Deer limit - Hunters surveyed over
June 25th, 2006 by Administrator
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources recently sent out random surveys to Indiana hunters via the postal service in an attempt to identify the concerns of Indiana deer hunters.
The two-page questionnaire contained 25 multiple choice questions. Those who were selected received the questionnaire this week and were asked to fill it out and return it via the postage paid envelope.
Some area hunters such as Terry Johnson of LaPorte, who was unaware of the questionnaire, said that he wished he had been selected for the survey. He said he has been wanting to see the DNR repeal the One Buck Rule, a topic that is brought up in the survey.
“I feel as though that there are enough bucks that a hunter could take two in Indiana and still not have a big effect,” said Johnson, who also hunts deer across the state line in Michigan. “Michigan has a system where one of the bucks must have at least four points on one side.”
Hunters actually pushed for the implementation of the One Buck Rule as they feared that harvesting too many bucks in one season would eventually cause an imbalance in the number of trophy bucks. On that subject, the survey asked participants to pick one of five responses: you strongly support Indiana’s One Buck Rule, moderately support, have no opinion, moderately oppose or totally oppose.
The survey begins with the question: How important is deer hunting to them? Followed by questions of, how would you rate the overall success of Indiana’s deer management program to, which year of the last four have you hunted deer, and how many days you hunt and the type of weapon used.
It also inquires as to how many deer you had harvested, how satisfied you were with the number of deer seen while hunting, to did you hunt private land or public grounds while deer hunting.
The middle of the survey had questions regarding what you may have paid to lease property to hunt deer, how many hunters you encountered while hunting, and what amount of money you spent on deer hunting, including license fees, lodging, fuel and meat processing.
The One Buck Rule appears to be the most sought after response as four of the questions pertain to the topic. One of those questions asked if the participant would support or oppose a three year pilot program to return to the Two Buck Rule to test if the One Buck Rule was the reason the age structure of bucks had changed.
Additional survey questions inquired as to how much or less a problem over the past four years are subjects such as: hunting pressure, finding a place to hunt, out of state hunters, city growth/development, poor hunter ethics, understanding regulations, leasing of hunting access and anti-hunters.
The DNR also asked for input as to the importance of a dozen different questions on why you hunt deer. The reasons include: to provide food on the table to harvesting a trophy buck to introducing a child/friend to hunting.
The last three questions related to when you began to deer hunt, have you or a family member hit a deer with a vehicle in 2005, and what is your age and gender.
At the end of the questionnaire is a two line space left for additional written comments.
Let me begin with my response. Personally, I would like to see the DNR adopt two changes that would benefit hunters. If the removal of does is important to balancing the state herd and pacifying insurance companies who deem that too many deer/vehicle accidents occur, this would benefit both parties.
My first proposal would be to sell a general deer license that would allow a hunter to take his legal limit with one license. While those who bought lifetime licenses are already covered, those that buy yearly licenses are required to spend a fortune on license fees alone.
For example, last year a hunter that wanted to take a buck and three does (bonus antlerless deer) in Porter County would have to cough up $96 in license fees. Many hunters have said that the reason that they do not harvest more deer is the economic side of having to purchase additional licenses. Would it not make more sense for the DNR to come up with a yearly deer tag that would cover all deer legally allowed for a modest fee? After all, the monies collected from the added revenue from licenses are not used to restock deer.
My second suggestion would be do away with the antiquated system requiring hunters to have to check in harvested deer. In this age of computers and telephone programs that could give a conformation number in seconds, hunters could save money on gas and the frustration of trying to check in a deer.
There are only a limited number of check-in stations, plus man hours available to check in a deer which often conflict with busy schedules.