|
Post by hoosier on Aug 28, 2005 22:17:16 GMT -5
Well, what do you guys think. Will the DNR keep this regulation at the end of the 5-year trial or not? Also, do you think the bucks have gotten any bigger in your area the last three years?
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 29, 2005 4:50:07 GMT -5
Yes , I think it has enough support from the public and possibly IDNR . I'd rather see it transition to an earn-a-buck program for a second buck personally .
No , I've seen little more than an increased number of does , and the bucks I've seen didn't look any older . They might be older on close inspection , but around here that would be doubtful since they rarely get past their second year here .
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 29, 2005 6:23:48 GMT -5
It's still too close to call.
It is very difficult to say that the obr is working in my area. Most of the 3.5 y.o. or less bucks are still killed during firearms season while nearly all of the truly mature bucks survive until they die of old age. The only difference I have really seen is that over the course of conversations with some obr supporters 2.5 y.o. basket rack 8 pointers have suddenly turned into fully mature bucks.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Aug 29, 2005 8:12:09 GMT -5
Wildlife politics being what they are, OBR will probably stay in effect for quite a while. The Indiana DNR will go over all of their harvest data with a fine-toothed comb before making any changes at the end of the 5 year period. Actually, last year I observed more does & fewer big racked bucks in the areas that I hunt.
|
|
|
Post by squirrelhunter on Aug 29, 2005 11:29:49 GMT -5
I don't think it will stay in affect,and I don't think they are any bigger.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 29, 2005 14:37:14 GMT -5
I dont think its going to stay. DNR needs revenue and buck tags = $ .
i hunt in a high pressure area and i cant say that ive seen bigger bucks. what i dont shoot gets shot as soon as it jumps the fence. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by budfields on Aug 29, 2005 15:29:24 GMT -5
Good Question..
Personally, I have NOT noticed any increase in the total deer OR total numbers of bucks in ANY of the areas I hunt throughout Indiana.
I believe the DNR will ABOLISH the "One Buck Rule" because they contend they are losing money NOW and from the numbers of dissatisfied hunters that state they will start hunting outside of Indiana where there are MORE and better opportunities for larger deer and this will certainly decrease the numbers of license being sold. MORE LOSS OF REVENUE..
If they continue to raise the price of license fees and allow only one buck, the majority of the hunters I hear from are of the opinion it will increase the tempation for poaching more deer especially from the hunters that are trying to live on "fixed" incomes.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Aug 29, 2005 21:30:12 GMT -5
One man's opinion here. I hope OBR is here to stay.
Personally I have seen more bucks overall and more 120-140 bucks than I've ever seen before. I've also seen some true 150's in the past two years (missed one with my bow two years ago, only to have him shot in gun season on a neighboring property). I've never seen the number of bucks in general and bigger bucks, like I've seen the past two years. Simply amazing numbers of bucks. Last year I actually struggled to get on a doe. I passed up over 20 opportunities (30 yards or less) at DIFFERENT bucks from October 1 to gun season alone. Over 30 opportunities if you count repeat encounters with bucks.
OBR? I don't know and I don't care. All I know is I'm seeing way more bucks since OBR.
|
|
|
Post by cday on Aug 30, 2005 2:32:15 GMT -5
Myself I like the one buck rule better than antler restrictions like we have here in Arkansas. Yes in the region I hunt in Indiana I believe it has helped with bigger bucks. We see more bucks over the 140 class now. But several of the hunters do not take as many does as they first were taking before the big increase in license cost. Plus since alot of hunters in the region got spoiled seeing deer everytime they went out they feel now that the deer herd has been greatly reduced.
But either way if Indiana went back to what it was before one buck with archery equipment and one with firearms I don't really see a major increase in the overall total buck harvest than what you see with the OBR.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 30, 2005 14:32:23 GMT -5
What if the IDNR restructured hunting regs solely on revenue. Do you think an extra buck tag to archery hunters will make that much of a difference?
IF revinue is the major factor for changing whitetail hunting rules, big antlers are key. Not more resident tags. Before anyone jumps down my throat for saying such things, I will say I would hate to see more restrictions placed on our hunting too. Big antlers will pull in people for other areas that would hunt somewhere else. If revinue is the sole reason then a major trophy management should be put into effect. Luckily revinue is not the only or the major reason for deer hunting regulations.
|
|
|
Post by oneshot on Aug 30, 2005 15:48:43 GMT -5
IMO I hope it stays. My taxidermist reports more and bigger bucks being checked in since the OBR went in effect. Either way it won't affect my hunting. Does are for killin' and I do my fair share. I now have a personal goal of 150 a class buck. So far my best is in the mid 140's. But to each his own. If its legal I won't slam someone for shooting a scrub buck. But not me. I'll take a big mature doe anyday. Just MHO.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 30, 2005 18:00:13 GMT -5
I think OBR is here to stay for awhile. I like it, and feel it is doing some good producing a few more good quality bucks.
Like Duff said, if revenue is what we are after, management for big antlers is what will bring the dollars in. I'm all for that thinking, and bet you'll see some gradual changes along those lines, over time.
|
|
|
Post by bbarth on Aug 30, 2005 19:50:47 GMT -5
Another supporter for the OBR here! I also feel like i'm seeing more, and better looking bucks around. Proof is in the pudding so to say, go check out the check stations opening morning, don't know if this goes for everyone, but definetely seeing better quality deer checked in. Why wouldn't you want better bucks in this state? If your in it for the meat, shoot does. That will help the herd more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by nuduck on Aug 31, 2005 0:15:00 GMT -5
no, it will not stay. no, it is not helping in my area. but it really won't matter only a few will be able afford to drive to the hunting woods anyhow
|
|
|
Post by psychobubba on Aug 31, 2005 8:35:04 GMT -5
i think it has not helped here there are to many people hunting they rarely make it to the woods i hear this alot around here and it sucks (if its brown its down they just want to kill some thing )SAD I know have alot of Amish around where i hunt is like w.w.III round here come gun .
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 31, 2005 11:39:15 GMT -5
Once upon a time in the old forum we had a discussion about strategies that would be more effective than the obr but maintain or increase hunting oppurtunity. If I remember correctly jkd mentioned some research that indicated the lengthening of seasons made hunters more likely to be selective in their harvest. I think a plan like this that increases hunting oppurtunity, potentially increases doe harvest, and is still more effective at allowing bucks to matue makes more sense than staying with the obr.
|
|
|
Post by jajwrigh on Aug 31, 2005 14:08:23 GMT -5
mbogo-
Very well said...I agree!
|
|
|
Post by reynoldss on Aug 31, 2005 21:04:04 GMT -5
I should probably think through things a little longer before posting them on this site. Oh well, here it goes!!! Several members have stated the state will make management decisions based on the all mighty dollar. There is also a lot of hype about the need for Hoosiers to harverst more does. Will the state really accomplish this goal by raising the cost of all deer tags to $24 dollar? I know several hunters that generally shoot as many does as possible that can not afford $80 plus dollars to buy bonus tags per year. These license increases are hurting the guy/gal that is the meat hunter. I am getting tired of the State saying one thing and then doing another. I like the one buck limit, but do not think it is the pressing issue. I have no problem with a buck tag being $24 dollars or more, but if you want does controlled then give meat hunters a break on the cost of the tag. Again, I believe the direction the state should be moving is to increase the number of hunters, and raising the cost of tags is not the way to do this. I guess I also have a hard time with Illinois charging Hoosiers and arm and a leg to hunt in their state and we do not reciprocate. I recently read an article that claimed Indiana hunters will be paying approximately $400 dollars or more to hunt deer in Illinois in two years. It is $300 + now. What do we charge them to hunt in our state? Anyway, one buck or two...... I'm not sure that is as large of an issue as the increase in license cost, crossbows being equal to archery, an early youth muzzleloader season, all of which serve to positively promote hunting in this great state and increase the number of hunters enjoying their hunts.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 31, 2005 21:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Sept 1, 2005 14:05:16 GMT -5
Mbogo,
I'd have to dig out the wildlife management book I saw that in to get the specific citation, but I think it was out of Wisconsin study that surveyed harvest figures for several states and correlated their age structure of the kill against length of season.
States with seasons <= 2 weeks had more of the harvest distributed to younger animals than states with longer seasons. Their logic was that if hunters had a short time frame to hunt, their tendency was to take the first animal they saw, whereas longer seasons allowed hunters to be more selective.
They also found that longer seasons didn't translate to significantly higher harvest numbers, as it was the bag limit and number of available hunters in the field that determined total harvest.
I'll get the book out this weekend and post the details on the study...
KD
|
|