|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 6, 2006 2:12:51 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%. 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!!!!!!!!! Here we go folks-here`s where the NEW regime will take us-just as I predicted. Now we`ve got to be more like Illinois to “bear fruit”, `cause the current B&C and P&Y bucks Indiana produces aren`t good enough. So we need to alter the Indiana deer hunting season to further the obr agenda and enhance that trophy management program. It`s ALL about score of bone on a deer’s head, and NOTHING to do with the quality of the hunt, and/or the total experience. And lest anyone try to tell you that, of course the killing of a huge buck is about the experience, that`s hogwash-if it truly WAS about the experience, it wouldn`t matter if the deer taken was a runt spike or the biggest, meanest white-tail buck ever known of-just the taking of the animal would be good enough. We`re heading down a slippery slope, and the fellow’s who are whispering in your ear that it`s raining, aren`t telling you that the truth is, they`re ing in your ear.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Oct 6, 2006 4:58:16 GMT -5
Give me a break Hunter480. The "experience and quality" of whacking a little spike buck is just about the equivellent of catching 2" bluegills on every cast at your neighbors pond. It's darned easy to do. It aint all that much fun after while. And they aint worth keeping becuase they aren't big enough anyway.
Leave them in the pond, let them grow up a bit, then harvest nice ones. That's what OBR and all of the Trophy management related suggestions are all about.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 6, 2006 7:07:10 GMT -5
Give me a break Hunter480. The "experience and quality" of whacking a little spike buck is just about the equivellent of catching 2" bluegills on every cast at your neighbors pond. It's darned easy to do. It aint all that much fun after while. And they aint worth keeping becuase they aren't big enough anyway. Leave them in the pond, let them grow up a bit, then harvest nice ones. That's what OBR and all of the Trophy management related suggestions are all about. Amen....some will never ever see the Light!!!!
|
|
|
Post by eelriver on Oct 6, 2006 8:46:31 GMT -5
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!
I agree, it's not an increase in the number of hunters, it is an increase in the percent of hunter success. Better deer management has caused the total heard to increase to the point where we can now limit ourselves to one buck, yet the total harvest is increased.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 6, 2006 9:14:04 GMT -5
Give me a break Hunter480. The "experience and quality" of whacking a little spike buck is just about the equivellent of catching 2" bluegills on every cast at your neighbors pond. It's darned easy to do. It aint all that much fun after while. And they aint worth keeping becuase they aren't big enough anyway. Leave them in the pond, let them grow up a bit, then harvest nice ones. That's what OBR and all of the Trophy management related suggestions are all about. Amen....some will never ever see the Light!!!! So for you two, the hunt is about "fun", and it`s only "fun" for you if you`re "whacking" trophy deer. And although I personally don`t like that outlook, it`s still fine if that`s what deer hunting is to YOU. For a rather large segment of us, the "fun" of the hunt comes from the overall experience, and we DON`T require an animal to be "trophy" caliber animal to have been worth taking. We don`t look at a buck and make a mental determination of whether or not he`s a “shooter”, we simply decide if we`re going to take our venison now or later, and most times it`s NOW. And before anyone starts with the “shoot more does” rhetoric, let me squash that now-obviously, we do need to kill more does to keep the herd healthy and protect the habitat-but it`s awfully condescending to believe that the pro-obr guys are the noble, wise ol` sages, and that they`re entitled to their trophy bucks, but the pro-2 buck guys are simply selfish hunters who want to hurt “their” bucks. With all the good things happening today in regards to deer hunting, there is still a dark, seedy undercurrent, and in my opinion, it`s degrading to the animal and to the tradition of hunting to “grade” the animals. Of course everyone would like to kill a bruiser buck, but before we became so obsessed with manufacturing trophy bucks, we simply hunted, and guys killed big bucks as a by-product of simply hunting. Now some decide that certain deer are “inferior”, or too young to be killed since it hadn’t reached it`s “potential”, and we`re only prostituting deer hunting. Hunting, and for me, deer hunting in particular is a wonderful, tradition rich pursuit-but IN MY OPINION- we`re demeaning it by this lust for trophy bucks, and this obsession with, so called, trophy deer is going to do more damage to hunting than any animal-rights group could ever do.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 6, 2006 9:22:56 GMT -5
Indiana is already 10th in the number of record bucks harvested all time. I don't know if it can get any better without making everything worse.
|
|
|
Post by mudstrider on Oct 6, 2006 10:03:47 GMT -5
I agree with hunter480. It was offensive when I read steiny write that it ain't no fun whacking smaller bucks, as if that's what deer hunting is boiled down to. Last year I took 3 does - no buck. Saw some nice ones, but didn't get off any decent shots, but, man, I had fun! The year before I took my first bow killed buck; a small 6-pt rack, but a nice body. I've killed other nicer bucks, but that evening that I took that 6-pt was a very magical time, the way it all went down. In the weeks that followed, I guided my brother and a friend to two very nice bucks, a 12-pt and a 9-pt. But I still prefered the "HUNT" that I had. I had more "fun", in my opinion. Deer hunting is fun! ...regardless of the score.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 6, 2006 10:07:28 GMT -5
I posted this in the other "OBR thread" so I thought I would post it here too.
My FINAL word on this…
I have been told by someone that I highly respect that the data shows that it would not have made a significant difference in the number of bucks taken or the size of the racks of the bucks taken if it had been two bucks or one buck the last 4 years.
IOW - We would be killing just as many bucks and just as old. Fact.
The only significant difference this has made is to move the harvest of those bucks from one season to another.
Since there is very little difference, this is NOT a biological issue. It then defers to “what the majority of hunters want”. Whether we consider the survey as right, wrong or indifferent, it does say that 71% favor keeping the One Buck Rule. The IDNR did not conduct and pay for this survey to disregard the findings.
My belief is that Indiana deer hunters are seeing improvements and have falsely assigned that improvement entirely to the OBR. Data shows that this improvement started 10 years ago. The Pro-OBR side just did a better job of selling their views.
The data and the survey results will be presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Council on October 11th. The Natural Resources Advisory Council will also take public comments at that time. If you have an opinion and want to share it with them that would be a good time to do it.
Using that data, survey and public input the Natural Resources Advisory Council will make a recommendation and the IDNR will present a proposal to the Natural Resources Committee for preliminary adoption in November.
The reason this is going through the Administrative Rules Process now without waiting for the 2006 harvest data is because of the time frame to issue 2007 hunting rules and the Hunting Guides.
Since this is an Administrative Rules Process we will ALL have opportunity to give input, either at the meetings or through emails and letters.
IMO - It would take a major groundswell of deer hunters opposed to the OBR to offset the survey results and to keep the two-buck rule. That is not likely to happen.
A word of encouragement to everyone - Nothing in Indiana hunting rules is ever FINAL. Every rule can be evaluated and possibly changed at each and every Administrative Rules Process.
My encouragement to each and every one of you is to become active. If you do not like something speak up about it. Not just here, but to the IDNR, the Natural Resources Advisory Council and the Natural Resources Committee.
Bullwinkle is right. We were 5 years too late to stop this one. Be vigilant and if something you do not like is proposed be vocal about it. Same thing goes for something that you DO want – be vocal about it THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS and not just on Hunting Indiana..
Now let’s go deer hunting……
.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 6, 2006 10:11:12 GMT -5
I posted this in the other "OBR thread" so I thought I would post it here too.My FINAL word on this… I have been told by someone that I highly respect that the data shows that it would not have made a significant difference in the number of bucks taken or the size of the racks of the bucks taken if it had been two bucks or one buck the last 4 years. IOW - We would be killing just as many bucks and just as old. Fact. The only significant difference this has made is to move the harvest of those bucks from one season to another. Since there is very little difference, this is NOT a biological issue. It then defers to “what the majority of hunters want”. Whether we consider the survey as right, wrong or indifferent, it does say that 71% favor keeping the One Buck Rule. The IDNR did not conduct and pay for this survey to disregard the findings. My belief is that Indiana deer hunters are seeing improvements and have falsely assigned that improvement entirely to the OBR. Data shows that this improvement started 10 years ago. The Pro-OBR side just did a better job of selling their views. The data and the survey results will be presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Council on October 11th. The Natural Resources Advisory Council will also take public comments at that time. If you have an opinion and want to share it with them that would be a good time to do it. Using that data, survey and public input the Natural Resources Advisory Council will make a recommendation and the IDNR will present a proposal to the Natural Resources Committee for preliminary adoption in November. The reason this is going through the Administrative Rules Process now without waiting for the 2006 harvest data is because of the time frame to issue 2007 hunting rules and the Hunting Guides. Since this is an Administrative Rules Process we will ALL have opportunity to give input, either at the meetings or through emails and letters. IMO - It would take a major groundswell of deer hunters opposed to the OBR to offset the survey results and to keep the two-buck rule. That is not likely to happen. A word of encouragement to everyone - Nothing in Indiana hunting rules is ever FINAL. Every rule can be evaluated and possibly changed at each and every Administrative Rules Process. My encouragement to each and every one of you is to become active. If you do not like something speak up about it. Not just here, but to the IDNR, the Natural Resources Advisory Council and the Natural Resources Committee. Bullwinkle is right. We were 5 years too late to stop this one. Be vigilant and if something you do not like is proposed be vocal about it. Same thing goes for something that you DO want – be vocal about it THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS and not just on Hunting Indiana.. Now let’s go deer hunting…… . Woody-is there any way I can put a black patch someplace on my moniker? Like the NFL does when they`ve lost someone? This is a DARK time for me.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Oct 6, 2006 10:39:52 GMT -5
Woody, we've exchanged words on this subject many times and at times went over board (more so myself then you). I have to say that while we still completely disagree on this topic, your last post was very well written and I have to applaud you on the the content of what you posted. Unfortunately, this debate brings out the worst in most of us. There has been a lot of good debate and a lot of not so good debate. There have been facts and twisting of data (and I'm not pointing fingers). The battle is not over for either side of this topic. Woody gave some great advise and very gracefully accepted what is likely to come out of this, IMO. I'd suggest we all take a very similar attitude twards this outcome. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, there are things to be learned from this process. There will be other hot topic proposals that get thrown out in years to come and we ALL can learn how better to handle them from this one hot debate. Good luck this year to all and be safe out there.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 6, 2006 10:56:42 GMT -5
Amen....some will never ever see the Light!!!! So for you two, the hunt is about "fun", and it`s only "fun" for you if you`re "whacking" trophy deer. And although I personally don`t like that outlook, it`s still fine if that`s what deer hunting is to YOU. For a rather large segment of us, the "fun" of the hunt comes from the overall experience, and we DON`T require an animal to be "trophy" caliber animal to have been worth taking. We don`t look at a buck and make a mental determination of whether or not he`s a “shooter”, we simply decide if we`re going to take our venison now or later, and most times it`s NOW. And before anyone starts with the “shoot more does” rhetoric, let me squash that now-obviously, we do need to kill more does to keep the herd healthy and protect the habitat-but it`s awfully condescending to believe that the pro-obr guys are the noble, wise ol` sages, and that they`re entitled to their trophy bucks, but the pro-2 buck guys are simply selfish hunters who want to hurt “their” bucks. With all the good things happening today in regards to deer hunting, there is still a dark, seedy undercurrent, and in my opinion, it`s degrading to the animal and to the tradition of hunting to “grade” the animals. Of course everyone would like to kill a bruiser buck, but before we became so obsessed with manufacturing trophy bucks, we simply hunted, and guys killed big bucks as a by-product of simply hunting. Now some decide that certain deer are “inferior”, or too young to be killed since it hadn’t reached it`s “potential”, and we`re only prostituting deer hunting. Hunting, and for me, deer hunting in particular is a wonderful, tradition rich pursuit-but IN MY OPINION- we`re demeaning it by this lust for trophy bucks, and this obsession with, so called, trophy deer is going to do more damage to hunting than any animal-rights group could ever do. You can try to squash the shoot more does theory if you want but if you are trying to use the quality of the hunt argument, would you not agree that you can still have the same "quality" of the hunt by shooting 1 buck and 2 does versus 2 bucks and one doe? Then, if that same quality of the hunt is not there for you, then you are just as guilty as those who hunt for big racks only yours is a case of quantity versus quality. The only real difference I see in the pro-OBR vs anti-OBR is an argument of quality versus quantity. Neither side is very appealing to me. I get the same pleasure shooting a doe as I have in shooting big bucks. In fact, my favorite hunt of all time was my first hunt this year. Did I shoot a P&Y buck? Nope, I shot a small doe but because of the situation in which I was with my son the very first time he was ever in the deer woods, it has quickly become my favorite deer hunting experience. I would think if you're making the argument that it's the experience versus the quality, than any deer would satisfy that experience. Otherwise, if it has to be 2 bucks, you're just arguing a quality vs. quantity argument and really, it's no different than the pro-OBR argument. Still horns; just more horns versus more mass of horns.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 6, 2006 11:44:27 GMT -5
So for you two, the hunt is about "fun", and it`s only "fun" for you if you`re "whacking" trophy deer. And although I personally don`t like that outlook, it`s still fine if that`s what deer hunting is to YOU. For a rather large segment of us, the "fun" of the hunt comes from the overall experience, and we DON`T require an animal to be "trophy" caliber animal to have been worth taking. We don`t look at a buck and make a mental determination of whether or not he`s a “shooter”, we simply decide if we`re going to take our venison now or later, and most times it`s NOW. And before anyone starts with the “shoot more does” rhetoric, let me squash that now-obviously, we do need to kill more does to keep the herd healthy and protect the habitat-but it`s awfully condescending to believe that the pro-obr guys are the noble, wise ol` sages, and that they`re entitled to their trophy bucks, but the pro-2 buck guys are simply selfish hunters who want to hurt “their” bucks. With all the good things happening today in regards to deer hunting, there is still a dark, seedy undercurrent, and in my opinion, it`s degrading to the animal and to the tradition of hunting to “grade” the animals. Of course everyone would like to kill a bruiser buck, but before we became so obsessed with manufacturing trophy bucks, we simply hunted, and guys killed big bucks as a by-product of simply hunting. Now some decide that certain deer are “inferior”, or too young to be killed since it hadn’t reached it`s “potential”, and we`re only prostituting deer hunting. Hunting, and for me, deer hunting in particular is a wonderful, tradition rich pursuit-but IN MY OPINION- we`re demeaning it by this lust for trophy bucks, and this obsession with, so called, trophy deer is going to do more damage to hunting than any animal-rights group could ever do. You can try to squash the shoot more does theory if you want but if you are trying to use the quality of the hunt argument, would you not agree that you can still have the same "quality" of the hunt by shooting 1 buck and 2 does versus 2 bucks and one doe? Then, if that same quality of the hunt is not there for you, then you are just as guilty as those who hunt for big racks only yours is a case of quantity versus quality. The only real difference I see in the pro-OBR vs anti-OBR is an argument of quality versus quantity. Neither side is very appealing to me. I get the same pleasure shooting a doe as I have in shooting big bucks. In fact, my favorite hunt of all time was my first hunt this year. Did I shoot a P&Y buck? Nope, I shot a small doe but because of the situation in which I was with my son the very first time he was ever in the deer woods, it has quickly become my favorite deer hunting experience. I would think if you're making the argument that it's the experience versus the quality, than any deer would satisfy that experience. Otherwise, if it has to be 2 bucks, you're just arguing a quality vs. quantity argument and really, it's no different than the pro-OBR argument. Still horns; just more horns versus more mass of horns. LAST time I`ll say it-it`s partially a matter of principle-we should NEVER have had the obr proponents management forced on us. That`s all from me-either you get it, or you don`t.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 6, 2006 11:46:38 GMT -5
It is not an argument of quantity vs. quality, for that to be the case there would have to have been a noticeable gain in quality to go along with the loss in quantity.
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 6, 2006 13:13:11 GMT -5
It is not an argument of quantity vs. quality, for that to be the case there would have to have been a noticeable gain in quality to go along with the loss in quantity. The majority of the folks arguing for OBR have been accused of being trophy hunters. The majority of folks against OBR want 2 bucks. Is that not a quantity vs quality argument? I look at the same HRBP graphs you look at and see a noticeable difference during OBR prior to before it. You see the data reflecting one thing, I see the data reflecting another thing. Just as you can argue no measurable difference. I see a gain in quality with apparently no loss in quantity. I see that as a win-win.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 6, 2006 14:06:05 GMT -5
HRBP shows major increase in scoreable deer in 2001 or 2. If it is in 2001 those deer were killed in 2000, 2002 deer were killed in 01 and 03 deer were killed in 02. Or does it show the year deer were killed instead of current date. I have no Idea as I have never looked to see who, where, when, what size, wasted money to have their name entered into a book. As for big deer if you are lucky enough to get a really big deer the manufacterers of broad heads, arrows, bows etc will pay you to display your trophy at their displays. Have I ever gotten a really large deer, well in my opinion yes, got one that weighed 240 field dressed, what did its antlers score? Beats the hell out of me. Did I mount them? yup. Am I interested in haveing them scored? Nope. Do I considere a doe with a bow a trophy? yup. Would I like to take a buck with both a bow and firearm? Yup. Why because I love antlers? No, to me it would be more like recieving a silver star in battle, an exception rather than the norm. Maybe that is a form of trophy hunting, I really do not know. I do know that when I have been lucky enough to have gotten a buck with a bow I did not get one with a gun, after checking my records I found that I had not.
Should the OBR become a regulation then so be it, but lets stop restrictions there. I think it is Pa that has an antler size restriction and their hunters are trying to get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Oct 6, 2006 21:44:59 GMT -5
The OBR was not forced on anyone (like they tried to do the crossbow in Ky) They had public input meetings in different parts of the State before it came to be. You had the chance to send emails, letters or attend meetings. Ignorance of the law will not keep you from getting a ticket or get arrested.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 6, 2006 22:10:16 GMT -5
Not all great things became great overnight!
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 6, 2006 22:16:13 GMT -5
What was the purpose of the OBR to begin with? And has it achieved the goals it was set out to do?
My personal opinion is this: I love to bow hunt, and the OBR is fine with me . If the purpose of the OBR was to have an increasing buck herd, compared to years prior and we are still harvesting the same amount of bucks as before, i see no point in the OBR. And therefore need to make some other type of changes.
I honestly think we need to find a way to take fewer bucks than, we currently are, and thats even prior to the OBR! I think the quality and the quantity of the bucks would more than please the average hunter.
Their is no sure-fire way to increase button buck recruitment, i think the percentage of button bucks will stay about the same rate they are now, except for years in which antlerless tags are more abundant, such as this year.
From the statistically point of the OBR, it failing badly.
From an Emotional point of the majority(gun hunters), its working wonderfully.
I'm sure if you ask all 250000 Indiana hunters about our harvest records over the past few years, i'm sure that less than 10% have any clue what they might be, but yet they all will have something to say about the OBR, good or bad. I suppose thats why we have the DNR to look at whats really going on, and hopefully they will use their OWN judgment, instead of the other 90% of hunters that are clueless.
Lug
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 7, 2006 0:32:01 GMT -5
The OBR was not forced on anyone (like they tried to do the crossbow in Ky) They had public input meetings in different parts of the State before it came to be. You had the chance to send emails, letters or attend meetings. Ignorance of the law will not keep you from getting a ticket or get arrested. Not necessarily correct there my friend. There were some that had to work, others that had other commitments when meetings were within 125 miles (round trip) of their homes. Not everyone had a computer then, nor now. And then there were some that were just physically unable. The OBR was pushed by less than 2000 racouse individuals that got their agenda passed. So yes in essance it was forced upon many people. Ignorance of the law? You would be surprised to find out just how many laws and regulations that you are ignorant of. Nor do I see anyone claiming to be ignorant of it. Like or dislike, yes, want to be able to have the oppertunity to take more than one buck, some do. Some yell take a doe and be happy. Let see how happy they actually are when there are those that take 15-20 and claim that it is for charity. While it is not great just leave it alone or do away with it and go back to 2. One for Archery and One for firearms, not including depravation hunts; military, state parks, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 7, 2006 5:56:00 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%. I'd concede to keep the OBR permanent if the firearm season was moved up two weeks and crossbows were legalized in all seasons . Wanna trade ? ;D There are plenty of counties that could support the two buck limit , so why not ? Ironically , the OBR will one day make that possibility very real for all counties .
|
|