|
Post by kevin1 on Sept 7, 2006 14:01:47 GMT -5
Greghopper, how about this. You post pics of your last 4 bucks and show everyone that you do kill big deer and they have gotten bigger every year since the OBR. That will show it works. I'm betting you wont. All that would prove was that he shot bigger deer , which were probably out there all along . It wouldn't prove anything for or against the OBR . Go deep into any big woods and you'll see bucks with racks like the Charter Oak that have never seen a human . Do you know why ? Because they're more than a mile from a parking lot .
|
|
|
Post by budfields on Sept 7, 2006 14:26:40 GMT -5
GREAT..
This is JUST WHAT WE NEED!! Another created fiasco to fight, argue amongst ourselves and hopefully, split us up into groups of "I Support It" and "I Disagree With It" groups.
It was bad enough when we started arguing amongst ourselves about the equipment of the "Traditional" archer and the "Compound" archers want to use, now the OBR conflict is another scenerio created.
Personally, I am NOT an advocate of the OBR. I could care less... I am NOT a trophy hunter. Never have been..never will be. I still like to put BIG does in the freezer. I am NOT a "Brown and Down" hunter either.
If a big buck happens to come past my stand, GREAT... if not, I am not going to start crying to the DNR about WHERE ARE THE BIG BUCKS like Illinois has. If I wanted those BIG BUCKS... I wouldl go to Illinois..
I have friends in my hunting group that are ready to FIGHT to defend the OBR and other members arw willing to fight to get rid of it... I am just out there to hunt deer and enjoy each trip out.. If I get a nice buck.. GREAT if I get the opportunity to take a big doe.. that is GREAT also.
What about the areas that are NOT condusive to producing BIG TROPHY BUCKS?? Maybe the genetics are NOT there, maybe the diet contents are NOT there.. Will the BIONIC BUCK be created by cloning the "TURDY POINTER" and Godzilla???
Oh well, as long as there are different personalities and different expectations..there will always be some kind of differences in opinions.. I still maintain we, as hunters, need to strengthen our ranks before the "Anti-Hunters" get what they want and that is a BAN TO ALL HUNTING!!! Strength is in numbers and if we divide, our numbers will be much less and their numbers will prevail.
GOOD HUNTING.. (for whatever you seek) Bud Fields
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Sept 7, 2006 14:39:15 GMT -5
GREAT.. This is JUST WHAT WE NEED!! Another created fiasco to fight, argue amongst ourselves and hopefully, split us up into groups of "I Support It" and "I Disagree With It" groups. It was bad enough when we started arguing amongst ourselves about the equipment of the "Traditional" archer and the "Compound" archers want to use, now the OBR conflict is another scenerio created. Personally, I am NOT an advocate of the OBR. I could care less... I am NOT a trophy hunter. Never have been..never will be. I still like to put BIG does in the freezer. I am NOT a "Brown and Down" hunter either. If a big buck happens to come past my stand, GREAT... if not, I am not going to start crying to the DNR about WHERE ARE THE BIG BUCKS like Illinois has. If I wanted those BIG BUCKS... I wouldl go to Illinois.. I have friends in my hunting group that are ready to FIGHT to defend the OBR and other members arw willing to fight to get rid of it... I am just out there to hunt deer and enjoy each trip out.. If I get a nice buck.. GREAT if I get the opportunity to take a big doe.. that is GREAT also. What about the areas that are NOT condusive to producing BIG TROPHY BUCKS?? Maybe the genetics are NOT there, maybe the diet contents are NOT there.. Will the BIONIC BUCK be created by cloning the "TURDY POINTER" and Godzilla??? Oh well, as long as there are different personalities and different expectations..there will always be some kind of differences in opinions.. I still maintain we, as hunters, need to strengthen our ranks before the "Anti-Hunters" get what they want and that is a BAN TO ALL HUNTING!!! Strength is in numbers and if we divide, our numbers will be much less and their numbers will prevail. GOOD HUNTING.. (for whatever you seek) Bud Fields Well put.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Sept 7, 2006 14:40:30 GMT -5
I am just out there to hunt deer and enjoy each trip out
Yippie
Me too!
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Sept 7, 2006 14:46:54 GMT -5
Yeah,
This OBR thing has been a real divider and to what end?
Maybe, just maybe, a few more guys can kill a bigger deer than before? Whoopppeee!
That is way too big of a price to pay for that when we were already killing big deer.
Let the DNR set the limits on bucks and does and let's stay out of it.
IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 15:07:33 GMT -5
Bud-you`re exactly right, we shouldn`t have divisive issues fragmenting us, unfortunately we do, and in this instance, it`s because a certain group of hunters had their deer management foisted on the majority of hunters in Indiana.
How many times, how many different ways does it need to be said: The DNR hasn`t done this for any biological reason, Dr. Mitchell has been very outspoken about it, it isn`t necessary and won`t make any difference. Look at the numbers in regards to buck harvest, the numbers are the same, only spread out differently. Which leads us back to the point that a very small number of Hoosier hunters “double dipped” anyway, but it was exciting because the “potential” was there to maybe kill 2 bucks. And should OBR be here to stay, watch out, next this certain group will be yapping about AR`s and the like.
I doubt any one here hopes for a fight with other hunters, but I also seriously doubt that anyone here will sit idly by while someone else has needless regulations pushed on us. Sitting on our hands for the sake of unity is silly and pointless.
And contrary to what greghopper will try to spoon feed you, there are ZERO data to show that OBR has had any effect on Indiana buck age structure. ZERO. And he can say anyone`s ideas are dumb all day long, but to stand behind a regulation that had changed NOTHING and still support it, even while it infringes on everyone else, that`s what makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Sept 7, 2006 15:34:20 GMT -5
Here are a couple of new things for all to ruminate about. One came from Deer and Deer Hunting's Charlie E. the other came in a Buckmasters tip of the week thing. Big Racks- 1st to get to the really large rack you must let a deer get to be 8 to 10 years old. Secondly not only must there be little stress on the buck, for food, weather, protein, soil nutrients. Soil nutrients? !! What that means is the minerals in the soil. Indiana is a state that most of the big racks will be in the 150 to 175 area with a 10to 15 percent drop off due to food availability. Meaning most really big racks are going to me less than 170 with most in the 130 to 145 area. There will always be some larger. Always. Oh yeah and the soil in Illinois has more calcium in it which will create larger racks. Secondly from buck masters tip. Biologists are beginning to change their thinking to letting the large breeding doe and bucks walk and harvesting the smaller ones. Reason being. the more mature animals are your better breeders. Which in turn helps the total herd by creating healthier fawns.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 7, 2006 15:43:32 GMT -5
Bud-you`re exactly right, we shouldn`t have divisive issues fragmenting us, unfortunately we do, and in this instance, it`s because a certain group of hunters had their deer management foisted on the majority of hunters in Indiana. How many times, how many different ways does it need to be said: The DNR hasn`t done this for any biological reason, Dr. Mitchell has been very outspoken about it, it isn`t necessary and won`t make any difference. Look at the numbers in regards to buck harvest, the numbers are the same, only spread out differently. Which leads us back to the point that a very small number of Hoosier hunters “double dipped” anyway, but it was exciting because the “potential” was there to maybe kill 2 bucks. And should OBR be here to stay, watch out, next this certain group will be yapping about AR`s and the like. I doubt any one here hopes for a fight with other hunters, but I also seriously doubt that anyone here will sit idly by while someone else has needless regulations pushed on us. Sitting on our hands for the sake of unity is silly and pointless. And contrary to what greghopper will try to spoon feed you, there are ZERO data to show that OBR has had any effect on Indiana buck age structure. ZERO. And he can say anyone`s ideas are dumb all day long, but to stand behind a regulation that had changed NOTHING and still support it, even while it infringes on everyone else, that`s what makes no sense. Here you go Look at It again....I guess you Think it's FAKE!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Sept 7, 2006 15:51:09 GMT -5
So what is/was the point of this "poll"? Hmmm...... Solohunter
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Sept 7, 2006 16:25:42 GMT -5
Looks like the biggest jump was the first year.
Maybe a hundred or so?
Wait a minute?
How can that be?
That must mean that the big bucks were alive and well BEFORE the OBR.
They didn't just grow overnight, did they?
Thanks for posting that.
That really clears things up, or does it?
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Sept 7, 2006 17:19:25 GMT -5
Big Racks- 1st to get to the really large rack you must let a deer get to be 8 to 10 years old. Secondly not only must there be little stress on the buck, for food, weather, protein, soil nutrients. Soil nutrients? !! What that means is the minerals in the soil. Indiana is a state that most of the big racks will be in the 150 to 175 area with a 10to 15 percent drop off due to food availability. Meaning most really big racks are going to me less than 170 with most in the 130 to 145 area. There will always be some larger. Always. Oh yeah and the soil in Illinois has more calcium in it which will create larger racks. I've heard a lot from the OBR guys that Indiana is the same as Illinois when it comes to habitat. The habitat is similar, but what you have said there is NO comparison to Illinois in soils. As you stated, it is all in the soils. Indiana and Illinois are both rich in Alfisol soil. That is why both states have such great crops grown every year. Where Illinois has us beat hands down is in Mollisol soils. That is mineral and nutrient laden soil that will be ingested by deer through the plant and will help to grow those big old antlers that everyone seems so crazy about. The Mississippi river bottoms of Illinois is VERY rich in Mollisol soils. That is where the "Golden Triangle" of Illinois deer hunting is at. Do farmers kill their prize bulls off or do they kill off the young steers? The emphasis is on big antlers. That is the only reason we are even having this discussion on here. If the male whitetail did not sport antlers a lot of deer hunters would quit deer hunting today.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 7, 2006 17:52:52 GMT -5
The emphasis is on big antlers. That is the only reason we are even having this discussion on here. If the male whitetail did not sport antlers a lot of deer hunters would quit deer hunting today. YES SIR...THE OBR PEOPLE Want ONE set Not TWO....
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Sept 7, 2006 18:16:45 GMT -5
The emphasis is on big antlers. That is the only reason we are even having this discussion on here. If the male whitetail did not sport antlers a lot of deer hunters would quit deer hunting today. YES SIR...THE OBR PEOPLE Want ONE set Not TWO.... That's great Greg. I'm truly happy for you. I have no problem with you only wanting one. That is your choice. Now why should you have a problem with me wanting to hunt a second buck if I am so lucky to get the first one? That is unless you are concerned that if I am double lucky and get that second buck and that it just might have been your one and only buck? BTW - No comment on the first year of the OBR jump in entries? Where did those bucks come from?
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Sept 7, 2006 18:32:09 GMT -5
How about the jump from 2001 to 2004... What do you think caused that?
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Sept 7, 2006 18:37:10 GMT -5
So what is/was the point of this "poll"? Hmmm...... Solohunter I posted the poll so I will answer......... The OBR has no biological effect.....it's purely hunter satisfaction, it's all about who can get the most folks to speak in support of their program. So if thats the way we manage the resource, I would be willing to bet that if there was a proposal to start a October Muzzleloader wekend, that LOT'S of folks would support it (under a OBR)......same applies to crossbows as regular archery...lots of folks will support it under a OBR....the writing is on the wall, just look to Kentucky, why would Indiana be any different. Besides that, a OBR is really only effective on folks who hunt more than one or two weekends a year This is something that anyone who pays attention to the issues needs to think about when deciding where you stand
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 18:50:25 GMT -5
The jump from 2001 to 2004 was nothing more than the natural progression that was happening anyway.
Listen up once more-the SAME number of bucks are being killed now as before OBR, the numbers are just spread out over different times.
Indiana was in the top ten states in B&C and P&Y entries well before OBR so that wasn`t going to change. To be exact, NOTHING changed with the OBR, except the POTENTAIL for hunters to kill 2 bucks per season.
Last time, greghopper has ZERO data to show OBR made any difference because no data exists. You can find charts and graphs to say anything you want. Jim Mitchell, the states top white-tail biologist said quite plainly, it`s made ZERO difference.
Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Sept 7, 2006 19:04:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 7, 2006 19:07:33 GMT -5
The jump from 2001 to 2004 was nothing more than the natural progression that was happening anyway. Thats your opion....Many others think different!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 19:07:50 GMT -5
GREGHOPPER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!! I dont need graphs or papers or biologists or any thing like that. All I need is 2 eyes to see the difference. I hope they keep it. It might get me interested in deer hunting again. LOL
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Sept 7, 2006 19:12:38 GMT -5
If the states DNR Biologist had nothing to do with the passing of the OBR, than maybe they should be fired. OBR does change things in the overall herd. And the biologist manage the herd, well they are supposed too!
Seems to me that the biologist now realizes he's made a mistake, and has seen the negativity from the hunters and points the responsibility to somewhere else. It just makes me wonder why/how some hunters actually believe its not the Biologist that actually passed this on. Ignorance is bliss i suppose!
Lug
|
|