is less wooded area to hunt in now as to then. I know that I have lost several great hunting areas in the last 5 years, mostly to companies that bought the land and then shut down hunting in them.