|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 17, 2006 21:46:02 GMT -5
deerdemon-sorry you are disappointed with the site here. You are wrong though about the deer biologist here, Dr. Mitchell is a stand up guy who calls things as he sees them. If the results the professionals are seeing isn`t what you had hoped for, that`s a disappointment for sure, but he will still tell you the facts-nothing more, nothing less. And as an aside, NO, the preserve owners, (nor "hunters") are not treated well here. As a group, we don`t much like hunting in play-pens.
James, your posts are littered with talk of "good" bucks versus whatever else you think is out there, and that`s all well and good, but some of us, (me in particular), refuse to classify bucks as "good" or not a "shooter", as I think it belittles the animal as well as what we do. It`s fine if you want to "trophy" hunt, but many of us consider each deer we kill a trophy-in fact, I will NEVER have a rack scored, because I feel so strongly that trophy hunting is as detrimental to hunting today as any other impediment. Anyway, that`s just MY perspective on it, so the whole point the OBR was supposed to accomplish, (more trophy deer) is as bad in my eyes as the OBR itself.
Just a reminder to you that not everyone believes any particular animal is inferior if it in`t a "trophy" deer.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Sept 20, 2006 13:50:51 GMT -5
Im going to chime in again. If there were roughly 6,000 deer each year being saved like you say woody, then in the last four years we have saved 24,000 bucks. In another year after this season it will be 30,000. You cant expect the end results without giving it time to prosper. In my opinion 30,000 extra bucks out there is quite a bit and just think if it were another five years we would be at 60,000. That seems like yet another huge number. You cant plant a field on Monday and come back with the combine on Tuesday and expect to get your harvest. Over time this thing has worked and given more time we can only see how well it can work for us. If we go back to the two buck rule, then the first three years will continue the upward trend in HRBP entries because there will be more people willing to shoot that 125 and then shoot the 140 during gun season. But the true effects of going back to the two buck rule will only be experienced several years down the road when the trend goes back to numbers of bucks declining. Its simple principles of mathematics. If one system is saving 6000 a year and another system is using 6000 which one will decline first. ITs only inevitable that it will happen. How is that disputable.. how can anyone here argue with the common sense behind that.? Put the OBR aside and argue that with common sense. I firmly believe it cant be done.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 20, 2006 14:13:28 GMT -5
Im going to chime in again. If there were roughly 6,000 deer each year being saved like you say woody, then in the last four years we have saved 24,000 bucks. In another year after this season it will be 30,000. You cant expect the end results without giving it time to prosper. In my opinion 30,000 extra bucks out there is quite a bit and just think if it were another five years we would be at 60,000. That seems like yet another huge number. You cant plant a field on Monday and come back with the combine on Tuesday and expect to get your harvest. Over time this thing has worked and given more time we can only see how well it can work for us. If we go back to the two buck rule, then the first three years will continue the upward trend in HRBP entries because there will be more people willing to shoot that 125 and then shoot the 140 during gun season. But the true effects of going back to the two buck rule will only be experienced several years down the road when the trend goes back to numbers of bucks declining. Its simple principles of mathematics. If one system is saving 6000 a year and another system is using 6000 which one will decline first. ITs only inevitable that it will happen. How is that disputable.. how can anyone here argue with the common sense behind that.? Put the OBR aside and argue that with common sense. I firmly believe it cant be done. How do you figure all those bucks have been saved, when a look at the harvest records show all those bucks have been killed anyway? They`ve just been killed at a different time. Try to spin it any way you want, but you`re not even listening.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 20, 2006 15:02:48 GMT -5
Im going to chime in again. If there were roughly 6,000 deer each year being saved like you say woody, then in the last four years we have saved 24,000 bucks. ............... . Nope.. never said that. I said there were supposedly 6,000 double dippers per Jim Mitchell. The Pro-OBR guys said that many would be saved yearly. They were wrong. The very first year it became REAL apparent that the bowhunters were passing up the bucks and the gun hunters killed them. It was a transfer of the harvest from one season to another - just like Jim Mitchell said it would be. Then all you need to look at is the number of bucks being killed yearly since 2002 as compared to the number killed prior to the OBR. Look again at the number of bucks NOT being killed by bowhunters yearly since 2002 as compared to pre-OBR and compare that to the number of bucks being killed by gun hunters yearly since 2002 as compared to pre-OBR. If you want I'll repost those numbers for you. We are "saving" no bucks, nada, zilch, zip, zero, nothing, goosegg,.... etc , etc ,etc...
|
|
|
Post by dec on Sept 20, 2006 15:12:53 GMT -5
After 15 pages of posts, I was going to finally chime in, but you know what? It is not worth it. Same lame arguments over and over. I'm going to the range with my little girl for some family fun.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 20, 2006 15:44:02 GMT -5
After 15 pages of posts, I was going to finally chime in, but you know what? It is not worth it. Same lame arguments over and over. I'm going to the range with my little girl for some family fun. A much wiser and productive use of your time.. Good shooting and hunting..
|
|