|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 5, 2006 8:46:55 GMT -5
Since a two-buck trial question was on the DNR survey and 54% of the hunters that responded said that they would support it I thought would be good to poll you guys on the same question.
QUESTION - In an effort to get good comparison data would you support a two-buck trial by the DNR?
|
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 5, 2006 9:01:49 GMT -5
Yes, I think that Archery and Firearms multi season hunters should be able to harvest with both weapons. But I am against takeing one with archery, shotgun, pistol, muzzle loader, crossbow, and pistol ammo rifles if they are adopted.
If you want more than try to take a doe, which will take out from 8 to 15 in herd growth. Some one said 8 but I read recently that most doe were dropping trips the last few years because of the milder winters and higher availibility of feed.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 5, 2006 9:02:29 GMT -5
5 yrs. You bet!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Oct 5, 2006 9:27:56 GMT -5
What deertracks said.I would even be happy with the 3 year trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 5, 2006 9:54:45 GMT -5
What would you be looking For with a Trail?  ? Explain please!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Brown (BGGoosekiller) on Oct 5, 2006 9:58:45 GMT -5
Didn't we have a 20 year trial prior to the 3 obr adoption?
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Oct 5, 2006 10:06:44 GMT -5
I'm for it just so everyone will quit argueing about it !! But I know it won't matter, everyone will still bicker about it !!!  |
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Oct 5, 2006 10:07:24 GMT -5
Well,here's my 2 cents worth,like it means anything lol..Let's see,we have been with the OBR for a few years now,I think it would be only fair and the right thing to do ,just to see how things would change by going back to the 2 buck system for a few years then decide.My question now is,what is it that you pro OBR guys fear with the 2 bucks a year?Is it that you may loose oppurtunity at a big one or what?Explain please..We all know this debate could go on forever,right?
|
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 5, 2006 10:19:07 GMT -5
How about GOOD verifiable a data for comparison purposes?
If the OBR people are so sure that it is the OBR that is making a difference then they should welcome something that would for once and all prove it for them.
After a three or five year two-buck trial the DNR came back and said that all data pointed to the OBR being beneficial I would shut my pie hole and slink away.
Only in the last 6 or 7 years has the deer hunting fraternity in Indiana got so interested in QDM and “Letting him go, so he can grow” and reference to “20 years ago” is very invalid.
Make modern and up to date data comparisons and see what we get.
I’m game for that. What do we have to lose? Nothing.
Let the chips fall where they may then.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaWG on Oct 5, 2006 11:19:47 GMT -5
PBR, I don't necessarily agree with your mindset regarding the OBR, but I absolutely love the quote you have referencing Kerry's explanation of deer hunting. What a piece of work.
DaWG
|
|
|
|
Post by eelriver on Oct 5, 2006 13:35:43 GMT -5
Obviously the whole OBR issue is a very opinionated topic here. What I am trying to understand is why so much opposition to it?
For years, I have heard that a big part of QDM and managing the resource is to have a healthy buck / doe ratio. To me the logical way to achieve this is to limit the number of bucks being taken, while liberalizing the number of does we take. Isn't that what OBR is designed to do? Admittedly, I'm a guy only interested in getting my name in Pope & Young and if all I want to do is kill a deer, then I'll take does. Please explain to me why killing a buck is so important to some folks they feel it necessary to kill two? I'm not trying to incite a riot or take a shot at the anti-OBR group, I'm just trying to understand their position. Until I hear something to change my mind, then I don't see why we need to reverse the course.
|
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Oct 5, 2006 18:49:03 GMT -5
I seem to recallabout 20 + years of the two buck limit.
Why do we need a trial?
I would concede to a two buck limit,if we'd shorten firearms season 50%.
|
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Oct 5, 2006 18:55:00 GMT -5
I seem to recallabout 20 + years of the two buck limit. Why do we need a trial? I would concede to a two buck limit,if we'd shorten firearms season 50%. Yes Sir,, 7 day split season, draw for your gun tag, let the state tell you if its buck or doe,, plugged shotguns,, ONLY SHOTGUNS, the whole 9 yards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over it already, we have voiced our opinions, and look who won!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Oct 5, 2006 18:56:22 GMT -5
BTW,, I have a SDR starting next weekend and love it... Six Duck Rule RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Oct 5, 2006 19:16:18 GMT -5
In three years we could lose all we have gained in the last five.
|
|
|
|
Post by deerdude on Oct 5, 2006 19:23:44 GMT -5
SORRY GUYS,but around my area there is just not enough good bucks period. im afraid if you could take two ,the way it is around here,soon there would be no bucks at all.there are some nice ones taken every year but you also see alot at the check in stations that would have been brutes given another year or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 5, 2006 20:17:31 GMT -5
In three years we could lose all we have gained in the last five. Amen....Brother!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 5, 2006 23:34:51 GMT -5
I seem to recallabout 20 + years of the two buck limit. Why do we need a trial? I would concede to a two buck limit,if we'd shorten firearms season 50%. I agree 100% |
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 5, 2006 23:39:10 GMT -5
Obviously the whole OBR issue is a very opinionated topic here. What I am trying to understand is why so much opposition to it? For years, I have heard that a big part of QDM and managing the resource is to have a healthy buck / doe ratio. To me the logical way to achieve this is to limit the number of bucks being taken, while liberalizing the number of does we take. Isn't that what OBR is designed to do? Admittedly, I'm a guy only interested in getting my name in Pope & Young and if all I want to do is kill a deer, then I'll take does. Please explain to me why killing a buck is so important to some folks they feel it necessary to kill two? I'm not trying to incite a riot or take a shot at the anti-OBR group, I'm just trying to understand their position. Until I hear something to change my mind, then I don't see why we need to reverse the course. Your part of that 90%! If your idea of the OBR was to save bucks, how do you explain the increase in total number of bucks harvested each year? BTW its, not an increase in hunters! Lug |
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 5, 2006 23:40:59 GMT -5
SORRY GUYS,but around my area there is just not enough good bucks period. im afraid if you could take two ,the way it is around here,soon there would be no bucks at all.there are some nice ones taken every year but you also see alot at the check in stations that would have been brutes given another year or two. Exactly! But do you and other hunters really want to take that step towards doing something about it, or just let it be the way it currently is? Lug |
|
? Explain please!!!! 
