|
Post by racktracker on Oct 3, 2006 17:28:01 GMT -5
It seems that 53% didn’t care one way or the other. They never even bothered to answer the survey. They then said – Then they say … Pretty contradictory isn’t it? In one statement it said – “increased their opportunity to harvest a big buck” and in the next it says there was “Neutral sentiment on the number of big bucks seen”?? ?? Does that mean they expected to see more, but didn’t? Now that is earth-shaking news. NOT! Since only 6,000 deer hunters (3% or less) killed two bucks a year in the past that means 97% didn’t kill two bucks. No big change for the majority, right? I’m bewildered that this percentage isn’t higher than that. That question was poorly worded. It should have asked about the chance to hunt a second buck, not just the killing of a second buck. So if a deer hunter bought more than one deer license type his/her name was omitted? If so, no wonder the bowhunters overwhelmingly wants the OBR. Same with the gun hunters. OBR is a one season hunter's dream. No surprise to me. No group moves around that much. People are putting down false addresses to buy another buck tag thanks to the OBR.. Not too long ago (prior to the OBR) that percentage of leasing was less than 3%. The outfitters and lease agents are coming boys – get ready – dig deep…..deeper….. DEEPER!!Now this guy said a MOUTHFUL here. This is EXACTLY why we are in this mess. “I want the state to grow me some trophy deer, just like those ones I see on TV” I agree. Popular OPINION should not be used to manage any game. manage game on data ONLY, not some whim that some hunters are going through Sure it does. Every buck killed is one less in the population. If you don't believe that tell some farmer that the buck eating his crops and killing his apple trees orthe little old lady that has a car totaled by a collision with a buck doesn't count in the population. No. “foolish greed” is making someone else hunt the way that you see fit. Greg, No offense, but how long have you deer hunted and how many “trophy bucks” have you taken?
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 3, 2006 17:42:39 GMT -5
Considering how the sampling was done , how could anyone consider this survey even remotely valid ? I certainly don't , and not simply because I disagree with it's findings .
At the very least they should have broken the groups down in numbers more representative of their actual percentages , in which case the predominant number should have been gun hunters , not bow hunters . The number of LL holders was so far out of whack as to be rendered statistically meaningless as well , so why ask them at all ? Total BS survey .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 3, 2006 17:52:18 GMT -5
According to the "Methods" section, there were 2,000 LTL's surveyed.... What I don't get, and I'm interested in Woody's opinion here, is why they used 4,000 archery license folks, and only 2,000 each from firearms, muzzy, and LTL... I would have thought one would randomly pick 10,000 names from the entire POS pool, and then break down the results by license type as part of the analysis. If not, and you go with this "stratified pool" concept, why wouldn't each license group have the same number of samples toward the pool total, e.g. 2,000 each... As a landowner, I also agree with earlier comments about the lack of sampling from license exempt groups. If they had a web option for those with purchased licenses, why not use the web form for license exempt hunters??? Not sure I have an answer for that one, Kirk. The overwhelming bulk of deer hunters in this state are gun hunters only. Maybe the DNR thought the results would be skewed too much if it was 4,000 gun hunters being asked?? Dunno... I do have a problem with this meeting and the IDNR making a proposal of some kind before all the data is in on a 5 year trial. If it is a 5 year trial then that is the data that should be used, not a 4 year data plan. My guess is that their mind is already made up OR they want to get this behind them to move on to other things.. I would like to see the raw numbers.. Interesting...to say the least..
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 3, 2006 19:10:26 GMT -5
I have from a reliable source that Kyle Hupfer is a bowhunter that is increasingly shunning gun hunting and is a bowhunting trophy hunter. Since being a one season hunter wont affect him he couldn't care less about a second buck.
The trial will be cut short because Kyle wants it to be. No matter that it was agreed upon at the beginning that there would be five years worth of data to consider to reach a conclusion.
It will be his way or the highway for anyone that disagrees with him.
Strictly iron fisted management.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 3, 2006 19:48:14 GMT -5
Considering how the sampling was done , how could anyone consider this survey even remotely valid ? I certainly don't , and not simply because I disagree with it's findings . At the very least they should have broken the groups down in numbers more representative of their actual percentages , in which case the predominant number should have been gun hunters , not bow hunters . The number of LL holders was so far out of whack as to be rendered statistically meaningless as well , so why ask them at all ? Total BS survey . But doesn't that make the point more valid? It was the bowhunters that lost the most from OBR and under that premise, they should have been the ones to complain the hardest. It didn't really work out that way. It is interesting. However, I think the point that has hit home the hardest is that it doesn't matter what the DNR does or doesn't do. There will always be those that will agree with it and those that don't. That is the only certainty that I have come away with with this whole debate. Since I wasn't here when Indiana had a 3 buck-rule, I'm curious if the switch to a 2 buck rule brought out this much animosity? On a personal note, I finally got to meet the infamous ChicoBrownBear tonight. He's a heck of a guy who's setting me up in some woods tomorrow morning. I, for one, will never disagree with his thoughts ever again
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 3, 2006 19:54:51 GMT -5
If the IDNR has their minds made up early, IT WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO TWO BUCKS A YEAR!!!!!!
There is a such a thing as MONEY, and the one less buck tag is costing lots of money. I aint saying its good or bad, but Mr. Daniels IS all about generating money, drilling for coal on a F&W property?
Hey....it takes money to run things and make them better, if its a good deal for the state, then it's a good deal for you, the citizen.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 3, 2006 20:15:09 GMT -5
Racktracker, Sure, you take one out. However, if you're managing a deer population for the health of the deer as a whole you don't do it by taking bucks, you do it by taking does. You kill one buck, you've removed one deer from the population. You take out one doe, you've taken out 8 deer from the population on average. Surely you'd agree then that the taking of does would be more beneficial to managing the herd. Additionally, do a personal survey on the deer you see on the side of the road. I'll bet you find the doe:buck ratio to be much higher on the doe side than on the buck. Any manager of wildlife worth his/her salt will tell anyone that is trying to cut down on damage to crops to get rid of the does for that very reason. While I could personally care less if they have a one or two buck rule, in my opinion, the only need for a 2 buck rule in rural areas is for the hunter. All bets are off in an urban area but really, there is no biological need for the shooting of 2 bucks in most rural areas that I'm familiar with. Of course, just like everyone else on here, that's just my personal opinion and should be taken as such. Although I'm a wildlife biologist by training, I don't try to pretend to know it all and certainly don't think my opinion is better than anyone else's. It will be interesting to see how this turns out either way. I do agree and have said all along what the anti-OBR has been saying as of late: wait until we get the entire 5 year data from the trial period and make your decisions based upon that.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 3, 2006 21:44:21 GMT -5
63% of the bowhunters (bowhunted solely) liked one buck. Why not they got one size does not matter. They are done.
Gun hunters only liked it- Same reasons.
Multiple season hunters-archery, firearms, ml, do not like it. A buck with a bow no matter the size taken out side of high fence areas is a trophy.
Way to many hunters now watch, babe winkleman, the warren twins (actually there are three), buckmaster, management advantage, etc and have fallen in love with these guys patter about trophy deer. Course most watchers do not notice the high straight line in the distance on a lot of these kills, forget that those deer have been fed suppliments for growth and antler growth all of their lives. Kind of like feeding chickens ground oyster shells for bigger stronger shelled eggs.
Personally if the obr becomes a perminant rule then I will probably sell of my archery equipment and become a firearm, ml hunter only. Yup take the easy way to kill a deer, less stress and strain on the old body.
Hide and watch for the next set of restrictions, 4 scorable points on one side of at least 5 inches. It is just like anti smokeing restrictions get one and more are sure to follow and other restrictions not even related will follow. But hell what do I know after all I am just a Hick from Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 3, 2006 21:48:28 GMT -5
Can somebody explain why the survey included 4000 archers? 500 Youths ( no offense to the youngsters out there, but, how can anyone expect a 10 year old to compare today's deer hunting to the deer hunting when he was 5 or 6 years old???). Has anybody involved with this survey taken ANY courses in statistics? I have to wonder. This survey is COMPLETELY SKEWED and therefore COMPLETELY USELESS in condensing Hoosier deer hunters feelings about the OBR. Whatever happened to science and the role of the wildlife biologists in dealing with health and well-being of our wildlife? Hmmmm...... maybe I will play "armchair biologist" too. How about doing away with hunting whitetail bucks in Indiana totally? That should make the OBR supporters shout with glee. My, my, my,can you imagine it? There would be Pope and Youngers and Booners behind every tree, right? Oh, wait, I remember being told and reading that the OBR has NOTHING to do with growing bigger bucks. My mistake. I wonder how many of the youth licensees responded that they like being limited to fewer deer (bucks). I can't imagie any or many, can you? It boils down to a survey that isn't worth debating as the polling methods were sophmoric at best. Let 'er rip!
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Oct 3, 2006 22:00:46 GMT -5
I have not been on here for 6 months or more and it the same old B.S. about the one buck rule.
Just think of the time waisted and the difference many of you could have made for hunting and conservation if you would have used it wisely. 4 years of moaning about this and anyone who would have interacted with the public should have known the results of the survey. There is nothing surprising here. For those opponets your time passed 5 years ago when few if any showed up at public hearing in opposition to this and those who wanted it did.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 3, 2006 22:39:32 GMT -5
Before i was slightly educated on the harvest numbers over the past few years, i was certain that the OBR was the best way to go. But after taking a long look at the harvest results over the past few years i see no reason on keeping the OBR. One buck or two bucks, the same or more have been harvested in each of the years its been the law. I wonder, of the hunters that were polled, were even somewhat educated on the harvest numbers and such. 8 deer on average? Hoyt i have the upmost respect for you, but i think you took too much medication when you posted this part. Hoyt, this year in Indiana you can basically take an unlimited number of does correct? When the statewide hunters take all these does this year, don't you believe the number of button bucks that will be harvested statewide will be at an all time high? And if so, won't it be a difficult task to recruit these button bucks into a mature buck if they are getting slaughtered this year? Since the recruitment of button bucks this year will probably be at an all time low this. How do you think this will reflect in the next few years on the total herd of the Bucks? Lug
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 4, 2006 5:07:52 GMT -5
But doesn't that make the point more valid? It was the bowhunters that lost the most from OBR and under that premise, they should have been the ones to complain the hardest. [/quote]
Since the alleged purpose of the survey was to guage the opinions of the "average" Hoosier hunter I'd have to say no , bowhunters are a distinct minority . It's not a matter of who got screwed , it's a matter of how the average hunter thinks , and you can't have a meaningful survey unless all of the participants are accurately represented .
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 4, 2006 5:11:06 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with who got the survey, they sent 10,000 out, I think that would cover a good mix of deer hunters. The survey results are really no different than other surveys they have done. At one time they asked about trophy management.....a majority said they supported trophy management, and in the same survey a majority said they didn't want trophy management imposed on them or their lands! Just like in this survey, a majority say they like the OBR and a majority say they have no problem with a three year two buck rule? ?....how can that be? By the way....the IBA (and it's leadership) has kept pretty quiet on where they will be on this issue.....wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 4, 2006 7:31:37 GMT -5
Before i was slightly educated on the harvest numbers over the past few years, i was certain that the OBR was the best way to go. But after taking a long look at the harvest results over the past few years i see no reason on keeping the OBR. One buck or two bucks, the same or more have been harvested in each of the years its been the law. I wonder, of the hunters that were polled, were even somewhat educated on the harvest numbers and such. 8 deer on average? Hoyt i have the upmost respect for you, but i think you took too much medication when you posted this part. Hoyt, this year in Indiana you can basically take an unlimited number of does correct? When the statewide hunters take all these does this year, don't you believe the number of button bucks that will be harvested statewide will be at an all time high? And if so, won't it be a difficult task to recruit these button bucks into a mature buck if they are getting slaughtered this year? Since the recruitment of button bucks this year will probably be at an all time low this. How do you think this will reflect in the next few years on the total herd of the Bucks? Lug Lug, before you go losing that respect, remember when you take out a doe, you are affecting the rest of the deer that the doe would produce over her lifetime. 8 deer is a common average that is used for the life cycle of a doe. It could be more (on the property I hunt, we've got 2 sets of triplets this year) or less. That's why I said on average. Sure you can take an unlimited amount of does if you end up hunting every county in the state but I think what we've found here on this site is the majority do not even come close to that. But, let's extrapolate that even further. Suppose there was a 2 buck rule again and you had the same doe limit. What do you really think would happen to the buck population then? The truth of the matter is that while we have a higher limit for does, people aren't even coming close to taking all that they are allowed under the rules. Taking button bucks (mistaken for does) is nothing new. It's been happening for quite some time and I'm fairly confident the DNR has figured that into their reasoning for limits. But, let's take a look at something else. When people were allowed 2 bucks, I believe the number on here showed that somewhere around 6,000 were taken as a second buck. Given that the common theme on here is that people would rather hunt bucks than does (for whatever reason), do you really think there will be many who will try and harvest the total number of does that's currently allowed under the regs? I would submit that that would not probably not happen. The majority will only take what they can use and not limit out for the sake of limiting out. By the way, Lug, that 8 number that you think medication caused me to throw out was not a number I arbitrarily selected. It was in one of my wildlife management books from school. Only wish I could remember which one to provide a source. Now, there may be many times where you might question my sanity and have a valid point ( ) but that was not a number I came up with.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 4, 2006 7:40:13 GMT -5
But doesn't that make the point more valid? It was the bowhunters that lost the most from OBR and under that premise, they should have been the ones to complain the hardest. Since the alleged purpose of the survey was to guage the opinions of the "average" Hoosier hunter I'd have to say no , bowhunters are a distinct minority . It's not a matter of who got screwed , it's a matter of how the average hunter thinks , and you can't have a meaningful survey unless all of the participants are accurately represented . [/quote] You are correct. Bowhunters are not your average everyday weekend hunters. However, they are probably the group of hunters who spend the most time out in the deer woods and were the ones most affected by the OBR. If you've got the group of hunters that were the most adversely affected by the rule backing the rule, that's not bad data at all. There will always be exceptions to the rule. This just further promotes my feelings that regardless of what the DNR does, they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't. It was proven when OBR came into effect and then proven yet again with this latest survey.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 4, 2006 9:00:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dec on Oct 4, 2006 10:00:47 GMT -5
How can anyone claim that the "average deer hunter" was not appropriately represented or surveyed? I'm pretty sure that most of us here feel we, individually, represent the "typical" or "average" deer hunter. The funny part about that is that each of us are very unique in how we hunt, why we hunt, when we hunt, and what we hunt. So were the 10,000+ in this survey. So, yes, they were the "average deer hunter", each with their uniqueness all to their own, just like you and just like me.
Surveys are not perfect. That is why they allow for a margin of error. But a clear majority is not effected by slight margins of error.
It has been said time in and time out that the bow hunter who also picks up a gun is the one that "lost opportunity" through OBR. As one of those in that category, I still attest that I never lost anything. So, what could be more fitting than heavily poll the bow hunters? So they were doubled up for the survey. If they felt they were truly being shafted by the State, then the survey would reflect this. Obviously, that was not the case. So the argument that has been used from the beginning that the bow hunter has lost so much through OBR does not (as it never did) hold water.
Just because you or I were not sent a survey, does not mean it was not a valid survey. I'd feel that way no matter what the survey percentages said about OBR and regardless of my feelings on OBR.
I find it so funny that many on this site just do not get it that OBR is what the MAJORITY in the state want. I and many others have seen this from day one in general discussions within the local hunting communities, on hunting web sites, at meetings, and other places. This web site is still the only place I've seen that has such an anti-OBR following. There is a bigger world out there folks. The survey represents this.
The survey does in fact represent the "Average" Indiana deer hunter. It was done by a random selection of names from a license data base. That means that I was represented and so were you.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Oct 4, 2006 12:03:14 GMT -5
Dec - I was one of the folks on the old DAC group that suggested the OBR trial, and in general in favor of the rule, but I also said at that point that we would see what data was yielded by the trial and go from there in terms of a permanent rule or change... having said that...
1 - The trial period isn't over, so decisions based on harvest data are premature, since rule was first in effect in 2002, that means first effects wouldn't have been apparent until 2003+, so basically we've only had 3 years of data.
2 - From a strictly statistical basis, the survey wasn't a random selection from the entire POS database. By pre-selecting 4,000 bow, 2,000 gun, 2,000 muzzy and so forth, the sample pool was skewed (over-sampled) right off the bat relative to bowhunters. Also, the method by design eliminated duplicate license/records, so by definition NO MULTI-WEAPON hunters were analyzed as a group, i.e. they may have been selected in one of the single weapon classes, but no analysis of multi-weapon hunters or stats is available because the original pool was not random across the entire sample.
I figured even before the survey results were out that the majority would be found in support of OBR, because most web polls and hunting group membership surveys had shown that in the past... but that's not the point.... This survey is valid only to the extent that it shows data for the entire 4,600+ (containing the oversampled bowhunter responses) that actually replied, but IMHO, any specific percentages associated with the survey are subjective unless the analysis formula compensated for the sub-group sample sizes. It is what it is for the group sampled.
In other words, IMHO, they should have either done a pure random draw from the entire POS pool, OR... they could have pre-sampled by weapon type in the same percentages as those weapons yield in actual harvest numbers, i.e. if bowhunters account for what - 10% of the harvest (don't have a table handy for the actual number, so whatever is correct), then they would have been 10% of the pre-selected pool.
This is similar to the arguments about political polling in which one poll is of registered voters, and another is of registered voters likely to vote... they're both pools of registered voters, but you're going to get different results between the two polls....
So, at the end of the day, tax money has been spent on a survey that in the end, perhaps doesn't provide a clean answer to the question at hand, and gives those opposed to OBR a reason to question the results... and you know what... I don't know that I disagree with their take on this issue stat-wise...
Back in the day when my dad worked as a bio for IDNR, he and others received complaints about names drawn for hunts at various locations in the state in which several members of the same family would all get drawn from what was supposedly a random selection. What they discovered was that the program was randomly selecting a first letter of a last name and then generating draw tickets until that letter was exhausted... so if "S" was the selected letter, the Smith family were happy campers, but the Jones were not... it was not a random selection from the entire pool, and neither was this deer survey...
I'm reminded of episodes of "Family Feud" in which the question was something like "Name something you wouldn't buy for your wife..." and the reason the family can't get all the items is that the "survey says".... "Elephant"...
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 4, 2006 12:07:27 GMT -5
Dec - I was one of the folks on the old DAC group that suggested the OBR trial, and in general in favor of the rule, but I also said at that point that we would see what data was yielded by the trial and go from there in terms of a permanent rule or change... having said that... 1 - The trial period isn't over, so decisions based on harvest data are premature, since rule was first in effect in 2002, that means first effects wouldn't have been apparent until 2003+, so basically we've only had 3 years of data. 2 - From a strictly statistical basis, the survey wasn't a random selection from the entire POS database. By pre-selecting 4,000 bow, 2,000 gun, 2,000 muzzy and so forth, the sample pool was skewed (over-sampled) right off the bat relative to bowhunters. Also, the method by design eliminated duplicate license/records, so by definition NO MULTI-WEAPON hunters were analyzed as a group, i.e. they may have been selected in one of the single weapon classes, but no analysis of multi-weapon hunters or stats is available because the original pool was not random across the entire sample. I figured even before the survey results were out that the majority would be found in support of OBR, because most web polls and hunting group membership surveys had shown that in the past... but that's not the point.... This survey is valid only to the extent that it shows data for the entire 4,600+ (containing the oversampled bowhunter responses) that actually replied, but IMHO, any specific percentages associated with the survey are subjective unless the analysis formula compensated for the sub-group sample sizes. It is what it is for the group sampled. In other words, IMHO, they should have either done a pure random draw from the entire POS pool, OR... they could have pre-sampled by weapon type in the same percentages as those weapons yield in actual harvest numbers, i.e. if bowhunters account for what - 10% of the harvest (don't have a table handy for the actual number, so whatever is correct), then they would have been 10% of the pre-selected pool. This is similar to the arguments about political polling in which one poll is of registered voters, and another is of registered voters likely to vote... they're both pools of registered voters, but you're going to get different results between the two polls.... So, at the end of the day, tax money has been spent on a survey that in the end, perhaps doesn't provide a clean answer to the question at hand, and gives those opposed to OBR a reason to question the results... and you know what... I don't know that I disagree with their take on this issue stat-wise... Back in the day when my dad worked as a bio for IDNR, he and others received complaints about names drawn for hunts at various locations in the state in which several members of the same family would all get drawn from what was supposedly a random selection. What they discovered was that the program was randomly selecting a first letter of a last name and then generating draw tickets until that letter was exhausted... so if "S" was the selected letter, the Smith family were happy campers, but the Jones were not... it was not a random selection from the entire pool, and neither was this deer survey... I'm reminded of episodes of "Family Feud" in which the question was something like "Name something you wouldn't buy for your wife..." and the reason the family can't get all the items is that the "survey says".... "Elephant"... Excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 4, 2006 13:19:07 GMT -5
Excellent post JKD.
But, you made one mistake.
This trial is OVER.
Why?
Because Kyle said it was.
It does not matter one wit that it was an agreed upon to be a 5 year trial. Just like everything else he has done it is his way or nothing.
How many "emergency rules" (aka DO IT MY WAY!! ) have we seen out of him as compared to his predecessors?
One season hunters, bow or gun or muzzleloader, should not have been surveyed at all. The rule does not affect them on bit. It is very bad when deer hunting comes down to "what's in it for me" and pizz on the other hunters.
Bullwinky,
You're right. The boat was missed, but it wont be in the future.
|
|