|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 14, 2006 18:45:38 GMT -5
As to Indiana’s One-Buck-Rule, I’d like to pick everyone’s brain, after I put my two cents in.
I believe the OBR is nonsense, and I further believe that it was crammed down our throats by a very well organized, very vocal minority.
Indiana, for quite some time, has contributed a good number of deer to the B&C, and P&Y record books. Not as many perhaps as the great communist state of Illinois, or Kansas or Iowa, but unless you want a good percentage of Hoosier hunting area leased out, and non-resident’s killing your deer, you don`t want that anyway.
I really take exception to this OBR, and I believe the idha was at least, in part responsible. I`ve traded a couple of e-mails with joe bacon, and he retorted to me that if the majority of Indiana deer hunters hadn`t wanted it, it wouldn`t have happened.
I have a fairly good circle of hunting buddies, friends and acquaintances, and having polled them, and every hunter I had the chance to meet in the field, at the check-in station, etc., not one person I talked to was in favor of this silly legislation. Again, I submit that a very well organized, vocal minority got what they wanted, and crammed this down our throats.
Understand that the members of the idha are not wildlife biologists, they`re not deer hunting authorities, or experts, they`re just like you and me. Deer hunters with an opinion.
I have e-mailed, as well as spoken by phone to the primary authority on Indiana deer hunting, Dr. Jim Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell shares the same sentiments as I, pertaining to the OBR as well as deer hunting in Indiana, in general. He doesn`t believe the OBR will have any significant impact on so called “trophy” bucks in the state, and feels it isn`t the direction deer hunting should be headed.
So what do you all think? Is there even one of you in here who supported the OBR? And what happens when it expires? What then?
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Mar 14, 2006 19:02:44 GMT -5
since there is no legislative action being taken on this issue I would ask the ADMIN to simply move this topic to the appropriate forum.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 14, 2006 19:14:39 GMT -5
He`s right-it should probably go to the campfire area.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 14, 2006 20:15:00 GMT -5
I got involved more in the politics of deer management and rules after the adoption of the One Buck Restriction trial.
I found out that it really didn't take a whole lot of people to get the IDNR to see your way. The first meeting I attended there were no more than 35 people from all over the state. A very large majority was from the Indianapolis area as it is a LOT shorter drive than from Warrick County.
The IDNR made their 5-year trial decision based on surveys that they did and the majority of the minority that showed up at the meetings.
You are right in that a LOT Of deer hunters that are not politically active got blindsided by this trial. They did not know it was happening until they got their regulation book for 2002.
IMO - What the One Buck Restriction has done is shift the harvest from early archery season (as evidenced by the decreased antlered kill) to the firearm season. I also believe that it has hurt archery hunting immensely.
It has also hurt deer tags sales and a resulting loss of revenues for the IDNR, sporting goods shops, gas stations, processors, resturaunts, motels, etc, etc, etc..
Unfortunately this will not be decided by sound scientific evidence of whether an age shift was significantly caused by the OBR or not. What it will be decided on is by who can get the most people to show up at the meetings again. The IDNR will survey again, but that is a forgone conclusion when a good number of the people being surveyed are one-season hunters (mostly gun) and are not affected at all by this trial.
I am not optimistic that we ever see a two buck limit again. But we can try…
I PMed you..
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Mar 14, 2006 20:34:01 GMT -5
I'm in favor of the OBR. But, the topic has been debated to death. Let's face it....if you're against it, you'll always be against it. If you're for it, then you're going to be for it. No amount of discussion on this board is going to change anyone's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Mar 14, 2006 20:34:44 GMT -5
YAWN............................ I'll stay out of this one. Got bigger fish to fry.....
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Mar 14, 2006 20:40:34 GMT -5
oh and ditto hoyt....
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Mar 15, 2006 6:56:30 GMT -5
I support the OBR!
I really feel that the rule will add more opportunity in the long run. Just look at some of the other OBR states......crossbows and muzzleloaders get some of October too!
I don't think it adds antlers now, but the additional opportunity WILL make more folks, more selective.
A season long buck tag is the next step!
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Mar 15, 2006 7:27:08 GMT -5
Hoyt, you're still alive! Haven't heard from you for awhile. I thought maybe you were one of the Trolls Woody axed! :-)
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 15, 2006 7:30:25 GMT -5
I'm in favor of the OBR. But, the topic has been debated to death. Let's face it....if you're against it, you'll always be against it. If you're for it, then you're going to be for it. No amount of discussion on this board is going to change anyone's opinion. Very well said hoyt. I am still undecided on weather OBR is a good thing, or a bad thing. Time & data will tell.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Mar 15, 2006 7:32:07 GMT -5
THUD!!!
(That was the sound of the dead horse once again being beaten)
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Mar 15, 2006 8:20:10 GMT -5
THUD!!! (That was the sound of the dead horse once again being beaten) LOL!! DEC, Stop beating that thing, your just gonna stir up the blowflies!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Mar 15, 2006 8:50:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Mar 15, 2006 10:48:38 GMT -5
I like OBR not going to start arguing about it again I agree with dec and hoyt
|
|
|
Post by oneshot on Mar 15, 2006 11:24:42 GMT -5
i favor the OBR
|
|
|
Post by duff on Mar 15, 2006 11:29:19 GMT -5
Hunter480, Well there are plenty of people who agree with you and plenty that don't. As it has been pointed out, this topic has been hashed out 100 different times or more.
No question about it, if you don't let the DNR know your oppinion they can't be blamed. No matter how many were involved or not, I do believe it was the majority of the people who communicated with the DNR probably wanted to change something. The rest of us were happy with status quo, so why would we tell the DNR "Good Job".
It is important to let the DNR know if you are satisfied or not. Not only are they responsible to manage our resources for the betterment of the resource, but also for hunter/fisherman satisifaction. This OBR didn't just happen over night. Based on the responses of the people involved they spent yrs talking to the DNR and forming an organized approach to get things changed. So take every opportunity to let them know how you feel. Sounds like you already do that.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Mar 15, 2006 12:25:40 GMT -5
Hunter480, With all due respect to your opinion on how OBR got in, it wasn't just Joe individually, or just the IDHA that was in favor of the trial... IBA and other groups were involved also, in making the suggestion to IDNR, and at that point, they did do a survey and get input from field biologists, so it was not one person's input nor was it an overnight decision... Historically, IBA brought a concept up at the DAC meeting several years back wanting to set up certain state properties for bow-only and to be managed for QDM... the blackpowder boys, IDHA and the independent DAC reps sentiment was that it would be unfair to hunters using other weapons to set aside state ground for bow-only, but they agreed with the concept in principle of doing something to reduce pressure on younger bucks, and so the concept of OBR was agreed to on a trial basis to see what the data showed... if it worked fine, if it didn't then end the rule at the end of trial.... that's basically how it came to be... Since then, Woody and I and a bunch of folks on this site and the HH site have debated the stats over and over again, and I think there are probably arguments to be made on both sides as to whether OBR is effective or not... Regarding who you've talked to do that are all opposed to it, my personal experience is that the majority now think it's a good idea, but I also think that's based on what weapon the guy you're talking to is using... if they're a multi-season/multi-weapon hunter, they likely won't think much of OBR, but the majority of hunters don't fall into that category... Bottom line is that you're giving too much credit (blame?) to one person or group relative to how OBR came into play.... Having said all that... flagellate that deceased equine for all it's worth... :-)
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 15, 2006 12:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 15, 2006 15:59:19 GMT -5
While not being totally in favor of a one buck rule. I was definitely against what we had before. But then you could purchase an archery, shotgun, handgun, muzzle loader license and get a buck with all. I had heard many many different guys bragging about all the big bucks that the were killing, not to discount some does thrown in. My personal opinion is that one with archery equipment (any) and one with firearms (all) would be okay. Now how many deer you kill including does would fall under your own conscience or ethics. But then again I am primarily a meat hunter with antlers being a nice bonus.
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Mar 15, 2006 17:20:40 GMT -5
This topic is new and fresh......... Solohunter
|
|