|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 10:08:10 GMT -5
Returning to a two buck limit will not greatly increase the buck harvest if it increases. I hope you don't mind, but I think I'll save that quote right there for future reference, if IDNR goes back to the two buck system. That is one of the funniest things I've read. A lot has changed in the past five years of hunting. Due to TV shows, magazines, a generation of hunters maturing, more big buck sightings, trail cameras, etc. The focus to harvest big antlers is greater than ever. This is not 2001 anymore. If it goes back to a two buck limit, every two season hunter (MYSELF INCLUDED) will go nuts in trying to put two bucks up on the wall. What happens is that a guys standard drops a little. Now all the sudden that 130's buck that he passed on in bow season, now is justifyable, because he's got another crack at one during gun season. I'm sorry to tell you this but few hunters have the self control to pass on a good buck when they know they've got another crack at a bigger buck with FOUR WEEKS of gun hunting. Go back to a two buck limit and watch the buck harvest jump an appriciable amount. (Your welcome to save that quote from me if you want .) More guys bow hunt now, more guys know what is in the woods now thanks to trail cameras, more guys want as many sets of head gear possible due to the hunting shows and magazines. I could go on forever. You don't think so? You and others have stated that the IDNR will see the increased revenue they've needed due to increased license sales. You bet they will, big time. Because guys are going to go out to wack another buck, and many of them will be successful. More bucks are being harvested under OBR, there is no denying that. Some of it is a shift from bow to gun. Some of it is due to the fact that guys are in the woods longer holding out for a good buck, so they see more bucks and ultimately take the oportunity to shoot one. Some of it is the ageing hunting population, lets face it through experience and technology, we are better hunters than we were 5 years ago. Yes, there is an upward trend in the buck harvest, but not nearly what it will be if we go back to a two buck limit. OBR produces "artificial" bucks. That is some funny stuff right there! I guess no less artificial then than food plots, habitat improvement, increased doe opportunities, trail camera photos that let a guy know he's got a potential trophy in another year, or any of the other advances that have been made in hunting that most of us take advantage of in one way shape or form. This entire discussion is so hillarious. IMO, it all comes down to a bunch of whining because the State used to let us shoot more bucks and boy do we miss that. How dare they change a rule! Maybe we should go back 15 years or so when you could shoot 3 bucks, after all they changed the rule for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 10:15:02 GMT -5
I take it you hunt in Southern Indiana where the land is hilly and large timber lots still stand? Yes, I do. I hunt Warrick and Vanderburgh counties. I hear that quite a bit and to be quite frank with you I do not know the circumstances of Northern Indiana deer hunting, so i would have a tough time commenting on that.. But - since only 6,000 deer hunters double dipped I find it rather hard to believe that most of that double dipping was going on in counties north of I70. Does it not stand to reason that most of the double dipping would occur in counties “in Southern Indiana where the land is hilly and large timber lots still stand”? I have said it in the past that IF the One Buck Restriction worked at all that the counties that had a lot of bucks and most double dipping was occurring would get richer in bucks and the counties that didn’t have very many bucks and not much double dipping would not benefit at all. The non-double dipping counties would still have "everybody and their brother would shoot them". Do you have any idea exactly how many two season deer hunters actually double dipped in your hunting area? Since most bucks are killed the opening weekend in any area of the state do you not still see that “everybody and their brother would shoot them” on opening weekend and mostly “brown is down”? The two season bowhunter had to put one on the ground to be able to even hunt a second buck. Considering the buck take by bowhunters that also gun hunter it was not that many. You see I really don’t care if we can “blow them out of the water” or not. I don’ see deer hunting as a contest between hunters or states. Our annual Hunting Indiana deer hunting fun “contest” excluded of course. I do count that, as well as my financial, physical and mental ability to hunt anywhere, as one of my God given blessings.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 21, 2006 10:20:28 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 agree wholeheartedly!!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 10:29:15 GMT -5
All of the above is EXACTLY what I have been saying that this age shift started before the One Buck Restriction trial and was caused by “TV shows, magazines, a generation of hunters maturing, more big buck sightings, trail cameras, etc. The focus to harvest big antlers is greater than ever.” That trend was going up and up before the OBR came along.
As one pro-OBR guy once said – “The OBR just came along at an opportune time”..
Now, the ONLY question should be – can the buck population stand hunting two bucks?
That answer is an overwhelming YES. We need to trust our trained and paid IDNR employees called DEER BIOLOGISTS to do the job that they are paid to do.
Deer management should not become a popularity contest.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 10:44:36 GMT -5
All of the above is EXACTLY what I have been saying that this age shift started before the One Buck Restriction trial and was caused by “TV shows, magazines, a generation of hunters maturing, more big buck sightings, trail cameras, etc. The focus to harvest big antlers is greater than ever.” That trend was going up and up before the OBR came along. As one pro-OBR guy once said – “The OBR just came along at an opportune time”.. Now, the ONLY question should be – can the buck population stand hunting two bucks? That answer is an overwhelming YES. We need to trust our trained and paid IDNR employees called DEER BIOLOGISTS to do the job that they are paid to do.Deer management should not become a popularity contest. Yes, BUT ... I will argue that the age shift has been accelerated by OBR ... AND that the maturity and antler obsession has accelerated 10000X faster during the period of OBR. Antler obsession has not accelerated because of OBR, it has because of TV, magazines, internet, trail cameras, etc. You are right, the timing of OBR just happened when all of this was starting to boom out of control. OK, fast forward, it is now the end of 2006 and IDNR says "lets go back to 2 bucks". Then what happens? The antler obsessed can barely sleep at night for the next 9 months because they know they get an opportunity to make 2 trips to Mr. Taxidermist next year. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the antler obsession has grown at a BLISTERING rate since pre OBR. There will be SIGNIFICANTLY more than 6,000 hunters that double dip in 2007 and beyond ... until it reaches a saturation point and the quality of bucks starts to decline again. There is no reason to shoot a second buck beyond pure antler fascination. Plain and simple. You want meat, shoot does. You want a hunting challenge, crawl out of your tree stand and actually "hunt" something. But don't tell me that taking a second buck is not about antlers ... it is. You are right. IDNR are the "experts" and they will do what they feel is right. Ultimately, we have little control in that. Maybe they've already made up their mind one way or the other, who knows. All I know is I'm so tired of arguing about this topic. I just want October to get here so I can climb in a tree stand and be ecstatic with my one mature buck that I hopefully take.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 11:10:57 GMT -5
If we are going to start looking at Biologists and their outlooks lets look at proven biologists. The IDNR biologists have not proven themselves at all. They are rookies playing in the big leagues here when it comes to deer (buck) management. They have no proven materials. They have always been focused on numbers and not on quality.
The northern county topic. The brown its down attitude ran prevelant up there. If anything the OBR said hey wait are you sure you want to end your hunt on that deer. It made people weigh their options. Regardless if they still believe in the brown its down attitude they had a reason to second guess because the OBR made people aware that there are better deer out there and if you shoot this one you dont get one of the better ones. IF it has done anything at all it made people think, made people check their options, made people decide based on their personal restrictions, before there was no nudging no reason to think about bigger deer because they didnt exist in big enough numbers, now they are there and people are thinking about it a little more.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 11:28:26 GMT -5
If we are going to start looking at Biologists and their outlooks lets look at proven biologists. The IDNR biologists have not proven themselves at all. They are rookies playing in the big leagues here when it comes to deer (buck) management. They have no proven materials. They have always been focused on numbers and not on quality. ? Jim has a masters degree in deer biolology. Not hardly a "rookie" by a long shot. No doubt they have to please a lot more people than a paid big buck biologist that manages a few thousand acres for a private ground hunting. Not all of our deer biologist customers are big buck hunters. They do include the guys that are just as happy to take a yearling doe as a buck. They also have to manage to what is socially accpeptable to non-hunters. The state deer biologists have MANY customers to please. A big buck biologist's job is a LOT easier.. How did it make the opening weekend "brown is down" firearm only crowd be more selective when all they could ever take was one buck? I don't have a breakdown by counties on buck kills by days, but I'll bet nothing has changed in just about any county we would want to name when the bucks are getting killed. .
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jul 21, 2006 11:43:38 GMT -5
So far the score seems to be 17 - zip, Woody. ; I would venture to say Woody isn't even close to running out of ammo.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 12:05:21 GMT -5
So far the score seems to be 17 - zip, Woody. ; I would venture to say Woody isn't even close to running out of ammo. Too funny. Again, there has not been one single post that gives any difinative reason to go back to 2 bucks outside of "it was that way before and it was fine" type of arguments. Everyone seems to think that the only thing that has changed in 5 years is that we have OBR. Hunting as we know it (like it or not) is totally different than it was pre OBR. Go back to two bucks and watch what happens. There are antler hunters everywhere drooling for it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 12:13:04 GMT -5
All of the above is EXACTLY what I have been saying that this age shift started before the One Buck Restriction trial and was caused by “TV shows, magazines, a generation of hunters maturing, more big buck sightings, trail cameras, etc. The focus to harvest big antlers is greater than ever.” That trend was going up and up before the OBR came along. As one pro-OBR guy once said – “The OBR just came along at an opportune time”.. Now, the ONLY question should be – can the buck population stand hunting two bucks? That answer is an overwhelming YES. We need to trust our trained and paid IDNR employees called DEER BIOLOGISTS to do the job that they are paid to do.Deer management should not become a popularity contest. "Accelerated"? Maybe, somewhat. Is not QDM a matter of education instead of mandation? We wre getting their plenty fast enough without cutting back on hunter opportunities and much needed dollars in revenues. No, I don;t wnat deer hunting to be all about big antlelred bucks. All supposition on your part. How about the question on the deer hutner survey where the DNR asked who was in favor of a trial period of a two buck comparison. I REALLY believe that this OBR is very inconclusive data wise. No doubt it has widespread support, especially amongst the one seaosn hunters. Maybe a couple years of going back to two bucks ON A TRIAL BASIS to gather more data would be a good idea. Again, this is NOT about "shooting a second buck". It is about "hunting a second buck". The "hunt" is the opportunity. It is not all about a kill or putting another set of antlers on the wall. Are you saying that anyone who hunts a treestand is not having a challenging hunt? Is not the hunt is to be in the right place at the right time. I seriously doubt it. If anthing my bet would be the OBR is here to stay for awhile. I do know that some pro guys were wanting a 5 year extension so that it could not be turned back again in immediate future administrative rules processes. [quoe]All I know is I'm so tired of arguing about this topic. I just want October to get here so I can climb in a tree stand and be ecstatic with my one mature buck that I hopefully take. Agreed... September 3rd for me - in KY.. September 15th in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 12:14:18 GMT -5
Good idea!!
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 12:54:59 GMT -5
Are you saying that anyone who hunts a treestand is not having a challenging hunt? Is not the hunt is to be in the right place at the right time. I never said that anyone sitting in a treestand is not having a challenging hunt. I hunt out of a stand a lot. I have deer that I scout and scout to pattern and try and out wit. Sometimes I loose in a stand, every once in a while I win. Still, it is not that hard to sit in a tree and hunt does, or even bucks sometimes. I also agree that the hunt is not the kill. So my point was this. Under OBR you've done your homework, you've scouted, you got your buck. Now your left with does to hunt. But as you and other have stated, many do not feel there is a challenge in hunting does. To a degree you are right. I know everywhere is different. Where I hunt, it is aweful easy to sit in a tree and take a doe, with a gun it is almost a slam dunk. My point is, make hunting a challenge again. If it is too easy to hunt up a doe from a stand, then get your butt out of the stand and make something happen. Still hunt and glass. Stalk up on a bedded doe, or a group of them feeding. If you need a challenge, there is an awesome challenge. But few people will actually do this because 9 times out of 10, even the best woodsmen get busted in the process. Yet instead of taking the defeat of this challenge, we would rather sit in a tree stand and whine that we can not wait on another buck and it is simply to easy to hunt does from a stand. You know, if I were pro OBR or against OBR, I'd feel the same way. Everyone whines and cries about how another hunter shoots their deer, or because of this weapon or that hunting is not fair, or a land owner leases ground to someone so then a guy looses hunting ground, OR in this case ... the State makes a change so a guy can't hunt (I did not say kill : another buck. Everyone whines, but no one wants to think outside the box, adapt, challenge themselves, and remember what hunting is. Again, the challenge is there, hunters just need to take advantage of it. Treestand hunting is cool, I do a ton of it, but make hunting a challenge again if it is so easy. God, I have a head ache from this argument. I'd hate to think how much money I've lost this week at my shop arguing about this rather than focusing on work.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 12:55:29 GMT -5
Another thing that I see being a constant in your arguments is opportunity.
With several opportunities for does how can you say we are shorted opportunity. Sure we may not be able to hunt that second buck, but the OPPORTUNITY to kill a bigger buck is out there now for those that choose that. Where as those in heavily pressured areas didnt have that opporunity so willingly in the past.
If we go back to the two buck system for two years you are going to see some seriously skewed numbers. More people in archery season are going to thump a 130 because they know they have a chance during later seasons at that 150 that they normally would have hunted all season for without shooting a buck. Regardless if they kill two deer or not, they are going to kill more bucks because people know they can get a second crack at a bigger buck later in the season.
|
|
|
Post by jameslyon on Jul 21, 2006 13:00:44 GMT -5
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. So you're telling us that you feel more rewarded with your very nice buck under a two-buck rule than you would with a 200" buck under the OBR. I find that difficult to believe, since you said yourself that "the OBR is not effective enough to have devalued any trophy I might take in the future yet."
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 13:04:06 GMT -5
EXACTLY Cedararrow! EXACTLY.
You know, last year for example. I passed up several opportunities at 130 class bucks. I also passed up a cool (I mean real cool) non-typical that was 2 1/2 years old. I passed him up two nights in a row from different stands on farms 1 mile a part. He was kick butt. But I passed knowing I had a 153" deer walking around (my buddy ended up killing him, for which I was estatic). As a result, I never harvested a buck in 2005. Under a 2 buck system, I can guarantee I'd have arrowed that nice 130's 8 pointer that came to my decoys one evening, or even that non-typcial, knowing full well that I still had a shot at the 153" buck for FOUR WEEKS with my muzzleloader. As it turned out I would not have gotten him, but my point is, under a 2 buck system, you are going to see a DRASTIC increase in the number of bucks harvested. Call it speculation, but based on my past 5 years under OBR and all the bucks I've passed on, plus all the others in my situation, I'd put good money on it.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Jul 21, 2006 13:13:29 GMT -5
What you don't see in the statisic graphs that Woody has posted are how many bowhunters passed up bucks and never took a buck, but would have under a 2 buck system. Sure the harvest shifts to gun, but no one ever said that the same hunters passing up bucks with a bow ended up killing a buck with a gun. All you see is gun harvest data. How many of those gun harvests are by weekend warriors or first timers that got an "oportunity" at a buck because bowhunters passed them up? How many bowhunters passed up bucks that they would have shot before and then never tagged a buck (count me in that number)? They had the oportunity. Then the oportunity was spread to others. There is ample oportunity under OBR. The numbers and graphs are great, but unfortunately, they can not paint an entire picture of what has transpired. They say "numbers don't lie", but they forgot that they can be twisted or very two dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by icedude on Jul 21, 2006 20:24:34 GMT -5
[/quote]
I have said it in the past that IF the One Buck Restriction worked at all that the counties that had a lot of bucks and most double dipping was occurring would get richer in bucks and the counties that didn’t have very many bucks and not much double dipping would not benefit at all.
[/quote]
WOW slow down a min. Woody it is not a RESTRICTION it is a RULE/LAW. you should at least try to keep your facts straight. and you might as well give up the graphs they arent showing any real proof of any thing .
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 21:02:15 GMT -5
What does a RULE or REGULATION or LAW do if if it does not restrict one from doing something?
Are we not RESTRICTED to one buck under this trial?
You may disagree on the graphs and interpret them or not interpret them any way that you see fit, but I and some others believe they show that the age shift in Indiana began before the OBR.
The Tennesse graph shows that they are obtaining the same, if not better, results under a 3 buck restriction.
I am fully aware that Tennessee once allowed 11 bucks to be taken in one season and cut it back to 3. My question has always been if they still let deer hutners kill three , which is one more than we used to kill when we could kill two, why did their 1 1/2 year old percentage not stop above 55%?
Why was last season's 1 1/2 year old percentage less than 50% when our OBR has us hung up on 50% for the last two seasons??
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Jul 21, 2006 21:23:55 GMT -5
Are you looking at the same graphs that we are?
If they were transparencies you could probably lay the Tennessee graph over the top of the Indiana one and see the same lines for the last ten years..
I've been RESTRICTED for 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 21, 2006 21:27:25 GMT -5
;DONE BUCK RULE .....RULES ... O chit yes ;D Hi JL HI DW hi ceader arrow Hi pigeon Hi OBK...any Quail dancers Here? Oops forgot Hi BOSS!!!
|
|