close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

County data from the DNR

Discussion in 'Indiana Whitetail Hunting' started by j-bird, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. Has anybody really studied the data the DNR published last year for their county and seen anything ....."interesting"?

    The data for my county is below.
    decatur county data.jpg

    What interests me is that the most crop damage reports my county has had is 2 in a single year. I also see the ratio of deer/vehicle accidents to billions of mile traveled stays about constant (take miles and divide by accidents). I also see in 2016 my county killed only 9 deer per square mile of "deer habitat". So either we don't shoot the deer.....OR they are not there! So with all this data how then can the DNR allow an individual to kill 7 deer total? I don't see the evidence that says it makes a significant impact! The data above covers a decade...including the rise of the deer population, the peak and the decline we are seeing now.....and yet crop damage reports have not changed and the ratio of deer/car accidents hasn't changed..... So why does it matter if my county bonus quota is 1 or 3? The DNR published info in the same report that states 72% of hunters only take a single deer anyway and only an additional 19.5% take 2 deer. So 8% of hunters state wide take 3 or more deer in 2015 & 2016. Yet the DNR encourages this slaughter of as many deer as possible and I really don't understand why!!! Maybe other counties are different, but if you haven't looked I encourage you to do so. If you don't have this info let me know and I will post your county info from the report.
     
  2. whats the link to look up other counties? i never seen that stuff before.
     

  3. Here is the link.
    http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-DeerSummaryReport_2016.pdf
    It's in the 2016 harvest report - starts on page 35. There was actually quite a bit more info in the last report than I had seen before. The info on deer/car accidents and crop damage reports and the like are all things I think we can see as a result of the "success" of management. But until this report I had never seen the data made available before.

    I understand folks don't want to hit deer with their car and farmers don't want to lose crops to deer, but it's going to happen.....what we need to define is at what level is "acceptable". One would expect there to be a relationship between deer numbers and these indicators.....we as hunters obviously see it in one manner as the number of deer in the woods and the condition of the habitat, but there are others that non-hunters see as well. The two I mentioned have large lobby groups behind them pushing our politicians...... the more info we have and the more we can use data to support our argument the better.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  4. Other parts of your post aside, which I mostly agree with, your assertion about deer collisions is really obviously not true. The collision rate varies all over the place, from 98 to 228. The high end is 2.32 times bigger than the low end. The average for 2009-2016 is 62% greater than the average for 2005-2008. I would hardly call that "constant"

    Heck, the range (130) is almost as big as the mean (164)
     
  5. The ratio of accidents to billion miles traveled is what I am talking about. Take the number of billions of miles traveled and divide it by the number of accidents. In my county that number (ratio) ranges from 2.04 to 2.31 and generally increasing. The first half of the data set shows an average of 2.06 over the first 6 years of data. That ratio has been on the increase ever since......ranging from 2.12 to 2.3. The ratio is what I feel is important not the number of accidents or the miles figures individually.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  6. "hunter attitude" is likely self explanatory, but what is "landowner attitude"? Is this referring to people who hunt their own land, or how non-hunting landowners feel about the deer herd (i.e. it would be high if there were fewer deer).
     
  7. Yep. I am also talking about the ratio of accidents to billion miles traveled. Look closely... that's what the data is. That column is already collisions/billion miles traveled.... "DVC/billion miles traveled". It's already been turned into a rate. It makes zero sense to divide the number of collisions by the number of collisions per billion miles... a nonsensical number
     
  8. I am not sure....if I was forced to guess I would suspect this is anyone how pays property taxes on non-residential land....it could even include residential for all I know. I would have to read the report and see if they describe what that data set really is.
     
  9. Well I'll be dipped..... I will be 100% transparent here..... I missed that! You are absolutely correct.....I misread the last column as just total miles traveled and that is incorrect. I'm not above admitting when I have made a mistake....and I missed that one! I did NOT intentionally try to mislead anyone - this is an honest oversight on my part....I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out in a civilized manner.....I would update my original post but I can't - so I will have to live with this oversight and I'm OK with that.
     
  10. I am upset with deer reduction zone expanded into Morgan County, Indiana. Sightings are few the last two years. Last year's harvest number dropped from previous year harvest. I watch the new video clip about deer reduction zone and how they determine them on Indiana dnr Facebook channel with new deer research biologist. I still think deer reduction zones are 100% win for farmers, auto insurance companies, timber companies, and politicians. Hunters and wildlife watchers lose. Tough trying to enjoy outdoors without seeing a deer.
     
  11. thanks for the link jbird
     
  12. Anytime.....hopefully the harvest report will continue to support this new data.
     
  13. Sad, where I hunt only a little over 500 deer harvested. It has an 8 antlerless allowed too.