|
Post by larryhagmansliver on Oct 7, 2006 12:35:21 GMT -5
I like the one buck rule. I know a lot of guys poach and shoot a second one if they see something they really want. I agree with some of the others though. Shoot does if you want meat and look for something really nice if you want a buck. What are you going to do with basket racks anyway? Throw them in a corner of the garage? Are you really that proud of a 1.5 year old deer rack? Let em grow man! How else are we gonna compete with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 7, 2006 12:46:16 GMT -5
I like the one buck rule. I know a lot of guys poach and shoot a second one if they see something they really want. Oh, yeah.. it is happening more and more frequently. Lots of non-existent addresses for "deer hunters" in the survey. Gypsies or poachers...you decide. Nothing wrong with that approach. We should ALL take our fair share of does. that has very little, if anything, to do with hunting one buck or two. Now what makes you think that everyone that wants a two buck limit shoots "basket racks" and "1 1/2 year old bucks"? Most of the two buck hunter I know hold out for TWO good bucks and don't kill any "basket racks" and "1 1/2 year old bucks". Big old wide paintbrush you have there. Who really wants to "compete with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio?" BTW - Two out of three states that you just mentioned have a two buck limit.. Hmmm?
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Oct 7, 2006 14:33:35 GMT -5
Still plenty of opportunity to shoot two or more bucks anyway, if you use a little ingenuity. Urban hunts, state and military property hunts, hit a couple other nearby states, etc.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 7, 2006 14:55:34 GMT -5
Who really wants to "compete with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio?"
BTW - Two out of three states that you just mentioned have a two buck limit.. Hmmm?[/quote]
Well said rack. Also should have added that according to biologists that the soil in Indiana has lower amounts of some minerals that deer use when growing antlers, which results in Indiana having smaller antlers naturally than does Ill. Which result in large deer being in the 150 to 165 range (excluding exeptions of course as there are always exceptions) with the norm being from 15 to 25 inches less.
The hunting regulation mag has a decent represtative of the bucks that were in the Fairbanks area when it was opened two years ago, even last year on its cover. Why you yell. It had not been leagley hunted since 2000. Yup sorta right. But most of all there were no crops in most of that area either. This year there are more crops but I would not look for a major jump in antler size this year. Body growth maybe. Nutrition goes to the body first and then what is left over goes to antlers. Of course you can feed to increase antlers with out feeding the body. Lots of those television pen killed deer have huge antlers and smaller bodies. Or at least that is the way that it looks to me.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 7, 2006 15:11:12 GMT -5
Still plenty of opportunity to shoot two or more bucks anyway, if you use a little ingenuity. OK. Sure. Better know someone or go looking for ground with a hand full of C notes. , One has to get drawn for those, right? What's worng with keeping Hooiser money at home instead of spending it in "a couple other nearby states"? Didn't we have those chances already before the OBR? OBR is still taking a buck away from us.
|
|
|
Post by greenhunter5364 on Oct 11, 2006 22:09:03 GMT -5
We have all the proof we need from the imbalance that was taking place before the OBR was implemented. Your arguement that there is no good comparison data is blatantly false. The fact that the OBR was implemented was a direct result of years of shooting more than one buck a year. Those that favor increasing the annual buck harvest are not concerned about the deer, they are only concerned about shooting bucks. I have lost count how many times I've heard some snob hunter brashly remark "I'm strictly a buck hunter". If you want to shoot more than one deer thats fine, do so, you can leagally do it. I even encourage it. But the OBR has increased the number of and size of the bucks on and near my hunting properties. Repealing the OBR will only result in more hunters shooting the first small buck that wanders by and then the real hunt for a wall hanger commenses. Forget the Does, my freezer is now full with two bucks. After a few years the Doe population explodes again and we have problem to deal with once more.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 12, 2006 4:25:13 GMT -5
How else are we gonna compete with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Whats the winner get?
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 12, 2006 5:37:16 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. Hoyt, what you are missing when you look at the HRBP numbers is that the SINGLE BIGGEST INCREASE OCCURRED THE FIRST YEAR UNDER THE OBR BEFORE THE OBR EVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACT ON THE HERD IN ANY WAY. That jumbp was followed by smaller and smaller increases the next years. If the OBR truly caused a quality increase then the first year should have been similar to pre-obr numbers, the second year should have shown an increase, the third year should have been a bigger increase, the fourth an even bigger increase and so on until it leveled out. However that did not occur, we had a big jump and then it began to immediately level out. Why? How could that possibly be if the OBR is responsible? Whatever you wish to believe about the HRBP numbers you have to concede that those bucks killed in 2002 were there prior to the OBR, they did not just appear upon the adoption of the rule. So we had quality bucks before the OBR for those willing to hunt them. A win-win situation would be quality and quantity which is what we had before. Trading the extra oppurtunity, the quantity, for a for quality that we already had is at best foolish.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 12, 2006 7:25:44 GMT -5
We have all the proof we need from the imbalance that was taking place before the OBR was implemented. Your arguement that there is no good comparison data is blatantly false. The fact that the OBR was implemented was a direct result of years of shooting more than one buck a year. Those that favor increasing the annual buck harvest are not concerned about the deer, they are only concerned about shooting bucks. I have lost count how many times I've heard some snob hunter brashly remark "I'm strictly a buck hunter". If you want to shoot more than one deer thats fine, do so, you can leagally do it. I even encourage it. But the OBR has increased the number of and size of the bucks on and near my hunting properties. Repealing the OBR will only result in more hunters shooting the first small buck that wanders by and then the real hunt for a wall hanger commenses. Forget the Does, my freezer is now full with two bucks. After a few years the Doe population explodes again and we have problem to deal with once more. Here is the imbalance you spoke of: 1987 to 1994 the buck harvest (adult and button buck) averaged 55.7%, 1995 t0 2001 it was 55.57%, 2002 to present (the time of the OBR) 54.5%. So that accounts for a whooping 1% change since the OBR was implemented. I want to bigger bucks and a better herd but I also want a good argument for the OBR.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 12, 2006 8:03:20 GMT -5
What would you be looking For with a Trail? ? Explain please!!!! Still waiting For answer!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 12, 2006 9:33:09 GMT -5
How else are we gonna compete with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Whats the winner get? So am I !
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 13, 2006 7:04:10 GMT -5
We have all the proof we need from the imbalance that was taking place before the OBR was implemented. Your arguement that there is no good comparison data is blatantly false. The fact that the OBR was implemented was a direct result of years of shooting more than one buck a year. Those that favor increasing the annual buck harvest are not concerned about the deer, they are only concerned about shooting bucks. I have lost count how many times I've heard some snob hunter brashly remark "I'm strictly a buck hunter". If you want to shoot more than one deer thats fine, do so, you can leagally do it. I even encourage it. But the OBR has increased the number of and size of the bucks on and near my hunting properties. Repealing the OBR will only result in more hunters shooting the first small buck that wanders by and then the real hunt for a wall hanger commenses. Forget the Does, my freezer is now full with two bucks. After a few years the Doe population explodes again and we have problem to deal with once more. Here is the imbalance you spoke of: 1987 to 1994 the buck harvest (adult and button buck) averaged 55.7%, 1995 t0 2001 it was 55.57%, 2002 to present (the time of the OBR) 54.5%. So that accounts for a whooping 1% change since the OBR was implemented. I want to bigger bucks and a better herd but I also want a good argument for the OBR. Also there a hunter used to be able to kill three bucks. Back then I believe it was two bucks or a buck and a doe with a bow, a buck with a gun, and a buck or doe with a muzzleloader if you hadn't killed a buck with your gun. At that same time you also had to draw for a doe tag. So the most you could take was three bucks and one doe, one buck and three does, or two bucks and two does. The harvest rate then was 55.6% in favor of bucks give or take. Since the OBR it is possible to take seven does and one buck and now an unlimited number of does and one buck. The harvest rate is 54.5% bucks. With the percent possible of does to bucks the rates have had no significant change. I am always interested in the numbers because the tell the real story.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 13, 2006 7:21:53 GMT -5
Here is the imbalance you spoke of: 1987 to 1994 the buck harvest (adult and button buck) averaged 55.7%, 1995 t0 2001 it was 55.57%, 2002 to present (the time of the OBR) 54.5%. So that accounts for a whooping 1% change since the OBR was implemented. I want to bigger bucks and a better herd but I also want a good argument for the OBR. Also there a hunter used to be able to kill three bucks. Back then I believe it was two bucks or a buck and a doe with a bow, a buck with a gun, and a buck or doe with a muzzleloader if you hadn't killed a buck with your gun. At that same time you also had to draw for a doe tag. So the most you could take was three bucks and one doe, one buck and three does, or two bucks and two does. The harvest rate then was 55.6% in favor of bucks give or take. Since the OBR it is possible to take seven does and one buck and now an unlimited number of does and one buck. The harvest rate is 54.5% bucks. With the percent possible of does to bucks the rates have had no significant change. I am always interested in the numbers because the tell the real story. I am interested in numbers too. However, this wasn't won on numbers. It was won on hyperbole. The Pro-OBR people like to point to the "record books" as "proof" that the OBR is working. By FAR the biggest jump in the HRBP was the very first year and that was feeding off of the TWO BUCK limits. How can anyone not see that we were killing bucks that had already grown the qualifying antlers the year before this mes all started?? No one on here or anywhere else has disputed these numbers. In fact they are silent mouthed. Wonder why? The buck numbers. Look at the entries, not only by numbers, but also by percent of the buck harvest. YEAR…HRBP ENTRIES…BUCK KILL…% HRBP OF KILL 2000…......213…......44,621…….....0.00477 2001…......240…......48,357…….....0.00496 2002…......345…......47,177…….....0.00731 - the 2 buck rule feed2003…......331…......49,533…….....0.00668 - decline2004…......371…......54,743…….....0.00678 - static2005…......300…......54,428…….....0.00551 - declineWhat is going on? The percent peaked the VERY first year of OBR when the entries were feeding off of the two-buck rule. It is now on a slide. BTW – Show me ONE state that is not killing more and bigger bucks the last 4 years. Records are being set EVERYWHERE..I can also see why the IDHA leadership didn't want the 2005 entry number released prior to the survey. That number is down a bunch from the previous years. Now reasonable people would think that if the OBR was REALLY making an impact that entry number would not be up and down. It would be a straight line progression upwards. It is not, is it?The reason we are seeing more bigger bucks is we are recruiting more button bucks into adulthood. Why are we doing that? Because we are being more selective. We are passing the buttons and passing the small bucks in favor of does. Look at the harvest record – This was all happening before the OBR.The herd is at an all time high in population and we are killing 10,000 MORE bucks now than we did prior to the OBR. Does it not stand to reason that is we are killing more bucks that a certain percentage of them are going to be older age class bucks? It is so simple a grade school kid should be able to figure it out. By FAR the biggest jump in the HRBP was the very first year and that was feeding off of the TWO BUCK limits. How can anyone not see that we were killing bucks that had already grown the qualifying antlers the year before this mes all started??
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 13, 2006 7:35:00 GMT -5
Another good number here. From 1995 to 2001 the data would seem to suggest a shift in the harvest structure. Over that period antlered bucks made up 43% of the harvest. Since the OBR the antlered buck percent has increased to 44.25%. This is not a significant increase but the goals set by the OBR can not be acomplished with that kind of an increase.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Oct 13, 2006 7:42:17 GMT -5
The pro-OBR people said it would save bucks. It hasn't. We are killing more now than pre-OBR.
This is not about numbers. The numbers are on the anti-OBR side.
|
|