Dave Delaneys messge to john goss, director IDNR
June 12, 2003
Mr. Goss:
There has been much conversation lately between individuals concerning the
year round dog running on public properties. There appears to be
representations being made in regard to what position various organizations
has taken on this subject. Due to this, I wanted to make sure that the
position of the Indiana Deer Hunters Association is clearly made. Please
consider the following in any decision that is made. Our organization
stands ready to support this position both publicly and privately.
Position Statement:
In recognition of both game and non-game species and the potential effect on
both breeding season activity and the daily interruption of normal wildlife
behavior, the IDHA is opposed to year round running of dogs on public
properties.
General Comments:
The IDHA has serious concerns that daily running of dogs, even on isolated
parts of public properties, does not allow both game and non-game species to
adopt normal behavioral activity. Certainly during the breeding seasons are
of specific concerns. Ground nesting birds of both game and non-game
species would appear to be at risk for daily interruption, along with other
species as well. It seems to be highly likely that young rabbits or even
young deer that are pursued by an unrestricted number of dogs are at a high
risk for death. As such, our organization does not believe that it is
prudent for the DNR to place young wildlife at such risks, especially on
public properties, when there is no intent for either recovery or
consumption of the game animals.
Furthermore, in today's environment, public properties are typically under
extreme hunting pressure due to limited private lands access. The
properties are undoubtedly delicate situations to handle in regard to
balancing hunters wishes and wildlife needs. Even though the hunters
financially support these properties, the resource should always come first
and foremost. In support and recognition of the hunters financial support
of these properties, our organization believes that properties should be
managed for maximum hunter satisfaction achieved during the hunting seasons.
Any non-hunting season pressure on game species would seem to assure a less
productive property for the upcoming hunting seasons. Once again, dog
running outside of the traditional hunting seasons would seem to conflict
with the real purpose of the property.
Additionally, there could be circumstances where other hunting seasons are
in effect while rabbit hunting season was not. The ability for dog running
to continue in these circumstances would clearly interfere with others
hunting such species as squirrel, dove, ducks or other species. Our
organization does not support such interruption of hunting for the mere
benefit of running a dog outside of the actual hunting season. It is
frankly almost inconsiderate of another sportsmen to wish to be disruptive
to another hunting opportunity unless that sportsmen is actually pursuing
game during a hunting season.
Now, individuals or organizations might still want a part of a property to
be allowed for dog running year round. They will undoubtedly argue that
only a part of the property is of no real harm. The simple answer to this
position is that both game and non-game species use the entire property and
they should come first. Secondly, an individual actually hunting during a
hunting season should not interfered with via a dog running activity.
Individuals or organizations that wish to put themselves or their dogs
before the benefit of non-game species, game species or other hunters
clearly do not understand the nature of the hunting heritage. Furthermore,
they must not understand the difficulty and delicate nature of the limited
public property here in Indiana. To allow an individual to drop an
unlimited number of dogs on the ground to harass wildlife throughout the
year is not what these properties are intended. If there is such a need,
organizations should acquire their own private land and leave the public
land to be managed appropriately.
I hope the DNR looks at this issue from a "resource first", "actual
in-season hunter satisfaction" second, property management "value"
assessment third and individual or organizational wishes last approach.
Please understand that our organization is not against dogs or dog running
but instead is an organization that believes public property should be
managed in the most conservative approach possible, especially outside of
regular hunting seasons.
Sincerely,
David F. Delaney
President - IDHA
(Mr. Allman, please forward to Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Grouse
Society, NWTF, IBA, DU, HWA, Audubon Society)
indiana deer hunters association takes anti dog owner
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
-
Guest
Indiana Beaglers Alliance response
Mr. Goss:
Yes, there is a lot of conversation lately about the proposed dog running rule changes. And yes there are representations being made as to what positions various groups are taking. If you will review the comments made by the sportsmen and women of the state of Indiana you will quickly see that the majority from all sporting venues are soundly in favor of leaving the dog training as it is. There is no research to support DNR's position, and therefore no reason to make changes.
Also please remember when certain individuals speak of interruptions and disturbances of wildlife while the hunting dog owner is in the field that the normal activity of small game is not the only creature being disturbed. the owl, the hawk, the fox, the coyote, the raccoon, and many other predators of the small game are moving out of the area and their activity of preying on and killing small game for food is also being prevented. therefore while the hunting dog owner is training his/her dog they are also creating a situation that allows the small game to be undisturbed by more fatal predators. furthermore small game "parents", just like some human parents, do not always do what is best for their young. Many times they build their nests in open areas that are easily located by all preditors. Mr. Goss, it is no secret that the hunting dog is at the absolute bottom of the predator change. If a hunting dog, with its mind on tracking an adult rabbit, pointing an adult bird, or treeing an adult Raccoon occasionally finds a nest don't you believe the wild predators already named will find that nest anyway and that nest will become part of the over 50% of small game that don't make it out of the nest due to wild predators. The few animals that the hunting dog does find are nothing more than the statistics documented by all state Department of Natural Resources thru out the country. Again, the research does not bear out the position of our DNR. It is interesting to note that detractors from the sportsman's solid convictions that spring dog training be left alone can only come up with word such as "likely", "possible", and "may" in an attempt to add legitimacy to their thoughts. All state and private research in our country shows that 80% to 85% of small game born this spring will not be alive next spring even in the absence of the hunter and his dog. Research also shows that a well trained hunting dog results in much higher cases of retrieved animals in the field. A well trained dog is only obtained by training when the time is right to train and continuing to train it thru out the year. Again, research is firmly telling us that DNR has no valid points in its position.
Much is being said about the resource these days also. and yes the hunter does pay for the land that is state ground. The hunter also shares that land with many non hunting individuals and groups that have much more negative effects on both game and non-game species than the hunting dog owner. Mushroom hunters, hikers, joggers, cross country skiers, horseback riders, bird watchers, and other groups that do not understand that wildlife should not be taken from its nest, or that is destroyed by their presence. No one is asking that these users opportunities be denied or restricted by the presence of our dogs. Actually the hunting dog owner is glad that more and more folks are taking the opportunity to be in nature. While protecting and increasing the numbers of small game and non-game animals is the job of parts of our DNR. Expanding opportunities for the sportsman is also another part of their job. To many times DNR employees are forgetting what the land is there for in the first place. IT IS THE POSITION OF THE SPORTSMAN OF INDIANA THAT SOUND GAME MANAGEMENT MUST BE TEMPERED BY THE NEEDS OF THOSE USING AND PAYING FOR THE LAND. In the absence of compelling research that indicates a resource is being destroyed it should be the job of the DNR to offer and/or expand the opportunities of the sportsmen and women of the state.
The next point is non-season running of dogs which is an extension of training for more efficient retrieval of killed game. And ,again, DNR has no research that supports a negative dog/small game relationship. The opposite is actually the case. Game that is being worked during the off season has a tendency to move farther, and become more elusive in both fair chase and kill. The result is a much more satisfying day afield and even more sense of fair chase.
As for the comment made by Dave Delaney of the Indiana Deer Hunters Association concerning maximizing hunter satisfaction and off season training interfering with in season hunting such as squirrel, dove, ducks, and other species. Mr. Delaney's comment here clearly shows a lack of understanding of when seasons are open in our state. first of all the Squirrel hunter is firmly against dog training changes. This is evident by the large number of squirrel hunters that showed up at the open houses to object to DNR proposed changes. squirrel is hunted in the woods and rabbits mostly in the fields. squirrel hunters also have hunting dogs and understand the situation. Both Dove and Ducks are already restricted in that other sportsman are not allowed in the area during these seasons. Most Duck hunting lakes are closed to fishermen even on state land during the duck season. and the fact of the matter is that except for turkey season, all other hunting seasons coincide. I have spoken with Bud Dennemann, FWCC committee representive for the Wild Turkey Federation and he assured me that Turkey Hunters have no issue with dogs.
It is the position of the vast majority of Indiana sportsman that no changes be made to the existing dog training/running rules. again I only need refer you to the results of the questioner handed out at the DNR open houses, and the mountain of negative emails all DNR personnel have gotten. There is no justification for making changes. Most fish and wildlife areas have had designated dog running areas for years and some of the best hunting during season can be found on the designated dog running areas. For Mr. Delaney to suggest that no dog trading at all be allowed shows, again, his total lack of understanding of the word "multi-use facility". All sportsmen must be allowed opportunity to work their dogs, hunt the mushrooms, hike the woods and fields. And all must do it together at the same time. The delicate nature of small game will be much more negatively effected by hunts using dogs that are ill trained during season. the 5 rabbit limit will become 7,9, or 11 without well trained dogs to retrieve lost rabbits, and quail numbers would be even higher. again, all research and practical applications fails to support DNR's position.
any organization that calls for the total disregard of the needs of the other sporting groups, such as Mr. Delaney is suggesting, obviously only has his interests in mind. fact is in a recent phone conversation with Mr. Delaney he told me that the Indiana Deer Hunters Association was going to a closed membership in the fall due to the fact that to many members makes it to hard for him to get his agenda across. He also accused DNR of not caring about the number of sportsmen in Indiana that do not want rule changes to dog training, that DNR only cares about people who support them.Mr. Delaney's only complaint to me was that rabbit hunting was in at the same time deer season is and that shouldn't be. Mr. Goss you can put as much stock as you want to in what Mr. Delaney tells you and how he supports you, but I can have hundreds of deer hunters email you and tell you they do not favor dog training rule changes.
Now to the only reasoning anyone at Indiana Department of Natural Resources has given for wanting to make changes in dog training.
one) well its got to be a problem. there are guys sitting in their trucks listening to their dogs run and not out in the field with them. Some hunts are leaving their dog at the end of season and our employees have to deal with it. and also, we don't care about people , just about the animals. If we had our way no one would be on the properties.
two) Ohio and Michigan already does it.
Mr. Goss, if there are isolated problems they should be dealt with on an individual property basis, not by restricting the hunting dog owner out of the properties. and as for Ohio and Michigan......... yes they do....... but mostly no they don't. Ohio restricts usage on state land only, but even then have over 19 extremely large dog running areas in all parts of the state. Many of the dog running areas are hundreds of acres. other properties can and do offer dog running on a permit basis, and by and large the dog running restrictions are not enforced.
Michigan restricts dog running and training also, except they have a six month small game hunting season, and allow anyone to come in and get a permit to have a running pen year round.
and, Mr. Goss, both Ohio and Michigan still allow field trials on state land. Also, Michigan has a Bass season. Ask any Michigan DNR employee and he will readily tell you there is no reason for them to have a first day of Bass season, its just tradition. Mr. Goss, the sportsmen and women of Indiana do not want copy cat rules made from other states traditions.
Please follow the wishes of the vast majority of Indiana sportsmen and woman by leaving the dog training rules alone.
Jack Hyden
Indiana Beaglers Alliance,
Yes, there is a lot of conversation lately about the proposed dog running rule changes. And yes there are representations being made as to what positions various groups are taking. If you will review the comments made by the sportsmen and women of the state of Indiana you will quickly see that the majority from all sporting venues are soundly in favor of leaving the dog training as it is. There is no research to support DNR's position, and therefore no reason to make changes.
Also please remember when certain individuals speak of interruptions and disturbances of wildlife while the hunting dog owner is in the field that the normal activity of small game is not the only creature being disturbed. the owl, the hawk, the fox, the coyote, the raccoon, and many other predators of the small game are moving out of the area and their activity of preying on and killing small game for food is also being prevented. therefore while the hunting dog owner is training his/her dog they are also creating a situation that allows the small game to be undisturbed by more fatal predators. furthermore small game "parents", just like some human parents, do not always do what is best for their young. Many times they build their nests in open areas that are easily located by all preditors. Mr. Goss, it is no secret that the hunting dog is at the absolute bottom of the predator change. If a hunting dog, with its mind on tracking an adult rabbit, pointing an adult bird, or treeing an adult Raccoon occasionally finds a nest don't you believe the wild predators already named will find that nest anyway and that nest will become part of the over 50% of small game that don't make it out of the nest due to wild predators. The few animals that the hunting dog does find are nothing more than the statistics documented by all state Department of Natural Resources thru out the country. Again, the research does not bear out the position of our DNR. It is interesting to note that detractors from the sportsman's solid convictions that spring dog training be left alone can only come up with word such as "likely", "possible", and "may" in an attempt to add legitimacy to their thoughts. All state and private research in our country shows that 80% to 85% of small game born this spring will not be alive next spring even in the absence of the hunter and his dog. Research also shows that a well trained hunting dog results in much higher cases of retrieved animals in the field. A well trained dog is only obtained by training when the time is right to train and continuing to train it thru out the year. Again, research is firmly telling us that DNR has no valid points in its position.
Much is being said about the resource these days also. and yes the hunter does pay for the land that is state ground. The hunter also shares that land with many non hunting individuals and groups that have much more negative effects on both game and non-game species than the hunting dog owner. Mushroom hunters, hikers, joggers, cross country skiers, horseback riders, bird watchers, and other groups that do not understand that wildlife should not be taken from its nest, or that is destroyed by their presence. No one is asking that these users opportunities be denied or restricted by the presence of our dogs. Actually the hunting dog owner is glad that more and more folks are taking the opportunity to be in nature. While protecting and increasing the numbers of small game and non-game animals is the job of parts of our DNR. Expanding opportunities for the sportsman is also another part of their job. To many times DNR employees are forgetting what the land is there for in the first place. IT IS THE POSITION OF THE SPORTSMAN OF INDIANA THAT SOUND GAME MANAGEMENT MUST BE TEMPERED BY THE NEEDS OF THOSE USING AND PAYING FOR THE LAND. In the absence of compelling research that indicates a resource is being destroyed it should be the job of the DNR to offer and/or expand the opportunities of the sportsmen and women of the state.
The next point is non-season running of dogs which is an extension of training for more efficient retrieval of killed game. And ,again, DNR has no research that supports a negative dog/small game relationship. The opposite is actually the case. Game that is being worked during the off season has a tendency to move farther, and become more elusive in both fair chase and kill. The result is a much more satisfying day afield and even more sense of fair chase.
As for the comment made by Dave Delaney of the Indiana Deer Hunters Association concerning maximizing hunter satisfaction and off season training interfering with in season hunting such as squirrel, dove, ducks, and other species. Mr. Delaney's comment here clearly shows a lack of understanding of when seasons are open in our state. first of all the Squirrel hunter is firmly against dog training changes. This is evident by the large number of squirrel hunters that showed up at the open houses to object to DNR proposed changes. squirrel is hunted in the woods and rabbits mostly in the fields. squirrel hunters also have hunting dogs and understand the situation. Both Dove and Ducks are already restricted in that other sportsman are not allowed in the area during these seasons. Most Duck hunting lakes are closed to fishermen even on state land during the duck season. and the fact of the matter is that except for turkey season, all other hunting seasons coincide. I have spoken with Bud Dennemann, FWCC committee representive for the Wild Turkey Federation and he assured me that Turkey Hunters have no issue with dogs.
It is the position of the vast majority of Indiana sportsman that no changes be made to the existing dog training/running rules. again I only need refer you to the results of the questioner handed out at the DNR open houses, and the mountain of negative emails all DNR personnel have gotten. There is no justification for making changes. Most fish and wildlife areas have had designated dog running areas for years and some of the best hunting during season can be found on the designated dog running areas. For Mr. Delaney to suggest that no dog trading at all be allowed shows, again, his total lack of understanding of the word "multi-use facility". All sportsmen must be allowed opportunity to work their dogs, hunt the mushrooms, hike the woods and fields. And all must do it together at the same time. The delicate nature of small game will be much more negatively effected by hunts using dogs that are ill trained during season. the 5 rabbit limit will become 7,9, or 11 without well trained dogs to retrieve lost rabbits, and quail numbers would be even higher. again, all research and practical applications fails to support DNR's position.
any organization that calls for the total disregard of the needs of the other sporting groups, such as Mr. Delaney is suggesting, obviously only has his interests in mind. fact is in a recent phone conversation with Mr. Delaney he told me that the Indiana Deer Hunters Association was going to a closed membership in the fall due to the fact that to many members makes it to hard for him to get his agenda across. He also accused DNR of not caring about the number of sportsmen in Indiana that do not want rule changes to dog training, that DNR only cares about people who support them.Mr. Delaney's only complaint to me was that rabbit hunting was in at the same time deer season is and that shouldn't be. Mr. Goss you can put as much stock as you want to in what Mr. Delaney tells you and how he supports you, but I can have hundreds of deer hunters email you and tell you they do not favor dog training rule changes.
Now to the only reasoning anyone at Indiana Department of Natural Resources has given for wanting to make changes in dog training.
one) well its got to be a problem. there are guys sitting in their trucks listening to their dogs run and not out in the field with them. Some hunts are leaving their dog at the end of season and our employees have to deal with it. and also, we don't care about people , just about the animals. If we had our way no one would be on the properties.
two) Ohio and Michigan already does it.
Mr. Goss, if there are isolated problems they should be dealt with on an individual property basis, not by restricting the hunting dog owner out of the properties. and as for Ohio and Michigan......... yes they do....... but mostly no they don't. Ohio restricts usage on state land only, but even then have over 19 extremely large dog running areas in all parts of the state. Many of the dog running areas are hundreds of acres. other properties can and do offer dog running on a permit basis, and by and large the dog running restrictions are not enforced.
Michigan restricts dog running and training also, except they have a six month small game hunting season, and allow anyone to come in and get a permit to have a running pen year round.
and, Mr. Goss, both Ohio and Michigan still allow field trials on state land. Also, Michigan has a Bass season. Ask any Michigan DNR employee and he will readily tell you there is no reason for them to have a first day of Bass season, its just tradition. Mr. Goss, the sportsmen and women of Indiana do not want copy cat rules made from other states traditions.
Please follow the wishes of the vast majority of Indiana sportsmen and woman by leaving the dog training rules alone.
Jack Hyden
Indiana Beaglers Alliance,
-
Little Dog
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:13 pm
- Location: Georgetown, IN
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
IDHA
Little dog you sure can and i hope a lot of people take it places. and here is an email i got from doug allman, the self imposed spokes person for them.Jack,
As someone who has been trying to protect and enhance hunting and the resource for almost 20 years by going to committee meetings, testifying before the legislature, etc. etc., I take exception to your position that you know the wishes of most sportsmen. I would never be so presumptuous. Most men don't even know the wishes of most women. Even if you are correct with your assumptions, sportsmen's wishes are not always in their best interest or that of the resource. When you ask to be on the FWCC I believe I questioned whether you were here to enhance the big picture or simply had an agenda. It appears the latter is true. For years I thought it would be great if the rabbit hunters were organized and could raise their voices to enhance habitat, speak out on behalf of ethics and against the anti hunters etc.. True to human nature though, the dog runners are coming together only in order to protect their turf to fulfill their selfish desires, not that of hunting or the resource that supports it. But this is not the first but one of many attempts by self serving sportsmen that think they know more than the professionals that manage the resource. At least some of these professionals were unselfish enough and smart enough to acquire and manage the lands that are now the subject of this dispute. Your group could always aquire it's own land and manage the way you see fit.
Doug Allman
and heres my response. i hope the only one offended is allman.
Doug:
you are more wrong in your suppositions on the dog running issue than you have every been in you entire life on any subject you may have had oppions on. It is you that is selfishly holding to false, baseless beliefs. At the the Administrative Rule Change Open House meetings there were sportsmen attending from all walks of outdoor sports.( Had you taken time to have been to one you might have been able to see that. ) Each and everyone of them were there to oppose a rule change that has absolutely no research or studies to back it up. Even Glen Lange, Chief of Biology for IDNR has admitted that there has been no research to support their position. I am in constact contact with dozens of sportsmans groups and its going to be interesting to hear their take on you telling them they have to be told whats best for them. I deal with them on a daily basis and i can assure you that they have a better grasp of whats going on than your little mind will ever be able to fathum. I will be at the FWCC meetings to support and defend the hunting heritage and opportunities as the beaglers, rabbit hunters, hunting dog owners and all other sportsmen and women ask me too. My decisions will not be based on the ideas of just one or two people as yours are. If you are looking to make any ground with me here you are looking in the wrong place. We are not just talking rabbit hunters and beaglers, The bird dog clubs are contacting me, as are the coon hunter, fox hunters, bass fishermen, black powder guys, and more. These people have done their homework and they know what they are talking about.
you always say you tell it like it is, and so im going to do just that right now. this will be the only non-consevationist point you will find me making.
Doug Allman, you are a loud mouthed, rude, and obnonoux individual. you have alianated yourself from every sporting group in the state. Many, and most to be exact, say this about you the minute i mention your name. they say your views wavier from week to week and that you go back and forth from one group to the other to find out who will listen to you the most. with a reputation such as you have dont even begin to think that i would consider your views valid above those of true, conservation minded sportsmen.
now back to the subject. Yes every sporting group in the state, not just the hunting dog owners, are coming together to prevent a rule change that has no basis in wildlife science. Its the brain child of a runaway reservoir property crew that have forgotten what their jobs are, who they work for, and that the areas they are taking care of are there thru the efforts of thousands of much better men and women than you will ever be. Todays sportsman and woman understands the balance between nature and the hunter and if there is a real threat to that balance they will be there to fight it as strongly as the threat you have in your mind only. Hopefully you understand where im coming from and will confine your emails to me to valid conservation topics that truely have research to back them up.
Jack Hyden
Indiana Beaglers Alliance
As someone who has been trying to protect and enhance hunting and the resource for almost 20 years by going to committee meetings, testifying before the legislature, etc. etc., I take exception to your position that you know the wishes of most sportsmen. I would never be so presumptuous. Most men don't even know the wishes of most women. Even if you are correct with your assumptions, sportsmen's wishes are not always in their best interest or that of the resource. When you ask to be on the FWCC I believe I questioned whether you were here to enhance the big picture or simply had an agenda. It appears the latter is true. For years I thought it would be great if the rabbit hunters were organized and could raise their voices to enhance habitat, speak out on behalf of ethics and against the anti hunters etc.. True to human nature though, the dog runners are coming together only in order to protect their turf to fulfill their selfish desires, not that of hunting or the resource that supports it. But this is not the first but one of many attempts by self serving sportsmen that think they know more than the professionals that manage the resource. At least some of these professionals were unselfish enough and smart enough to acquire and manage the lands that are now the subject of this dispute. Your group could always aquire it's own land and manage the way you see fit.
Doug Allman
and heres my response. i hope the only one offended is allman.
Doug:
you are more wrong in your suppositions on the dog running issue than you have every been in you entire life on any subject you may have had oppions on. It is you that is selfishly holding to false, baseless beliefs. At the the Administrative Rule Change Open House meetings there were sportsmen attending from all walks of outdoor sports.( Had you taken time to have been to one you might have been able to see that. ) Each and everyone of them were there to oppose a rule change that has absolutely no research or studies to back it up. Even Glen Lange, Chief of Biology for IDNR has admitted that there has been no research to support their position. I am in constact contact with dozens of sportsmans groups and its going to be interesting to hear their take on you telling them they have to be told whats best for them. I deal with them on a daily basis and i can assure you that they have a better grasp of whats going on than your little mind will ever be able to fathum. I will be at the FWCC meetings to support and defend the hunting heritage and opportunities as the beaglers, rabbit hunters, hunting dog owners and all other sportsmen and women ask me too. My decisions will not be based on the ideas of just one or two people as yours are. If you are looking to make any ground with me here you are looking in the wrong place. We are not just talking rabbit hunters and beaglers, The bird dog clubs are contacting me, as are the coon hunter, fox hunters, bass fishermen, black powder guys, and more. These people have done their homework and they know what they are talking about.
you always say you tell it like it is, and so im going to do just that right now. this will be the only non-consevationist point you will find me making.
Doug Allman, you are a loud mouthed, rude, and obnonoux individual. you have alianated yourself from every sporting group in the state. Many, and most to be exact, say this about you the minute i mention your name. they say your views wavier from week to week and that you go back and forth from one group to the other to find out who will listen to you the most. with a reputation such as you have dont even begin to think that i would consider your views valid above those of true, conservation minded sportsmen.
now back to the subject. Yes every sporting group in the state, not just the hunting dog owners, are coming together to prevent a rule change that has no basis in wildlife science. Its the brain child of a runaway reservoir property crew that have forgotten what their jobs are, who they work for, and that the areas they are taking care of are there thru the efforts of thousands of much better men and women than you will ever be. Todays sportsman and woman understands the balance between nature and the hunter and if there is a real threat to that balance they will be there to fight it as strongly as the threat you have in your mind only. Hopefully you understand where im coming from and will confine your emails to me to valid conservation topics that truely have research to back them up.
Jack Hyden
Indiana Beaglers Alliance
-
Little Dog
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:13 pm
- Location: Georgetown, IN
-
Deja vu.
The failure of Indiana sportsmen to work together bodes poorly for the future, as it has in the past, when field trialing was effectively banned from state wildlife management areas in 2001. Year-around dog running on public ground is fast disappearing. Many states ban or restrict free casting from April - September 1, or at least from May 1- August 1st. Like it or not, there's no quarreling with the fact that dog running during those times disturbs nesting and newborn/hatched wildlife. Deny it and you appear disingenuous and self-serving. Every experienced wildlife biologist knows this and limited peer reviewed studies have quantified the problem.
I'd encourage Hoosier beaglers to consider working with DU, NWTF, PF, QU, Audubon and IDNR to search for compromises here. Intra-hunter group ranting doesn't advance your longer range interests, although it does make for lively Internet reading.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://saova.org
The failure of Indiana sportsmen to work together bodes poorly for the future, as it has in the past, when field trialing was effectively banned from state wildlife management areas in 2001. Year-around dog running on public ground is fast disappearing. Many states ban or restrict free casting from April - September 1, or at least from May 1- August 1st. Like it or not, there's no quarreling with the fact that dog running during those times disturbs nesting and newborn/hatched wildlife. Deny it and you appear disingenuous and self-serving. Every experienced wildlife biologist knows this and limited peer reviewed studies have quantified the problem.
I'd encourage Hoosier beaglers to consider working with DU, NWTF, PF, QU, Audubon and IDNR to search for compromises here. Intra-hunter group ranting doesn't advance your longer range interests, although it does make for lively Internet reading.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://saova.org
Last edited by Bob Kane on Thu Jun 19, 2003 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Guest
THE POINT YOU AND I DISAGREE
actually bob there is arguement on that subject. go do the google search you use to tell me to do. and you find that just as many states dont restrict as do, and those that do much like Ohio have vast designated dog running areas, along with vastly longer seasons, and still offer some fieldk trialing even during the spring. couple that with the fact that many conservation officers are unwilling to enforce the rule and those states that restrict have the same 60% or larger decrease in quail populations from the 1980 survey and are still losing 3% to 6% of those birds annually leads on to the conclusion that infringing on sportsmens opportunities has no merit to it what so ever. i understand that you feel we are fighting sound game management, and i feel you are wrong there also. we are fighting to keep dog training and running opportunities open for all sportsmen in the abscense of no research whatsoever that supports a restriction. no state dnr is going to restrict or regulate larger small game and upland bird populations. they must increase the carrying capacity of the land and that is only going to be achieved thru sound habitat management, not restrictions. increasing and improving habitat and keeping it up will increase quail numbers, rabbits are plentiful. and it can all be done with changing the landscape of a tradition that has developed because of the abundance of rabbits, coon, squirrel and other small game. this is what the sportsmen and women of indiana are trying to get accross to our dnr. hopefully they will listen.
-
Guest
correction
i couldnt seem to get in and make a correction which is that one sentance should have read. it can be done without chaning the landscape. everything else is correct.
thanks
jackrabbit
thanks
jackrabbit
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
finally.....lol
im now on a computer im logged in on...lol.
there is a major differance between this dog running issue and the field trialing issue. Indiana dnr had the federal aid to conservation (PR/DJ) people in on that one. and they could lay the blame on them. this position is totally the brainchild or our reservoir property managers. there is much desent even with the IDNR itself. i only shared the delaney/ allman thing to keep everyone abreast of whats happening. most of us close to this figured that would be their position to start with. When IDNR attempted to take on the horseback folks in the parks they found the opposition was great and backed off considerably. Bob could be right, however, he may not be and so its important for us to keep up the fight and keep concentrated on it. the opposition and resistance to dnr is growing by the day as more and more indiana sportsmen learn whats going on and take up the battle. lets keep the pressure on and keep growing. compromise is for last chance efforts.
jackrabbit
there is a major differance between this dog running issue and the field trialing issue. Indiana dnr had the federal aid to conservation (PR/DJ) people in on that one. and they could lay the blame on them. this position is totally the brainchild or our reservoir property managers. there is much desent even with the IDNR itself. i only shared the delaney/ allman thing to keep everyone abreast of whats happening. most of us close to this figured that would be their position to start with. When IDNR attempted to take on the horseback folks in the parks they found the opposition was great and backed off considerably. Bob could be right, however, he may not be and so its important for us to keep up the fight and keep concentrated on it. the opposition and resistance to dnr is growing by the day as more and more indiana sportsmen learn whats going on and take up the battle. lets keep the pressure on and keep growing. compromise is for last chance efforts.
jackrabbit
-
No dog running occurs on Ohio's Pittman-Robertson funded grounds in May thru July. Likewise, Indiana bans what few dog events it permits on PR grounds during the same period. That decision met with the approval of many powerful hunting and conservation groups. The management precedent's basically already set. It's all related and very little's isolated. Unless you can prove no harm, which you can't, be prepared for public lands running restrictions. Alienating other hunter groups isn't the formula for cutting the best deal today or later, down the road. At least that's my opinion.
Posting private, insulting conversations here or elsewhere makes for rocky relations. Bird, rabbit and deer hunters fighting each other only delights the anti-hunters.
Posting private, insulting conversations here or elsewhere makes for rocky relations. Bird, rabbit and deer hunters fighting each other only delights the anti-hunters.
Last edited by Bob Kane on Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
so what your saying is
Ohio allows year round dog running on 19 differant state lands all over the state. some are extremely large.
so basically since dnr cant show a negative effect, but we can a few dozen studies that indicate that dog running makes no differance, and in fact hunting altogether makes no differance its your opinion that we should roll over and play dead. not a chance bob. we can keep our disagreements civil at the same time we point out falasies. the indiana sportsman and woman has a good chance of surviving this, but must stay focused on the facts.
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
so basically since dnr cant show a negative effect, but we can a few dozen studies that indicate that dog running makes no differance, and in fact hunting altogether makes no differance its your opinion that we should roll over and play dead. not a chance bob. we can keep our disagreements civil at the same time we point out falasies. the indiana sportsman and woman has a good chance of surviving this, but must stay focused on the facts.
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
thanks bob
Bob,
i think its good hear if i back up a bit and let you know that we truely appreciate your work. Its not that we dont, we are just at a point where winning is still a possibility. should we find that not the case, yes, we do a plan b and even c....lol.
we now have dozens of designated dog running areas, on PR/DJ state land. there has never been a problem with them. the land that our dnr is talking about is mostly Reservoir areas, large expanses of land that is large enough to build bird dog field trial areas, including horse. There is no PR/DJ monies going into them and no one uses the vast outlying wildlife areas during the off season except the hunting dog trainer. they do not want to designate dog running areas.... they have been suggested and turned down. dnr wants to close them all.....100%. The sportsmen and women of indiana find that unacceptable. We think we are working in the right direction.
thanks Bob
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
i think its good hear if i back up a bit and let you know that we truely appreciate your work. Its not that we dont, we are just at a point where winning is still a possibility. should we find that not the case, yes, we do a plan b and even c....lol.
we now have dozens of designated dog running areas, on PR/DJ state land. there has never been a problem with them. the land that our dnr is talking about is mostly Reservoir areas, large expanses of land that is large enough to build bird dog field trial areas, including horse. There is no PR/DJ monies going into them and no one uses the vast outlying wildlife areas during the off season except the hunting dog trainer. they do not want to designate dog running areas.... they have been suggested and turned down. dnr wants to close them all.....100%. The sportsmen and women of indiana find that unacceptable. We think we are working in the right direction.
thanks Bob
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
-
Don L
Dave Delaney from the Indiana Deer Hunters Association says there should be NO dog running on Public land and NO horse back riding on Public land.
Now this fellow Delaney is very much agianst the hunting dogs being ran as they have in Indiana for years and years ,and horse back riders have been riding on public land also for years.
If you want to continue using our public land for your hobbys of running/training dogs or horse back riding you better speak up and help protect our use of our public land. Because this Dave Delaney is out to stop us.
Now this fellow Delaney is very much agianst the hunting dogs being ran as they have in Indiana for years and years ,and horse back riders have been riding on public land also for years.
If you want to continue using our public land for your hobbys of running/training dogs or horse back riding you better speak up and help protect our use of our public land. Because this Dave Delaney is out to stop us.
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
delaney
Delaney seems to have as his only talent the abitlity to honk people off. He is getting beat up pretty good on the hoosierhunting board and keeps coming back with half truths and inuendos.... folks now is the time to serious contact your legislators, set up a meeting with them, contact dick mercier of the indiana sportsmans roundtable and talk with him. send me an email at j2hyden@earthlink.net and i can send you some important info.
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
jack hyden
indiana beaglers alliance
-
jackrabbit
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:10 pm
- Location: statewide, Indiana
- Contact:
new updates
as i continue to research the dog training restrictions that other states impose, i am finding more and more that there are no states that completely close it in the spring. also, We in Indiana, already have severe restrictions on where we can work our dogs on state land. We have lots of fish and game areas that restrict dog training to designated dog training areas, and those same F and G areas operate other areas that sometimes have large acreage and since they have a designated training area on the main complex, not dog training is allowed on the remote areas what so ever. we also have some state forests that allow no dog training at all, only hunting during season. other state land areas have limited duck hunting or limited deer hunting and no small game hunting at all. and then there are the areas that allow waterfowl hunting and close off most of the whole area to small game during that period, dove and put and take pheasant hunting has the same effects other areas allow no hunting or running period. total it all up and the restrictions are stagering. the out lying wildlife sections of the reservoirs are the only areas left that sporting dog folks can reasonable go unrestricted to enjoy working their dogs...... and the reservoir folks want to take that.... and it would seem they have the political activist from Virginia, Mr. Kanes blessings.
This might be a good time to thank everyone for their solid support of the alliance efforts to preserve the sporting dog training segment of our hunting heritage here in indiana. We certainly were taken back with the opposition by the Indiana Deer Hunters Association, but were happy to find that by and far most deer hunters are on our side. the Beaglers Alliance has the support of vertually every sporting group in Indiana in one manner or another. some are strong supporters, other more mildly, and yet others that could be opposed due to the nature of their interests have chosen to just not have a position, and thus not oppose us either.
again thanks everyone.
jack hyden
indiana Beaglers Alliance
This might be a good time to thank everyone for their solid support of the alliance efforts to preserve the sporting dog training segment of our hunting heritage here in indiana. We certainly were taken back with the opposition by the Indiana Deer Hunters Association, but were happy to find that by and far most deer hunters are on our side. the Beaglers Alliance has the support of vertually every sporting group in Indiana in one manner or another. some are strong supporters, other more mildly, and yet others that could be opposed due to the nature of their interests have chosen to just not have a position, and thus not oppose us either.
again thanks everyone.
jack hyden
indiana Beaglers Alliance