|
|
Post by lugnutz on Dec 3, 2011 23:11:30 GMT -5
Sure you can, take the states that doesn't have OBR and see how they have done over the past 10 years. Done compared to what? What they have done in the last 10 will tell you nothing. Take a state that doesn't have OBR, and see how its BC entries have done over the past 10 years,,,,wanna bet it has risen, just like in our state? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2011 23:13:32 GMT -5
OK, how about Florida?
|
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Dec 3, 2011 23:17:58 GMT -5
Does it matter which state, your not gonna look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by deweydutchmen on Dec 3, 2011 23:57:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2011 6:09:37 GMT -5
I see a huge increase in good bucks...not just BC bucks entry book bucks, but good bucks in the 135-155 range...Pretty simple math to me...If you have a jar of M&M's and each kid can take one M&M, or they can take two M&M's..when all kids take their M&M's are we gonna have more if each kid takes two, or if they just take one...No way anyone will ever convince me that taking more bucks will make for more bucks.....call me stupid..but I can't see the logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 4, 2011 7:53:32 GMT -5
It's just hard to control genetics in the wild, and the one buck rule basicly eliminates culling those you don't want to breed. We've been trying to remove some of the mature 8 points on our Illinois lease in the last few years and it might be paying off. This year, we are ahead on 10 points and have killed two more of the targeted mature 8 points. It's easier to do with two bucks being possible. Harder to do in Ind. to ask a fellow to take a cull buck as his only buck of the season. there is no such thing as a cull buck in Indiana because of the season structure, most good properties are lucky to have one buck over 3 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 4, 2011 8:40:23 GMT -5
I see a huge increase in good bucks...not just BC bucks entry book bucks, but good bucks in the 135-155 range...Pretty simple math to me...If you have a jar of M&M's and each kid can take one M&M, or they can take two M&M's..when all kids take their M&M's are we gonna have more if each kid takes two, or if they just take one...No way anyone will ever convince me that taking more bucks will make for more bucks.....call me stupid..but I can't see the logic. But Mother (Nature) keeps adding M and Ms to the jar every year.., right? BTW - Not all "kids" (hunters) took two M and Ms even though they could. In fact some "kids' (hunters) took no M and Ms. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 4, 2011 8:43:26 GMT -5
Bowhunterjohn,
The DNR biologist said that double dippers numbered less than 6,000.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Dec 4, 2011 8:45:39 GMT -5
Bowhunterjohn, The DNR biologist said that double dippers numbered less than 6,000. thanks Woody , I knew it wasn't high. |
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Dec 4, 2011 10:30:39 GMT -5
I see a huge increase in good bucks...not just BC bucks entry book bucks, but good bucks in the 135-155 range...Pretty simple math to me...If you have a jar of M&M's and each kid can take one M&M, or they can take two M&M's..when all kids take their M&M's are we gonna have more if each kid takes two, or if they just take one...No way anyone will ever convince me that taking more bucks will make for more bucks.....call me stupid..but I can't see the logic. I used to think the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2011 15:52:44 GMT -5
No way anyone will ever convince me that taking more bucks will make for more bucks.....call me stupid..but I can't see the logic. There are more bucks being killed on an annual basis now than prior to the OBR.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 18:13:46 GMT -5
Last I heard M & M's don't reproduce and at the rate that WT deer do.
More bucks being killed NOW vs. before is useless data without knowing the number of animals in the herd then and now.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2011 18:43:28 GMT -5
Less is MORE......
"The Hoosier State's One-Buck Rule is bearing fruit------big fruit"
Very good article in Indiana Game&Fish Dec/Jan magazine about the OBR.
Always good to read How "GOOD" we have it in INDIANA ....and how the sky is not always falling with Deer management as some want us to believe!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2011 18:50:10 GMT -5
Last I heard M & M's don't reproduce and at the rate that WT deer do. More bucks being killed NOW vs. before is useless data without knowing the number of animals in the herd then and now. No you're right...they produce way more M&M's every year in factories than mother nature could ever produce in deer...good point! |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 4, 2011 18:56:17 GMT -5
Less is MORE......"The Hoosier State's One-Buck Rule is bearing fruit------big fruit"Very good article in Indiana Game&Fish Dec/Jan magazine about the OBR. Always good to read How "GOOD" we have it in INDIANA ....and how the sky is not always falling with Deer management as some want us to believe!!! Oh boy....another outdoor writer knows more about deer than the biologists. |
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2011 19:03:11 GMT -5
I see a huge increase in good bucks...not just BC bucks entry book bucks, but good bucks in the 135-155 range...Pretty simple math to me...If you have a jar of M&M's and each kid can take one M&M, or they can take two M&M's..when all kids take their M&M's are we gonna have more if each kid takes two, or if they just take one...No way anyone will ever convince me that taking more bucks will make for more bucks.....call me stupid..but I can't see the logic. But Mother (Nature) keeps adding M and Ms to the jar every year.., right? BTW - Not all "kids" (hunters) took two M and Ms even though they could. In fact some "kids' (hunters) took no M and Ms. Yeah Woody but the ones Mother nature is adding every year are small imature deer, no shooters for most part, a big number would likely never make it to maturity, if a guy knows he's got another buck tag to chase a bigger buck later...Hunters shoot a lesser deer that they otherwise would not shoot...being they only get one tag...they're more selective..and besides mother nature can't keep up..I think the recent data proves that OBR has had a postive effect on our herd...more opportunity, and better quality....You can't tell me that taking more bucks doesn't have any different effect than killing two apiece....with that logic...how bout 3 or 4 buck tags per hunter?.....where's the cut off in your mind? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 19:04:21 GMT -5
Last I heard M & M's don't reproduce and at the rate that WT deer do. More bucks being killed NOW vs. before is useless data without knowing the number of animals in the herd then and now. No you're right...they produce way more M&M's every year in factories than mother nature could ever produce in deer...good point! Yeah, produce a lot of M & M's a year, but they all don't get put in the jar your referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2011 19:09:31 GMT -5
No you're right...they produce way more M&M's every year in factories than mother nature could ever produce in deer...good point! Yeah, produce a lot of M & M's a year, but they all don't get put in the jar your referring to. They could..let's say we add one a year for every two taken...the deal breaker is how many kids are " taking" VS. how many M&M's we have to start with, and how many we are adding back in....?....I doubt anyone know the exact number on that..but with recent data, we can say with a high degree of certainty that bucks are living longer, and more of them...The numbers don't lie..The numbers don't have an agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 4, 2011 19:11:43 GMT -5
Just going by the numbers, the OBR, in terms of impact on the number of trophy deer "saved", would have to be minute, as very few people ever shot two deer back in the day. To hear some people talk, the thinking is that the OBR alone has dramatically increased the number of available trophy deer. If it's mathmatically impossible, why do folks still insist that there is a huge impact, and completely ignore the influence of the modern focus on trophy deer, as well as an aging, more selective hunting public? Surely newer hunters realize that years ago most hunters did not fixate on score like they do now?
|
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Dec 4, 2011 19:20:00 GMT -5
Just going by the numbers, the OBR, in terms of impact on the number of trophy deer "saved", would have to be minute, as very few people ever shot two deer back in the day. To hear some people talk, the thinking is that the OBR alone has dramatically increased the number of available trophy deer. If it's mathmatically impossible, why do folks still insist that there is a huge impact, and completely ignore the influence of the modern focus on trophy deer, as well as an aging, more selective hunting public? Surely newer hunters realize that years ago most hunters did not fixate on score like they do now? exactly , you and look at those HRBC an BC numbers and corelate the rise to the increased ephasis on a big buck, I'd venture to say those Big Buck/Monster Buck DVD's were just picking up steam I mean the best year in a long time was 2002, the first year, how could the OBR impact the age structure the very first year ? At least it would take 3 seasons to have any viable impact to claim. So someone in 2002 lets a 1.5 yr old spike/forky walk because of the OBR, he wouldn't be a real trophy that would make the HRBC for another 2 years MINIMUM and 4 years for BC. I'd say it was the increase in emphasis on big bucks that made the biggest impact on the numbers, that along with scent control products, food plots and better equipment. |
|
