Indiana hunter freezes 'buck of a lifetime' to avoid poaching charge.

[Sigblitz]

Gotta get to 50 somehow!

 

[Sigblitz]

Neat.

 

[Shootin45super]

I think a 6 point law would be a good idea also.
Some people shoot anything.

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

Not to help and assist you in raising all the many year old posts you have been reviving, but I have to comment on this one. Having a 6 or 8 point rule is stupid. I currently have on my trail cameras a 6 point buck that is huge. He has a large spread rack but only 6 points. While I also have a 10 point buck that is rather small with a small rack. Your suggestion of making a rack as the sole point of taking a buck is not a good idea and some of us hunt for meat not antlers. I have passed on many small bucks but that was based on their weight / size and not how many points was on the rack.

Agreed. I honestly could care less on rack size. Have I killed a nice buck? Yes. Do I pass on a 200+ lb 4 point for the hopes of that 175lb 73 pointer? Absolutely not.
Can't eat an antler. If we're gonna regulate, let's start by dropping bonus anterless massacrefest. I remember a time when one had to apply for a doe tag.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[Shootin45super]

So Ruger
Your telling us that you would pass on a 110 lb 73 pointer? Really?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

We don’t need more hunting regulations. We need stiffer penalties for the people who don’t follow the regulations we have. A minimum rack size? Are you guys serious? If you wanna use your tag on a 4 point buck, have at it. There are 2 types of hunters. Those who hunt for the meat, and those who hunt for the trophy.

 

[Hawkeye7br]

Regarding minimums, we can't go there. I enjoy having sole hunting privilege to 200 acre property that's mostly corn, maybe 40 acres woods. Deer come & go on the property, and neighboring properties have hunters.
For the working man who only has weekends to hunt, most can't be picky if they want to put meat in the freezer.
And yes, I've had a huge buck walk in on me while I was dressing a doe. Grabbed my rifle but too late for a shot as he disappeared over the hill. So sometimes there's that.

 

[d.kaufman]

4 point, 6 point....12 point. I could care less. I hunt for meat, and meat alone.

Now as for my dog....she loves big antlers

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

So Ruger
Your telling us that you would pass on a 110 lb 73 pointer? Really?

A bit out of context, but to say comparatively...yes. A 200lb buck with a smaller rack would be harvested before a smaller buck with larger rack. I aim to fill the freezer. Nice racks are a byproduct of my ability to take what nature provides for me: a meal.

4 point, 6 point....12 point. I could care less. I hunt for meat, and meat alone.

Now as for my dog....she loves big antlers

Same here. Nice pic, this one was a few years ago but nothing's changed. I wish I'd have trained her to shed hunt.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[Leadeye]

Usually I'll see a few good ones during season and on occasion they will be withing range for a shot. I find myself shooting more during muzzle loader season as I pass on deer during rifle season and then regret it.

 

[Restroyer]

I think a 6 point law would be a good idea also.
Some people shoot anything.

Yes, but as was stated: you only get 1 buck tag and sometimes a big bodied buck has a low point count and if you hunt for meat it doesn't matter how many points on the rack.
6 point law would be stupid.

 

[bobjones223]

I think these old posts getting pulled up are by the moderators......CM?......you creating these?


Everytime I see them they are like click bait....."Okay...who is making a run for fity today?"

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

I think these old posts getting pulled up are by the moderators......CM?......you creating these?


Everytime I see them they are like click bait....."Okay...who is making a run for fity today?"

Is there a way we can have the forum auto generate the message "I got shot 9 times!" when someone hits the 50 mark?

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[two70]

I would like to know who is killing these 200 lb. 4 pointers... so I can offer to buy their scales from them.

The real problem with antler based restrictions, whether by points or spread, is that it puts most of the hunting pressure on the largest young deer. Essentially it encourages high grading with the biggest young bucks continually removed from the herd before they can pass along there genes while allowing small old bucks to breed with impunity.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

I think we should stop piling up regulations / inventing pseudo-scientific rules, and harvest animals based on what the property or the area can sustain. More regulation of hunting will NEVER be the answer. The entire system we use now is overly complex and unnecessary.

Small bucks should be removed if they don't show improvement. Big old bucks should be removed when they start to decline, to make room for the next young buck with the right stuff. Does should be taken as needed to maintain the population levels.

Attempting to make a set formula - 'take X bucks and Y does' - for the entire state is nonsense no matter which way you slice it.

Whats even BIGGER nonsense is the attitude of some hunters in this thread that promote increased regulation / increased complexity of hunting, and therefore increased EXCLUSION from hunting.

 

[phylodog]

As much as I might like to see the rules set up to better facilitate my hunting goals, I'm neither a fan of more regs nor someone who thinks my way is the only right way. I chase big bucks. If I can't find a big antlered buck I'll try for an old one. If I can't get one or the other I'll eat my tag, that's what I enjoy doing. My wife and daughter have no desire to eat venison so I don't need to hunt for meat.

I enjoy the hunt and so long as I obey the rules that shouldn't be concerning to anyone else yet I've been criticized as a trophy hunter on this forum (and elsewhere). I don't care what people shoot so long as they're hunting lawfully.

 

[two70]

I think we should stop piling up regulations / inventing pseudo-scientific rules, and harvest animals based on what the property or the area can sustain. More regulation of hunting will NEVER be the answer. The entire system we use now is overly complex and unnecessary.

Small bucks should be removed if they don't show improvement. Big old bucks should be removed when they start to decline, to make room for the next young buck with the right stuff. Does should be taken as needed to maintain the population levels.

Attempting to make a set formula - 'take X bucks and Y does' - for the entire state is nonsense no matter which way you slice it.

Whats even BIGGER nonsense is the attitude of some hunters in this thread that promote increased regulation / increased complexity of hunting, and therefore increased EXCLUSION from hunting.

I agree with the main point of your post but our regulations aren't overly complex. By the standards of many other states, Indiana's regulations are very simple. You are correct when you state that attempting to apply a harvest formula statewide is nonsense, which is why Indiana does it county by county. While still a bit of a fool's errand on a county wide scale, it is certainly better than statewide. Where our regulations are more complex than they need to be, it is usually the result of trying to allow for more opportunity(ie. rifles) while appeasing those that are in favor of more restrictions.

Managing deer, even higher level management for larger bucks, is really simple. Managing hunters and other, often competing, interests is far more challenging. Among hunters, there is a large, very vocal segment that seems to think the DNR's only job is to provide them with lots of targets so that they can quickly and easily fill their freezers every year with the minimum investment of time and effort. These hunters don't often take time to consider that farmers, landowners, and other hunters have a say also and that attempting to maintain artificially high deer numbers is not in the best interests of these other groups. I say attempting because high deer numbers cannot be maintained indefinitely, sooner or later EHD or some other disease will come along and do the job that this segment of hunters didn't want the DNR to do. It's been my experience that these hunters often have self control issues and primarily want more regulations to control other hunters because they can't control themselves. Often increased regulation is the first and only recourse as investing effort or $s into habitat improvement or means of improving their hunting success is rarely a consideration. These hunters typically make up a significant portion of the harvest every year and thus most of the population management for good or ill.

On the other end of the spectrum are the even more vocal trophy hunters which are typically fewer in number. Unlike the freezer fillers, they are more likely to invest a lot of time, effort and $$ into anything that might give them a better chance to tag a big buck. These hunters are pretty much always selective and very self controlled but they want to see a return on their investment so they are frequently in favor of more regulations in the hopes of forcing others to be more selective and increasing the likelihood of seeing a greater number of trophy bucks. They are typically against more opportunity since more opportunity is just more opportunity for others to kill the bucks they want. Since having a lot of deer in total is usually exclusive of having a lot of big deer they are often also opposed to lax management that the freezer fillers prefer.

Next we have the farmers who rarely see crop damage that they don't blame on deer and whose preferred number of deer is always less than the current number. Then, finally the landowner who typically love high deer populations right up until their landscaping starts taking a beating at which point they often switch over to the farmer's point of view on the subject.

The DNR has to try and balance all of these and other conflicting wants and wishes with what the science suggests is best for deer herd. Its a thankless job made more so by the ignorance and myopia on all sides.

 

[Willie]

I agree with the main point of your post but our regulations aren't overly complex. By the standards of many other states, Indiana's regulations are very simple. You are correct when you state that attempting to apply a harvest formula statewide is nonsense, which is why Indiana does it county by county. While still a bit of a fool's errand on a county wide scale, it is certainly better than statewide. Where our regulations are more complex than they need to be, it is usually the result of trying to allow for more opportunity(ie. rifles) while appeasing those that are in favor of more restrictions.

Managing deer, even higher level management for larger bucks, is really simple. Managing hunters and other, often competing, interests is far more challenging. Among hunters, there is a large, very vocal segment that seems to think the DNR's only job is to provide them with lots of targets so that they can quickly and easily fill their freezers every year with the minimum investment of time and effort. These hunters don't often take time to consider that farmers, landowners, and other hunters have a say also and that attempting to maintain artificially high deer numbers is not in the best interests of these other groups. I say attempting because high deer numbers cannot be maintained indefinitely, sooner or later EHD or some other disease will come along and do the job that this segment of hunters didn't want the DNR to do. It's been my experience that these hunters often have self control issues and primarily want more regulations to control other hunters because they can't control themselves. Often increased regulation is the first and only recourse as investing effort or $s into habitat improvement or means of improving their hunting success is rarely a consideration. These hunters typically make up a significant portion of the harvest every year and thus most of the population management for good or ill.

On the other end of the spectrum are the even more vocal trophy hunters which are typically fewer in number. Unlike the freezer fillers, they are more likely to invest a lot of time, effort and $$ into anything that might give them a better chance to tag a big buck. These hunters are pretty much always selective and very self controlled but they want to see a return on their investment so they are frequently in favor of more regulations in the hopes of forcing others to be more selective and increasing the likelihood of seeing a greater number of trophy bucks. They are typically against more opportunity since more opportunity is just more opportunity for others to kill the bucks they want. Since having a lot of deer in total is usually exclusive of having a lot of big deer they are often also opposed to lax management that the freezer fillers prefer.

Next we have the farmers who rarely see crop damage that they don't blame on deer and whose preferred number of deer is always less than the current number. Then, finally the landowner who typically love high deer populations right up until their landscaping starts taking a beating at which point they often switch over to the farmer's point of view on the subject.

The DNR has to try and balance all of these and other conflicting wants and wishes with what the science suggests is best for deer herd. Its a thankless job made more so by the ignorance and myopia on all sides.

EXCELLENT!!

Every point that you made is spot on...

 

[AtTheMurph]

I would like to know who is killing these 200 lb. 4 pointers... so I can offer to buy their scales from them.

The real problem with antler based restrictions, whether by points or spread, is that it puts most of the hunting pressure on the largest young deer. Essentially it encourages high grading with the biggest young bucks continually removed from the herd before they can pass along there genes while allowing small old bucks to breed with impunity.

In Wisconsin, I rarely see a buck that doesn't go close to 200lbs. I think the lightest buck I ever took to the butcher was 184lbs and that was a 10 point and older than all the other bucks I've ever shot. Largest was 219lbs but almost all the rest were within about 5lbs +/- of 200lbs. Not one giant rack in the bunch. 120 - 130" were the best. I always figured it was just the genetic stock in the area until the neighbor shot a 14pt 180-190"(we guess-timated) deer. That rack filled most of the back of the pickup.

 

[two70]

In Wisconsin, I rarely see a buck that doesn't go close to 200lbs. I think the lightest buck I ever took to the butcher was 184lbs and that was a 10 point and older than all the other bucks I've ever shot. Largest was 219lbs but almost all the rest were within about 5lbs +/- of 200lbs. Not one giant rack in the bunch. 120 - 130" were the best. I always figured it was just the genetic stock in the area until the neighbor shot a 14pt 180-190"(we guess-timated) deer. That rack filled most of the back of the pickup.

Wisconsin deer do typically have heavier body weights than Indiana deer but even there I doubt there are very many bucks old enough to weigh 200 lbs. + dressed(I'm assuming dressed weight because who weighs deer that haven't been dressed yet?) that only have 4 points. In southern and central Indiana, a buck would typically need to be at least 3.5 years old and more than likely 4.5 + years old to dress more than 200 lbs and most bucks of that age will have more than 4 points. I've heard/seen/know of exactly one buck that would have dressed more than 200 lbs and only had 4 points(he was also 20"+ wide and very old). I've also encountered several people that have claimed their bucks weighed 200 lbs. when they almost certainly didn't weigh more than 150. Some of them were possibly talking live weight, almost all of them had either never weighed a buck or had weighed very few.