|
Post by billybobteeth on Dec 4, 2011 19:20:33 GMT -5
Funny thing about the numbers posted that were in the IN F&G the part that was not included was the ratio yearly compared to total number of bucks take yearly .
IMHO once the number of book deer are compared by percentage to the total number of bucks taken every year the numbers in fact are not that significant any longer at that point are they ?? I mean if the number by percentage book deer is give or take .25 % every year from 1992 up to 2010 whats the big deal ?? So indeed if the total number of buck deer taken has increased by 2 or 3 times then just by default the book buck numbers will increase by that much .Simple math really .
But then again the states all around us that have changed no buck hunting laws or quotas are on the same exact trophy influx raise we are arent they !Plane and simpl the deer herd since 1992 has more than likely rased in numbers by 5-7 times so indeed its a numbers game isnt it and not just buck numbers but total deer herd numbers compaired to only a mear 245000 hunters give take a grand.
Funny how so called experts that are for or push a personal agenda or small group agenda can skew numbers by just simple omissions isn't it !
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Dec 4, 2011 19:22:45 GMT -5
To further that point the numbers listed cannot be used as a comparrison without the number of hunters
To get a true opinion of it you would have to know the number of hunters attempting to harvest a trophy for each year . And what I mean is if in 1997 there were 100K hunters and they recorded 150 record books, but in 2002 there were 300 record books but 250K hunters then it would be just shear hunter numbers that were responsible for the increase in numbers.
Those are the numbers I'd would like to see, was the rise in hunters equal to or greater then the number of record book entries ?
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 4, 2011 19:39:11 GMT -5
"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/fork walk because of the ORB, he wouldn't be a real trophy that would make the HEBRAIC 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. "Bowhunterjohn, you can ask that question 2000 times and never will you get a straight answer. O, the joy it brings me! more than one idiot has quoted 2002 numbers as proof of the OBR's effectiveness. I mean, really? The only response you'll get is really well thought out arguments like And quotes from (thoroughly objective!) outdoor writers.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 4, 2011 19:45:57 GMT -5
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,
Every animal, including humans starts out as a baby. They don't stay that way do they?
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..
I don't know about that. The past and present deer biologist has said that the number of double dippers was "insignificant:"
and besides mother nature can't keep up..
LOL...sure, that is why the DNR is trying to kill more deer...
I think the recent data proves that OBR has had a postive effect on our herd...
The biologist (past and present) has said this is NOT a biological issue. IOW - no effect one way or the other on the herd. They say it is a "social issue"
more opportunity,
How so? A bowhunter kills a buck opening day of archery and he is done buck hunting for the rest of the year. seems like less opportunity to me.
and better quality....
One more time - IMO - the main reasons we are seeing larger bucks is :
1) The deer hunter avearge age is increasing a year EVERY year and with that he/she is becoming better at it, doesn't want to kill an easy yearling buck and is a LOT more selective. Do yiou know anyone that has been hunting 4 or 5 years that still is killing yearling bucks? I don't.
2) Big buck hunting celebrity videos is raising up "young "trophy hunters that atek cues off their heros and wont shoot lesser bucks.
3) The herd is growing. It has been for some time. A larger herd will have larger age classes so there is nmore big bucks out there. That is the orime reason that the big buck states kill more bigger deer - they have a larger herd than we do.
According to the QDMA report Indiana has a 41% yearling buck kill percentag which is average for the midwest states. We are no better than numerous multi buck limit states.
More and bigger bucks is NOT just an Indiana phenomenom.
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?
Two is fine. One with archery equipment and one with a firearm.
Now convince me that our herd can not easily withstand a two buck limit[/b][/color].[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Dec 4, 2011 20:21:13 GMT -5
"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/fork walk because of the ORB, he wouldn't be a real trophy that would make the HEBRAIC 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. "Bounden, you can ask that question 2000 times and never will you get a straight answer. O, the joy it brings me! more than one idiot has quoted 2002 numbers as proof of the OBR's effectiveness. I mean, really? The only response you'll get is really well thought out arguments like And quotes from (thoroughly objective!) outdoor writers. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by gobblerstopper on Dec 4, 2011 20:41:07 GMT -5
Charts and graphs are a writers best friend. They can show whatever data they want and those that support their position will agree because they are simple.
It's good to see there are atleast several people here that can see through that.
Most charts are just a bunch of numbers that mean nothing without "the rest of the story".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 20:46:58 GMT -5
IMO, the whole argument is a moot point. The title of the thread is " B & C bucks " IF the OBR doubled or tripled the number oof Booners after 5 or 6 years, your still talking about LESS THAN A 100 DEER per year. Take a 100 lucky or good deer hunters out of the 250,000 or so that hunt and ask the rest if it's worth the effort. I love to kill big bucks, but would just as soon see the majority of hunters have their cake and be able to eat it to. If only 6,000 or even 10,000 doubled up, seems that it's a wash and the extra buck would be a lot more popular just being an option in case one needs to continue hunting after his first. I believe the pluses out number the minuses and it's time to go back to two.
|
|
|
Post by billybobteeth on Dec 4, 2011 21:08:37 GMT -5
IMO, the whole argument is a moot point. The title of the thread is " B & C bucks " IF the OBR doubled or tripled the number oof Booners after 5 or 6 years, your still talking about LESS THAN A 100 DEER per year. Take a 100 lucky or good deer hunters out of the 250,000 or so that hunt and ask the rest if it's worth the effort. I love to kill big bucks, but would just as soon see the majority of hunters have their cake and be able to eat it to. If only 6,000 or even 10,000 doubled up, seems that it's a wash and the extra buck would be a lot more popular just being an option in case one needs to continue hunting after his first. I believe the pluses out number the minuses and it's time to go back to two. I agree here as well . Funny I personally am very good friends with one of the Hunters sited in the article by Dean Whimer his name is Clint VanNatter . He and I scouted the very spot he killed his record class buck to together yep we are that tight as friends.So no secrets between us.I have known his feelings for awhile now on the OBR and the eventual return to the TBR.He feels the OBR has served it porpose and needs to be set aside now. So we were talking just tonite on the phone he reminds me of me when I was 29 very driven and full of deer hunting energy . Anyways long story short I asked him about him being quoted in the article .He said that he did not tell the author just that he only supported the OBR and that was why he was seeing bigger bucks and more of them . He said he told him he could see the good in both ways and they both had or have their advantages and that he dose see the need to return to the two now because the its time for it to better manage our bucks and the hunters and buck herd need it . So thats a fact and what he told me word for word he seemed a bit po'ed because his whole statement expounding the good of the TBR was not included .Once again tactical omissions that are politically driven to meet the ends of a few who want to take from other hunters so they can have big antlers on the wall .This will if the OBR continues single handily deplete the number of hunters over the years more than any other factor here in this state
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2011 21:40:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billybobteeth on Dec 4, 2011 21:51:13 GMT -5
I can see only a few even played the game there .I would not like to answered that either its flawed I don't think anyone who wants the 2 buck rule back like either of the choice they could vote for there . IMHO they will not choose any of those answers since none just give back the TBR permanently .So like the first OBR survey this one was flawed and leading also .
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Dec 4, 2011 22:06:04 GMT -5
IMO, the whole argument is a moot point. The title of the thread is " B & C bucks " IF the OBR doubled or tripled the number oof Booners after 5 or 6 years, your still talking about LESS THAN A 100 DEER per year. Take a 100 lucky or good deer hunters out of the 250,000 or so that hunt and ask the rest if it's worth the effort. I love to kill big bucks, but would just as soon see the majority of hunters have their cake and be able to eat it to. If only 6,000 or even 10,000 doubled up, seems that it's a wash and the extra buck would be a lot more popular just being an option in case one needs to continue hunting after his first. I believe the pluses out number the minuses and it's time to go back to two. agree Timex, great points. Plus the state would get the extra revenue, lets say its 6000 would double up, 10% have a lifetime, 5400 x $24 would help out. Personally I would probably take my extra buck at my urban spot and that would help also with eliminating another deer there and possible deer/vehicle collision. Plus the genetics suck there and I seriously doubt many bucks could make it 4 years. At my old urban spot I had a couple nice 2.5 yr olds I let walk, they got hit by cars about 4 days apart LOL
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 5, 2011 8:23:38 GMT -5
IMO, the whole argument is a moot point. The title of the thread is " B & C bucks " IF the OBR doubled or tripled the number oof Booners after 5 or 6 years, your still talking about LESS THAN A 100 DEER per year. Take a 100 lucky or good deer hunters out of the 250,000 or so that hunt and ask the rest if it's worth the effort. I love to kill big bucks, but would just as soon see the majority of hunters have their cake and be able to eat it to. If only 6,000 or even 10,000 doubled up, seems that it's a wash and the extra buck would be a lot more popular just being an option in case one needs to continue hunting after his first. I believe the pluses out number the minuses and it's time to go back to two. I agree here as well . Funny I personally am very good friends with one of the Hunters sited in the article by Dean Whimer his name is Clint VanNatter . He and I scouted the very spot he killed his record class buck to together yep we are that tight as friends.So no secrets between us.I have known his feelings for awhile now on the OBR and the eventual return to the TBR.He feels the OBR has served it porpose and needs to be set aside now. So we were talking just tonite on the phone he reminds me of me when I was 29 very driven and full of deer hunting energy . Anyways long story short I asked him about him being quoted in the article .He said that he did not tell the author just that he only supported the OBR and that was why he was seeing bigger bucks and more of them . He said he told him he could see the good in both ways and they both had or have their advantages and that he dose see the need to return to the two now because the its time for it to better manage our bucks and the hunters and buck herd need it . So thats a fact and what he told me word for word he seemed a bit po'ed because his whole statement expounding the good of the TBR was not included .Once again tactical omissions that are politically driven to meet the ends of a few who want to take from other hunters so they can have big antlers on the wall .This will if the OBR continues single handily deplete the number of hunters over the years more than any other factor here in this state Oh, now I get it. I think you mean Dean Weimer, rigtht? Dean has been pro-OBR since the get go. A lot of his articles are slanted pro-OBR. No surprise to me he left out the rest of the story. Outdoor writers are good at that, aren't they? If I get a chance I'll find and post the previous months article on the same subject, but by a different writer. He showed BOTH sides in the debate..
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 5, 2011 8:31:23 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. I am not too sure the writer is saying he knows more about deer biology, what he did was take hard numbers (bucks entered into two different books) and attribute ALL of those numbers to our states OBR. I read the article the same day the magazine arrived in my mail and I must say it is very interesting how the book enters more and more bucks each year. It was also interesting how the author FAILED to mention how much the deer population has increased in Indiana. He also FAILED to mention how the deer hunting shows (deer porn) have become so popular in the last 10 or so years. Also, there was NO mention on how the internet has played a role in allowing deer hunters to communicate with each other and educate each other. I have been deer hunting for almost 30 years and I was not aware of any type of record keeping books untill about 10 years ago, I received that education via the internet. we will NEVER know if we are in fact KILLING bigger deer these days......we do know for a fact that more hunters are entering their kills into the record books. It could in fact be that we have better more advanced equipment, trail cameras, in-line muzzleloaders, scoped shotguns with rifled barrels, better camo, easier to use climbing treestands and such. The question I have is if we enter even more record book bucks NEXT deer season, will we be able to say the addition of crossbows had some kind of an impact on those deer reaching maturity?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 5, 2011 8:47:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boman on Dec 5, 2011 11:11:15 GMT -5
I've read both articles and followed the debate one buck two buck for as long as it has been out there and the only way to bring any kind of resolution, agreement, whatever would to be to reintroduce the two buck limit and test the back data after five years or longer against the data we have now. My opinion:The one buck rule certainly hasn't taken away any opportunity to hunt deer in this state unless one is a buck only hunter. Even then that guy seems to find a work around or has the ability to do so. It is a social, perception issue and has to do with basic human desires of greed and always wanting more and better. FWIW--I'm not any different, just have become more selective and I don't "need" or "want" two bucks Steve
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 5, 2011 11:44:41 GMT -5
Guy's want to kill 2 buck's plus have one of the longest firearm's season of any surrounding state? ? (OK, let's just match Illinois's deer season's and limit's. )Would be great as far as i'm concerned. I hunt with bow,shotgun and m loader and would be fine with a much shorter firearm season. No i'm not anti-firearm, but somewhere you have got to take pressure off the antlered deer. (If you want some kind of quality .) I don't care how you do it. (OBR, shorter firearm season, firearm season moved out of rut, shorter bow season ETC.) Greed, greed, greed. Some of you will never be satisfied unless you can hunt year round and kill unlimited animal's.
|
|
|
Post by Carphunter on Dec 5, 2011 11:53:36 GMT -5
The DNR trying to convince the general public that the OBR is having a major effect on big buck harvests is just a joke. The OBR ONLY affected the bowhunters that were killing a buck with their bow, then in turn killing one with a gun. I'm sure that was a small number. It is a trend throughout the hunting community to pass on immature bucks. People watch all these videos and hunting shows and want to shoot deer like they see these hunting "celebrities" shoot. It certainly wouldn't hurt to allow 1 buck with a bow and 1 with a gun. The big problem is the antlerless deer are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in some areas in this state. The regulations need a major overhaul IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 5, 2011 12:10:33 GMT -5
I've read both articles and followed the debate one buck two buck for as long as it has been out there and the only way to bring any kind of resolution, agreement, whatever would to be to reintroduce the two buck limit and test the back data after five years or longer against the data we have now. My opinion:The one buck rule certainly hasn't taken away any opportunity to hunt deer in this state unless one is a buck only hunter. Even then that guy seems to find a work around or has the ability to do so. It is a social, perception issue and has to do with basic human desires of greed and always wanting more and better. FWIW--I'm not any different, just have become more selective and I don't "need" or "want" two bucks Steve Very well said...I agree 110%
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 5, 2011 12:23:35 GMT -5
I don't think the DNR could care less about the OBR. They put it into effect because hunting group's were asking for it. As far as antlerless being "slaughtered " YEP, but who is doing the "slaughtering" aaahhhhh "WE" deer hunter's. Not "I" as I try to manage my hunting area as best I can, which mean's I shot 1 doe this year and hav'nt shot a buck yet. Antlerless getting so much pressure from surrounding farm's I don't feel I need to shoot any. Some are buying into the "Deer herd is growing out of control or to fast Kool-Aid", but i'm not seeing it. Deer number's in my part's have been on steady decline past 5-6 season's. Now I'm sure someone can post an article or some stat's showing i'm wrong. (But my eye's don't lie.) Personally I think "WE" hunter's are our own worst enemies.
|
|
|
Post by Carphunter on Dec 5, 2011 13:28:23 GMT -5
I don't think the DNR could care less about the OBR. They put it into effect because hunting group's were asking for it. As far as antlerless being "slaughtered " YEP, but who is doing the "slaughtering" aaahhhhh "WE" deer hunter's. Not "I" as I try to manage my hunting area as best I can, which mean's I shot 1 doe this year and hav'nt shot a buck yet. Antlerless getting so much pressure from surrounding farm's I don't feel I need to shoot any. Some are buying into the "Deer herd is growing out of control or to fast Kool-Aid", but i'm not seeing it. Deer number's in my part's have been on steady decline past 5-6 season's. Now I'm sure someone can post an article or some stat's showing i'm wrong. (But my eye's don't lie.) Personally I think "WE" hunter's are our own worst enemies. I agree, but I do think the DNR cares about the OBR for one reason, they don't want to seem foolish by passing this law. So, what do they do, they spout off about how great the OBR is and how it's having a major impact on big buck sightings. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree about the OBR, but don't patronize me by telling me that it's having this unbelievable effect on the mature bucks in this state. My eyes and my records show that in the places that I hunt that the deer numbers are steadily declining, I don't care what anybody says. ............and I am doing my part too. I took a doe in Kentucky, One buck on private ground, and a buck at Crane, and I'm done. If I want more meat for the freezer, I'll buy a cow.
|
|