|
Post by chubwub on Nov 25, 2014 18:50:14 GMT -5
Hah, you all call them dink bucks, I call them a dinner buck.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 25, 2014 19:21:30 GMT -5
Toms versus bucks?
What do you think? Is there more buck deer out there than toms?
More toms than buck deer?
About the same?
Why can we kill two toms a year and only one buck?
|
|
|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 25, 2014 19:31:51 GMT -5
Woody I have no clue. We haven't a good turkey population around for a while at my property but it has come alive the past 5 years due to little hunting pressure around our property In the spring.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Nov 25, 2014 20:58:57 GMT -5
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 Comparing the two is apples and oranges. Most any unselective hunter can kill two bucks in Indiana in 3 months, but less than 20% of spring turkey hunters are successful in the spring when birds are gobbling and more responsive to calls. What do you think the success rate on fall gobblers is where there are 90% less hunters and most of them do not specifically target turkeys and even less target gobblers only? If the limit was 10 gobblers the fall harvest wouldn't change more than a handful.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 25, 2014 21:48:09 GMT -5
Let's crunch some numbers:
In 2000 (before OBR), 44,621 bucks were killed along with 11,072 button bucks, for a total of 55,693. Going by the DNR's estimate of 6,000 bowhunters also killing a firearms buck, we'll drop those 6,000 bucks from the harvest to get an OBR-type number of 49,693. That would be the number of bucks killed that year if double-dipping were prohibited.
In 2002 (first OBR year), total bucks and button bucks harvested were 58,468. That's an increase of 8,775 bucks over year 2000.
In 2003, the number was 59,795. That is an increase 10,102 bucks over year 2000. In 2004, the number was 67,244. That is an increase of 17,551 over year 2000. In 2005, the number was 65,518. That is an increase of 15,825 over year 2000. in 2006, the number was 62, 785. That is an increase of 13,092 over year 2000. In 2007, the number was 62,688. That's an increase of 12,995 over year 2000. In 2008, the number was 63,928. That's an increase of 14,235 over year 2000. In 2009, the number was 65,918. That's an increase of 16,225 over year 2000. In 2010, the number was 66,374. That's an increase of 16,681 over year 2000. In 2011, the number was 63,775. That's an increase of 14,082 over the year 2000.
Look at those increases each year --they're way more than the 6,000 annual bucks that the double-dippers took. The additional bucks that the bowhunters weren't able to take were still taken by other hunters -- AND THEN SOME.
Now, if we were to go back to a 2-buck system as before, the buck harvest wouldn't change much. Some hunters just wouldn't get a buck, since some bowhunters took them. You can't simply add those 6,000 per year to the harvest numbers.
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Nov 25, 2014 22:18:29 GMT -5
Let's crunch some numbers: In 2000 (before OBR), 44,621 bucks were killed along with 11,072 button bucks, for a total of 55,693. Going by the DNR's estimate of 6,000 bowhunters also killing a firearms buck, we'll drop those 6,000 bucks from the harvest to get an OBR-type number of 49,693. That would be the number of bucks killed that year if double-dipping were prohibited. In 2002 (first OBR year), total bucks and button bucks harvested were 58,468. That's an increase of 8,775 bucks over year 2000. In 2003, the number was 59,795. That is an increase 10,102 bucks over year 2000. In 2004, the number was 67,244. That is an increase of 17,551 over year 2000. In 2005, the number was 65,518. That is an increase of 15,825 over year 2000. in 2006, the number was 62, 785. That is an increase of 13,092 over year 2000. In 2007, the number was 62,688. That's an increase of 12,995 over year 2000. In 2008, the number was 63,928. That's an increase of 14,235 over year 2000. In 2009, the number was 65,918. That's an increase of 16,225 over year 2000. In 2010, the number was 66,374. That's an increase of 16,681 over year 2000. In 2011, the number was 63,775. That's an increase of 14,082 over the year 2000. Look at those increases each year --they're way more than the 6,000 annual bucks that the double-dippers took. The additional bucks that the bowhunters weren't able to take were still taken by other hunters -- AND THEN SOME. Now, if we were to go back to a 2-buck system as before, the buck harvest wouldn't change much. Some hunters just wouldn't get a buck, since some bowhunters took them. You can't simply add those 6,000 per year to the harvest numbers. Good post and the devil is always in those details and that's the numbers here and you sir hit the nail on the head .
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 26, 2014 0:13:23 GMT -5
More bucks are being killed because the deer herd has been on the rise. More deer=more bucks=more being killed. But that does not fit your agenda?? Number's can be crunched and used to fit any agenda. P and Y, B and C and HBB entry's have also all been on the increase in Indiana since OBR went into effect as well. (That's because of TV show's also I guess???) IMO the majority of guy's who want a 2 buck limit do so for their own selfish reason's. There once was a whole lot of Buffalo roaming the United States.. The theory shoot more and the herd will grow didn't quite work that well did it? Indiana again is not a true one buck state anyways. You can pretty much take as many as you want if you want to participate in urban zone, park and refuge hunt's. LACK OF OPPORTUNITY You have 3 month's to hunt and you don't have opportunity Farmer's have found out they can make money from leasing hunting right's instead of just giving the rights away for free. That's the OBR's fault? Lotta state owned public land out there to hunt and you have 3 month's to hunt it. That's a whole lot of opportunity in my eye's. Don't want to fight the public land crowd then buy your own land and manage it as you see fit.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 26, 2014 6:19:29 GMT -5
I DO NOT WANT TO DROP OBR. My whole argument is that it is not the main reason that people are seeing bigger bucks today. What some people are failing to grasp is that those 6,000 bucks get killed by someone else. They are not saved. They are not magically moved to the "do not kill" pile. They are killed by other hunters. Heck, even the DNR admits this.
The point I'm trying to make is that you would still be seeing bigger bucks if OBR had never come along, due to the selectivity of many. The DNR also admits that this trend began BEFORE OBR and that big buck harvests were on the rise before 2002. People attribute it FALSELY to the OBR.
If the number of hunters stays constant (it's actually decreasing) and the buck harvest increases, it means that more hunters are getting bucks. Can anyone here argue that? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 26, 2014 6:31:38 GMT -5
Let's examine my personal experience. The two largest properties I hunt are 325 and 250 acres. I HAVE SOLE HUNTING PERMISSION ON BOTH. I put out baited cams every summer for inventory purposes, and get tons of bucks on camera. Seeing as how I can only kill one buck a year, these bucks ought to grow into giants, right? Well then, why are there no giants this year? Because they are getting killed on neighboring properties before they can grow. Someone else is killing my excess. So, if I can't save bucks back on almost 600 acres where only one buck can be killed, how can the entire state do it?
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 26, 2014 7:15:55 GMT -5
I will agree OBR is not only reason more big buck's are being taken. (But it hasn't hurt thing's either.) Biologically speaking I cannot see where increasing antlered limit to 2 will increase number of mature buck's running around the wood's???) Doesn't make sense to me. If "the goal" is more buck's, it would appear to me much easier to reduce pressure on antlerless thus having more buck's born each year. Think state kinda went over board with increased county quota's and special late season antlerless hunt's. I can argue your point on decreasing hunter's and increased buck harvest as as I have said several time's Indiana is not a one buck state with all the special hunt's. (Parks,refuge and urban hunt's)and a increasing deer herd in many counties. I also have stated that I might consider supporting a EAB proposal if our biologist thinks our antlered herd could support one. I have a similar situation to your's and am seeing more 4.5 and 5.5 yr old deer. Now seeing and killing the more mature deer isn't the same thing. (They are tougher for sure), but I know they are there and that hasn't always been the case.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Nov 26, 2014 7:42:38 GMT -5
I DO NOT WANT TO DROP OBR. My whole argument is that it is not the main reason that people are seeing bigger bucks today. What some people are failing to grasp is that those 6,000 bucks get killed by someone else. They are not saved. They are not magically moved to the "do not kill" pile. They are killed by other hunters. Heck, even the DNR admits this. The point I'm trying to make is that you would still be seeing bigger bucks if OBR had never come along, due to the selectivity of many. The DNR also admits that this trend began BEFORE OBR and that big buck harvests were on the rise before 2002. People attribute it FALSELY to the OBR. If the number of hunters stays constant (it's actually decreasing) and the buck harvest increases, it means that more hunters are getting bucks. Can anyone here argue that? Nope. These 6000 Deer you talk of may not be saved but they are also now not being killed by the GREEDY "I want to kill 2 BUCKS" crowd also.....It's same people that live in a "A" county and cry/whine there are NO DEER but out the otheside of there face want to kill 2 BUCKS!!!....LMAO The Poll numbers in the other thread really paint the TRUE picture in this state..... There has never been a "STATE" go to a OBR then go back....
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Nov 26, 2014 7:59:35 GMT -5
its JUST antlers.
nice decorations for the wall.....but I hunt for venison. The bling is just a bonus, not the goal
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 26, 2014 8:09:49 GMT -5
It really is fascinating how two people can look at the same set of numbers and reach two completely different conclusions of what those numbers say or what those numbers do not say. Seldom do a single set of numbers tell the whole story ....
That said I cannot see how anyone can say there would not have been more antlered deer killed each year under a two buck system than a one buck system. Even if that number were short of the often cited 6000 it would still be more. How much more is debatable .... but the fact that it would have been more is not.
Personally I like the OBR and I dont like it. I like it because I believe it is a positive component to the current state of our herd. I dislike it because now that I own and manage my own property it would be nice to have that second tag if I wanted to use it. But my like for it far outweighs my dislike.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 26, 2014 8:28:28 GMT -5
I bet that the number of saved bucks is negligible -- under 1000 easily. The last two years show a decline in the buck harvest. I bet if you could count every buck on the hoof in 2000 and today that we have less bucks today.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 26, 2014 8:29:58 GMT -5
This ^^^^^^. I too would like to have opportunity to take 2 deer each season or 3 or 4, but know in the big picture I am hurting my future opportunities. Also have some thories on EHD and why it has and is becoming more of an PROBLEM these past 10-15 year's. 1-) being GMO seed. AKA: Rounup ready corn,soybean's and alfalfa. Where is EHD most prevelant ?? Counties with alot of ag land and counties along our states watershed's. By deer consuming these crop's/water is it somehow lowering their resistence to the disease? IDK 20-30 year's ago EHD was never a real problem here in INDIANA , but seem's to be getting worse and worse. As is autism and all type's of childhood cancer's. Why?? Has to be something in the enviroment I would think. What do infant's drink?? Milk and more specfically soy milk. Which is all made with GMO product's these last 10-15 year's. Again IDK. Are we posioning ourselves and our wildlife
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Nov 26, 2014 8:30:47 GMT -5
^^^^^ was for SWILKS comment's.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 26, 2014 8:37:42 GMT -5
I bet that the number of saved bucks is negligible -- under 1000 easily. The last two years show a decline in the buck harvest. I bet if you could count every buck on the hoof in 2000 and today that we have less bucks today. Im not sure I would make any bets one way or the other because there are sooooo many factors that go into that bottom line number of "how many were killed". Transitioning to a single antlered deer is just a small component of how we arrived at those numbers. I cant say for sure how many more it would have been under a two buck rule but I can say for sure it would have been more.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Nov 26, 2014 9:20:07 GMT -5
Would it be better to say then that OBR controls game hogs who would otherwise be taking 3,4,5 bucks a year otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 26, 2014 9:27:17 GMT -5
Rumor has it that a guy who hunted near me took six bucks the first year the OBR was in effect.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 26, 2014 11:34:35 GMT -5
Toms versus bucks? What do you think? Is there more buck deer out there than toms? More toms than buck deer? About the same? Why can we kill two toms a year and only one buck? Good question..we need a OTR
|
|