|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 29, 2005 11:13:43 GMT -5
The subject of Earn - A - Buck came up again.
What do you think about an Earn - A - Buck program in Indiana?
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 29, 2005 11:52:13 GMT -5
I just hope that if it were to come about they could find a way to ensure that the doe in question was actually killed in the EAB zone .
|
|
|
Post by 911 on Aug 29, 2005 18:34:07 GMT -5
Like ive said before this rule is not fair and it all depends on where you hunt i could go all season Here in Hancock county and not have a doe in bow range so if i get lucky enough to have a buck in range i should get to shoot it.
DUMB RULE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by raporter1 on Aug 29, 2005 19:58:36 GMT -5
Have to go along with 911 on this one. I believe this could make a lot of outlaws out of good people. Would think it would be good for the second buck. Wouldn't bother me one way or the other but for the guy who has to take off a day or has to drive 2-3 hours to hunt passing on nice buck would be more than we should ask of them.
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Aug 29, 2005 22:10:01 GMT -5
1st buck, anything goes. 2nd buck I would absolutely support "earn a buck". Then again, I think the OBR should go away anyhow. But no way would I support earn a buck for a one, and only buck.
|
|
|
Post by 1ranger49 on Aug 29, 2005 22:44:58 GMT -5
Earn a second buck by taking a doe would be fine with me. I would hate to see a buck of a liftime walk by and sitting there knowing I can't shoot untill I tag a doe first would just kill a person
Neil
|
|
|
Post by cday on Aug 30, 2005 1:48:02 GMT -5
I think Indiana needs to stick with the one buck rule, but change the modern gun license to a any deer tag. There is a big percentage of hunters that are only wanting to take one deer and that is it. Since they are this way they sure as heck ain't going to purchase two tags at $24.00 a pop. This would greatly help in high deer density areas were if a hunter has not seen a buck then they take a doe instead of not taking anything. But if a hunter uses this tag on a doe then he just threw his/her chance at a buck during modern gun season. Thei concept is a win win for everybody. It will help take out some more does and might also reduce the buck harvest some.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Aug 30, 2005 7:58:04 GMT -5
The OBR could be implemented in the counties where it is necessary to stabilize the local herd to produce more mature bucks. I also agree that there should be no restrictions on the first buck, as each hunter should be able to decide how & when he or she wants to fill their first tag.
|
|
spc
Full Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by spc on Aug 30, 2005 12:33:04 GMT -5
Throw away the OBR all together!!!!! 2 buck rule
|
|
|
Post by jstalljon on Aug 30, 2005 13:19:55 GMT -5
Earn a second buck by taking a doe would be fine with me. I would hate to see a buck of a liftime walk by and sitting there knowing I can't shoot untill I tag a doe first would just kill a person Neil I agree...this would get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 31, 2005 6:31:05 GMT -5
I fully support the earn a second buck proposal as long as both bucks are not killed in firearms season. Perhaps requiring hunters to kill two does in order to earn a second buck in herd reduction and 4 bonus permit counties would be a good idea as well.
|
|
|
Post by schoolmaster on Aug 31, 2005 21:22:04 GMT -5
The one buck rule is bad enough, I can't support the earn a buck idea.
|
|
|
Post by turkeyscout on Sept 5, 2005 8:41:59 GMT -5
i agree with schoolmaster, turkey scout
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 1, 2006 14:43:45 GMT -5
Since Earn- A- Buck was brought up in the OBR compromise proposals I thought I'd bring this poll back up..
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 1, 2006 14:46:56 GMT -5
I'm still of the opinion that the DNR should do whatever is best for the herd and ignore the whole lot of us!
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 1, 2006 14:56:14 GMT -5
Since Earn- A- Buck was brought up in the OBR compromise proposals I thought I'd bring this poll back up.. WOW!!! Thats really going back.......Sept. 2005 was the last post here!
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 1, 2006 15:01:41 GMT -5
I'm still of the opinion that the DNR should do whatever is best for the herd and ignore the whole lot of us! I couldnt agree more...! h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 1, 2006 15:34:10 GMT -5
Since Earn- A- Buck was brought up in the OBR compromise proposals I thought I'd bring this poll back up.. WOW!!! Thats really going back.......Sept. 2005 was the last post here! I didn't want to start a whole new poll all over again. Most of us that voted have probably not changed our minds and those that haven't voted yet, now have a chance. .
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Aug 1, 2006 16:23:30 GMT -5
I'm still of the opinion that the DNR should do whatever is best for the herd and ignore the whole lot of us! I believe that neither an earn-a-buck program, not the silly OBR could be said to fall into a "best for the herd" catagory-unless you wanted to say that killing a doe before a buck would ensure reducing the deer herd. I voted for an earn-a-buck program during gun season, as long as, like Woody stated, it would be in conjunction with getting rid of the OBR. Were that to be the case, you still would have the potential to tag a buck during archery season, then earn your buck during gun season.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Aug 1, 2006 17:59:50 GMT -5
Earn the second one, this would surely get the doe population in check if we all wanted that second buck. I think the guy's wanting the second buck would really get an extra chance at the "big one" or the challenge of hunting another buck. I like earn a buck and I like OBR but if I were to cohoose I say OBR earn a buck is a comprimise in my opinion but it's one I can live with.
|
|