Ted Nugent is bad for the outdoors

If camera phones were as prevalent 30 years ago as they are now, there would probably be some very embarrassing clips of my friends and me playing air guitar to Ted Nugent’s “Cat Scratch Fever.”  We all loved him when he was just a hard-rocking entertainer.

But like too many entertainers these days, he couldn’t just stick to entertaining. He had to start talking about his personal life and stuff that has nothing to do with the stuff that made him a celebrity.

At first, I liked that he was a celebrity who supported gun rights and hunting, but quickly realized he was nothing like the real outdoorsmen and women I have met across the continent.

Recently, Nugent did a couple things that should make all outdoorsmen and women think twice before citing him as a representative of anything except his own bizarre notions of hunting and patriotism.

According to the Associated Press, in August 2010, California revoked Nugent's deer hunting license after he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of deer baiting and not having a properly signed tag.

Nugent's loss of that deer hunting license through June 2012 allows 34 other states to revoke the same privilege under the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. Each state, however, can interpret and enforce the agreement differently.

Then, last month, he plead guilty in Alaska to illegally shooting and killing a bear in 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding another bear on a bow hunt, which counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.

Nugent agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, according to his plea agreement, which says he also agreed with a two-year probation, including a special condition that he not hunt or fish in Alaska or Forest Service properties for one year. He also agreed to create a public service announcement that would be broadcast on his show every second week for one year, the document states.

While I can personally attest that Alaska’s hunting rules are often complicated and onerous, I have never been cited for any violations in eleven years, despite being checked in the field by troopers every year.  It is the hunter’s duty to know the rules. 

By anyone’s definition, Ted Nugent is a two time, convicted game thief.   A poacher.

That makes him the kind of pseudo-outdoorsman all legitimate outdoorsmen and women should publically scold and ignore.  But because Nugent is an entertainer and on the right side of some guns laws, some outdoorsmen give him a pass. 

If he were a regular joe, no one would listen to him or be caught dead hunting with him. 

In case all of his hunting crimes weren’t enough to cause the hunting world to distance them from Nugent, he went for the trifecta of stupidity and made a statement about the President of the United States many interpret as threatening.

“If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," Nugent said to NRA supporters in April 2012.  "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."

Though Nugent said he was just speaking figuratively and that he didn't threaten anyone's life or advocate violence, it is shameful and wholly un-American to use such language about any democratically elected U.S. President. 

He said his words were a metaphor, but intelligent people know intolerance and hate when they hear it.

Everyone should support Nugent’s right to dislike any politician and speak out against them in a non-threatening manner.  As an outdoorsman, however, I just wish he would do it with a guitar in his hand instead of a camouflage hat on his head.

2011 deer harvest makes 2012 deer rules a disaster

While it won’t help matters much, many of you just earned the opportunity to look an Indiana Department of Natural Resources official in the eye and say, “I told you so!”

The IDNR just released harvest numbers for Indiana’s 2011 deer harvest, and what a surprise, it was down 3.7%.  Indiana hunters took 129,018 deer, compared to 134,004 in 2010.

More than 1000 of you have written me over the past year predicting the fall, but the IDNR just wouldn’t listen.

The title and subtitle on the press release was the first signal it would be full of spin.  And like any good political release, the spin was all one sided.

“Deer harvest down in 2011, but still 4^th best. Warm, wet November possible factor; 14 counties set records,” it reads.

Anyone who has spent time in the field in the past decade knows the weather excuse is an old one, unsupported by the facts and nothing short of desperate.  What everyone except the IDNR seems to understand is that fewer deer were killed because there are fewer deer to kill.

We have 34 days of combined gun seasons in Indiana.  To say the weather was bad for more than a month is outrageous. 

But even if it was unseasonably warm and wet, deer still move, and hunters’ still hunt.   I have seen hunters hunt in the worst imaginable weather in 30 states.  Indiana hunters are just as hearty as anyone I have encountered anywhere else.

For the record, according to Purdue University climate records, opening weekend of regular firearms season this year saw near perfect conditions.  Most of Indiana started all of the first three days in the lower forties, calm and precipitation free.

Most of Indiana’s deer are killed during regular gun season, and during regular gun season, the first three days are the most productive.

The weather theory is further debunked by a quick look at Illinois’ deer harvest last year.  While they always harvest more deer than us, hunting conditions there are nearly the same.  Their habitat, crops and weather mirror ours.

In 2011, Illinois deer harvest dropped roughly .5%.  Weather didn’t seem to bother them too much, and they only get 11 days to hunt with guns. 

Remove the 21 days in November the IDNR press release said we had above normal temperature, and Hoosier hunters still had more days than their Illinois counterparts to get the job done in weather that was at or below normal temperatures.

The drop in our harvest is even more alarming once another important statistic is factored in.  There was a 3% increase in deer hunting license sales from 2010 to 2011.

The pertinent spin Chad Stewart, IDNR Deer Biologist failed to mention in his press release was that our gun season opened on November 12th last year.  That was almost as early as our system allows for a gun opener, and gave gun hunters 16 prime days of hunting.

Combine the 3% increase in hunters, a 3.7% decrease in harvest and the early gun season, and last year is starting to look pretty bad.

But why would the IDNR spin the deer harvest either way?

Because they need to convince deer hunters despite what they are seeing in the field and reporting, there are too many deer in Indiana.  

The IDNR, along with the help of the Natural Resources Commission, just liberalized what was already the most liberal deer seasons in the Midwest for next fall.  To admit our deer herd is declining, as evidence now suggests, would make the rules they just passed irresponsible, uninformed and anything but scientifically based.

The new rules increase gun seasons, add 100-yard crossbows to all of archery season and allow new center-fire rifles.  They are designed to kill more deer and will work.

But despite evidence of a decline, it is unlikely the IDNR will do what any other state game agency would do in this case.  They should stop the rules they just passed from being implemented, and come up with new rules that are scientifically based.

IDNR tries to overlook officer’s actions

Twenty-five years ago, while I was still attending school, I spent three years as a probation officer.  I had no arrest powers, but did have a badge.  I took little away from that job other than a respect for law enforcement and a couple life lessons from a stern, but fair chief.

One of the things he told me the first day I met him was that as an officer, I would be held to a higher standard when it came to abiding by the law.  If I was arrested or broke even a minor law for any reason, I would get no help from him and would be fired.

It was a matter of character for him, and I agreed.

So, when the Indianapolis Star newspaper recently reported that in 2007, two Indiana Conservation Officers falsely used an Ohio address on their fishing applications in 2007 to buy Ohio resident licenses and save $21 each, I assumed the story would end with their dismissal.

It did not.

Despite the fact that two Ohio Officers received written reprimands for their role in aiding the Indiana Conservation Officers in their acts, our DNR took another position.

According to the Star, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources decided not to discipline the Indiana officers because the Ohio prosecutor closed the case without filing any charges.

Falsifying residence on an Ohio license for anyone else could result in a first-degree misdemeanor and 180 days in jail.  The Indiana Officers likely knew they could get away with it, however, since at least one of them had done it before.

One of the Indiana officers had previously received an Ohio deer permit using the same bogus address.  When pressed, he said the practice has been accepted and practiced in Kentucky as well.

Evidently, though it is against the law for everyone else, our DNR has a history of allowing out-of-state employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation officers of other states to buy an Indiana license to hunt or fish at resident rates.

All of this might have just been swept under the rug, but for the Star article.  Soon after the piece ran, House Bill 1279 was introduced, buried in a multitude of housekeeping rules for the IDNR.

HB1279  “removes a provision allowing a Federal Fish and Wildlife Service Officer or conservation officer from a jurisdiction to hunt or fish in Indiana after obtaining a resident license.”

The necessity of this bill is infuriating to anyone who has been cited for the crime by an Indiana conservation officer. 

What is most disturbing about the entire incident, however,  is that the IDNR is only quietly remedying the situation after being caught. 

Rob Carter, the current IDNR Director was the Director of Law Enforcement for two years before taking the helm.  Before that, he was a sheriff. 

It is unlikely he hasn’t known about the practice for a long time. 

One year into my stint as a probation officer, another officer was arrested for public intoxication.  He tried to use his badge to avoid arrest, but was unsuccessful. 

True to his word, the chief had that officer’s belongings waiting for him in a box when he returned to the office the next day.  

“It just comes down to a matter of character,” he reminded the rest of us.

Baiting is rampant and accepted

I finally killed a tom with my bow on the next to last day of turkey season.  Though the hunt was memorable, the reason I was successful on both deer and turkey on the last weekends of season is more interesting than a simple hunting tale.

I believe I was eventually able to harvest both deer and turkey at the end of their seasons this year solely because my neighbors were finally done baiting them.

Baiting is illegal in Indiana.

Trail cameras don’t lie, and for the past two years, mine have supplied the first clues that something was wrong. 

Food plots teeming with nutritious food revealed flocks of turkeys until two weeks before fall turkey season.  Not a single bird reappeared again until the end of December, when they returned in large groups to the plots they used all summer long. 

Cameras showed the same trend with deer.  Bucks and does visited the food plots every night until just before season, only to disappear entirely and return around the same time as the turkeys in late December.

Since I run corn feeders from January until March, I can definitively say shelled corn from a feeder trumps any food plot in the world.  Deer and turkeys come right back to them even after being chased off.  Shelled corn on the ground also trumps the rut and a tom’s pursuit of hens. 

There is a reason feeders are both unethical and illegal to hunt over.

But the gap in wildlife sightings wasn’t enough for me to blame anything other than seasonal movement patterns.  I needed more information to confirm my theory, and got it when an empty bag of Acorn Rage blew off my neighbor’s farm and wedged into our common fence.

I had an idea baiting was rampant as I listened to shooting nearly every day on all of the properties surrounding mine, but the bag confirmed my suspicions.

Having wasted an entire season staring at empty woods and fields, I eventually approached one friendly farm owner adjacent to mine who doesn’t hunt but allows some neighbors to do so at their leisure.

I asked if he knew whether his hunters were baiting, only to find out he didn’t think there were any rules when it came to killing deer and turkeys on private property.  I explained the rules, but he changed the subject. 

I doubt he changed his mind about his hunters following the rules.  And why would he?

A stroll through any outdoor sporting goods store before or during deer and turkey seasons in Indiana reveals a growing section devoted to substances that are illegal to use while hunting.

A Walmart near my farm devoted 50-feet of shelving this year to deer bait.  It was all sold out by mid-season. 

Unlike my farming friend, who likely doesn’t know or care about deer and turkey hunting rules, the guys buying the bait do.

They are just too hard to catch on private ground, especially when they own the land they poach.

It seems like common sense that deer and turkey bait should be illegal to sell, at least during their respective seasons, but that is probably too much to ask.  At the very least, stores that sell the stuff should be required to post signs telling the buyer it is illegal to use the products while hunting.

The signs won’t stop the criminals, but they will educate others like the farmer next to me who may not know the rules.  Even if they only embarrass a couple lazy baiters as they check out, it would be worth it.

As deer and turkeys poured into my two-acre brassica patch a couple weeks ago, they found tons of food that had been nearly untouched for three months.  I took one of the toms for the freezer, and left the rest with a field full of food they will likely use until two weeks before season next year.

A pertinent question from a reader:

Hi Mr. Mulligan,

I have an adjacent landowner that doesn't allow hunting. I have no problem with that. I've talk with her about other people trespassing on her land. She tells me she will not allow any hunter to retrieve a deer they shot that runs onto her property, the deer can just rot. 

My problem now is we're seeing more coyotes then ever before and the turkey count seems lower. I've heard two different stories from other hunters.

One is that if you can contact a DNR officer and he can help you retrieve your deer from the property and the 2nd is that the property owner has the right to let the deer rot.

Rich

Garrett, IN

Hey Rich.  Thanks for the letter.  

In Indiana, a landowner has the right to refuse passage onto his/her land for retrieval of game or even a dog.  When a landowner denies retrieval of a wounded deer, the DNR encourages the hunter to contact his Conservation Officer for assistance.  However, if the landowner wants, they can legally deny even the CO access to retrieve a deer.

I have spoken with CO's about this and they add that they are not in the business of retrieving deer anyway.  They would only try and talk the landowner into letting you go in and get it, but have no way of legally making her comply.

It is a problem, and the only advice I can give is to not hunt close to the line and hope for a quick kill.    

Don Mulligan

www.outdoorswithdon.com

Outdoorswithdon’s 2011 Outhouse Awards

It’s time for Outdoorswithdon’s Outhouse Awards: exposing the worst outdoor products and services from 2011.  As always, all of the products mentioned were purchased at full retail price, used in the field under real outdoor sports conditions, and are in no particular order.

1.  Do-All Ground Bouncing Targets

These hard, rubber pistol targets are designed to bounce erratically when hit with nearly any caliber handgun.  They come in several different shapes and are supposed to provide a constantly moving and jumping target.

I shot mine with everything from a .22 hollow-point to a huge .454 solid-tip and never got it to move more than six inches.  It also never left the ground.  Next summer, I’ll just stick with the empty cans.

2.     Katadyn squeeze water bottle filter

When both of my pump water filters broke this year in Alaska, I turned to this as a last resort.  It was so unusable; I ended up having to drink river water untreated.

The only way to get water through the bottle is to suck it out, making it worthless for filling another container.  Additionally, the amount of pressure required while sucking is also so great, it is tough to get more than a sip at a time, anyway.

3.  TSA, Anchorage

I have never complained about the TSA for doing whatever it takes to ensure airplane security, but this year TSA in Anchorage crossed the line.

I arrived for a flight three hours early because I knew it was going to be a full flight with not enough overhead bin space.  After I had already handed my ticket to the agent and was about to board the plane, a TSA agent pulled me out of line and told me they were doing additional random searches.  By the time they let me back in line, there was no more bin space and I had to check my carry on.  It had everything I wanted for the seven-hour flight.

They saw me waiting for three hours and could have checked me 100 times without making me late to board.  I believe I was stopped because my carry on was a camouflage backpack.

4.   Irish Setter Exoflex rubber boots

The seams on nearly every part of these $180 camouflage, hunting boots separated by the end of the first year of use.

5.   Weather Station by the Weather Channel and Lacrosse technologies

Like most outdoorsmen and women, I obsess enough about the weather to want my own monitoring station.  This $150 unit is supposed to read and track several conditions including wind direction and speed, temperature and barometric pressure trends.

Not a single function on mine worked for more than a week, at least as far as I could tell.  It was so complicated and impossible to set up and program, I gave up after the third time I read the voluminous direction manual.

6.   Corn Pro trailer

These are great, heavy-duty trailers with one very poorly designed flaw:  the spot they provide to mount the license plate is too low.  I re-drilled mine to mount it as high as possible while still being legal (with a light on it), and it still got torn off the first time I drove over a curb.

It isn’t possible the makers of this trailer don’t understand this is a problem since nearly every one of their trailers on the road has the plate remounted on the folded up ramp.

7.  Every rubber air mattress ever made

Is it really impossible to make a valve on a rubber, camping air mattress that doesn’t leak?  I have tried every type I can find and have always ended up sleeping on the ground by morning. 

I know a leak-proof valve is possible since high-end packing mattresses like the Exped Synmat never lose a bit of pressure, regardless of the conditions.

8.   Keen Waterproof Hikers

These shoes cost $100 and didn’t make it though two weeks of hiking and beach stomping on the Hawaiian Islands last summer.  The seams on two pairs of these were unraveling before my family and I got home.

Outdoorswithdon’s 2010 Outhouse Awards

It’s time expose the worst outdoor products and services from 2010 with this year’s installment of Outdoorswithdon’s Outhouse Awards.  As always, all of the products mentioned were purchased and used in the field under real outdoor sports conditions, and are in no particular order.

1.  Wet Okole neoprene seat covers

Truck seat covers are critical for anyone who hunts and fishes.  Good ones repel mud, water snow and ice, are comfortable and look good.  Since I practically live out of my truck, I bought what I thought were the best covers available.

At $270 each, the Wet Okole neoprene seat covers were a huge disappointment.  First, despite being matched to my vehicle, they did not fit correctly on the back seat.  Even worse, the cloth, decorative cover over the neoprene wore off in a matter of months.  This flaw left hot, sweaty, black rubber for me to sit on.

2   Minnesota’s fish and game web site

Nearly all state’s websites are too complicated, but Minnesota’s is one of the worst.  They charge a three percent fee to purchase a license online.  This makes no sense. 

The state saves money on paper and manpower when people buy their licenses online.  So, in fact, shouldn’t there be a discount for using the online license service?

3.  Bushnell Trophy trail camera

There is so much wrong with this unit, it is difficult to know where to start.  I have owned seven of these over the past two years.  Presently none of them are functioning.  Bushnell keeps sending me replacements after acknowledging the problem.  The last two didn’t work out of the box.

Besides the complicated programming and setup requirements, many of them have runaway triggers and bad infrared units.  Sadly, some outlets in the outdoor media continue to name these as one of the best outdoor products of the year. 

As an industry insider, I can say that nearly all of the outdoor media does not tell the truth about products they endorse.  In many cases, they have never even tested the products they rave about.

4. Hunting and fishing license add-ons

Minnesota requires a walleye stamp on top of a fishing license.  Several western states require tags on top of hunting licenses.  The worst, however, is Indiana’s Game Bird Habitat stamp for turkey hunting.

I think the stamp is a good idea, but not for a bird I am already paying for with its own dedicated license.  This add-on is like charging me an extra six dollars on top of my deer license to kill a deer.

If Indiana needs more money for turkeys, we should just make the license $30 and stop trying to hide fees through add-ons.

5.  Swisher Trail mower

Heavy-duty, pull-behind mowers are critical for anyone who needs to keep trails open and clear old food plots.  Mine ran well in its first year, but was impossible to use.  The electric start and blade control are on a cord that is too short to reach the atv or tractor pulling the mower. 

Despite no mention in the manual, a Swisher representative explained on the phone that I should mount the control on the unit instead of the vehicle pulling it.  That is of no use, however, since engaging and disengaging the blade needs to occur frequently while mowing.

6.  Champion Visi-Chalk Ferris wheel target

This small arms target consists of colorful, round pieces of chalk on a wheel that are supposed to be easily replaced after being shot.  The whole contraption is so poorly built and designed, however, it won’t hold the targets even before being shot.

7.  Alaska Air

Airlines are all so hunter-unfriendly these days; at least one makes the list every year.  This year’s representative hides their customer service phone number and doesn’t answer the phone if a customer has the nerve and patience to actually try and use it.

Add my personal experience this year when one of my flights on Alaska Air nearly ended up in the Arctic Ocean, and they get my vote for the worst airline of the year.

8. Overpriced gear

The following items work just fine but are ridiculously overpriced.  I don’t own any of them (they are too expensive), but I have used all of them in the field.  All of these items are easily replaced by another brand that costs a lot less.

Foxpro remote control game callers at $600 MSRP for the best model

Hoyt Carbon Matrix bow at $1600 MSRP

Lowrance Structure Scan fishing imagers at $3100 MSRP for the best model

Under Armour Hurlock gloves at $35 MSRP

Lone Wolf Alpha tree stand at $220 MSRP

Van Staal fishing pliers at $359 MSRP for the seven-inch model

Sebile Magic Swimmer hard bait at $25 MSRP

A letter from a reader of my newspaper column.

A letter from a reader of my newspaper column.

A letter from a reader of my newspaper column.

Don,

I'm writing in response to your article titled "Doe hunts dwindling
deer population".   I could not agree more with your closing statement
about saving Indiana's deer herd from the DNR.  How can they justify a
policy that allows every hunter in nearly half the counties in the
state to take up to 8 does in a single season?  Are there any other
states that have bag limits anywhere close to that amount?  Is there a
practical reason for any one hunter to take 8 deer per year?  Two deer
provide enough meat to feed my family of five for a year so hunting
for meat should not be a valid reason for taking 8 deer.  Thankfully I
think Indiana hunters are growing wise to the DNR's game.  Just
because the bag limits are increasing, it doesn't mean the herd is
increasing.  In fact, every hunter I talk to has noticed a significant
decline in deer numbers over the past two years.  I was very shocked
to see a record harvest last year and will be even more shocked if a
record harvest is reported again this year by the DNR.  I have hunted
the same Northeast Indiana property for nearly 20 years and I have
kept detailed records of my deer sightings during hunting seasons over
that time.  Up until the last two years, the number of deer I would
see year to year while hunting remained pretty consistent.  I would
RARELY ever go on a hunt and not see deer.  The past two seasons it
has now become the norm to see no deer while hunting.  I became
concerned enough this year to send an email to state deer biologist
Chad Stewart.  As I explained to him, I know deer numbers aren't down
in my area because of disease, urban sprawl, habitat loss, hunting
pressure, or predators.  All of those conditions have remained
consistent if not improved over the past several years.  The one major
difference that I can point to is the liberalization of doe permits
over the past few years.  If the goal of the DNR was to reduce the
deer herd, they have certainly achieved that goal.  I'm not seeing any
deer on my commute to and from work (where I used to see anywhere from
6 to 12 per day).  Even farmers have told me that they used to see 30
or 40 deer while harvesting and now are seeing none.  One farmer said
"I think the DNR is off on their numbers."  But as you pointed out,
the DNR doesn't even estimate the size of our deer herd, so how do
they even know if the population is down?  Who is driving the idea
that the herd size in Indiana needs to continue to be reduced?
Insurance companies who have to pay claims for auto/deer accidents?
As you pointed out, we already have the lowest number of auto/deer
collisions in the Midwest.  It's certainly not the hunters; we
obviously have no voice because we wouldn't be calling for continued
herd reductions.  I know I'm not alone in my concern for the status of
our state's deer herd.  As I told Mr. Stewart, if this is a plan to
sell more licenses, it's going to backfire because hunters aren't
going to buy more licenses if they aren't seeing deer.  I was very
discouraged to read Mr. Stewart's comments in the letter from Ronnie
Bower that you published in your article.  If the chief deer biologist
for the state of Indiana is convinced that the deer population is out
of control, the future of deer hunting in Indiana is in danger.  The
recommended changes to the deer seasons, including extended seasons,
will only serve to put even more stress on the deer herd.  How can our
concerns as hunters be heard?

Worried Hunter,

Name withheld by request

DNR deer rules process raises new questions - again

When the Indiana Department of Natural Resources announced the Natural Resources Commission had adopted the second set of deer rules a few months ago, they sent out a news release to announce the massive changes to deer season in 2012. 

The fight to stop the changes was a long one, and was likely over until the DNR sent out its news release justifying the changes, in part, on what they described as “hundreds” of comments for and against the second set of rules.

Since one group alone sent in 761 signatures against the proposal, they decided to dig deeper and had an attorney ask for more information.  What that attorney uncovered was that the DNR lied to sportsmen and women.  Again.

As suspected, there were more than a thousand comments regarding the second proposal.  But why lie? 

The simple answer is because the entire rules process was only window dressing, intended to simply comply with the rules.  When the rules started to work against the DNR’s wishes, they started down a slippery slope of withholding important information that played against their wishes.

The result is a new set of rules few sportsmen want, and the worst relationship between the DNR and Hoosiers in more than 20 years.

Evidence of the unprecedented bad blood between the current DNR administration and Indiana outdoorsmen and women came in the form of a couple letters a month ago.

For the first time in their history, both the Indiana Deer Hunters Association and the Indiana Bowhunters Association sent scathing letters to the DNR breaking ties with them on any future projects.

Both groups have been long-time supporters and partners with the DNR, helping them with projects and legislation over the years.

“We are dropping our inclusion in all Fish and Wildlife committees for the foreseeable future,” said Joe Bacon, Indiana Deer Hunters Association President.  “The DNR asked us to support the first set of rules, then left us as the scapegoat when they didn’t pass.  Once the first rules were gone, and with us holding the bag, they introduced the second set of rules.  This time they sought no input from anyone before, during or after they passed.”

According to Bacon, the tense distrust between the current DNR doesn’t end with deer hunters either.  

“Other outdoors groups have told us they feel betrayed as well,” he said.

That is not surprising, given the lie about the number of comments regarding the second set of rules. 

Or perhaps, like me, they have all been lied to on other occasions as well.  Is everyone finding out just how questionable the entire rules process is when you are not on the side of the people in charge?

In my case, the first lie occurred when I asked the DNR directly about the validity of the Internet comments regarding the first set of rules.  They did not think it was important to tell me there was an internal DNR memo that very specifically questioned the validity.

I uncovered the memo after the fact. 

At the very least it was a lie of omission to a member of the press about a very pointed question.

Or perhaps Hoosiers don’t trust the DNR because they tried to follow the process after the NRC approved the second set of rules.

According to the Indiana code as posted on the Indiana government website, once the rules are approved by the NRC, they are passed to the Attorney Generals office who can either approve or disapprove of them.

In letters sent to the Attorney General by several groups, the Attorney General either did not respond or denied they had any involvement in the process in any way.

After sending them the Indiana code which clearly outlines their important role in the process, the Attorney Generals office backpedaled and admitted they did play a part in the process and, in fact, did approve the rules as passed by the NRC.

What does all this mean?  It means when government agencies have personal agendas, regular people have no chance of being heard, even if they can prove their voice is part of the majority.

Because of the history of deceit and distrust in this process, a couple things should happen immediately.

First, there should be an independent count of the deer harvest this year.   A committee should be formed of individuals not affiliated to the DNR, NRC or Daniels Administration in any way.

This is necessary since the DNR has reported deer harvest records the past few years, even when reports in the field and a recent insurance report showed a smaller deer herd.  It is also important since the DNR uses their count to justify killing a larger percentage of the deer herd every year.

Second, lawmakers need to stop threatening to get involved and actually look into all of these allegations.  Many of them say they are concerned, but have yet to act.

It will take a long time for Hoosier outdoorsman and women to trust the DNR again.  Even worse, if the second set of rules is put in place next year as planned; it could take years for the deer herd to recover.

Decline in deer/vehicle accidents doesn’t mesh with DNR plans

I had intended to write about fall turkey hunting for this week’s column, but just got news that made me change directions.  Breaking news regarding Indiana’s deer herd and the rules process raises serious questions that need to be asked.

A study by State Farm found the number of vehicle crashes involving deer dropped 11 percent in Indiana between July 1, 2010, and June 30.

That decrease should shock anyone opposed to the recently approved deer rules that are designed to kill more deer.  It should also require IDNR and INRC officials to explain why they are hammering away at our clearly declining deer herd.

The newly approved rules liberalize the ways and times hunters can kill deer starting in 2012.  Among other provisions, the new rules expand100-yard, push-button operated crossbows into all seasons, liberalizes the high-powered rifle rules and adds a late gun season when deer are wintering. 

These rules are intended to kill a much larger percentage of the deer herd we now know is already declining.

Since it is common sense to assume there aren’t 11percent fewer cars on Indiana roads, the only explanation for an 11percent drop in accidents has to be fewer deer to hit.

If the IDNR and INRC had been listening to hunters, they would have already known this.  The problem was, they didn’t want to hear the truth.

Indiana already had one of the lowest deer-vehicle accident rates of any Midwest state prior to 2010, according to a U.S.A. Today report.  In addition, the majority of responses to the second set of rules were likely opposed to those rules.

Presently, it is impossible to say what the ratio of comments for and against the second rules were, but like the breaking news about the declining deer herd, that secret is also about to be revealed.

Two weeks ago, attorneys representing hunters opposed to the second set of rules requested all of the comments related to both the first and second set of deer rules.

They did so not because the second set of rules was passed, but because in an IDNR press release, they said it passed after “hundreds” of comments were received.  In fact, there had to have been thousands of comments.  761 came from one group alone. 

Lawyers want to know the truth about the whole process, including why the IDNR only referred to hundreds of comments when justifying their move.

All of this skipping over of the facts to fill an agenda not supported by the majority of hunters should call into question other statements by the IDNR.

When the IDNR released their 2010 deer harvest report last spring, they claimed another record harvest.

Many of us who own land and have lived with Indiana deer for decades were stumped and completely shocked by the increase.  After a serious EHD outbreak the previous spring and reports around the state of fewer deer, most were bracing for a decline in the harvest.

Given the IDNR’s misreport on the number of responses to the second deer rules and convenient omission of the huge decline in deer accidents throughout the rules process, is it so far fetched to question the validity of last year’s record deer harvest?

Like the ignored declining deer vehicle numbers, the inexplicable deer harvest numbers justified an agenda that was likely in the works for years.

But why are they doing this?  One word:  money.

The reality of deer management today is that it is all about revenue.  Hunters are only along for the ride.  People who believe liberalizing the kill is all about opportunity or sustaining hunter numbers are fools.

Increasing the number of doe tags is only about money.  Creating a new crossbow season is only about money.  Everything else is secondary.

The days of trusting the IDNR to look out for wildlife, hunters or landowners are over.

More on this after the lawyers have their say.

Time to save deer hunting from the IDNR

I have been told my unwillingness to kill does in Indiana is bad for deer hunting and nothing more than a misplaced reverence for motherhood.  Both assertions are wrong.

In fact, I don’t kill does in Indiana because I don’t think there are enough deer in the places I live and hunt. 

There are places in this country where there are too many deer.  There are even a few places in Indiana where there are too many deer.  When I hunt those places, I gladly do my part.  But there are fewer of those places in Indiana every year. 

Many Indiana counties were changed in recent years to allow eight bonus tags (extra doe tags).  The equation to determine whether there are enough deer in a particular county to warrant eight doe tags per hunter, however, is an unscientific one.

In fact, there is little science left in the way the IDNR manages our deer herd. 

They do not count or estimate the size of our deer herd, but somehow continue to increase the number of doe tags allowed per hunter.  They say it has to do with the increasing harvest, but the percentage of new doe tags has greatly outpaced the increase in harvest.

As a result, some hunters in counties recently changed to allow eight tags are, for the first time, starting to doubt the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Indiana’s deer biologists and administrators.

Consider the following letter I received from a very concerned Indiana deer hunter last week.  It was representative of the type of letter I never used to receive as an Indiana outdoor writer until last year.  Now I get them all the time.

Dear Mr. Mulligan,

My name is Ronnie Bower and I am writing because I live and own hunting property in the state of Indiana. I am very concerned about how the deer herd is being managed. I hunt many counties in the southern part of Indiana and I stop at many check stations every year. All the check stations tell me that the deer checks are low and decreasing every year. My emails from the IN DNR continue to elaborate on the thriving deer herd and how it needs to be reduced. Any hunter that has been in the woods in the past 10 years is very aware that the deer herd is much lower these days.

I called Chad Stewart from the DNR a couple of months ago and he seemed very convinced that the deer population is out of control and needs to be reduced. I told him I hunt in southern Indiana and he said well maybe all the deer are in northern Indiana. The counties I hunt have a number of 8 with doe kills. I do not understand this form of management. I have several hunting buddies that I would consider very avid hunters and they all agree the deer population is much lower over the past few years. What can be done about this problem?  Indiana could obviously be a top producing deer state but I am concerned the deer population is 5 years away from a serious problem. 

Sincerely,

Ronnie Bower

Mr Bower and an increasing number of hunters like him would love to put a doe in the freezer this year, but will not.   They believe it does not make sense to kill a single doe in areas where deer numbers are already reduced.

The new trend in Indiana deer hunting, it seems, is to save the deer herd and deer hunting from the IDNR.