|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 11:57:07 GMT -5
This has gotten way off course and way too personal. I feel partly to blame and if so, sorry. We need to lighten up a little, myself included. This "mine's bigger then your's" thing is out of control. You're not talking about Racks are you...? ;D Interpret it how ever you want and I'll leave it at that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Dec 5, 2006 12:20:55 GMT -5
Ridgerunner, somewhere we miss communicated. I am very Pro-OBR. mbogo, sorry, you don't like me. I won't loose sleep over it, trust me. Oh, and I've never claimed to be better then anyone else. I'm just a regular Joe, just like everyone else. But label me, that is fine, I can learn to live with it. Semisneek, just because I pass up P&Y deer on a regular basis does not in any way define what class of a deer a guy could shoot. I have never ever ever belittled a guy for shooting what I might consider a small buck. Contrary, the harvest of any buck or deer for that matter is a very personal thing. I've always said that anyone should be proud of what they shoot, whether it is a spike, a forkie, a basket rack, or a booner. The only thing I've ever said is that if a guy is going to shoot a "small" deer, then never let me hear him whine about never seeing a big deer. That I have always said. You can go back and check every post I've made in almost 2 years here or any other site I belong to. What I do contend and this is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own, is ... there is no need for 2 bucks per year. That is my opinion, sorry if that opinion pizzes anyone off. [glow=red,2,300]Just so happens that by the surveys, other websites, and even the majority of guys I know in my local community, that I'm in the majority with that opinion. [/glow] Dec, My only problem with your opinion is the people you mentioned arent biologists. Just because Fred down the road said its working dont cut it for me. I will honor the Dnrs biologists opinion more then my neighbors, buddies or talk forums. This obr has turned into a placebo for the dnr . Your gonna realize in five years you been taking sugar pills. Meanwhile nothing has changed. The dnr needs to take the pacifier out of peoples mouths and make a progressive change or put the system back how it was. BTW I never said you belittled people for the deer they shoot. And I will never be whizzed off in a debate or in an exchange of opinions no matter how skewed the other persons is.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 12:52:26 GMT -5
I agree that a biologist knows more on paper about the deer herd and health then I do. But I also know what I see with my own two eyes for a three month hunting period and through scouting through the rest of the year.
OBR or TBR. Tell me this. Give me one good reason to go back to two bucks. Don't give me some lame "it was that way before and it was fine thing" Don't give me some lame "they were here before OBR" thing. Don't give me some lame graphs about harvest age data. Don't give me some lame "forcing a policy on me" argument. IDNR forces policies on us in every way shape and form of hunting regulation, many of which have to do with special interest groups.
I know exactly what the main reason for TBR is, but NO ONE has ever ponied up to it. It is, and there is NO other reason, that TBR lets you SHOOT two bucks. Notice I said SHOOT, not "hunt". I've heard the argument time in and time out that OBR doesn't let you hunt a second buck. B.S. Hunting and shooting are two entirely different things. I continue to hunt big bucks even after I've tagged one under OBR. I simply do not to SHOOT them. Tracking them down and checking them out for next year is good enough for me. I've taken buddy's hunting in an effort to put them on that big buck. Don't tell me you can't "hunt" a second buck. You simply can't SHOOT a second buck. But I've heard it time and time again from a few of the anti-OBR guys here that it is not about "shooting" a second buck, it is about "hunting" a second buck.
I'm waiting for that reason, just as I was back in July when I first asked this question and as of yet no one has given a reason, or ponied up to the fact that it is all about being able to SHOOT a second buck.
I've seen a couple examples on here and other forums on how to SHOOT a second buck (legally of course) in Indiana. It can be done if you want to badly enough.
The DNR establishes bag limits, season dates, and other rules at least partially based on special interest groups all the time, some people need to get over it. What happens when the next item goes through that does not fit your personal agenda? Season restructures, X-bows in early season, cowboy guns, license fees, bag limits on small game or birds, etc. Every one of us knows that we can't have everything in life the way we want it. Get over it already.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 13:14:01 GMT -5
In that previous post, I was not bashing on wanting to shoot two bucks, so please don't take offense to it. I was simply stating that under TBR, the ultimate goal is to SHOOT two bucks ... is it not?
Not bashing anyone, just a legitimate question.
Personally, I'd love to shoot two turkeys in the spring, so I know what it is like to want to shoot more than allowed. But I willingly accept the OTR. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 5, 2006 13:31:18 GMT -5
I'd like to shoot two bucks, heck, I'd shoot four if they would let me! My choice, yours may differ, but it doesn't make mine wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 13:35:24 GMT -5
I appreciate the honesty Decatur. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Dec 5, 2006 13:40:52 GMT -5
I'd like to shoot two bucks, heck, I'd shoot four if they would let me! My choice, yours may differ, but it doesn't make mine wrong. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Dec 5, 2006 14:28:11 GMT -5
I agree that a biologist knows more on paper about the deer herd and health then I do. But I also know what I see with my own two eyes for a three month hunting period and through scouting through the rest of the year. OBR or TBR. Tell me this. Give me one good reason to go back to two bucks. Don't give me some lame "it was that way before and it was fine thing" Don't give me some lame "they were here before OBR" thing. Don't give me some lame graphs about harvest age data. Don't give me some lame "forcing a policy on me" argument. IDNR forces policies on us in every way shape and form of hunting regulation, many of which have to do with special interest groups. I know exactly what the main reason for TBR is, but NO ONE has ever ponied up to it. It is, and there is NO other reason, that TBR lets you SHOOT two bucks. Notice I said SHOOT, not "hunt". I've heard the argument time in and time out that OBR doesn't let you hunt a second buck. B.S. Hunting and shooting are two entirely different things. I continue to hunt big bucks even after I've tagged one under OBR. I simply do not to SHOOT them. Tracking them down and checking them out for next year is good enough for me. I've taken buddy's hunting in an effort to put them on that big buck. Don't tell me you can't "hunt" a second buck. You simply can't SHOOT a second buck. But I've heard it time and time again from a few of the anti-OBR guys here that it is not about "shooting" a second buck, it is about "hunting" a second buck. I'm waiting for that reason, just as I was back in July when I first asked this question and as of yet no one has given a reason, or ponied up to the fact that it is all about being able to SHOOT a second buck. I've seen a couple examples on here and other forums on how to SHOOT a second buck (legally of course) in Indiana. It can be done if you want to badly enough. The DNR establishes bag limits, season dates, and other rules at least partially based on special interest groups all the time, some people need to get over it. What happens when the next item goes through that does not fit your personal agenda? Season restructures, X-bows in early season, cowboy guns, license fees, bag limits on small game or birds, etc. Every one of us knows that we can't have everything in life the way we want it. Get over it already. It sounds like whatever anybody tells you it will be lame. The dnr is state wide. Not just your backyard. READ MY POSTS. I never said go back to the tbr. I said get rid of the obr. As long as the non functioning obr is in place we are stuck going nowhere. I would rather have the tbr rule where at least someone is getting something out of it then the charity buck program we have now. This is what our debate sounds like............. The obr isnt working. Yes it is. Heres the proof its not. Yeah but I think it is. The dnr biologists said it isnt. Me and my friends think it is... etc. etc. Just acknowledge one time what the dnr said about the obr.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 5, 2006 14:45:13 GMT -5
NASA says the parts suppliers for all aerospace projects are top notch vendors.
Department of Homeland Security says keeping pocket combs off commercial flights increase passenger safety.
The Indiana DNR Biologist said the OBR isnt working.
Yep ..... must be true. Someone with a title said it.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Dec 5, 2006 14:49:10 GMT -5
Here is what most anti OBR hunters are saying I think.
The OBR has not done what it was supposed to do. It has taken away opportunities to kill another buck. I think there is the majority of anti OBR people that would support some kind of rule that would do what the OBR was supposed to do. The debate is not whether we want bigger and better deer it is what can we do to get them without taking away hunting opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 14:51:03 GMT -5
Just acknowledge one time what the dnr said about the obr. Oh, I do acknowledge what they said. They said essentially, that they don't believe it is producing the higher number of mature bucks as the original goal intended. I don't argue that they said that. BUT they also did say that OBR is clearly what the majority want. Deer get big for two reasons. 1) people pass them up and 2) with age they get SMART and hard to hunt. I've seen all the harvest data on the age structures and yes, there are still a large number of 1.5 year old bucks being killed. But I would argue that there are more 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, and older bucks still on the hoof that may never get a hunter's bullet then prior to OBR. They have been passed up by personal restraint, or by force (i.e. OBR), they've been educated by hunters and they are out there and they are HARD to hunt. I personally know of one monster 10 pointer located on ground that sees so much pressure it might as well be public land here in Steuben Co. and as of last Sunday afternoon, he was still alive. He's smart and old and probably won't get shot. Neither the DNR, myself, or you can accurately count how many bucks like that that there are. All I can tell you is that "in my back yard" the past 5 years have shown me what I never saw in the previous 15. Way more bucks (of all sizes) then ever before. And way more P&Y class bucks. Now is OBR the cause? Not entirely, but it has been a tool in management for me and the guys around me. The DNR can not argue that. I spend A LOT of time in the field in hunting nearly every critter Indiana has and scouting. My eyes don't lie. I'm not the guy that pushed OBR through for 2001. In fact, I wasn't entirely sold on it when it first became law. But what I've seen through my eyes in the past 5 years has me convinced in what OBR and sound management can produce. Now in 2006, you bet OBR gets my vote in the future. It was a small special interest group in 2001 that wanted OBR. In 2006, it appears to be a clear majority that want OBR.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Dec 5, 2006 14:57:21 GMT -5
It is not clear what the majority want because the questions were vague. I bet if they sent out the survey to the same people and asked them if they would support a two buck any weapon rule it would have a much higher support than the OBR. The majority said the would support going back to the old rule. They only surveyed one season hunters that the OBR has no effect on. Make a valid survey to a valid population and then show me the results.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 5, 2006 15:02:18 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a valid survey. You can make any survey say anything you want.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 5, 2006 15:05:02 GMT -5
This debate is exhausting. I'm out of here to go goose hunting under a darn DNR imposed 2 goose limit. Ugggg how dare they?!?!?!
See ya'll tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Dec 5, 2006 15:43:53 GMT -5
AAHHH. Back to the majority. If the majority wants it it must be right. Right ? How do you think the responses of the surveys would have been if the dnr told people before hand that the results of the obr trial proved the obr made no difference ? Logical people might say " If its not making a difference then why do it ". Not yahoo its not working lets do it five more years .
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Dec 5, 2006 15:52:08 GMT -5
Umm isn't the two goose thing a federal limit which was brought about to appease a bunch of anti's that were yelling about the goose population being depleted? Or was it implimented because the geese were eating up all of the mossy stuff in their canadian spawning grounds and starving themselves to death?
Could there be more older deer because there is actually a much smaller percentage of hunter to deer now than there was 10, 15, 20 years ago? Which should actually mean that more deer escape harvest and not really have beans to do with obr? How about the fact that there is more and more posted un huntable land out there? Could this cause deer to grow older and more mature? Doubt it, they only get older because of the obr.
Personally I am not a proponant of obr or antler hunting. Yes if there were two bucks of equal size 200+lbs I would probably shoot the one with the bigger rack but only because like all I do have an ego and would like to say I got this nice big racked deer. Enter it into a book? No way.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 5, 2006 19:03:46 GMT -5
The DNR say this, The dnr says that....who's the DNR, Mitchell? One Guy....For every Mitchell there's five more biologist who disagree with his opinion...
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 5, 2006 20:20:24 GMT -5
The DNR say this, The dnr says that....who's the DNR, Mitchell? One Guy....For every Mitchell there's five more biologist who disagree with his opinion... Yes there is...
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 6, 2006 7:31:41 GMT -5
Honest question. Why have we never heard of these "other" biologists before? What is their take on it?
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 6, 2006 7:34:11 GMT -5
I'd like to shoot two bucks, heck, I'd shoot four if they would let me! My choice, yours may differ, but it doesn't make mine wrong. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!! Actually that's not much of a threat, seeing as how I haven't taken 1 buck yet this year, let alone 2!
|
|