Deer Population DOWN in Indiana

[David_218]

Deer population trends down

Number of bucks slightly lower in ’06 than in ’05

By Phil Bloom

Outdoors editor

Associated Press

Hunters killed slightly fewer deer in Indiana during the 2006 hunting seasons, but the number of antlerless deer taken was up 4 percent from 2005.

Indiana hunters killed nearly as many deer in 2006 as they did in the record-setting 2005 season, bagging 125,381 or just 145 fewer than the year before.

But it’s the numbers inside the numbers of a recent Department of Natural Resources report that reveal the difference and serve as an indicator of what’s happening to the state’s deer population.

“The population is coming off of the high,” said Jim Mitchell, deer research biologist for the DNR.

Mitchell and the DNR do not give population estimates but rely on the percentage of adult male deer, or bucks, in the hunting totals to gauge where the herd is headed. When the percentage increases, it indicates a growing herd, Mitchell said. A decreasing percentage means the opposite.

“It’s your best trend indicator statewide,” he said. “Separate from that, we can look at this year’s total harvest as very, very similar to last year, but that was made up by an increase in antlerless (does and either-sex fawns) balancing to a very large extent the decrease in antlered.”

In 2006, adult male deer accounted for 39 percent of the total. That was a drop from 42 percent in 2005, and it also was the lowest percentage of the overall makeup since 1996 when adult male deer represented 38 percent of the total.

Mitchell thinks it may continue downward when the 2007 hunting seasons arrive in October.

“If you’ve got a declining population as indicated by antlered and then you hammer antlerless even harder, then I would expect the decline to accelerate,” he said. “So I think next fall we’ll have an even smaller antlered harvest.”

But hunters and a liberalized permit system weren’t the only factors in what happened to deer in 2006. An outbreak of epizootic hemorrhagic disease in at least 22 counties, mostly in west central and southern Indiana, also played a role, killing off hundreds of deer.

“Interpretation of the harvest is a little bit confounded by the fact we definitely had an EHD die-off in the west central part of Indiana that also suppressed the harvest a little bit,” Mitchell said. “The fact our antlered harvest is down is a culmination of both a reduction in the population and also this EHD event.”

EHD is an acute, infectious and frequently fatal disease that affects deer. It is transmitted by a biting fly or gnat and occurs in late summer to early fall. Typically, the disease does not recur the following year, but its effect on hunting was noticeable.

“We had several counties there in the west central part of the state where we had a 15 to 20 percent decline in antlered harvest,” Mitchell said. “We would expect that’s a little more than we had anticipated from our management.”

In the four counties hardest hit by EHD – Clay, Parke, Putnam and Vermillion – hunters killed 2,407 antlered deer in 2006, down from 3,378 in 2005, but the antlerless total was unchanged. “Both of those are evidence that EHD was impacting the males more than the females,” Mitchell said.

Steuben County held its No. 1 position as the top deer county in the state for the second straight year and the seventh time in the last eight hunting seasons. Hunters bagged 3,287 deer in Steuben.

Kosciusko County jumped from seventh in 2005 to second in 2006 with 3,083 deer reported. It was one of four counties in the top 10 to show an increase, and one of three in the 11-county northeast Indiana area where hunters killed more in 2006 than in 2005. Allen and Huntington were the others.

In addition to number changes where hunters killed deer in 2006, there were changes in when and by what means they hunted.

Deer killed in the early archery season (Oct. 1 to Dec. 3) was up 14 percent from 2005 while success in the firearms season (Nov. 18 to Dec. 3) was down 5 percent.

Indiana first special season for youth hunters was Sept. 23-24 and the result was 1,175 antlerless taken.

[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Indiana deer counties

Numbers listed are for total deer taken by hunters in each county in the 2006 season:

1. Steuben, 3,287

2. Kosciusko, 3,083

3. Parke, 2,905

4. Washington, 2,882

5. Switzerland, 2,821

6. Franklin, 2,766

7. Noble, 2,740

8. Dearborn, 2,670

9. Harrison, 2,650

10. Marshall, 2,583

Other northeast Indiana counties: 11. LaGrange, 2,562; 20. DeKalb, 1,950; 31. Allen, 1,589; 43. Wabash, 1,362; 47. Whitley, 1,305; 54. Huntington, 1,159; 73. Adams, 561; 78. Wells, 506.

[BuckNrut]

Re: Deer Population DOWN in Indiana

Not sure how Indiana manages its doe permit system, but it sounds like some areas are due for a permit reduction while others should maintain current permit levels.

[ParrotHead2005]

Re: Deer Population DOWN in Indiana

The counties I hunt in Jefferson and Switzerland were both down one was 400 and the other was 940. I saw less deer this year too. I saw 383 deer in 521 hours of hunting and I hunted everyday from Oct 1 to the close.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Deer Population DOWN in Indiana

[ QUOTE ]

Mitchell and the DNR do not give population estimates but rely on the percentage of adult male deer, or bucks, in the hunting totals to gauge where the herd is headed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a highly unscientific method to me. Too many variables could influence those figures, like the total number of hunters, weather during hunting season, availability of natural forage, changing attitudes regarding antlerless harvest or the taking of immature bucks, etc. If I were in Indiana, I'd feel a lot more confident if there were actually trained people in the woods taking counts of deer in designated sampling areas.

[David_218]

Re: Deer Population DOWN in Indiana

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Mitchell and the DNR do not give population estimates but rely on the percentage of adult male deer, or bucks, in the hunting totals to gauge where the herd is headed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a highly unscientific method to me. Too many variables could influence those figures, like the total number of hunters, weather during hunting season, availability of natural forage, changing attitudes regarding antlerless harvest or the taking of immature bucks, etc. If I were in Indiana, I'd feel a lot more confident if there were actually trained people in the woods taking counts of deer in designated sampling areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree! Our State of Indiana is in a MESS!! We have incompetent personal running the State and the IDNR. Biggest problem, here in Indiana, is finding a place to hunt!!!

[MikeB]

I live and hunt in Elkhart county (wich is in the Northeast). I believe that our population is relativley stable. I took a 7 pt (5 x 2, my biggest ever) on the first day of gun. I saw at least 3 more bucks after that on the same 150 acres. Lots of does too!

[wtnhunt]

Here harvest numbers are used for figuring the estimated deer numbers, which in my opinion is probably not the best method, but they do try.

Deer harvest numbers were down for a couple years in a row, the biologists attributed that to mast crops having bumper productions and said that the deer numbers were in fact better than the numbers reflected. Personally think it had more to do with more liberal limits in the preceding years having a bit of an effect on the numbers. This past year the harvest numbers are up slightly here, will be kind of interesting to see if any changes are made to our seasons and limits.

[Hillbilly]

I have to disagree, my 2006 season in my county Martin County, was unbelieveable.I seen more deer this season than 5 year past seasons combined. Big bucks were taken this year and more does. I couldn't be happier for my county. Kills in our county was down, but I think that was just a fluke. I have a lot of places to hunt, because I befriend the owners and do things for them in the summer. Thats how you get more places to hunt. Extra work pays off.

[dlriggins]

lets keep in mind that a lot of counties that were listed A (does in the last 4 days of firearms)or 0 was up the last couple of years and that would account for the decline to some extent and the DNR will probably mark some counties as A or 0 in those with the lowest numbers just to bring the herd back to greater numbers although our system is not as good as say Texas it is still a system that will allow adequate management of the deer population.

as for me I have seen more deer in the last couple of years than I ever have so something must be working.