Indiana deer harvest down to a level not seen since 2004

j-bird

Moderator
Indiana just released their deer harvest report for this past season. For any Hoosiers interested the full report is on the DNR website http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2014deerharvestreport.pdf

Total deer harvest was roughly 120,000 statewide which is down roughly 4.5% from last year. Harvest totals have been in decline since 2012 when we harvested a record 136,000 animals. Indiana has not seen a harvest this low since 2003 when we killed roughly 107,000 and then in 2004 when we killed roughly 123,000 - anyone want to guess when the DNR really promoted killing antlered deer???? This latest figure is down nearly 12% from the record number set in 2012 - that's just a few years ago!

I'm not going to get on my soap-box here, but I am willing to bet the general deer hunting public is going to be rather pissed!

I have not had a chance to review the report in detail, but I will.

I do know my particular county showed a slight in crease in harvest (mostly in antlerless deer) over last year - so one would "assume" (and you know what they say about doing that) that this shows the population is relatively stable in my area.
 
Join the crowd j-bird. Time to get moving and light some fires to get those numbers moving the other direction!
 
Join the crowd j-bird. Time to get moving and light some fires to get those numbers moving the other direction!
I'm sort of torn. I think the lower deer numbers are a good thing from a habitat perspective but I fear many folks are going to push for the elevated numbers of the past. I simply want responsible and sound resource management. The big thing is that these counties that historically have high numbers draw the most hunters. The state manages on a county basis so hopefully they will look at this data and make some adjustments. I thought it was interesting that there was a significant threshold in the data where these trends seemed to show themselves.
 
Even though our hunting property is in one of the highest harvest counties in the state (Switzerland), we have noticed a big decline in deer sightings. Not to mention, that based on trail cam pictures, the herd is all out of whack. I would estimate that we have a doe to buck ratio of 1 doe for every 3 or 4 bucks. We have implemented the "no doe" harvest policy at our property for this very reason. In addition to all the habitat work we have done, we are hopeful that we will notice a difference in the years to come....

Josh
 
J-bird. Almost word for word what we were discussing about Minnesota last night. At least we had about 15 very interested people working on it. Many have seen the light.
 
J-bird. Almost word for word what we were discussing about Minnesota last night. At least we had about 15 very interested people working on it. Many have seen the light.

but our harvest is down 55% from the peak. don't let it slip too far bird...
 
We talked about it last night, some entity in this country wants the deer herd destroyed. It is up to the hunters to keep that from happening. We just went through a year and a half of hell to get change to maybe happen. The NDA better be aware of what is happening and they better start doing something about it, or they will be labeled a scam as QDMA is!
 
Yep, join the crowd. In Illinois the harvest numbers pretty much look like this (rounded):

2001 - 153k
2002 - 160k
2003 - 170k
2004 - 190k
2005-2007 - 200k
2008-2009 - 190k
2010-2012 - 180k
2013 - 149k
2014 - 146k

The rise and the fall. Our DNR need to get a handle on this. Its hard in Illinois because they use ONLY deer-vehicle accidents to determine population goals. And our DOT doesn't get the numbers released until after permits are already issued for the next season. Of course in Illinois all that really matters is the politicians get their $$ from the car insurance companies ... obviously.

But now we have IWA, I think. I haven't heard anything worth mentioning from them in months.
 
Just trying to keep from waking up one day and wondering , "Where the F did all the deer go?"

Folks in areas where they are used to elevated deer densities are not going to be happy.
 
I'm sort of torn. I think the lower deer numbers are a good thing from a habitat perspective but I fear many folks are going to push for the elevated numbers of the past. I simply want responsible and sound resource management. The big thing is that these counties that historically have high numbers draw the most hunters. The state manages on a county basis so hopefully they will look at this data and make some adjustments. I thought it was interesting that there was a significant threshold in the data where these trends seemed to show themselves.

I'll admit, I've worried about the habitat end of things as well. Far to many with barrels of ink and piles of money think the habitat problem is one of too many deer. I say it's not enough food (i.e. human intervention). The hands off approach the euphorians advocate for results in a habitat that can sustain no deer because it's all trunks and pine needles.

I'm convinced now more than ever; if you want to feed the deer, get out the bulldozer and chainsaw, and it'll fix itself. Advance the natural succession of the land and there will be plenty of food and habitat. In the unique areas where there are 40+ dpsm, I'm ready and willing to help there too.
 
In the unique areas where there are 40+ dpsm, I'm ready and willing to help there too.

I would argue 40+ is sustainable across most of the midwest.
 
I would argue 40+ is sustainable across most of the midwest.
Yup and Buffalo Co proves it can be sustained for many, many years and also be a big buck factory. Much more than 40 DPSM and I think it starts to reach a point of diminishing returns though.
 
Top