|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 19:23:59 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 You`re not serious are you? The biologists are charged with the health of the herd, that`s a given. The OBR has no chance to hurt the herd, and in some twisted way, may actually help encourage more anterless kill. But make no mistake, the OBR was implemented by the DNR strictly to appease a segment of the deer hunting community. The DNR does have the obligation, all things being equal, to cater to the people who pay the bills, ie hunters, so long as it doesn`t come at a negative impact to the herd or habitat. So the DNR did nothing wrong morally or ethically, to implement the OBR. The only thing lacking was fair representation of all deer hunters. Oh and for the record, Dr. Mitchell stated at the onset of the silly OBR that it was an exercise in futility, this isn`t anything new.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Sept 7, 2006 19:37:47 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 You`re not serious are you? The biologists are charged with the health of the herd, that`s a given. The OBR has no chance to hurt the herd, and in some twisted way, may actually help encourage more anterless kill. But make no mistake, the OBR was implemented by the DNR strictly to appease a segment of the deer hunting community. The DNR does have the obligation, all things being equal, to cater to the people who pay the bills, ie hunters, so long as it doesn`t come at a negative impact to the herd or habitat. So the DNR did nothing wrong morally or ethically, to implement the OBR. The only thing lacking was fair representation of all deer hunters. Oh and for the record, Dr. Mitchell stated at the onset of the silly OBR that it was an exercise in futility, this isn`t anything new. What does your statement have to do with what i wrote previously? I'm talking about Mitchell passing the buck, and your talke about fair representations of all deer hunters. BTW the DNR can't give all hunters what they want, but they can to the MAJORITY of hunters given that nothing is going to hurt the progress of todays herd. Lug
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 20:23:46 GMT -5
You`re not serious are you? The biologists are charged with the health of the herd, that`s a given. The OBR has no chance to hurt the herd, and in some twisted way, may actually help encourage more anterless kill. But make no mistake, the OBR was implemented by the DNR strictly to appease a segment of the deer hunting community. The DNR does have the obligation, all things being equal, to cater to the people who pay the bills, ie hunters, so long as it doesn`t come at a negative impact to the herd or habitat. So the DNR did nothing wrong morally or ethically, to implement the OBR. The only thing lacking was fair representation of all deer hunters. Oh and for the record, Dr. Mitchell stated at the onset of the silly OBR that it was an exercise in futility, this isn`t anything new. What does your statement have to do with what i wrote previously? I'm talking about Mitchell passing the buck, and your talke about fair representations of all deer hunters. BTW the DNR can't give all hunters what they want, but they can to the MAJORITY of hunters given that nothing is going to hurt the progress of todays herd. Lug[/quot All I was saying is that Jim Mitchell said from the start it was a poor idea-so there has been no passing the buck by the DNR biologists. You can`t lay this at their feet.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Sept 7, 2006 20:33:04 GMT -5
So apparently the DNR doesn't care what Jim Mitchell thinks, thats what your saying. The State Biologist has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions made by the DNR, such as the 350 does to 1 buck. I understand does need to be taken from the herd, but this is rediculous!
Lug
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Sept 7, 2006 21:02:41 GMT -5
So apparently the DNR doesn't care what Jim Mitchell thinks, thats what your saying. The State Biologist has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions made by the DNR, such as the 350 does to 1 buck. I understand does need to be taken from the herd, but this is rediculous! Lug Lug-All I`m sayin` is that if it doesn`t negatively impact the herd, and the DNR "thinks" enough hunters want it, they`ll attempt to give it to them. I doubt anyone would argue that in most areas of the state, does need to be thinned out. Although, there are pockets where the deer herd has been hit hard, like with Indianahick. But mostly, it isn`t a matter of the DNR political body not listening to their biologists, it`s a matter of the DNR trying to give hunters what they think we want.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Sept 7, 2006 21:33:22 GMT -5
PLEASE SOME ONE BURRY THIS HORSE! OBR should have it's own section on this web sight, wait, how about it's own websight.... I can see it now www.obr.com "Where everyone can fight about it all they want!" I can't wait for Oct 1st!
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Sept 7, 2006 21:34:24 GMT -5
i did'nt know it would actually bring up a web page ha ha ha!
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Sept 7, 2006 21:59:34 GMT -5
i did'nt know it would actually bring up a web page ha ha ha! And its in Indiana.... They are probably in favor of OBR also!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Sept 8, 2006 3:59:04 GMT -5
PLEASE SOME ONE BURRY THIS HORSE! OBR should have it's own section on this web sight, wait, how about it's own websight.... I can see it now www.obr.com "Where everyone can fight about it all they want!" I can't wait for Oct 1st! 2nd best post on this thread.... Solohunter
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Sept 8, 2006 5:03:37 GMT -5
PLEASE SOME ONE BURRY THIS HORSE! OBR should have it's own section on this web sight, wait, how about it's own websight.... I can see it now www.obr.com "Where everyone can fight about it all they want!" I can't wait for Oct 1st! 2nd best post on this thread.... Solohunter What was the 1st best?
|
|
|
Post by catdaddy75 on Sept 8, 2006 5:18:02 GMT -5
could one of you anti obr guys explain why you feel such a need to kill two bucks.if you like hunting so much why dont you kill 15 does instead of 2 bucks?
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Sept 8, 2006 5:37:18 GMT -5
Maybe it's not the "want" to kill the two bucks, maybe it's all the other factors that will need to be addressed under a permenant OBR.
Why is the IDNR selling buck tags with a 3 week shelf life, under a OBR?
What will the IDNR do to increase partisapation in the October p[art of the deer season???...Kentucky added a October muzzleloader weekend and crossbows as regular archery to boost partisapation.
A OBR will NEVER have any EFFECT on the folks who only hunt one or two weekends a year....and the majority of deer hunters in Indiana only hunt one or two weekends a year!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 8, 2006 8:14:53 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. # 1 POST.....
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 8, 2006 8:20:42 GMT -5
Everyone says the jumps in record book entries was already occuring. So what if we go back to a 2 buck limit and it drops back to where it was befor the OBR?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 8, 2006 8:30:21 GMT -5
Everyone says the jumps in record book entries was already occurring. So what if we go back to a 2 buck limit and it drops back to where it was before the OBR? That will HAPPEN....But it will take about 5 years for The effect of the OBR...To work its self OUT!!!!If and when we go back to 2 Bucks ,The First few YEARS you will see Big INCREASES in Record book entries...People will Be Killing 2 BIG BUCKS....
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Sept 8, 2006 14:06:51 GMT -5
Everyone says the jumps in record book entries was already occurring. So what if we go back to a 2 buck limit and it drops back to where it was before the OBR? That will HAPPEN....But it will take about 5 years for The effect of the OBR...To work its self OUT!!!!If and when we go back to 2 Bucks ,The First few YEARS you will see Big INCREASES in Record book entries...People will Be Killing 2 BIG BUCKS.... LOL.....yea RIGHT!
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Sept 8, 2006 15:18:26 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. Natural progression? Look at 1999, 2000 and 2001. You sure you want to tell me 2002 was a natural progression? I could find a lot of statisticians who would be more than happy to disagree with that. Show me the data that shows that OBR has not had a positive effect. Wait, you can't. The problem with your argument is that it's based the same as pro-OBR folks.....all based on personal feelings backed up by no scientific data because the work hasn't been done. That's why I think it best we wait and see what the data tells us. It's only then will we be able to make a rational decision. Anything at this point is premature and based solely on personal feelings.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Sept 8, 2006 15:38:57 GMT -5
Everyone says the jumps in record book entries was already occuring. So what if we go back to a 2 buck limit and it drops back to where it was befor the OBR? Who cares about record book entries? Record book entries are completely meaningless for basing management decisions on. If the buck harvest were to explode upon going back to a two buck limit, as some people apparently believe will happen, then that would be a legitimate reason to go back to a one buck limit. That will not happen nor will a drop in record book entries unless the IDHA simply scores fewer deer in an attempt to prove their point. We're still waiting for the OBR supporters to explain why the single largest increase in record book entries happened the first year not the second or third year as should have happened if the OBR were responsible.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Sept 8, 2006 15:50:52 GMT -5
Everyone says the jumps in record book entries was already occuring. So what if we go back to a 2 buck limit and it drops back to where it was befor the OBR? Who cares about record book entries? Record book entries are completely meaningless for basing management decisions on. If the buck harvest were to explode upon going back to a two buck limit, as some people apparently believe will happen, then that would be a legitimate reason to go back to a one buck limit. That will not happen nor will a drop in record book entries unless the IDHA simply scores fewer deer in an attempt to prove their point. We're still waiting for the OBR supporters to explain why the single largest increase in record book entries happened the first year not the second or third year as should have happened if the OBR were responsible. Think about what you wrote a little bit, how is it the single biggest increase in record book entries happened in 2002, the very first year under the OBR? Now unless you seriously believe those bucks suddenly aged two years and grew record book racks upon the announcement of the rule change, then they must have been around prior to the OBR. Here are the absolute facts of the situation for you: 1. More bucks have been killed during the 4 years under the OBR than any other recorded four year period. 2. The single biggest jump in record book entries happened in 2002 the first year under the OBR. Very few bucks make the record books before they are 3.5 and almost none make it before 2.5. Now, how can anyone look at the data and seriously believe that the OBR did anything other than transfer the buck harvest from early archery season to firearms season.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Sept 8, 2006 15:56:48 GMT -5
Wow, you really think the people that had such low success killing big bucks that they felt the need to beg the state to change the rules for them, are suddenly going to wipe the big bucks out once we return to a two buck limit?
|
|