|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 20, 2006 7:36:30 GMT -5
Well lets look beyond the fact of who wanted the OBR and who didnt. After this year the OBR is going to be up for a vote again.
The DNR is looking for a reason to find fundage. Deer management goes out the door big time, when your budget and cash flows isnt coming in anymore. Think about it fellas. OBR may be a great tool but it is becoming a scapegoat for lost revenue. ITs not the OBR its the Lifetime License that got split two ways that is the root cause of the cash flows reductions for the DNR. Like i said earlier guys, the DNR is a business above all else. Yeah they are in the business of wildlife management, but how many bankrupt businesses do you know that can still continue to work day to day without worrying about money. (I'm not saying that the DNR is bankrupt just saying they are hurting for money right now)
As for the comparison with Kentucky... Sure you might see us jump in a few years to come with a two buck rule, but what happens when we have dipped that age group dry, then we start to fall in a hurry, and kentucky over takes us without ever looking back. Guys look to the future. Its not about management anymore. Its about producing bigger age group structure within our Hoosier herd. That translates to better hunting for you and I alike. If you are worried about deer numbers, realize that you can now kill almost 320 does per hunter in this state. Much more liberal than in years past.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Jul 20, 2006 8:27:48 GMT -5
Unless the OBR can be definitively tied to an increase in revenue in some way I don't see it being continued . I don't believe that it's data will prove any discernable difference in the herd trends , at least not in any way that will make a difference . If the bucks have been getting more and larger all along as these graphs appear to indicate then the scientific evidence will bear them out once the data is analyzed .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 20, 2006 8:54:46 GMT -5
CAUTION - LONG POST.. Cedar Arrow, First off WELCOME to Hunting Indiana. I've always enjoyed your posts on another forum. I don’t always agree with them but I do respect your opinion. I also liked the respectful way that you have presented them. Unfortunately that is not too common on some sites. Some think that an easier way to win the debate is to put down the person that they are debating. In other words attack the person instead of the subject. We do our very best to not allow that to happen here. So welcome.. To address you posts… The graphs are in percentages so the number of deer that the Tennesseeans kill doesn’t matter. The percentage is judged against previous percentages. If we were talking about sheer numbers you might have a point. The fact that the Tennesseans CAN kill 3 bucks as compared to our one buck under the One Buck Restriction and still come up with better 1 ½ year old number than we do says that the OBR is not the save all in growing older deer. I agree somewhat. We are all getting "choosier", but that comes with age and experience . The only way we can get experience is to get older. Each year gains us more experiences. The average age of hutnters in the USA is 45 and increasing every year. We are not doing a very good job of recruiting youngsters into the fold. The young people that are getting into the game (not enough) do come in and are immediately inundated with the big buck mentality through peer pressure or the big buck videos. Back in the old days we hunted deer and never thought much about holding out for a big one. Time have changed and the youngsters staring out are passing up deer that we would not have dreamed of passing up. True. But the reason that they are not shooting that “one dink buck” is what the debate is about. You’ve already said,” …overall poplulation of hunters is becoming choosier..” No doubt that deer become more nocturnal with hunting pressure, but that is not just in Tennessee. They do it here too, right? In certain areas of Tennessee the gun season is a month long with a two-week break in between. Throw in the muzzleloader season and it is even longer. Lots of time to kill deer down there. Good example on the fountain teirs. The graphs tell us both states are seeing an “upward trend” in ages. I don’t have the chart handy but I can tell you that even with their 3 deer a day in some areas that they are also laying off the button bucks. You see the lower level on your fountain is not the 1 1/2 year olds, it is the button buck level. They are male deer too. If we kill too many of them the next level, and the level after that and the level after that is affected. True. However, I also see it as explaining why the age shift has occurred. If they truly “…want to be a part of that trending buck hunting boom” by tooting their own horn why did they say –“… Although Tennessee should never be thought of as a “big buck” state due to its lack of high quality soils, it definitely warrants the label as an “old buck” state.” ? Now if they were trying to sell buck hunting why owuild they say that about “never be thought of as a “big buck” state”? Supposedly the IDNR is $10,000 in the black this last year. Now, I say they could have been a LOT better off if there was still a second buck tags available. That alone accounted for over a million dollar loss in the last 5 years. True. 41% of the deer that are killed are under a lifetime license, landowner permits, youth license and military. No. All monies from the Lifetime License sales is in an account and the IDNR can only get to so much a year – by law. It is not available to the politicians to use at whim.. If it had been it would have all been gone a long time ago. They tried once and got beat about the head and shoulders by the sportsmen and women in Indiana. Kyle is trying to get that changed in order to purchase more hunting properties. I did not present those facts as a moderator. I presented them as a member and they are there for debate. Therein lies the rub. Wildlife management should not be left up to a “vote”. We have hired some pretty good professionals to manage our wildlife for us. If we ever get to a public vote on wildlife we can lose big time. There are a lot of people out there that want to see hunting go bye-bye. If they mobilize and “vote” on wildlife issues they can rule the day – if all the IDNR is count emails or noses at meetings They do need money to work, don’t they? I don’t agree with that. Their first charge is to manage the wildlife and the natural resources. If the IDNR cuts a license – IOW - does away with it - there is loss revenues. No doubt about it. The IDNR will not go bankrupt. Wee can certainly learn from other states and KY is one of them. The folks pushing bigger bucks like to point out that they have a one-buck limit. They also have rifles in the rut. The OBR folks pushing bigger bucks want to move and shorten the deer season. they point to Illinois as the model. Guess what? Illinois has a two season. AND both those bucks can be taken by a gun – slug gun and muzzleloader. The folks pushing bigger bucks like to cherry pick big buck growing schemes from other states and say, “If we could only do this we can be like them.” Each and every state is different, but one thing is common amongst all states – the deer hunters are getting older, more experienced and MORE SELECTIVE.Looking forward to your posts on here.
|
|
|
Post by mullis56 on Jul 20, 2006 9:17:17 GMT -5
Here is my $0.04 worth, it is $0.04 because I'm have a strong opinion.
If you want to kill everything that is brown....move to TN. "BROWN IT'S DOWN!!" If you want the opportunity to shoot BIG bucks every year stay in Indiana and enjoy the rules as they are.
My only complaint with Indiana is gun season during the rut, and too long of a gun season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 20, 2006 9:27:15 GMT -5
I’ve been a deer hunter for over 38 years and this subject has been the most contentious of any deer hunting subject to come down the pike. I know friends that are no longer friends over this. Very sad. We have a LOT bigger issues facing us than a one or two buck limit.
Please do not think for a minute that this “bashing” is one sided. On some sites I’ve been called everything but a white man because I believe that the One Buck Restriction is accomplishing very little and is taking away a lot of opportunities and revenues.
I agree. But some are more torn up about it than others. I hunt mature deer and do hold out for that big guy. Very few deer hunters would pass a big buck and shoot a doe if they were standing side by side.
Herd management has very little, if anything, to do with shooting one, two or even three bucks. The bucks can service 11 or 12 does so the herd really does not NEED a one to one ratio. Herd management is accomplished by the doe harvest.
There was not that many folks double dipping to begin with. The pro-OBR guys sold a lot of folks on that the two season bowhunters were killing two “dinks” (their word, not mine) every year. Not true, but they sold it.
The two season bowhunter is by far the first hunter I think of that is really dedicated to the sport of deer hunting or he wouldn't be hunting as much as he is with two or maybe even three types of hunting weapons. Why not reward those individuals that put in the time and effort to master multiple hunting weapons AND put in all that time hunting the deer?
Yes, that is one benefit of it. Good? Not sure, as I think archery hunting has paid the price of the OBR..
Jim Mitchell said that this One Buck Restriction would transfer the harvest from early archery season to the firearm season. So we have seen the early archery season numbers plummet and the firearm season numbers sky rocket. A LOT of those bucks that were passed in early archery are hitting the ground on opening weekend of the firearm season.
Jim Mitchell said at the outset of this One Buck Restriction that there were about 6,000 double dippers killing two bucks a year. If we do the math there were about 25,000 deer hunters out there possibly buying tags and chasing after that second buck. That is a lot of lost opportunities and revenues.
.
I agree..
Then we will have to agree to disagree on the “two ways”. As I posted earlier I have deer hunted for over 38 years and have seen what it was then, in the past and what it is today. We were getting there very well under a two-buck system that did not limit hunter opportunities and did not cost the IDNR much needed revenues.
Please mark my words that the “antler worshippers” will be back for more after the OBR is passed.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 20, 2006 9:32:18 GMT -5
Unless the OBR can be definitively tied to an increase in revenue in some way I don't see it being continued . I don't believe that it's data will prove any discernable difference in the herd trends , at least not in any way that will make a difference . If the bucks have been getting more and larger all along as these graphs appear to indicate then the scientific evidence will bear them out once the data is analyzed . Kevin, I don't believe that there will be "any discernable difference in the herd trends". But I also do not believe that "revenues" will rule the day. This will boil down to what has governed most wildlife decisions in the past. IOW - What groups can get the most people to comment on their side. .
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 20, 2006 10:10:14 GMT -5
Do you believe people are as selective with more liberal bag limits? Lets get away from deer for a minute. Lets use rabbits for example..
The snow is falling, its light and fluffy and the sun is out, you know rabbits are gonna be all over the place. So you grab the 410 and head out. The legal limit is 5 rabbitts. You go out and shoot the first five rabbits that hop up. And head back to the house. its been 45 minutes and your day is done. Now if you have a 10 rabbit a day bag limit would most people stop after 5 just because they think they wanted to be selective. Most humans are not a controlled group. Especially Americans, we are glutenous beings, we over consume every commodity we get our hands on. It is rules and regulations that hold us in check.
Can you debate the fact that if people are only allowed one antlered deer a year and the overall birth rate maintains the same, that the population will continue to grow faster and older over a scenario in which you can shoot two bucks.
Put 100 marbles in a bag. You reach in and draw two at a time, ill take one and for every 20 turns we take, we get 50 marbles added. Whos bag is going to grow bigger and faster? I dont see how anyone can argue that point? It logically doesnt make sense that you or anybody else for that matter can argue that. How can it be argued that only taking one leaves more for later years, which means they get older.
I also dont understand how you can say that a business leaking and losing money, wont look for ways to plug the holes. Regardless of your beliefs the DNR is a money driven business, and the OBR is a false leak. They think that because people arent buying the second tag they are seeing a loss of money. With the money they have lost in a "buck" tag, they have given countless more oppurtunities for doe tags. They all cost the same right? So how can you blame the OBR.... Seems like they arent seeing all that money because of the hoard of money they have recieved from the lifetime license that is being delegated over several years. It only makes sense to me maybe not to others but the logic just doesnt make sense to me. Lets say a lifetime license cost 1000 dollars, most of the lifetimes that were bought i believe is around that area, however there were a great number that were bought at 800 and cheaper when word got out that they were going to raise prices and or they were first offered. Thats enough money for an archery tag, shotgun tag, muzzleloader tag, turkey tag, small game tag, the stamp to hunt turkey, and 1 bonus antlerless tag. That equals 24+24+24+24+15+24+7(im not sure how much the stamp is i think its roughly 7)=142 dollars. 1000/142=7.04 years. Now keep in mind that this number is going to be skewed to the high side because there were those license that were sold considerably lower than that price. If they take that lump sum from the lifetime license and divey it up over the course of more than 5.6 years you are of course going to see a loss in yearly income. It cant be avoided whatsoever. How does that get argued? I dont understand.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 20, 2006 11:51:13 GMT -5
I completely agree on the financial aspect of this. OBR did not break the IDNR, lifetime licenses did. I bought my comprehensive at $725. It paid for itself in just under 5 years, given the normal amount of tags the I would buy and the license fee structure of the past few years. I would have paid around $150 (or more) per year in licenses. I'm 37. I've got 40 plus years of hunting in Indiana to go, God willing. At today's rates, that is around $7,000 of lost revenue from me alone, if you count the years I've already had a lifetime license. I'm just one person. Now count up all the lifetimes and the life span left of the individules. It adds up to a TON of money!
I've not seen one single legitimate argument as to how going back to a two buck limit would benefit the herd, benefit the harvest data, benefit the financial support to IDNR, or any other thing that could truely be beneficial. All I've read and heard is "I want the challenge of hunting a second buck" and "it was that way before and it was fine", etc. All reasons to sastisfy a personal lust for another set of head gear. To me, those are not good reasons, and I'm a head gear lover.
Woody, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply attacking the two buck argument. You seem to be a great guy and I hope sometime to meet up with you and share hunting stories. We will all agree on some topics and dissagree on others. I do agree with you, I've never seen such a hot topic in Indiana in regards to hunting as OBR.
It is unfortunate that the OBR topic is so hot. I think it is detracting from all the other awesome things that the IDNR has done for just this year alone. This was definately the year of the kid!
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jul 20, 2006 14:00:58 GMT -5
The OBR was implemented for one thing only "to grow bigger antlers". It has nothing to do with Indiana's deer herd control or the herds health . No matter how you flip-flop it around its still all about big antlers.....period.
The IDNR have professional people who we pay to manage our wildlife. They have the numbers and expertise to do this job, so why don't we let them make the decisions. How many of you know more about deer management than their biologists?
This is the last year of the OBR five year test. The DNR will have the results and should make an informed decision next year. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Jul 20, 2006 14:07:41 GMT -5
If it was up to our IDNR staff I think we would be allowed to get one buck with a bow, one with a general firearm and one with a M/L. NOW.....that don't mean that every deer hunter will shoot 3 bucks....in fact some will shoot ZERO.
Me personally, I shoot the first deer I see....I don't care about antler size.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Jul 20, 2006 19:53:27 GMT -5
If money is a problem for the DNR, then why don't they start managing things like a business. Grow the big trophy bucks and the money will come. That's what hunters want and they are willing to pay for it. Change a few rules, and in a few years you'd have the out of staters gladly paying $300+ for license to come hunt here, the DNR could sell outfitters licenses, and all kinds of good income producing stuff.
The lifetime license fiasco was the dumbest financial move our state DNR ever made. People were gladly paying the full tag price, then the state decides to cut some crazy bargain deal. They may have raised a few bucks up front, but it cost them a fortune in the long haul. Wow! Good thing we sold off the toll road, before the state dug that financial hole any deeper.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Jul 20, 2006 20:19:13 GMT -5
I would rather the DNR break even or even lose money than become another Illinois with a hige influx of hunters, leasors and so called outfitters.
Tough enough now finding a decent place to hunt now without all that competition.
I do agree on the lifetime license, but as they say hindsight is always 20/20
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 7:07:02 GMT -5
I agree that there are other means of creating that lost income. I also agree that nobody wants to see this state become an outfitted disaster. Under the OBR we can set a precedent and start a much higher rate for out of state hunters. I think we should try to get to somewhere around 500+ per out of state guy. Outfiiters and outfitters license are completely outlawed. If you want to hunt here you are going to pay for it and do your own work. We cant do anyworse than we already are. Even if we went to 350 per out of state tag, Non-resident tag sales would have to drop 37% for us to lose money compared to this past season.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 7:19:57 GMT -5
I agree that there are other means of creating that lost income. I also agree that nobody wants to see this state become an outfitted disaster. Under the OBR we can set a precedent and start a much higher rate for out of state hunters. I think we should try to get to somewhere around 500+ per out of state guy. Outfiiters and outfitters license are completely outlawed. If you want to hunt here you are going to pay for it and do your own work. We cant do anyworse than we already are. Even if we went to 350 per out of state tag, Non-resident tag sales would have to drop 37% for us to lose money compared to this past season. Not too sure that we want to get into a "My non-resident fee is higher than your non-resident fee" bidding war with neighboring states either. Forget Illinois.. they are laready out of site, but I am considering KY, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan Some of us do hunt adjoining states. I was glad to see that the state of Indiana at least adjusted the NR fees on the second bonus antlerless tag for NRs to $24. They still have to pay $150 for the first bonus tag which I think is way too much when the state is trying to get rid of some does.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 7:38:30 GMT -5
No one can be selective on whether a buck or doe is shot in rabbits. Rabbits will have a certain mortality rate whether you shoot 5 or 10. Not a good analogy to use when comparing to deer.
Buck deer has nothing to do with the numbers in a herd. That is determined by the number of breeding females.
Your marble analogy would hold water if EVERYONE was taking one or two marbles out of the bag. According to Jim Mitchell (who should know) only 6,000 deer hunters a year were double dipping. So only about 2% of the deer hunters were taking “two marbles out of the bag.” A bag that is been overflowing for years.
A majority of deer hunters weren’t drawing any marbles out of either bag.
Yes, the first antlerless tag costs the same amount for the first tag and now it is $15 for the second and succeeding tags.
Do you believe that the antlerless tags are in the same demand as the buck tag? I don’t think so.
Cutting out an opportunity to purchase a second buick tag cost the IDNR quite a bit of money. There is no doubt about that. When you figure in the peripherals such as gasoline, food, motels, purchase of equipment, shells and PR money associated with the second buck tag purchase we are talking millions of dollars.
The lifetime license fund is distributed by a certain formula (I'll go lok that up) to the IDNR under law. They can not just go and get it. Kyle is working to have that changed, but it takes an act of congress – literally.
No doubt that the lifetime license was a bargain for hunters, especially deer hunters. What is a bargain for one side HAS to be a drain on the other side.
I think mine was $385 when I bought it. I'm number 14XX.
Cedar Arrow,
I'm glad that joined up here. You bring some very interesting and well presented thoughts to the table.
Thanks..
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 7:56:54 GMT -5
Buck deer has nothing to do with the numbers in a herd. That is determined by the number of breeding females.
I am sorry but when I recieved the "birds and the bees" talk. I distinctly remember it taking two to tango. Now you are telling me the population depends on does? If there are certain areas that dont have the buck population, you are going to see a huge influx in the number of does that dont partake in the breeding each season. RIGHT??
As for the tag prices... Do you want your land leased out from under you, because someone bid it higher than you? NOBODY DOES.... So how can you say that you dont want to get into a Non-Resident price war. Keep it high enough to limit the numbers, and low enough to draw only the serious hunters. As for you traveling around and hunting various states. I believe the majority of the resident hunters dont do that on an annual basis. If they are seriously interested in going out of state they can save the money for the out of state tag. Dont step over the little guy and thats whats happening with the whole outfitter situation. Large out of state land leasing is screwing the blue collar small guy out of a place to hunt. By increasing those out NR tags you can limit that and still make your money. It only makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 8:05:31 GMT -5
Buck deer has nothing to do with the numbers in a herd. That is determined by the number of breeding females. I am sorry but when I recieved the "birds and the bees" talk. I distinctly remember it taking two to tango. Now you are telling me the population depends on does? In the case of deer and turkeys it takes one buck/gobbler to"tango" with 10 or more does/hens. Where are "certain areas that dont have the buck population"..? I don't believe these areas exist in Indiana or any other whitetails state. Buck and does are born on a pretty close to one and one ratio with a slight edge to bucks. According to what someone posted on here us Hoosiers can kill 457 antlerless deer a year and ONLY one buck. You are worried about killing too many bucks, when it is war on antlerless? Bucks are not an endangered species by a LONG shot. The does in any an area WILL get bred. .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 8:23:23 GMT -5
You are right.. nobody does, but it is already happening to a very large degree. We can thank all the emphasis on big antlered deer for that. “Serious hunters”? Do you think that the 20,000 bowhunters that put in for Illinois are all “serious hunters” or just the ones that have the disposable cash to do that? Quite a few on here that live close to the borders do step over and hunt adjoining states - the “serious hunters” I mean. I can be in my Indiana tree stand in 45 minutes. I can be in my Kentucky treestand in 1 hour. Hunting KY became a lot more important to me after they started this One Buck Restriction in Indiana. If I kill out early here, me and my money head south of the Ohio River. Indiana misses out.. I agree with the outfitters taking over. Look to Illinois and see that high tag prices hasn’t slowed them down one bit. Do we REALLY want to be like Illinois?
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 8:44:29 GMT -5
I take it you hunt in Southern Indiana where the land is hilly and large timber lots still stand? Up north in certain counties its all wood lots and fence rows. Hills are not heard of up there its dead flat. In years past there were very few bucks in those areas because everybody and their brother would shoot them. Now with restrictions on the table and set in stone for now, they have to be selective. Its a large scale picture and we can do better than Illinois, dont sweat their mediocre prices. there are plenty of states that are much higher. I contest that we can blow them out of the water and set a precedent for supporting resident hunters. I am glad you can hunt two states in less than an hour not everybody has the disposable money, or access. You sir are the minority.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jul 21, 2006 8:45:00 GMT -5
This is where you are mistaken, the OBR was a trial meaning that the results have to justify the rule remaining in place, not the other way around. However, if justification were required for a return to a two buck limit, all the justification that would be required is that the herd can support that limit as it has in the past and that the sale of second buck tag would generate additional revenue.
Returning to a two buck limit will not greatly increase the buck harvest if it increases. The great falsehood of the whole OBR scam is that it actually reduced the buck harvest. IT DID NOT! The buck harvest during the OBR years has been among the highest ever. Barring a huge migration of bucks into our state from a two buck limit state like Illinois or some other great influx of bucks into our state the only conclusion one can draw is at the very least we our killing just as many bucks as before. All the OBR did was move a portion of the buck harvest from archery season to firearms and muzzleloader season. Maybe taking a buck away from a hunter skilled or lucky enough to take two so that another hunter that is neither skilled or lucky enough to get one has a better chance to do so seems like a good idea to some, but it just seems like a welfare program for bucks to me.
Its funny you see things that way. I see all the reasons for the OBR as an attempt to justify the personal lust for an easier chance at a bigger rack. To me the opportunity to take the nicest buck I can find and then hunt for another one that suits my standards is worth far more than the chance to hunt a buck herd that is artificially managed for bigger bucks. My chance of success would be much lower but the immeasurable increase in my satisfaction would greatly outweigh the low chance of success. I've been fortunate to take a very nice buck prior to the OBR and quite frankly it is a much greater trophy to me than any artificial buck that is the product of any big buck production scheme would be, no matter how big. Thankfully the OBR is not effective enough to have devalued any trophy I might take in the future yet, but it is a step down that path.
|
|