|
|
Post by whitetaildave24 on Jul 30, 2008 10:00:59 GMT -5
Voted "strongly oppose" to anyone killing a buck with a firearm that early when they are still on early season patterns. We need to encourage our children to value the hunting experience and management and not be out there just for antlers. So a good way to hook them is to get them out in the woods and if it were to happen, let them watch buck after buck walk by and them not be able to shoot any of them. I think that would be pretty discouraging to a brand new hunter. Let them shoot whatever pleases them in order to keep them interested in the sport of hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jul 30, 2008 10:07:48 GMT -5
I respect your opinion but your logic is weak. Voted "strongly oppose" to anyone killing a buck with a firearm that early when they are still on early season patterns. But I suppose you support hunting bucks with firearms during the rut when their only focus is on chasing does and are more vulnerable to being hunted than any other time of the year? We need to encourage our children to value the hunting experience and management and not be out there just for antlers You present a false dilemna here. It is possible to harvest a buck and NOT "be out there just for antlers." Thanks for your opinion regarding my logic. I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but it seems to be a quandry for the "hunter opportunity" proponents. On one hand, this group shouts about "antler worshippers" and the "deer porn" on tv, but then wants to take away a golden opportunity to teach kids the value of the hunting experience and herd management by spoiling them with an opportunity at antlered deer with firearms before anyone else. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Jul 30, 2008 10:13:22 GMT -5
Yup. Voted "strongly oppose" to anyone killing a buck with a firearm that early when they are still on early season patterns. We need to encourage our children to value the hunting experience and management and not be out there just for antlers. So a good way to hook them is to get them out in the woods and if it were to happen, let them watch buck after buck walk by and them not be able to shoot any of them. I think that would be pretty discouraging to a brand new hunter. Let them shoot whatever pleases them in order to keep them interested in the sport of hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jul 30, 2008 10:28:52 GMT -5
I lodged a formal complaint about the unclear and statistically useless wording of the Gun & Bow questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Jul 30, 2008 10:52:34 GMT -5
Ok....I voted support....not strongly support but support. It is hilarious to read some of these posts. All arguments are weak. I want to see kids get interested. Does that mean that they have to harvest a buck to do so? No! Guns that early is not something that I want to see in the first place, let alone shooting at a buck that might be able to be harvested in the archery season. To argue that it is discouraging for a youth to watch buck after buck walk by is bunk. I could argue to get rid of the youth season then and then let them have the same OPPORTUNITIES that you and I have. I like the idea of letting the youth take 2 does during that season so as to thin the doe herd a little bit. If you are seeing buck after buck passing by with no opportunity to shoot a doe then the OBR must be working.  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 30, 2008 13:27:08 GMT -5
Voted "strongly oppose" to anyone killing a buck with a firearm that early when they are still on early season patterns. We need to encourage our children to value the hunting experience and management and not be out there just for antlers. This is not about hunting bucks aka antlers only. The proposition is for the youth to take EITHER SEX.If the youth's mentor wants to "encourage our children to value........... management" then they can impose their own antlerless restriction on the youth. This propostion gives the youth the leeway to take either sex. It does not mean that he/she HAS to take an antlered deer. That same adult that says "don't shoot that big buck" can very well do that themselves a few days later. Is that right? My guess is that most will take the first deer that presents a shot opportunity Are you saying we cant "encourage our children to value the hunting experience" unless they can only kill antlerless deer? You know as well as I do that the hunting experience doesn't come from shooting one or the other sex. Let them kill whatever we can a few days after the youth weekend.. That seems only fair to me. |
|
|
|
Post by whitetaildave24 on Jul 30, 2008 15:30:03 GMT -5
To argue that it is discouraging for a youth to watch buck after buck walk by is bunk. I could argue to get rid of the youth season then and then let them have the same OPPORTUNITIES that you and I have. If you are seeing buck after buck passing by with no opportunity to shoot a doe then the OBR must be working. I didn't say that this is what is happening, but if it did I think the youth should be able to pull the trigger and take the deer of their choice. Getting rid of the youth season wouldn't be beneficial for the hunter recruitment at all. A lot of the youths do not get ALL of the same opportunites you and I have, because they simply cannot pull back a compound bow to be able to hunt in the early archery season(but that is being discussed in another thread). Therefore they would have to wait until gun season to try to take a deer again. |
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Jul 30, 2008 18:37:39 GMT -5
I agree with Woody, it is only fair to let the youth shoot a buck or doe. I predict that the regulations are going to be changed to allow this next year or the year after. Voted "strongly oppose" to anyone killing a buck with a firearm that early when they are still on early season patterns. We need to encourage our children to value the hunting experience and management and not be out there just for antlers. This is not about hunting bucks aka antlers only. The proposition is for the youth to take EITHER SEX.If the youth's mentor wants to "encourage our children to value........... management" then they can impose their own antlerless restriction on the youth. This propostion gives the youth the leeway to take either sex. It does not mean that he/she HAS to take an antlered deer. That same adult that says "don't shoot that big buck" can very well do that themselves a few days later. Is that right? My guess is that most will take the first deer that presents a shot opportunity Are you saying we cant "encourage our children to value the hunting experience" unless they can only kill antlerless deer? You know as well as I do that the hunting experience doesn't come from shooting one or the other sex. Let them kill whatever we can a few days after the youth weekend.. That seems only fair to me. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jul 30, 2008 20:32:53 GMT -5
I think it is only fair that the opportunity was added for youth hunters to hunt with a firearm in early season. In one breath some are arguing that some hunters are stingy with regs for a proper buck age structure such as the obr and wanting more such as shorter firearms season. But, what it this? We want more opportunity added for youth hunters. Almost like hiding under the youth season guise to see another reg passed for more "hunter opportunity". I would reckon they can get out in the field later with that initial hunting experience to hunt in the regular season that provides 32 days of firearms starting in the middle of the rut. Plenty of opportunity for antlers then. I understand the reasoning but don't really agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmo on Jul 30, 2008 21:56:35 GMT -5
I voted agree to either sex shooting. My son opted to skip the youth season the first year that it was offered because he could only shoot does. Not that he is an antler only hunter, but if we were going to be in our hunting spot and hunting he didn't want to have to pass on a buck if one presented itself. He has killed 2 does a year every year for the last 3 years he also has 2 nice 10 pointers on the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcervid on Jul 31, 2008 7:45:51 GMT -5
Guys, I checked with my sources in DNR (they still talk to old retired biologists) about Joe's ranting and raving about the fact that a person can fill out numerous surveys. It is possible to fill out more than one survey, however the duplicate surveys will be deleted before the results are tabulated. Woody, Would you post this to the other sites. This is the only site that I will post on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 31, 2008 9:56:08 GMT -5
Guys, I checked with my sources in DNR (they still talk to old retired biologists) about Joe's ranting and raving about the fact that a person can fill out numerous surveys. It is possible to fill out more than one survey, however the duplicate surveys will be deleted before the results are tabulated. Woody, Would you post this to the other sites. This is the only site that I will post on. Thanks John. As you can tell by some of the posts here some of the questions are a little confusing. Can you shed any light on that? |
|
|
|
Post by jcervid on Jul 31, 2008 10:16:50 GMT -5
Having written several survey questions in my former job (all of which were perfectly clear?  ) it is often difficult to see how different people view different questions. I often went through several drafts of a question. I would ask several different people (hunters and non hunters) the questions to see if they were clear. If not, I would reword the question. Finally I would add the question to the survey. As soon as the questionnaire went out, I would start receiving phone calls (no email back in the old days) about how confusing and biased the question was. Some days you just can't win. It is just the nature of people to look for deeper meanings in questions than are actually present. |
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on Jul 31, 2008 12:25:21 GMT -5
they are biologists, not professional writers.
I personally did not find the questions confusing.
The shotgun reference in the one was a bit weird, but I got over it and answered the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 31, 2008 17:31:04 GMT -5
Guys, I checked with my sources in DNR (they still talk to old retired biologists) about Joe's ranting and raving about the fact that a person can fill out numerous surveys. It is possible to fill out more than one survey, however the duplicate surveys will be deleted before the results are tabulated. Woody, Would you post this to the other sites. This is the only site that I will post on. How is the "OUT of State" VOTE being STOPPED...or is it? ?? |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 1, 2008 4:16:59 GMT -5
I'm OK with out of state voting if they purchase licenses here. They pay more than residents do and help offset a potential fee increase on us - give them a voice. Now if you don't buy IN licenses - no vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2008 4:59:19 GMT -5
I don't know how a out of state person could honestly answer the "What county do you live in" question.
I also don't know whare all this out of state paranoia comes from. I have not seen but one or two folks post on this board, or any other board that don't live in Indiana.
Now for double voters, I have a desk top computer and two laptops at home and a desk top and two laptops at work, can i vote on each one of those?
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 1, 2008 6:43:37 GMT -5
You machine wouldn't make much difference as your IP address would still be the same. I would say you could vote once at work and once at home and it would be impossible to tell it was the same individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 1, 2008 9:01:38 GMT -5
I also don't know where all this out of state paranoia comes from. Camby, According to the anti-PCR crowd the out of state voter was the reason we got the PCR approved. NOT! h.h. |
|
|
|
Post by maniot on Aug 2, 2008 0:17:55 GMT -5
I am interested in your posting. Can you share more reports related to deer hunting survey? ================================== Indiana Treatment Centers |
|
) it is often difficult to see how different people view different questions. I often went through several drafts of a question. I would ask several different people (hunters and non hunters) the questions to see if they were clear. If not, I would reword the question. Finally I would add the question to the survey. As soon as the questionnaire went out, I would start receiving phone calls (no email back in the old days) about how confusing and biased the question was. Some days you just can't win. It is just the nature of people to look for deeper meanings in questions than are actually present.
