County seeks to reduce deer population

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

The yearly deer hunt has already started in Indiana. They close all of
the State Parks for a few days & start shooting. No markmanship test is
required, only a hunting licence. I wonder how many are just wounded and
left to bleed out somewhere in the brush?:(

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/25682723/detail.html

---

There is a LOT more to a humane kill than simple marksmanship. Even an perfect "double lung" shot does not guarantee recovery. Its a sad aspect of hunting. ANY hunter who does not feel horrible for not finding an animal they shoot, is not a true hunter who does it out of respect for the wild.

FWIW, any broadside shot in the torso, using modern hunting rifle ammo, should result in a relativley humane kill.

I don't know about IN, but in PA... When they do these "cull" hunts, they require a marksmanship test. Also, FWIW, I personally would not participate in such a hunt. Yes, it is required to be done. This kind of control is better than starvation or CWD... But its not a "hunt". Big difference between a "cull" and hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aTailOf2Kitties

Do you mean totally abandoned? Or just not killed instantly?

As far as total abandonment..Why would someone sit in a tree in the freezing cold for hours and finally shoot a deer just to let it get away? Animals generally aren't attracted to loud banging noises, so one you've fired your gun, it's not like you've got anything else to do for a little while. Follow the blood trail find your deer and take it home.

Keep in mind the goal of every hunter is to kill an animal as quickly as possible. So yeah some do bleed out in the bushes, but hunters try to avoid having to go track down a wounded deer, and it's still less traumatic than being mauled by predators.

---

Trust me... For EVERY hunter I know, not finding a deer they shoot is a VERY bad thing. For instance, I had several "makeable" shot opportunties this year during archery season. But I passed the shot on all of them, because it was not a "for sure" shot. Are there "hunters" who shoot deer and not recover them? Maybe. But they are a EXTREME minority.

The question about sitting in the freeze... If ya gotta ask... You'll never get it. LOL

"Banging" noises.... It all depends on the environment. I watched a group of does this year, browsing at the edge of a corn field, just watch a combine pass not 10 feet away.

"Follow the blood." Not always as easy as it sounds. Depending on the shot angle and the weapon used, there may be very little or no blood from a mortal shot.


What I am getting at... For the non hunters here.... 99% of the sterotypes about us, are wrong. They just are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

What state are you in? Are you sure the "10 point only" rule is not something from a local preserve or club? Mature bucks in the midwest, generally speaking, tend to carry more antler than others.... But ONLY 10 points or more? I've seen 8 points that score much higher than some 10s....

---

I heard it on a radio station in Southern Minnesota. The dogs & I have picked up the finer 8 point horns from yearling bucks & found more thicker horns of mature 8 point bucks in the early spring. It depends on the maturity of the buck. I guess in Minnesota there aren't many trophy bucks so they want them to lay off shooting the bucks so put a restriction on it for now. I don't know if it is the whole state or a county in Southeastern Minnesota? Trophy bucks bring in more hunters I guess that are interested in the racks more than anything. I know we have plenty of big mature doe in our area & there are signs of bucks on the trails during the rutt with the bark rubbed off of trees. I have seen mainly younger bucks in my area this past year. Last year a hunter got a trophy buck hunting in the back of our woods & he was from Minnesota. So it must be a big thing there. I am in Iowa the land of the corn, soybeans, & deer. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonny

There is a problem with the wolves though. Wolves kill to eat, wolves kill to teach their young how to hunt, wolves kill for recreation. Out West outfitters are having to deal with the wolves brought into Yellowstone. Mainly the elk & mule deer population is suffering. The wolves chase the elk kill the young for all of the above. The cows slip their calves from being chased. There are to many packs & it is out of control. It is like farmers here dealing with coyotes killing calves. I have seen sickly deer over the last couple of years so maybe that will be the thing to thin them out?

---

With all due respect, that's not true at all. As a Wyoming resident, where 90% of release-based wolf packs reside, I could provide facts to refute every point you made, but that's not the topic of this thread, so I won't hijack. I have no idea where you got this information, but it's one-sided, exaggarated rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisterdog

With all due respect, that's not true at all. As a Wyoming resident, where 90% of release-based wolf packs reside, I could provide facts to refute every point you made, but that's not the topic of this thread, so I won't hijack. I have no idea where you got this information, but it's one-sided, exaggarated rhetoric.

---

I know outfitters in Dubois, & Cody that will tell you differently along with Salmon, Idaho your next door neighbor. I have seen wolves in action. A huge wolf chased a young elk right through our camp & the wolf didn't bat an eye. I heard & saw the fear of the baby elk while it was being chased down. There have been documentaries about the wolfs of Yellowstone & ranchers trying to make a living while their livestock are being killed by wolves. There is a saying out in the Yellowstone area shot & shovel. :(

Bonny, you keep dragging this thread into an anti-wolf thing. That's not what the thread is about. It is about the deer overpopulation problem. If you want so badly to debate wolves, there are other places on the Internet to do that. Not here, not this thread. I only mentioned their near extinction as one of the reasons for the deer overpopulation problem.

Why can't they have a birth control injection, like they do with cats, that will curb the deer population.

It seems that we go through this every year with the same outcome. (Where's Sara Palin and her trusty shotgun when you need her?) I've said it before, I'll say it again...these animals were here LOOONG before we were. We need to respect that.

My Dad always taught me that nature is cruel. I never realized till now how right he was.

No, Karen, You were the one who bought wolves up. Common sense & experience is what I know about wolves. You mentioned bringing wolves in to hunt the deer. It won't work period!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosmom

Why can't they have a birth control injection, like they do with cats, that will curb the deer population.

---

From what I have read on this topic.... First, it is rather expensive. Second, it would be a major task to capture, inject and release does in estrus during the time of year they go into heat. "The Rut" is high part of the deer hunting season.

Quote:

---

It seems that we go through this every year with the same outcome. (Where's Sara Palin and her trusty shotgun when you need her?)

---

It is abundantly clear that the best (easiest?) way to control the deer population is proper hunting policy. For the most part, in most states that I read about and anecdotal evidence from other hunters I talk to, the huntiung laws are effective.

The problem is that there are, for various reasons, less hunters every year. Also in the mix is a misunderstanding by the general public about what is "good" for wild animals. An example is what is going on in the Philadelphia suburbs area in PA. These are Wildlife Management Areas 5C and 5D. They issued a HUGE number of antlerless deer permits and extended the archery season for antlerless deer by 2 weeks on the front and 6 weeks on teh back of the regualr season. Results? 20,000 unsold tags and the need for even more "cull" hunts in those areas. Reason? The biggest one is access to the deer. Large areas of huntable land is privately owned and the owners refuse to allow hunters to hunt "their" deer. A large portion of the people even routinely feed them.

FWIW, nice dig on SP there. :) Not sure how it fits here, but nice dig anyway.

Quote:

---

I've said it before, I'll say it again...these animals were here LOOONG before we were. We need to respect that.

My Dad always taught me that nature is cruel. I never realized till now how right he was.

---

Indeed. I guess people need to come to terms with what, exactly, "respect" for nature means?

As for cruel... I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you saying hunting is cruel? Man is the apex predator and another part of the chain. I don't think nature is "cruel". Rather, it is goverend by absolute law. And not the "law" mankind thinks about.

What he meant by "Nature is cruel" is the pecking order of nature, and how coyotes attack little animals for food, etc. As for hunting, while I'm not a big fan of hunting, I believe there is a BIG difference between hunting for the pleasure of KILLING little animals or just for the thrill of the kill, and hunting to put food on the table (and I mean using every single bit of the animal).

EXAMPLE: Farms that have BIG cats and animals that hunters (I want to say animal killers) pay THOUSANDS of dollars for, to hunt down and kill for a cheap thrill. To me that is NOT acceptable.

Ted Nugent is an avid hunter. HOWEVER, he uses every single bit of the animal for food. What he doesn't use he donates to local food pantries. BIG difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosmom

What he meant by "Nature is cruel" is the pecking order of nature, and how coyotes attack little animals for food, etc. As for hunting, while I'm not a big fan of hunting, I believe there is a BIG difference between hunting for the pleasure of KILLING little animals or just for the thrill of the kill, and hunting to put food on the table (and I mean using every single bit of the animal).

EXAMPLE: Farms that have BIG cats and animals that hunters (I want to say animal killers) pay THOUSANDS of dollars for, to hunt down and kill for a cheap thrill. To me that is NOT acceptable.

Ted Nugent is an avid hunter. HOWEVER, he uses every single bit of the animal for food. What he doesn't use he donates to local food pantries. BIG difference.

---

Thank you for the explanation.

I agree that there is a big difference between hunting for meat and hunting to put a nice mount on the wall. I also agree that the ranches that offer "high fence" hunts, are appalling and not in any way a real hunt.

I'm a big advocate of only killing what you will eat. I try to only hunt game animals that I intend to consume. The exception is groundhogs.... But this is a little off topic here. LOL But what I WILL say is this... If I get a big 10 point buck on the ground next year in Illinois... Yes, I will eat it all. But that once in a lifetime deer will also become a mount for my wall. Which is something I don't normally do.


----

Hunting, to me and all the guys I run with at least, is about WAY more than the kill. Heck, I had the best hunting weekend of my life last weekend and did not kill a deer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonny

No, Karen, You were the one who bought wolves up. Common sense & experience is what I know about wolves. You mentioned bringing wolves in to hunt the deer. It won't work period!

---

I said - in the first post that I mentioned the wolves "That's why the best solution - were there not human beings with pets around - would be to reintroduce the grey wolves."

All the instances you talk about are problems that human being have - ranchers for example. Yes, it's livestock, not pets, but it's essentially the same thing. Remove the human beings from the equation and it would be a different story. But we know that's not going to happen, so reintroducing wolves cannot happen in most places. So humans will have to deal with the problem they created when they eliminated the wolf.

Quote:

---

so humans will have to deal with the problem they created when they eliminated the wolf

---

exactly!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonny

I know outfitters in Dubois, & Cody that will tell you differently along with Salmon, Idaho your next door neighbor. I have seen wolves in action. A huge wolf chased a young elk right through our camp & the wolf didn't bat an eye. I heard & saw the fear of the baby elk while it was being chased down. There have been documentaries about the wolfs of Yellowstone & ranchers trying to make a living while their livestock are being killed by wolves. There is a saying out in the Yellowstone area shot & shovel. :(

---

Oh, I'm sure outfitters WILL tell you that. Doesn't make it a scientific fact. And I'm sure an elk DID chase a baby elk, and that it WAS afraid. Elk are wolves natural prey, of course they kill and eat them. Elk and wolves co-existed in a natural, balanced eco system long before humans showed up here. Wolves aren't the problem, people are.

There is always more than one side to a story, any story. There are plenty of elk and deer in Wyoming, and more than enough cows ... for which ranchers are compensated NICELY for, if one is even suspected of being a wolf kill. Not proven, just suspected. Cows are not a native species, they were put on our public lands because it's a cheap way for ranchers to feed them. Wolves are a native species, in a wilderness area ... but now they are a problem, because of someone's cows? Hmmmm ..... But let's not let the facts confuse us.

blah blah blah wolf, blah blah blah wolf:rolleyes:.... whatever! Let's get back to how tasty deer are and how they're easier to cook and eat when they're dead.