INDIANA...

[Q_Sertorius]

Changing how the season is structured is the very definition of deciding how everyone gets to hunt.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Even if you are willing to follow the same rules, that doesn’t make the rules “fine.” Someone with access to 10 properties isn’t playing on the same field as the average hunter. The rules fall on you differently than they do the average hunter.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

Changing how the season is structured is the very definition of deciding how everyone gets to hunt.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Deciding how they hunt yes, but not what they hunt.

That isn't a new concept. You are already told how to hunt with the current regulations and seasons. Changing those rule/season structures isn't a new idea, however it would be making things more difficult rather than easier, which people aren't used to.

Is there ever a point where you would draw the line and think we are too efficient? What if we just allowed rifles from Nov. 1 - Jan 31 ? Or would you be fine with using thermals at night? Like it or not, there is a need for regulations to protect the resource, agreeing on what those regulations should be for the most healthy and balanced deer herd is conversation that is good to have.

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

Even if you are willing to follow the same rules, that doesn’t make the rules “fine.” Someone with access to 10 properties isn’t playing on the same field as the average hunter. The rules fall on you differently than they do the average hunter.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Huh? I would be restricted to the same weapons and seasons as everyone, regardless of how many properties I can hunt. I have tried hard to obtain permission across multiple properties in order to find a single mature deer to have a chance at. If we would be proactive in bettering our deer herd, I would be elated to not have to hunt as many properties. Probably also good to note that I share permission on several of those properties. They aren't some sanctuary spots.

Those changes would effect me just the same, and when a mature buck daylights, has a doe locked down in the middle of a bean field on Nov 16, and I cant just shoot him from 300 yards with my rifle during his most vulnerable time, I'd sit there watching him with a smile on my face.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

Bud, you didn't destruct anything.

As I have already said, I know not everyone cares about "big bucks" and they don't have to. Changing how our seasons are structured is not deciding what anyone is allowed to shoot. I do however think that it would make us less efficient and help increase our age structure. Nobody will ever complain about seeing and shooting big bucks, because while not everyone is willing to pass deer or only targets a mature buck, they would be extremely happy to pull the trigger on a great old deer.

What excuse was petty? Again, your ignorant assumptions of something you don't know about are really displaying your underwhelming character. You are really hung up on this profile buck which is a little funny. For some reason your counter to discussing the upside of changing season structure is to belittle a harvest I made and enjoyed. "Wacking 3 year olds" , I shot one that I really liked. Listen, I could post pictures of my bigger deer and talk down about your profile buck, but this isn't a dick measuring contest. It's just a conversation about how to help improve our hunting.

I want to make it harder to shoot 3 1/2 year olds, I am not sure why you are struggling so much wrap your head around that. I would follow the same rules. How does that mean it suddenly is easier for me? I didn't say I have access to 10 properties to brag, it was to help you understand the situation. I can not pursue what is not there. Across those properties I did have one 4 or 5 year old that I knew of, hunted, and shot with my bow this year. So again, it isn't that I suck as a hunter, it's that the experience for everyone involved would benefit.

Once you change the rules to suit you, guys can no longer take their kids to hunt grandpas farm. The guy who busts his ass but only gets to hunt an afternoon here or a day there is totally screwed by your poorly considered season proposals. Now someone who may not have excess means has to buy more equipment, spend more time he does not have learning it just to go do what he loves a couple times a year or quit. If any state modifies it's season or weapons they need to be simplified. We do not need more or more complicated laws in this country....Period.

Stan Potts would not talk down to a 167" perfect typical 6x6 killed on a an OTC tag without a guide or lease, never heard of you before. He's just the biggest buck I killed this year, don't fret scooter.

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time wrapping your head around some dickhead trying to get laws written to make it harder to kill 3 year olds while killing 3 year olds himself. Underwhelming character indeed...

In closely related news: I was in the Dachau concentration camp a few days ago and discovered NONE of the upper tier of the NAZI party we're blond haired, blue eyed, or physically formidable. Isn't it funny how some people will write laws or worse for what they themselves are not? Well, I'll leave you to continue whatever this is. Happy New Year.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Deciding how they hunt yes, but not what they hunt.

That isn't a new concept. You are already told how to hunt with the current regulations and seasons. Changing those rule/season structures isn't a new idea, however it would be making things more difficult rather than easier, which people aren't used to.

Is there ever a point where you would draw the line and think we are too efficient? What if we just allowed rifles from Nov. 1 - Jan 31 ? Or would you be fine with using thermals at night? Like it or not, there is a need for regulations to protect the resource, agreeing on what those regulations should be for the most healthy and balanced deer herd is conversation that is good to have.

The regulations that protect the resource are bag limits, not means and methods. Bag limits preserve the public resources and prevent the tragedy of the commons.

To me, it doesn’t matter how you kill the deer as long as you kill it quickly and in the manner most likely calculated to ensure recovery of the meat. If every other hunter on the planet wanted to use thermal drones with heat-seaking micro rockets to kill deer (or whatever other absurdly efficient means and methods you want to insert here), it wouldn’t bother me as long as they didn’t exceed the bag limit, didn’t kill people, and didn’t do it in my land.

The logical limits of state regulations should be bag limits and public safety. I’ll follow every rule, but I reserve the right to consider most attempts at regulating how others hunt to be stupid.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

Once you change the rules to suit you, guys can no longer take their kids to hunt grandpas farm. The guy who busts his ass but only gets to hunt an afternoon here or a day there is totally screwed by your poorly considered season proposals. Now someone who may not have excess means has to buy more equipment, spend more time he does not have learning it just to go do what he loves a couple times a year or quit. If any state modifies it's season or weapons they need to be simplified. We do not need more or more complicated laws in this country....Period.

Stan Potts would not talk down to a 167" perfect typical 6x6 killed on a an OTC tag without a guide or lease, never heard of you before. He's just the biggest buck I killed this year, don't fret scooter.

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time wrapping your head around some dickhead trying to get laws written to make it harder to kill 3 year olds while killing 3 year olds himself. Underwhelming character indeed...

In closely related news: I was in the Dachau concentration camp a few days ago and discovered NONE of the upper tier of the NAZI party we're blond haired, blue eyed, or physically formidable. Isn't it funny how some people will write laws or worse for what they themselves are not? Well, I'll leave you to continue whatever this is. Happy New Year.

How would changing those seasons effect the kids? The guy who busts his ass will be able to rifle hunt in December instead of November and after a few years will have a better experience because of it.

Flex those muscles on how great you are. Stan Potts doesn't give 2 shits what you shot. The only person who wants to talk down about other people's deer is you, that was my whole point. Damn you are dense.

Making it harder because we are too efficient, is completely disconnected from me harvesting a 3 year old. That deer was a prime example of what I would like to make more difficult. Rifle season, mid rut, locked down in a cut corn field, while the neighbor was sitting in his stand on the fence line waiting for the buck to push the doe across so that he could shoot it. Me wanting to make us less efficient, while having shot a 3 year old, indicates nothing of my character. You wanting to belittle and judge, however, does represent yours. You understand that difference, right? Probably not.

Lol, now a NAZI comparison? how far off your rocker are you? I am not insinuating anything about what I am? Altering seasons and making us less efficient has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It is just helping give an advantage to the resource. You are the only one here who is such a badass that he gets to look down his nose at everyone else. Throw those stones big guy.

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

The regulations that protect the resource are bag limits, not means and methods. Bag limits preserve the public resources and prevent the tragedy of the commons.

To me, it doesn’t matter how you kill the deer as long as you kill it quickly and in the manner most likely calculated to ensure recovery of the meat. If every other hunter on the planet wanted to use thermal drones with heat-seaking micro rockets to kill deer (or whatever other absurdly efficient means and methods you want to insert here), it wouldn’t bother me as long as they didn’t exceed the bag limit, didn’t kill people, and didn’t do it in my land.

The logical limits of state regulations should be bag limits and public safety. I’ll follow every rule, but I reserve the right to consider most attempts at regulating how others hunt to be stupid.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

I get what you are saying there. And I agree that lessening bag limits helps protect the resource, but I think means and methods also has a play. We certainly improved when we went from a 2 buck state to a 1 buck state. The only thing missing to elevate our deer herd further is a change to means and methods. The efficiency of weapons (heat seeking rockets or thermal night hunting), would undoubtedly have an impact on the structure of the resource. I am not sure how you can deny that? The effectiveness of weapons during different times of the year directly impacts how many hunters are filling those 1 buck tags.

 

[MGustin23]

Former Indiana resident here.

Although I am a former resident, I still hunt in Indiana predominantly. I believe the two major issues with Indiana are the full two-week rifle season starting in the middle of November and the legal use of high-powered rifles coinciding with it. As any hunter will most likely agree, this is arguably the best time of the year to hunt white-tailed deer, as well as the easiest time to kill mature whitetails.

Again, I said "arguably," as that is just my opinion.

So why make it legal for hunters to use a weapon that can kill a deer at 500-600 yards with a 6.5 or .308 (for example) when the deer are at their most vulnerable? For what it's worth, I think even though these rifles are capable of taking down an animal at these ranges, it is absolutely asinine to try it. But I know guys do, unfortunately. Not only that, but they are extremely unsafe at these ranges. A lot of these guys are unaware that a .308 round will travel well beyond a mile.

As a bowhunter primarily, I would agree with the proposed gun season timing in your PDF, assuming high-powered rifles remain legal to hunt with. If just straight-wall cartridges were legal and not HPRs like in Ohio, I would even be willing to say that two full weeks of gun season is still fine, but it needs to be outside of the rut. Say, December 6th-20th (2025)? My reasoning for this is that straight-wall cartridges are not as effective as HPRs at the longer yardages that some of these "marksmen" think they can shoot a whitetail at, as I mentioned above. Straight-wall cartridges are safer and make it a little more challenging to harvest a mature buck.

Two full weeks of high-powered rifle season is leading to far too many immature bucks being taken in Indiana every year. I believe that the law should be changed to one full week of HPRs being legal outside of the "Peak Rut," or leave it at two weeks with just straight-wall cartridges being legal, also outside of the rut. This change would diminish the number of immature bucks being taken and ultimately lead to larger, more mature bucks being harvested. I'm not a trophy hunter by any means, but when you go a full season and never lay eyes on a deer bigger than 120" in a very good whitetail area in Indiana, something is wrong with the regulations.

These were all opinions, so don't tear me up too badly, everyone.

I believe your proposals are just about spot on!

 

[Kyguy]

How would changing those seasons effect the kids? The guy who busts his ass will be able to rifle hunt in December instead of November and after a few years will have a better experience because of it.

And there's the rub.... YOU are trying to make the determination of what a better experience is for SOMEONE ELSE. It's not on you to do that. If someone else wants to a shoot a 2-year-old basket rack 8 pt, that's their choice. It may not be the right choice for you, but it is for them. You're wanting to make the choices for people, instead of letting them make the choices for themselves. Trying to get others to live up to your wants and expectations is an exercise in futility and frustration. Definitely more so that dealing with the comments on this thread. Lol.

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

How would changing those seasons effect the kids? The guy who busts his ass will be able to rifle hunt in December instead of November and after a few years will have a better experience because of it.

And there's the rub.... YOU are trying to make the determination of what a better experience is for SOMEONE ELSE. It's not on you to do that. If someone else wants to a shoot a 2-year-old basket rack 8 pt, that's their choice. It may not be the right choice for you, but it is for them. You're wanting to make the choices for people, instead of letting them make the choices for themselves. Trying to get others to live up to your wants and expectations is an exercise in futility and frustration. Definitely more so that dealing with the comments on this thread. Lol.

I mean, I am not sure how many times I have to say that I don't care what other people want to shoot nor am trying to make that choice for them. The only goal is to make us less effective as hunters.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I mean, I am not sure how many times I have to say that I don't care what other people want to shoot nor am trying to make that choice for them. The only goal is to make us less effective as hunters.

You want to make everyone “less effective as hunters” without any consideration for whether they want to be made less effective as hunters. That’s a very elitist way of thinking.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

You want to make everyone “less effective as hunters” without any consideration for whether they want to be made less effective as hunters. That’s a very elitist way of thinking.


“Keep on keepin’ on…”

It's not elitist, that would insinuate I think I am better than everyone else.

It's responsible management of the resource. Nothing more than that. As much as you want to make this about me and accuse me of ridiculous things, it is only about respect to the game animal, understanding the advantages of our modern equipment, agreeing on limitations to our effectiveness, and creating a balanced age structured resource.

 

[Wildone]

OP- Sounds to me that you are not happy that you live in an area that does not produce the quality of deer you are looking for. Welcome to the club. Rather than trying to legislate my desire to hunt big deer on someone else I chose to hunt elsewhere. Have you tried that? Take opportunities when they present themselves rather than trying to re engineer the impossible. Wondering how the age structure would be impacted if you took yourself out of the equation on those 10 hunt locations and let the deer you would have shot grow . Do you think you would return to a forest full of 150's in a couple of years? Just asking, not trying to start an argument.

I love saltwater fishing as well and would love to have yellowfin tuna right outside the inlet but unfortunately that's not where they want to live so I have to go to them. I'd also like to have moose , elk, and 180" mule deer in my woods but they don't want to live here either. Come to think of it I'm not even sure I want to live here any more. LOL

 

[Kyguy]

I mean, I am not sure how many times I have to say that I don't care what other people want to shoot nor am trying to make that choice for them. The only goal is to make us less effective as hunters.

And that's a choice that YOU want to make for others. If people wanted to be less effective, add challenge to themselves, they would. There are many that do. There are many that don't. It is what it is.

This is going to sound really harsh, and it's not my intention, but honestly, you're sounding like a bow hunter that's upset that he can't kill a mature/big buck in the archery season and wants to prevent others from having that opportunity with any other equipment. In my heart, I don't think that's the case, but that what it's coming across as.

I mean, the replies in this thread should tell you that the bigger percentage of people aren't really in line with your thoughts.

 

[Kyguy]

It's not elitist, that would insinuate I think I am better than everyone else.

It's responsible management of the resource. Nothing more than that. As much as you want to make this about me and accuse me of ridiculous things, it is only about respect to the game animal, understanding the advantages of our modern equipment, agreeing on limitations to our effectiveness, and creating a balanced age structured resource.

And to this I'll say... if you're not a wildlife biologist that's put in the time and effort of a long-term observation and tracking study... how do you know that there isn't already a balanced age structured resource? You're stating this based on an immensely SMALL (in the grand scheme of things) pocket of hunting area that you frequent. The state fish and wildlife are looking at the entire state and how to manage it best.

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

And that's a choice that YOU want to make for others. If people wanted to be less effective, add challenge to themselves, they would. There are many that do. There are many that don't. It is what it is.

This is going to sound really harsh, and it's not my intention, but honestly, you're sounding like a bow hunter that's upset that he can't kill a mature/big buck in the archery season and wants to prevent others from having that opportunity with any other equipment. In my heart, I don't think that's the case, but that what it's coming across as.

I mean, the replies in this thread should tell you that the bigger percentage of people aren't really in line with your thoughts.

It is natural human behavior to do what is easy. If we legalized thermals, huge numbers of people would take to the fields at night shooting deer. The lack of humans' ability to display self control towards a disadvantaged resource has a long history. Now, I am not saying we are going to make deer endangered by any means, so hopefully that's not how you take that, but we have lots of examples of a lack of respect and consideration for the well being of lesser creatures. We struggle to self regulate and initiate constraints that will make our desired results more challenging. I am wanting to make us less effective by making harvesting animals harder, I wouldn't expect people to jump with joy about that, but hopefully after people wrestle with the idea, they may evolve their thinking some to come to the same understanding of properly over seeing the resource that we love, so it can flourish to its potential. The Pennsylvania antler restriction could be a good example of this. The majority hated the proposal. They thought they were content hammering 100 pound spikes and seeing 40 does a sit, but I think it has become obvious that it was a great move based on the results the state is now producing.

I don't take it as harsh, I understand. I don't think there is much I can say at this point to convince you otherwise. Mainly, you can't kill (or even hunt) what isn't there. That's my main point, it isn't about me sucking as a hunter and just not being able to get it done. It's that they aren't there at all. I don't want to talk much about me and my ability to kill "big" deer because I don't ever want to gloat or brag like I am better than anyone. My success rate on shooting a 4+ year old when I am able to locate one is pretty good. Unfortunately, it just is only once every couple years I get to have one to chase.

And to this I'll say... if you're not a wildlife biologist that's put in the time and effort of a long-term observation and tracking study... how do you know that there isn't already a balanced age structured resource? You're stating this based on an immensely SMALL (in the grand scheme of things) pocket of hunting area that you frequent. The state fish and wildlife are looking at the entire state and how to manage it best.

I agree my observations from the past decade are anecdotal and limited and I think I said that in a previous post (if not, I meant to). And while people want to disagree with some of the things and attack me, it is mostly nonresidents. I don't see any Residents saying they have a great age structure and don't feel a need for a change. The only people opposed, are people who aren't willing to decrease their advantage. (Also a big forum and not IN specific, so I expected NR responses. I have enjoyed some of them to help challenge my own ideas and thinking.)

We are managed on a state level. That doesn't always (very rarely actually) equate to what is best in every area. Some areas may be doing ok with the current setup (perhaps areas of the state with more dense and continuous cover to help deer survive), but that doesn't invalidate the two (technically 3) counties I hunt and any other areas observing the same. Concerns in those areas still should be considered. I am not a biologist, but it doesn't take a biologist to observe the data and information I have to see we have a lack of deer reaching 4+ years of age. The state has no idea what is happening. There is no age reporting when checking deer, no tracking program in place, no deer count studies in action, no way for DNR to conduct age studies with online check-in taking the place of check stations .

To me, the state is only worried about the number of deer harvested (opportunity), not the quality. If they can keep showing adequate harvest rates and high numbers of hunters in the woods, their pockets will continue to be lined by insurance companies for avoiding deer-car collisions and by crossbow/rifle companies as more and more people invest in highly effective new equipment (maybe too effective?).

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

OP- Sounds to me that you are not happy that you live in an area that does not produce the quality of deer you are looking for. Welcome to the club. Rather than trying to legislate my desire to hunt big deer on someone else I chose to hunt elsewhere. Have you tried that? Take opportunities when they present themselves rather than trying to re engineer the impossible. Wondering how the age structure would be impacted if you took yourself out of the equation on those 10 hunt locations and let the deer you would have shot grow . Do you think you would return to a forest full of 150's in a couple of years? Just asking, not trying to start an argument.

I love saltwater fishing as well and would love to have yellowfin tuna right outside the inlet but unfortunately that's not where they want to live so I have to go to them. I'd also like to have moose , elk, and 180" mule deer in my woods but they don't want to live here either. Come to think of it I'm not even sure I want to live here any more. LOL

Thanks Wildone, I spend some time each year on out of state hunts trying to explore the outdoors. Doing the guided outfitter thing doesn't do it for me (no knock to anyone that likes that!). So a lot of my time out of state is spent on public land, which so far has equated to an experience similar to what I have at home. I did have a 175 acre lease over in Ohio a couple years ago and that was pretty awesome! Only had it for 1 year, but had 3 bucks over 4 yr old there as well as a couple nice 3 year old. My small group hunted is pretty conservatively for those 4+ year olds and passed those couple 3 year olds several times. It was looking pretty good.... Until corn piles showed up on every side of the property lines heading into December.... No more pictures or sightings of those 3 4+ year olds the rest of the year. Anyways, it ended up selling that next summer so we didn't get to lease it again.

Otherwise, I have Colorado OTC elk hunted the last two years. Awesome experiences with close calls but no pack outs. Looking forward to my first muley hunt this year as long as every thing goes according to plan! I am sure I will slip in a few whitetail out of state weekends too, maybe KY or MI.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Mankind is the greatest predator this planet has ever seen. If you want the animals to have a chance, stay home. It’s not a “fair fight” no matter what means and method we employ. We exterminated every big game animal on the planet - except the most prolific or isolated - with stone spears and basic tactics. The ones that survive do so because we choose to let them. I am glad our ancestors made that choice and I hope our descendants continue to make it.

For the last time, bag limits are what keeps us from exterminating animals, not means and methods restrictions. It doesn’t matter *how* we kill animals. The only thing that matters is how many animals we kill, when we kill them, and whether we preserve their habitat. Without bag limits and seasons, we could easily make every big game animal in North America extinct using the most primitive technology available.

As for me, this apex predator prefers to kill his prey as quickly and humanely as possible. Please take your sanctimonious bow hunter mentality off somewhere else.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Kyguy]

It is natural human behavior to do what is easy. If we legalized thermals, huge numbers of people would take to the fields at night shooting deer. The lack of humans' ability to display self control towards a disadvantaged resource has a long history. Now, I am not saying we are going to make deer endangered by any means, so hopefully that's not how you take that, but we have lots of examples of a lack of respect and consideration for the well being of lesser creatures. We struggle to self regulate and initiate constraints that will make our desired results more challenging. I am wanting to make us less effective by making harvesting animals harder, I wouldn't expect people to jump with joy about that, but hopefully after people wrestle with the idea, they may evolve their thinking some to come to the same understanding of properly over seeing the resource that we love, so it can flourish to its potential. The Pennsylvania antler restriction could be a good example of this. The majority hated the proposal. They thought they were content hammering 100 pound spikes and seeing 40 does a sit, but I think it has become obvious that it was a great move based on the results the state is now producing.

I don't take it as harsh, I understand. I don't think there is much I can say at this point to convince you otherwise. Mainly, you can't kill (or even hunt) what isn't there. That's my main point, it isn't about me sucking as a hunter and just not being able to get it done. It's that they aren't there at all. I don't want to talk much about me and my ability to kill "big" deer because I don't ever want to gloat or brag like I am better than anyone. My success rate on shooting a 4+ year old when I am able to locate one is pretty good. Unfortunately, it just is only once every couple years I get to have one to chase.

I agree my observations from the past decade are anecdotal and limited and I think I said that in a previous post (if not, I meant to). And while people want to disagree with some of the things and attack me, it is mostly nonresidents. I don't see any Residents saying they have a great age structure and don't feel a need for a change. The only people opposed, are people who aren't willing to decrease their advantage. (Also a big forum and not IN specific, so I expected NR responses. I have enjoyed some of them to help challenge my own ideas and thinking.)

We are managed on a state level. That doesn't always (very rarely actually) equate to what is best in every area. Some areas may be doing ok with the current setup (perhaps areas of the state with more dense and continuous cover to help deer survive), but that doesn't invalidate the two (technically 3) counties I hunt and any other areas observing the same. Concerns in those areas still should be considered. I am not a biologist, but it doesn't take a biologist to observe the data and information I have to see we have a lack of deer reaching 4+ years of age. The state has no idea what is happening. There is no age reporting when checking deer, no tracking program in place, no deer count studies in action, no way for DNR to conduct age studies with online check-in taking the place of check stations .

To me, the state is only worried about the number of deer harvested (opportunity), not the quality. If they can keep showing adequate harvest rates and high numbers of hunters in the woods, their pockets will continue to be lined by insurance companies for avoiding deer-car collisions and by crossbow/rifle companies as more and more people invest in highly effective new equipment (maybe too effective?).

I'm just going to pull a couple of points out of that. Personally, I would have no issue with antler restrictions in any state... say it has to have minimum 8 points, or it has to have an inside spread wider than its ears, stuff along those lines. Those are easy determinations for even the most inexperienced hunters. Where I'd have an issue is using Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young scores as the restriction, because I don't care how many deer you stare at, you're not always going to be close on score. I hunted an outfitter a few years ago that had a 140" minimum but gave you a buffer of 10". I only hunted a few days, but both deer that were brought in, only just hit the 130" mark, even though the outfitter had been watching the on camera the entire season and really thought both were in the upper 140's.

You're right, the state only manages for quantity. All of them do it that way. Because if the population runs rampant, quality does down. That's why big ranches in TX and the ranches in the Africa do cull hunts. Think about that for a second... more big deer than ever are being killed, and it's not just because of improvements in equipment. It's because there are, overall, more big deer to kill.