|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 24, 2014 20:01:55 GMT -5
Well it was said that only 6000 hunters doubled up so in return there are 6000 extra bucks roaming every year after OBR came into effect. So over 10 years 60000 more bucks were roaming. Again I'm not on any side but I don't have a problem with it. I'm seeing more big deer. exactly simple math. I agree 100%. Our deer hunting has got better..the quality of bucks are much better now
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 24, 2014 20:07:52 GMT -5
? More bucks were killed post-OBR than pre-OBR, so how could there be 6000 saved bucks per year?
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 24, 2014 20:13:30 GMT -5
? More bucks were killed post-OBR than pre-OBR, so how could there be 6000 saved bucks per year? do the math. More bucks killed because more bucks are surviving, more bucks...if you have 5 times more deer you can still kill more bucks post OBR and still be better off than before...is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by ms660 on Nov 24, 2014 20:32:14 GMT -5
It happened the very first year the OBR was incorporated. The year it was made the very next year more bucks were killed.
|
|
|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 24, 2014 21:47:05 GMT -5
OBR isn't a problem with me. I wasn't around for anything other and wouldn't want it changed.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Nov 24, 2014 22:01:59 GMT -5
More bucks, more big bucks. Kill one or kill 3, doesn't matter.
Put 10 people in a room and count the overweight ones. Now put 100 in that same room and count them. Still have 10? Nope.
ORB doesn't bother me, but some of the arguments in support of it are laughable. Remember the guys claiming the big bucks killed the first year of it were a result of it? You can't argue with that kind of stupid.
|
|
|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 24, 2014 22:09:46 GMT -5
Well GS1 I do t know if you're calling us stupid or what? I haven't said anything in support of against but have no problem with it. Why can't we kill multiple toms in the fall? Not being smart, honestly wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 24, 2014 22:26:56 GMT -5
Well GS1 I do t know if you're calling us stupid or what? I haven't said anything in support of against but have no problem with it. Why can't we kill multiple toms in the fall? Not being smart, honestly wondering. He was not referring to anyone here. That was a big discussion on another site at that time. Some there thought the OBR was really working the very first year as the yearling kill percentage went down from the previous year. Of course it was already trending down before the OBR..
|
|
|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 24, 2014 22:34:43 GMT -5
I figured I had missed something. Lol. That seems a little out there.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Nov 24, 2014 22:38:55 GMT -5
Well GS1 I do t know if you're calling us stupid or what? I haven't said anything in support of against but have no problem with it. Why can't we kill multiple toms in the fall? Not being smart, honestly wondering. Woody, is right about what I was referring too. The day the state announced the OBR, a lot of bucks in Indiana got bigger. As far as multiple Tom's in the fall, it wouldn't hurt a thing. The fall harvest doesn't amount to enough in Indiana to have a noticeable impact on the population either way.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Nov 24, 2014 22:57:00 GMT -5
Any and all arguing amongst ourselves is pointless. Nothing is going to change until the mindset of the DNR changes.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Nov 24, 2014 23:58:25 GMT -5
? More bucks were killed post-OBR than pre-OBR, so how could there be 6000 saved bucks per year? do the math. More bucks killed because more bucks are surviving, more bucks...if you have 5 times more deer you can still kill more bucks post OBR and still be better off than before...is that so hard to understand? Your math is one lacking .The1st ,2nd ,or even 3rd year there were not appreciably more deer in this state and yet we took more bucks than ever before and the first year they suddenly were older and bigger .That is year 1 of the big buck rule .. Fact is the OBR did not save any bucks nor does it now .all it does is allow the guy down the trail that very same kill in most instances just as it did in the early years of the OBR.FYI if the herd is growing every 5 years by say 10 % - 15% then too so is the buck population and the fact is that those 5000-6000 deer were never missed and made up for every year and that too is a fact .Poor hunters is why we have the OBR not herd management reasons . All that said those 5000- 6000 bucks over a period of 4 -5 years the amount of time for a deer to be considered mature did not amount to a hill of beans and never will ..It was admitted that the OBR made no appreciable difference in age class or number of bucks surviving it was kept for only one reason as stated by our DNR ... Social reasons only !!! And that is a fact the have not whiners once in this state and country got what they wanted a welfare deer hunting system that does not even work as expected .So in conclusion your math is wrong here and you sir get an F+ today the DNR already graded that math paper for you .
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 25, 2014 6:36:26 GMT -5
? More bucks were killed post-OBR than pre-OBR, so how could there be 6000 saved bucks per year? do the math. More bucks killed because more bucks are surviving, more bucks...if you have 5 times more deer you can still kill more bucks post OBR and still be better off than before...is that so hard to understand? Look at the button buck harvest since the OBR. Lots more bucks being killed before they ever grow a rack. Bucks are bucks regardless of age. Any bucks "saved" from double-dipping bowhunters are still being killed by someone. I hope that no one here takes my arguments as personal.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood33 on Nov 25, 2014 7:21:48 GMT -5
I would love to be able to get a lifetime license. Would definitely save me some hassle and I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny. I got my lifetime CC Permit as soon as I could, not because I neccesarly needed it, but because I feel that at some point they will do away with it as well. The OBR doesn't really matter to me, as I hunt private land that I plan on hunting for a long time to come. I would only shoot one a year regardless of the rule just for the simple fact I want large bucks hanging around every year. Then again, there have been a couple times where I've had a shot at some monsters after my buck tag was filled.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 25, 2014 8:59:17 GMT -5
No, 6,000 bucks were not saved... In 2002 the antlered archery harvest was down 4,619 or - 38.44% and the Firearm antlered harvest was up +3,459 or + 10.28% from 2001. The number of bowhunters was either down and/or the bowhunters were passing deer that the gun hunters were killing.
HOW THE OBR CAME ABOUT.....
As I understand it...
The original OBR was a shoot from the hip answer to two groups that petitioned the DNR. These two groups had representatives at every NRC and DNR meeting that they could. Back then the administrative rules process was basically a couple meetings in which these groups and a few of their members showed up and usually got their way. The NRC did not have in place any method to collect hunter input except letters or personal appearance at the meetings.. The very best thing that the DNR and NRC did was to put in place an online method of collecting hunter input.
One group was all for the OBR. The second group conducted a survey of their members and received very few responses. I've been told it was less than 30 out of over 300 members. Of that 30 there was a very slight preference for the OBR.
Again as I was told, the representative of the second group could not make the meeting so he told the representative of the first group to say his group was for the OBR, even though there was such a small sampling of the actual members and the second group's board did not OK that.
Jim Mitchell OKed the OBR as he said it would not make any difference in the herd as it was a "social issue" and that "the bowhunters shot themselves in the foot on the OBR"..Of course for the Pro-OBR guy this was all about growing trophy bucks, so it really was biological.
So a very slight majority of 30 members of the second group allowed the OBR trial to come into effect.
The second group lost quite q few members when the word got out that they supported the OBR.. When the OBR was to be discussed again 5 years later the same group conducted another survey and did not recieve enough responses to make it a valid survey either way so they took a "no position". If that group had taken that position the first survey then we would not have the OBR at all.
Basically the decisions used to be more "good old boy network" than they are now.. by a long shot.. if you can believe that.
More Jim Mitchell..
Deer biologist Jim Mitchell said that the one-buck rule is just mandat¬ing what was already starting to hap¬pen over the last 10 years. While the state doesn't look at the size of antlers, it does keep track of age structure. The most recent trend shows that hunters are passing on the smaller bucks more so than in previ¬ous years.
"They want a bigger buck," Mitchell said. "The rule is getting the same effect. We have not seen major changes other than the distribution of when the bucks are killed. As the deer hunter gets more experience, he becomes more selective. What we find is that a smaller percentage of the antlered bucks are 1 1/2 years old. A larger percentage is older than 1 1/2."
In 2003, 3,242 bucks were harvest¬ed in the muzzleloader season, which is up from 2002, when 2,422 were taken. But this year's muzzleloader harvest was twice as much as 1999's total of 1,593.
"The bucks are just being taken later on in the season because guys are passing them up and holding out," Mitchell said.
The rule will be in effect for two more seasons after this one - a total of five seasons.
"Changes over a year or two years might not be adequate in detecting the subtle changes," Mitchell said. And Mitchell wouldn't say what long-term effects the hunting trend (opting for older deer) will have. "I don't want to go there," Mitchell said. "It's too early to tell. Prior to this rule, hunters were passing up younger bucks and that's what the rule is designed to cause. Whether that will have an effect significantly different than what was already going on remains to be seen."
But the biggest factor, according to Mitchell, is hunting pressure, or a lack thereof. "The more hunting pressure you have, the less likely that a deer is going to get old," he said. "That may or may not be the case with the one ¬buck rule. Hunting pressure contributes to younger deer."
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 25, 2014 9:17:01 GMT -5
NOW - MY OPINION..I believe that the number of larger bucks being seen and taken is due to: 1) The aging deer hunter that is more experienced and is being more selective. We have learned that shooting a yearling buck is not challenging and thus we hold out. OBR plays into selectivity too as it is forced on some folks. IMO - That could have been done better with education (Let him go, so he can grow)rather than mandating and a loss of opportunity and revenues. 2) Larger tracts of ground are leased by fewer hunters that manage just for one thing - bigger bucks 3) Peer pressure or "Keep up with the Jones". Friends are killing bigger bucks so we hold out to accomplish the same thing. 4) Younger deer hunters have grown up watching the "big buck videos" and want to imitate their heroes and don't shoot "dinks". The ones that do shoot a "dink" claims that it was a "cull buck". 5) Up until two years ago when the EHD hit bad the herd was growing. More deer equals more bucks which equals more mature bucks. 6) Increased emphasis on antlerless killing. Usually Phase One of QDM IMO again - The OBR is here to stay forever as 70% of the people that want it believe that it has worked AND the higher ups in the DNR want this state to be a "big buck state" for bragging rights and possibly higher NR fees.. One thing for certain it has accelerated the growth of leaseing... As Forrest Gump says - "That is all I have to say about that". Carry on biggrin2
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Nov 25, 2014 9:53:47 GMT -5
NOW - MY OPINION..I believe that the number of larger bucks being seen and taken is due to: 1) The aging deer hunter that is more experienced and is being more selective. We have learned that shooting a yearling buck is not challenging and thus we hold out. OBR plays into selectivity too as it is forced on some folks. IMO - That could have been done better with education (Let him go, so he can grow)rather than mandating and a loss of opportunity and revenues. 2) Larger tracts of ground are leased by fewer hunters that manage just for one thing - bigger bucks 3) Peer pressure or "Keep up with the Jones". Friends are killing bigger bucks so we hold out to accomplish the same thing. 4) Younger deer hunters have grown up watching the "big buck videos" and want to imitate their heroes and don't shoot "dinks". The ones that do shoot a "dink" claims that it was a "cull buck". 5) Up until two years ago when the EHD hit bad the herd was growing. More deer equals more bucks which equals more mature bucks. 6) Increased emphasis on antlerless killing. Usually Phase One of QDM IMO again - The OBR is here to stay forever as 70% of the people that want it believe that it has worked AND the higher ups in the DNR want this state to be a "big buck state" for bragging rights and possibly higher NR fees.. One thing for certain it has accelerated the growth of leaseing... As Forrest Gump says - "That is all I have to say about that". Carry on biggrin2 Thank u for putting in to words what I felt but did not know how to say
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Nov 25, 2014 10:19:43 GMT -5
NOW - MY OPINION..I believe that the number of larger bucks being seen and taken is due to: 1) The aging deer hunter that is more experienced and is being more selective. We have learned that shooting a yearling buck is not challenging and thus we hold out. OBR plays into selectivity too as it is forced on some folks. IMO - That could have been done better with education (Let him go, so he can grow)rather than mandating and a loss of opportunity and revenues. 2) Larger tracts of ground are leased by fewer hunters that manage just for one thing - bigger bucks 3) Peer pressure or "Keep up with the Jones". Friends are killing bigger bucks so we hold out to accomplish the same thing. 4) Younger deer hunters have grown up watching the "big buck videos" and want to imitate their heroes and don't shoot "dinks". The ones that do shoot a "dink" claims that it was a "cull buck". 5) Up until two years ago when the EHD hit bad the herd was growing. More deer equals more bucks which equals more mature bucks. 6) Increased emphasis on antlerless killing. Usually Phase One of QDM IMO again - The OBR is here to stay forever as 70% of the people that want it believe that it has worked AND the higher ups in the DNR want this state to be a "big buck state" for bragging rights and possibly higher NR fees.. One thing for certain it has accelerated the growth of leaseing... As Forrest Gump says - "That is all I have to say about that". Carry on biggrin2 IN total agreement I'd like to add one single fact. The higher population of deer in general combined with each and every method hunters use ( also due to advertising/dvds/TV shows/articles written) to over-come a deer's defense system made taking a deer FAR less challenging. Thus is much of the reason so many will state "the thrill is gone". Even though most don't wish to face the fact that every advantage they take/buy REDUCES the challenge, the "challenge of the hunt" is still high on priority lists. For those feeling this is untrue or offensive, re-read the advertisement and pick out the reasons they tell you that you want to buy such. The single way to increase the challenge when all efforts are taken to allow hunters to hunt undetected (as much as possible) is to put a limit on what size a rack one will shoot. Manufacturers, through promoting mineral blocks and foot plots (they do this to make money......no other reason) even attempt to have some influence on that growth or , at least, assist in locating one. If successful or not is tough to prove but they sure will try to make you think so. More product sold. While a mediocre buck taken without all the advantage used that one could take is indeed a challenge, the visible "proof" that it was so is not possible. Not so with a bigger rack. The fewer number of them simply make the task more formidable, with 90 percent of the "difficulty" consisting of FINDING one and the even more difficult process of killing a PARTICULAR buck, which, FWIW, would still apply to every deer but the yearlings. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 25, 2014 18:32:57 GMT -5
Well GS1 I do t know if you're calling us stupid or what? I haven't said anything in support of against but have no problem with it. Why can't we kill multiple toms in the fall? Not being smart, honestly wondering. exactly..using their logic we could kill 2 toms in fall and 2 in the spring and it wouldn't have an effect on the numbers of tom's in the future we 'd never run out...just like somehow killing more deer doesn't deduct from the herd..That's hillbilly logic there. Taking less of something does not equal a net gain, the total remains the same...and taking more of something also doesn't deduct from the total number..the number remains the same...not how I learned math. So when you buy Christmas this year, spending more money will not deduct from your account balance...in fact, it will add money to your account...lol
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 25, 2014 18:35:21 GMT -5
Some of you guys are so good a " spinning"...probably land a job at MSNBC.
|
|