|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 4, 2006 13:22:56 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"... My point exactly, in less descriptive terms. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 4, 2006 13:23:44 GMT -5
You may be right Racktracker. I hope not, but it looks that way.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 4, 2006 13:55:47 GMT -5
The questions were also bad questions.
They should have asked:
Would you like to have the opportunity to harvest another buck regardless of weapon? I think the one season hunters would definitely take another deer if the could.
There is no clear evidence that the OBR has had any effect. With that information, do you think it should continue or should we have a two-buck trial period? I think most hunters are uninformed and only hear opinion and no facts.
I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure.
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Oct 4, 2006 14:41:56 GMT -5
I agree with js2397.Evryone one of us should have been polled"I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure".I'm in favor of going back to the 2 buck rule for a few years.Just because you have a chance at two bucks doesn't mean you'll get 2.It's just nice to know I can tag one with my bow on one property,then head over to another spot several miles away opening morning of gun season for another "chance" at one.I know after discussing this for a few years on here,I'm just #&*@%&@ in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 4, 2006 14:44:59 GMT -5
The questions were also bad questions. They should have asked: Would you like to have the opportunity to harvest another buck regardless of weapon? I think the one season hunters would definitely take another deer if the could. There is no clear evidence that the OBR has had any effect. With that information, do you think it should continue or should we have a two-buck trial period? I think most hunters are uninformed and only hear opinion and no facts. I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure. Without trying to be a smart a$$, what conclusive proof do you have that the OBR has or has not had any effect? To come on here and make a statement that it has not had an effect (you aren't the only one) is as reckless as those who say it has had an effect. NOBODY CAN SAY IF IT HAS OR HASN'T HAD AN EFFECT. The trial period is not over and data going either way cannot be determined until all of the data is in. I cannot speak for what Kyle Hupfer has planned but will be disappointed if the trial period is not carried out to the 5 year plan, the data is analyzed and then an informed decision made. If a decision is made on the permanancy of the OBR prior to that, I would think that I would fight that decision on principle alone. Of course, I carry absolutely no weight but would gladly add my voice to the masses.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 4, 2006 15:16:43 GMT -5
The questions were also bad questions. They should have asked: Would you like to have the opportunity to harvest another buck regardless of weapon? I think the one season hunters would definitely take another deer if the could. There is no clear evidence that the OBR has had any effect. With that information, do you think it should continue or should we have a two-buck trial period? I think most hunters are uninformed and only hear opinion and no facts. I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure. Without trying to be a smart a$$, what conclusive proof do you have that the OBR has or has not had any effect? To come on here and make a statement that it has not had an effect (you aren't the only one) is as reckless as those who say it has had an effect. NOBODY CAN SAY IF IT HAS OR HASN'T HAD AN EFFECT. The trial period is not over and data going either way cannot be determined until all of the data is in. I cannot speak for what Kyle Hupfer has planned but will be disappointed if the trial period is not carried out to the 5 year plan, the data is analyzed and then an informed decision made. If a decision is made on the permanancy of the OBR prior to that, I would think that I would fight that decision on principle alone. Of course, I carry absolutely no weight but would gladly add my voice to the masses. "what conclusive proof do you have that the OBR has or has not had any effect?" You're right on. Nobody knows, not even our biologist. Here is my two cents worth. The proposal at the meeting from the DNR will be to have a 3 year two buck trial to once and for all gather all the data for good comparison. That way the FULL five years worth of OBR data (that was agreed upon in the beginning) can be gathered instead of just the 4 years that we have now. 2006 makes the fifth year. Considering the MANY changes in deer hunting (as stated in the survey summary) comparing data from today to 4 or 5 years ago is comparing kumqauts and punkins. Give the people the real biological data and not some hyperbole from both sides and then let them make up their own minds. Remember only 6,000 hunters killed two bucks a year, but a lot more hunted that second buck
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 4, 2006 15:23:37 GMT -5
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 hope everyone concerned will read or re-read the above quote. It is concise and correct and all who read and UNDERSTAND it will benefit.
|
|
|
Post by stealthydeerhunter on Oct 4, 2006 16:10:37 GMT -5
the obr doesnt work!!!! the only ones who are affected are archers. the numbers speak for them selves it doesn't affect the total # of bucks harvested the % of hunters who killed bucks with a bow and a gun is very small i think it was 1/100th of 1 percent of the total harvest. I think a better management tool would be to have a antler point restriction(I.E. 3 points on one side) lets look at the big pic here we need to stop killing 1&2 year old bucks O.K. done ranting just a real soft spot for me. Scooter
|
|
|
Post by dec on Oct 4, 2006 16:15:05 GMT -5
Evryone one of us should have been polled"I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure. Just over 10,000 were poled. Apparently the majority of them did not think this was a big enough issue to respond to. Must tell you something right there about their feelings about OBR. Regardless, 4% of the hunters were polled (not necessarily responded). I'll argue that while that does seem like a small percentage, it just so happens to be the exact same percentage of the deer that were aged at check stations in 2005. Run a search on here, we discussed it in July. Yet, this 4% aging sample was used in all the fancy graphs, charts, and age data that the anti-OBR side has used to post up their case that OBR has not caused an age shift in our herd. Since then, it has been argued that from a statistical perspective, this is a fair sample of our herd harvest age structure. Run a search and see for yourself. So, I find it kind of hypocritical that a group of hunters would base a strong part of their argument on a small aging sample, yet call foul when the same percentage of samples are taken on the OBR matter itself. I'd have loved to have taken the survey as well, but poling everyone is not possible. They chose to target around 4% of the hunters because they felt that was a fair representation, just as 4% is apparently a fair representation of our herd harvest age data. Many are talking out both sides of their mouths on this topic as a last minute effort to save what they feel they are loosing. I will agree on one thing with most of you. While I am strongly pro OBR and feel that long term it is here to stay, I believe that a final decision one way or the other should be done at the end of 5 years. Not to prove one way or another, but because that was the original commitment. I believe that when you commit to something you hold true on that. Face it though, after this year, it will just further fuel the pro-OBR side. Just watch the book entries after this year.
|
|
|
Post by stealthydeerhunter on Oct 4, 2006 16:18:24 GMT -5
the obr doesnt work!!!! the only ones who are affected are archers. the numbers speak for them selves it doesn't affect the total # of bucks harvested the % of hunters who killed bucks with a bow and a gun is very small i think it was 1/100th of 1 percent of the total harvest. I think a better management tool would be to have a antler point restriction(I.E. 3 points on one side) lets look at the big pic here we need to stop killing 1&2 year old bucks O.K. done ranting just a real soft spot for me. Scooter
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Oct 4, 2006 17:00:39 GMT -5
I didn't get to take the poll either. I too think the DNR is going to do a three year trial with two bucks or they wouldn't have ended the 5 year OBR trial so soon. I think the numbers show the herd on the increase and not enough bucks or does are being harvested and thats the reason they came out this year with the unlimited amount of does you can harvested. All this speculation will be over in one week. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by tilesetter on Oct 4, 2006 17:03:47 GMT -5
Do any threads ever get shut down on this web site.....How much and how many ways do the same topics keep getting discussed about weather you like this rule or not. For now its the law we must follow in the Indiana hunting regulations,by now,no one on each side of this is going to sway another! Oh ya ,,I don't have to read this thread do I!
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 4, 2006 19:26:02 GMT -5
Do any threads ever get shut down on this web site.....How much and how many ways do the same topics keep getting discussed about weather you like this rule or not. For now its the law we must follow in the Indiana hunting regulations,by now,no one on each side of this is going to sway another! Oh ya ,,I don't have to read this thread do I! I think it`s crystal clear that the obr stirs a lot of emotion-whichever way you lean-and so, it`s logical that there is MUCH discussion concerning it. I think it`s healthy, as when anyone feels so strongly about an issue such as obr, they need to vent. Several guys have been blunt in their disdain for this topic being revived-but, guys can`t help but take a strong position on the side they favor. And yes, it`s true, if the obr discussion offends your sensabilities, you shouldn`t take part.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 4, 2006 20:42:51 GMT -5
I got this in an email directly from the IDNR concerning this thread......
" There are several folks who are correctly pointing out that we will only have 3 years of data at the start of the rule process. The piece I thought would be worth passing along and you can pass along as well if you like is that we are starting the process at this point exactly to avoid having to do this by emergency rule next year. As you know hunting guide will be out around state fair. If a decision is to be made through the rule making process, we have to start now to have it done by the hunting guide and next hunting season. The last thing we want to do was have to do OBR by emergency rule. Only option other than to start now and use three years would be to extend by one year and go through the process next year to have 4 years of data. I did not get the sense anyone wanted that either."
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 4, 2006 21:04:44 GMT -5
Evryone one of us should have been polled"I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure. ....................I'll argue that while that does seem like a small percentage, it just so happens to be the exact same percentage of the deer that were aged at check stations in 2005. Run a search on here, we discussed it in July. Yet, this 4% aging sample was used in all the fancy graphs, charts, and age data that the anti-OBR side has used to post up their case that OBR has not caused an age shift in our herd. Since then, it has been argued that from a statistical perspective, this is a fair sample of our herd harvest age structure. Run a search and see for yourself. So, I find it kind of hypocritical that a group of hunters would base a strong part of their argument on a small aging sample, yet call foul when the same percentage of samples are taken on the OBR matter itself.............. DEC, Those same age numbers was used by BOTH sides in this debate. It was not just the anti-OBR people that were using these numbers and quoting the age shift. I was the only one to put it in "fancy graphs & charts" so that the real trend line that started before the OBR could be seen. Now you can poo-poo "fancy graphs & charts" but rest assured that the IDNR uses the very same analytical tools.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Oct 4, 2006 22:17:07 GMT -5
I got this in an email directly from the IDNR concerning this thread......" There are several folks who are correctly pointing out that we will only have 3 years of data at the start of the rule process. The piece I thought would be worth passing along and you can pass along as well if you like is that we are starting the process at this point exactly to avoid having to do this by emergency rule next year. As you know hunting guide will be out around state fair. If a decision is to be made through the rule making process, we have to start now to have it done by the hunting guide and next hunting season. The last thing we want to do was have to do OBR by emergency rule. Only option other than to start now and use three years would be to extend by one year and go through the process next year to have 4 years of data. I did not get the sense anyone wanted that either." Looks like we will have the OBR for good....or until another director is appointed in the future. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 5, 2006 6:10:49 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter all that much if the polls are skewed or not, people will believe any ridiculous thing regardless of fact, and this poll does bear that out. The truth is the average hunter does well to have a chance to get one buck let alone a second one so they had nothing to lose by believing the fairy tales. With nothing to lose either way there is no point wasting time or energy thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 5, 2006 6:11:42 GMT -5
Greg Hopper, what happens if you still can't kill the type of buck you want with a permanent obr? You say that everyone that prefers a two buck limit is being selfish but you and the others like you are willing to change every rule necessary to make it easier for you to kill the type of buck you want. Now that seems like a true definition of selfish to me.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 5, 2006 6:15:50 GMT -5
Bullwinkle, just what other agenda of yours would you prefer we spent time on? Or would you rather we simply accepted all of them without hesitation or thought?
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 5, 2006 6:42:08 GMT -5
The questions were also bad questions. They should have asked: Would you like to have the opportunity to harvest another buck regardless of weapon? I think the one season hunters would definitely take another deer if the could. There is no clear evidence that the OBR has had any effect. With that information, do you think it should continue or should we have a two-buck trial period? I think most hunters are uninformed and only hear opinion and no facts. I think there 250000+ hunters in Indiana and 4000 does not seem like enough to get an accurate measure. Without trying to be a smart a$$, what conclusive proof do you have that the OBR has or has not had any effect? To come on here and make a statement that it has not had an effect (you aren't the only one) is as reckless as those who say it has had an effect. NOBODY CAN SAY IF IT HAS OR HASN'T HAD AN EFFECT. The trial period is not over and data going either way cannot be determined until all of the data is in. I cannot speak for what Kyle Hupfer has planned but will be disappointed if the trial period is not carried out to the 5 year plan, the data is analyzed and then an informed decision made. If a decision is made on the permanancy of the OBR prior to that, I would think that I would fight that decision on principle alone. Of course, I carry absolutely no weight but would gladly add my voice to the masses. Here is an article in the Indiana Game and Fish magazine where they are interviewing a state Biologist named Lange. Game & Fish: As biologists expected, the one-buck rule seems to be having minimal impact during its first three years. What would need to happen in the last two years of the program to make it permanent? And is five years really long enough to see if it may be working? Lange: We'd need to see that the age of the antlered bucks is actually increasing. That's the measured goal. But deer hunters are evenly split on this issue. We're running an experiment to see what happens. But so far, we've not seen any change. You normally see some ups and downs each year, and I think five years is enough. That's really the minimum amount of time. Some folks wanted us to look at it for only a few years. When five years is up, we'll bring the figures to the public and see what the public thinks. I agree it would be nice to have all five years of data but we also need to have the facts from the state biologist. Here is an article in the Indiana Game and Fish magazine where they are interviewing a state Biologist named Lange.
|
|