|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 17, 2006 11:58:43 GMT -5
Of course, you still have ample opportunities to shoot plenty of does right in your own backyard. Unless you live in a UDZ... I've put in for the Dunes State Park cull draw twice. Never pulled a tag.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 17, 2006 13:01:21 GMT -5
How was what I said in support of OBR? All I said is that if a person is willing to work a little, there are still plenty of opportunities for bucks and does. Tell me, what is the flavor of that kool-aid you're drinking ;D?
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 17, 2006 13:09:21 GMT -5
But still have ample opportunities to shoot more than 1 buck. The question begs to be asked: How many bucks are enough? Why should we go to all of the trouble of putting in for draw hunts in hoping to get lucky (then hunting unfamiliar ground that we couldn't even scout ahead of time), scrounging for over priced lease ground in UDZ ($$$$), and driving many miles (More $$$$)to get that "ample opportunity" when we have more than sufficent bucks right where we were hunting in the first place? As said in another post somewhere on here the DNR said it didn't make any difference if it had ben one buck or two. Why cut ourselves short? For the life of me, I still don't understand. You have ample hunting opportunities for deer as it stands right now. Is it that doe hunting doesn't appease your hunting appetite? Or is there less satisfaction in shooting a doe than a buck? Maybe that's where I don't get it. I get the same satisfaction harvesting a doe as I do a buck because it's about the hunt rather than the quarry. Maybe, just maybe, I might be a little more understanding if I understood the reasoning versus an argument that the state took away something and I want it back (in all actuality, it never was ours to begin with; hunting is a priviledge rather than a right). Anyways, maybe I'd be willing to understand a little more if I understood the mindset. If someone could give me a sip of that kool-aid ya'll are drinking, maybe I can catch a bit of the sugar high you experience.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 17, 2006 13:25:06 GMT -5
Why should we go to all of the trouble of putting in for draw hunts in hoping to get lucky (then hunting unfamiliar ground that we couldn't even scout ahead of time), scrounging for over priced lease ground in UDZ ($$$$), and driving many miles (More $$$$)to get that "ample opportunity" when we have more than sufficent bucks right where we were hunting in the first place? As said in another post somewhere on here the DNR said it didn't make any difference if it had ben one buck or two. Why cut ourselves short? For the life of me, I still don't understand. You have ample hunting opportunities for deer as it stands right now. Is it that doe hunting doesn't appease your hunting appetite? Or is there less satisfaction in shooting a doe than a buck? Maybe that's where I don't get it. I get the same satisfaction harvesting a doe as I do a buck because it's about the hunt rather than the quarry. Maybe, just maybe, I might be a little more understanding if I understood the reasoning versus an argument that the state took away something and I want it back (in all actuality, it never was ours to begin with; hunting is a priviledge rather than a right). Anyways, maybe I'd be willing to understand a little more if I understood the mindset. If someone could give me a sip of that kool-aid ya'll are drinking, maybe I can catch a bit of the sugar high you experience. Do you actually believe that hunting does is the same hunt as hunting mature bucks? .
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 17, 2006 13:54:08 GMT -5
I just said I get the same satisfaction in harvesting each. However, some of my best hunts have been harvesting a doe. I like the challenge of hunting on the ground from time to time. You think a doe is any easier on the ground versus a buck? They both have the same sense of smell, eyesight, hearing. Horns don't add anything to that challenge. Sure, I like harvesting mature bucks as much as the next guy. However, I don't need to harvest two to consider my season successful. I can be happy with one. And, if you do it right, that one can last a lifetime. Did you consider your season unsatisfying if you only harvested one when they allowed two? The point is that the majority against OBR is because they feel the state took away something that was never theirs to begin with. If you look at hunting as a priviledge rather than a right, you're happy either way they put the regs. In the end, things will always change. The next adminsitration can come back and do away with OBR if they so desired. It doesn't matter to me either way as long as the hunting opportunity is there.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 17, 2006 14:14:05 GMT -5
In my opinion, deer hunting is a community service not a right or a privilege. We do a service my maintaining a herd that is acceptable by the biologist, farmers, and public.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Oct 17, 2006 15:03:47 GMT -5
I just said I get the same satisfaction in harvesting each. However, some of my best hunts have been harvesting a doe. I like the challenge of hunting on the ground from time to time. You think a doe is any easier on the ground versus a buck? They both have the same sense of smell, eyesight, hearing. Horns don't add anything to that challenge. Sure, I like harvesting mature bucks as much as the next guy. However, I don't need to harvest two to consider my season successful. I can be happy with one. And, if you do it right, that one can last a lifetime. Did you consider your season unsatisfying if you only harvested one when they allowed two? The point is that the majority against OBR is because they feel the state took away something that was never theirs to begin with. If you look at hunting as a priviledge rather than a right, you're happy either way they put the regs. In the end, things will always change. The next adminsitration can come back and do away with OBR if they so desired. It doesn't matter to me either way as long as the hunting opportunity is there. Yea, what he said.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Oct 17, 2006 15:10:03 GMT -5
I've put in for all the (gun & ML) draws available for the last 3 years. Never got one. Are you filling the cards out right? All it takes is one mistake and you get thrown out, or so I've been told by the State. Do you have a hunter ed number? I know many are old enough (myself included) to not have needed to take hunter ed. I elected to take it a few years back for an out of state hunt. I remember the first time I ever put in for a State Park draw hunt, I had a question and I called the State. They specifically asked if I had a hunter ed card and to be sure to put the info on there. They specifically told me that their is preferential treatment if hunter ed info is on the card because they assume those individuals (in general) are safer, so that pool is drawn from first. Now before people cry foul, let me say that this was at least 5 years ago, and no I don't remember the person's name, and no I have no way of verifying if that was or is the truth, but yes I do know what I was told. So take that info for what it is worth. Also, I've never put in a buddy application request. I hunt alone. I get drawn every single time. Maybe I'm lucky, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 17, 2006 15:14:52 GMT -5
I just said I get the same satisfaction in harvesting each. However, some of my best hunts have been harvesting a doe. I like the challenge of hunting on the ground from time to time. You think a doe is any easier on the ground versus a buck? They both have the same sense of smell, eyesight, hearing. Horns don't add anything to that challenge. Sure, I like harvesting mature bucks as much as the next guy. However, I don't need to harvest two to consider my season successful. I can be happy with one. And, if you do it right, that one can last a lifetime. Did you consider your season unsatisfying if you only harvested one when they allowed two? The point is that the majority against OBR is because they feel the state took away something that was never theirs to begin with. If you look at hunting as a priviledge rather than a right, you're happy either way they put the regs. In the end, things will always change. The next adminsitration can come back and do away with OBR if they so desired. It doesn't matter to me either way as long as the hunting opportunity is there. Amen...Tell It like it is!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 17, 2006 15:15:24 GMT -5
I just said I get the same satisfaction in harvesting each. However, some of my best hunts have been harvesting a doe. I like the challenge of hunting on the ground from time to time. You think a doe is any easier on the ground versus a buck? They both have the same sense of smell, eyesight, hearing. Horns don't add anything to that challenge. The difference is that if you mess up a on a big doe - no big deal. Another will come along sooner rather than later. Mess up on a mature buck and bye-bye. One wont be along sooner rather than later -IF EVER. I've messed up on mature bucks and NEVER saw them again ever. No way, shape or form can anyone honestly say that hunting does is as tough as hunting a mature buck. In the last ten years of the two-buck rule I doubled up twice. I also ate my buck tags two years. That made it even, right? I did get to hunt almost EVERY day available in those years. That is NOT true under the OBR. The last 4 years it was one and done. Now, you may say whatever that you want, but it has cost ME a LOT of time hunting. . For the 967th time - I do NOT have a problem with the state making changes based on the needs and health of the herd. I do have a problem making changes based on what some other hunters want when it comes to trophy deer. I hunt the big guys and I know for a fact that they were and are still out there. There was/is no need to cut opportunities, hurt archery hunting and a subsequent loss of revenues for the IDNR. I cannot say this any more clearer than I already am - We are making un-needed sacrifices for something that already exists. I find it rather hard to believe that the Pro-OBR people cannot see that. Especially after the IDNR said there was no significant change from two bucks to one buck. Hoyt, IF this state was like Pennsylvania I could fully understand an attempt to grow better bucks, but it isn't. We have had and will continue to have great bucks taken in this state regardless of the limits. Fat chance of that happening. It will still not be a "biological issue" and will still be decided by whoever can get the most people to attend meetings, send emails and make phone calls and write letters. IOW - whichever wheel squeaks the loudest. ...another "social issue" to manage deer by....poor way of doing that.
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Oct 17, 2006 15:48:41 GMT -5
Why should we go to all of the trouble of putting in for draw hunts in hoping to get lucky (then hunting unfamiliar ground that we couldn't even scout ahead of time), scrounging for over priced lease ground in UDZ ($$$$), and driving many miles (More $$$$)to get that "ample opportunity" when we have more than sufficent bucks right where we were hunting in the first place? As said in another post somewhere on here the DNR said it didn't make any difference if it had ben one buck or two. Why cut ourselves short? For the life of me, I still don't understand. You have ample hunting opportunities for deer as it stands right now. Is it that doe hunting doesn't appease your hunting appetite? Or is there less satisfaction in shooting a doe than a buck? Maybe that's where I don't get it. [glow=red,2,300] I get the same satisfaction harvesting a doe as I do a buck because it's about the hunt rather than the quarry.[/glow] Maybe, just maybe, I might be a little more understanding if I understood the reasoning versus an argument that the state took away something and I want it back (in all actuality, it never was ours to begin with; hunting is a priviledge rather than a right). Anyways, maybe I'd be willing to understand a little more if I understood the mindset. If someone could give me a sip of that kool-aid ya'll are drinking, maybe I can catch a bit of the sugar high you experience. Get real dude. Have you ever killed a buck? If you get the same satisfaction killing does then why kill any bucks ? "Its the quarry".......LOL........LOL............
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 17, 2006 15:53:54 GMT -5
I have a question for the hunters who appose the OBR .... do you consider yourselves trophy hunters or another type?
This questions is not meant to stir anything and I dont want anyone to read any more into it that the actual question.
I support the OBR and consider myself a trophy hunter. I will not take a buck with a bow smaller than 140 gross (or a close on the hoof guesstimate).
I had gone 5 years without harvesting a buck, gun or bow, until last year.
I guess the OBR never bothered me because I have not run into the problem of killing a buck early in the season and then having to sit out the rest of the time (for a buck anyway).
One reason I ask this ... my partner fully supports the OBR ... AND he killed a very nice buck opening evening this year. It is KILLING him not to be able to hunt anymore (again, for a buck).
So, just curious .... are you just apposed to the OBR so you can have the opportunity to possibly kill more than one 1.5 year old basket rack or are you concerned that you can only kill one mature buck each year.
If you had 2 tags .... or 3 ... would you shoot 2 or 3 immature bucks if given the opportunity?
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 17, 2006 16:05:43 GMT -5
I have a question for the hunters who appose the OBR .... do you consider yourselves trophy hunters or another type? I consider myself as a deer hunter that likes a big challenge. I hunt for a mature specimen - male or female. Good for you. Not everyone hunts your way or sets their sights that high . With a 140 or better goal that does not surprise me. What we want to hunt and shoot is a personal goal, or should be. I feel for your partner as I have done that too. Is he against the OBR now? No offense, but the anti-OBR hunters have beat on that "all you want to do is kill two 1.5 year old basket racks" rhetoric and that gets real old real quick. There are some of us that love to hunt just gnarly old bucks and will be satisfied with nothing less. The number of hunters that wont kill one, much less two, 1 1/2 year old bucks grows each and every year. A growing percentage of us hunters just want to hunt and hate to hang it up like your friend just did. Especially when there is no good reason not to.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 17, 2006 16:12:04 GMT -5
That is why I said "I dont want anyone to read any more into it than the actual question"
I could care less if you want to shoot does, fawns, basket racks or wildebeasts ..... that is not why I asked.
Now .... can you answer the question as it is presented?
And BTW ... he still supports the OBR as do I. He hates the situation he is in right now though.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 17, 2006 16:13:43 GMT -5
Woody, I never said that there weren't different obstacles to hunting bucks versus does. I simply said that I get the same satisfaction out of harvesting a doe as I do a buck because the reason I hunt is personal for me. I'm sure we all have our reasons and if a person doesn't get any satisfaction from a doe, well, I'm sure they have a reason for that. If you don't get the same satisfaction, that's you not me and I'm not trying to force what I get out of hunting onto you. Would never want to and would never try to. If the OBR has cost you time hunting, then I would guess it's because you don't like to hunt does. But then, it kind of goes against the need to reduce the herd, doesn't it? I'm not sure if I'm reading you right on that or not and I don't want to misconstrue what you're trying to say but if you say one and done, then I assume you aren't hunting for does and then my guess would be that while you say you're concerned about the deer overpopulation, you really aren't doing anything but shooting bucks which any wildlife biologist worth his salt will tell you is a horrible way to manage the herd. Realize that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...only reacting to the words that you wrote....one and done. So, are you really into doing what's best for the deer herd or what's best for you? If it's one and done, I would guess that it's whats best fo you (and I don't mean you personally; talking about all those who will now stop at one buck). See, I believe that we have an obligation to do what's best for the deer herd. The state biologists (the ones that say OBR hasn't done anything for the herd) will also tell you it's important to harvest does and we need to do it.
Got news for you Woody. This decision by the IDNR was made the same way other decisions have been made....by those who squeak the loudest. That never changes. It's unfortunate, but this is not the first time the IDNR has made decisions that way and it will always be that way as long as politicians have a say in who is running the organization. I'd like to see that changed. I'd like to see the Idnr appointed by a consortium of groups who all have a vested interest in the wildlife. Rather than being changed over based on who's in office, keep them around despite who's in office. I know it will never work that way but right now, we're left to whatever whim whoever has power has. While I have my thoughts on politics, I surely wouldn't care if the person running the IDNR was a democrat or republican as long as what they did made biological sense. Surely, if the squeakiest wheel didn't usually get what they wanted, do you think their would be a 12 year term on high-fenced hunting? No, if the majority got what they wanted, they'd be shut down by now. And I predict that the 12 year term will actually last longer than that. But, unfortunately, we're left with a world with politics and it's been going on long before the OBR decision. I guess that's why it doesn't bother me so much. It's not as if the common man hasn't ever been screwed by politics before.
Like I said before, I kinda wish they would go back to a 2 buck rule. It would stop all this ridiculous moaning and let us concentrate on really important stuff. My only concern is that we become so divided as a group that we never learn to stand as one on an issue that really needs us to.
Quick question here as I've only been in Indiana during the OBR: Who was the person that ultimately decided that OBR was going to be the law of the land? That wasn't Kyle Hupfer was it? Did the person who made the decision ever question his biological staff before making the decision? Of course, realize that Indiana doesn't have the greatest history of putting the best person in the top position of IDNR. For whatever reason, I don't know why it isn't mandatory that the person in charge have a wildlife education background or something similar. We're pretty tight on putting people with financial backgrounds into financial positions. Being a hunter doesn't make you an expert on wildlife any more than going into McDonald's makes you a Big Mac. This is all kinda asinine if you ask me and my head is starting to spin because of it.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 17, 2006 16:14:07 GMT -5
What poignant words!! The DNR has said there was NO significant differences from two bucks to one and the pro OBR side is still hanging on saying that the OBR is the best thing since sliced bread and night baseball. What gives? The DNR data is against you and you still want to take away a buck tag? ? If the DNR had said that the OBR DID make a difference the anti side would shut up and say "OK, that is what is best for the herd.". It makes no sense to me at all.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 17, 2006 16:15:45 GMT -5
AND ... I have never and will never be a "why did you shoot that little buck for ...." kind of guy. I choose to hunt my way and I let everyone else choose to hunt their way. I hunted for many years and killed the first decent (and sometimes not so decent) buck that came along. I made a personal choice to hunt a different way now.
I do what I personally feel is best for our deer herd. I take a few does each and every year, let all immature bucks walk and try to take a mature buck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2006 16:17:25 GMT -5
I am still on the fence about the one buck rule. I am not necessarilly against it, but I have yet to see any definitive proof that it has had any effect (positive or negative) on the herd.
The only problem I have with it personally is trying to figure out the stated objective. If it is to benefit the overall health of the herd and it works, then I am all for it. If it is to pander to people who think it will produce bigger antlers, then I am against it because I can't see the logic in it. If you want to accomplish that goal, then you would have to set limits on antler size for harvested bucks. I still see the same amount of harvest photos of spikes and basket racks as I ever did before and I still see a lot of impressive mature bucks. What possible effect does limiting people to one buck have on potential antler size?
I have never personally harvested more than one buck in a season, but I did have my buck hunting season cut short in 2003 as I harvested my best bow buck on Oct. 3. That kind of took the wind out of my sails for the rest of that season. Other than that the OBR has had zero effect on me personally.
I have harvested exactly the same amount of does as bucks in my hunting career. I prefer to take a doe first and that lets the excitement build as I anticipate a buck. But if a big buck gives me a shot early, I will take him and live with it.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 17, 2006 16:18:37 GMT -5
For the life of me, I still don't understand. You have ample hunting opportunities for deer as it stands right now. Is it that doe hunting doesn't appease your hunting appetite? Or is there less satisfaction in shooting a doe than a buck? Maybe that's where I don't get it. [glow=red,2,300] I get the same satisfaction harvesting a doe as I do a buck because it's about the hunt rather than the quarry.[/glow] Maybe, just maybe, I might be a little more understanding if I understood the reasoning versus an argument that the state took away something and I want it back (in all actuality, it never was ours to begin with; hunting is a priviledge rather than a right). Anyways, maybe I'd be willing to understand a little more if I understood the mindset. If someone could give me a sip of that kool-aid ya'll are drinking, maybe I can catch a bit of the sugar high you experience. Get real dude. Have you ever killed a buck? If you get the same satisfaction killing does then why kill any bucks ? "Its the quarry".......LOL........LOL............ I would guess that I have shot more and bigger bucks than you would possibly imagine and if I could learn how to post a picture on here, I'll be glad to post the last deer that I shot when I get him back from the taxidermist. Guess I just have more respect for the wildlife than you. Nothing to be ashamed of though. We all have different degrees of respect. I do think however the likes of Fred Bear among others would probably be quicker to join my side and if I'm looking for someone I'd rather have the respect of, I'd guess you know where I'll be leaning.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 17, 2006 16:19:24 GMT -5
But still have ample opportunities to shoot more than 1 buck. The question begs to be asked: How many bucks are enough? No need to beg at all-the answer of course, is the one additional buck that was yanked away from us.
|
|