|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 21, 2006 21:51:16 GMT -5
You sir are correct you could potential see the same lines... why because in the last ten years both states have seen a rule regarding buck harvest implemented in their states. So of course you will see the same basic trends. Year and halfs going down two and a halfs going up quicker and three and a halfs growing gradually. It makes sense doesnt it. They went from eleven to three we went from two to one. Both caused a decline in certain areas of harvests and both created a more accelerated shift in the age structure. How can you argue that??
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 21:54:50 GMT -5
Here is what the Tennessee Wildlife resources Agency has to say about their results.
“Tennessee may be one of the best kept secrets in the South. Not only does the composition of the deer herd rival that of most other states, but the opportunity to harvest those deer surpasses almost all other states east of the Mississippi. High numbers of quality deer coupled with long hunting seasons make Tennessee a true diamond in the rough among deer states.
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. In the early 1990s, even before the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission reduced the buck bag limit, Tennessee hunters began voluntarily passing up young bucks. From an all-time yearling buck harvest of almost 80 percent in 1989, the percentage of yearlings harvested has been dropping for almost 15 years. In 2005, the yearling buck harvest hit an all-time low of 50 percent. In other words, one out of every two bucks harvested in Tennessee were from an older age bracket (2½ + years of age).
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2006 22:05:46 GMT -5
The question is why did Tennesse's 1 1/2 year old percentage go all the way down to 49% with a three-buck limit when the Pro-OBR guys have been saying all along that Indiana would be stuck in the high 50s and low 60s if we stayed with a 2-buck limit?"
Tennessee’s 11 buck limit = 72%
Indiana’s 2 buck limit =58% (so they say)
Indiana’s 1 buck limit = 50%
So why does Tennessee’s 3 buck limit = 49%
Folowing that Pro-OBR theory, this just doesn't compute..
How can Tennessee beat us with a 3 buck limit and we have had a one buck limt for four years???
Surprise other multiple buck states are producing the same results.. Why? Hunter selectivity..
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jul 21, 2006 22:07:22 GMT -5
Ive said it before and I'll say it again, let the IDNR biologist set the deer limit. They have the data and expertise to do so and won't base their decision on emotions. We pay them to manage our wildlife so why don't we let them do their job. Theres more to deer management that having a big buck behind every tree.
Besides all you guys that are in love with the OBR can still practice it on your own land even if the IDNR gets rid of it. Come to think of it you could have done it before the OBR too. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Jul 21, 2006 22:11:33 GMT -5
We should re-arrange our hunting seasons and bring back the two buck rule. Its proven over and over again that the Archery hunters are bringing down considerably less deer, than any other season. Bow hunting is way harder than gun hunting in our state, and the numbers of deer hunters that hunt gun season proves this. If we allowed the Archery hunters to kill a buck, it might bring more interest into archery hunting and sell more tags, than it currently does.
We need to figure a way to bring in, out-of-state revenue, regardless of what it takes. We might be in the top #10 in the best states to hunt, but yet we don't have any outfitters, or none that I'm aware of. For every non-resident tag that the DNR sells is equal to the $ amount of 6 resident tags, and the same can be said about turkey tags as well.
I'm aware of the feelings some of you have about Outfitters and what they can do to the price of our property here in our state, but we have to give a little to get a little, whether you like it or not. Outfitters are abundant in all of our neighboring states, yet their hunters numbers aren't falling off any.
Bringing back the two buck rule isn't gonna save the DNR's budget alone, and i don't see another price jack in the resident tags either. So something is gonna have to give, but going back to the way our seasons used to be isn't going to work either!!
With our yearling buck average at what it is now, what do you think it would be, if we were allowed to kill 3 bucks? How selective do you honestly think hunters are when they kill three bucks? If i were allowed to kill 3 bucks, i'd be in my stand more often there for i put myself in position to harvest a more mature buck sooner or later, granted i killed two dinks or so before i shot him!
Lug
|
|
|
Post by RoadKill on Jul 22, 2006 6:45:57 GMT -5
.... Besides all you guys that are in love with the OBR can still practice it on your own land even if the IDNR gets rid of it. Come to think of it you could have done it before the OBR too. h.h..... That's a very good point. It appears that some people may be so addicted to killing larger bucks that they need help. That is; they need the support of rules and regulations to help them practice what they preach.
|
|
|
Post by pigeonflier on Jul 22, 2006 10:35:08 GMT -5
OBR is only 1 small step in the right direction. The bigger step is shortening the gun and muzzleloader season. Then we will have some quality deer manangement.I made the drive to hunt Illinios for a long time. I used to hunt a small 30 acre area. In 1 day I could see more bucks there, than all year in Indiana. And I would say it is due to the 7 day split gun season and 3 day muzzleloader season. When you have to buck to doe ration closer. The deer respond better to good hunting tactics like calling and rattling. Whch in my opinion is real hunting. When I deer hunt I dont like to just sit in a tree and hope something comes by. I like to make the action happen,,,calling and rattling.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 22, 2006 11:27:35 GMT -5
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..[/quote] That statement says it All....Very True
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jul 22, 2006 14:15:41 GMT -5
I have one question. Graphs, percentages, antler hunter vs meat hunters aside. How in the heck does the Tennessee herd compare to Indiana's and their overall bag limit compare? Discounting of course this inane antlerless limit.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 22, 2006 14:34:04 GMT -5
Roger Its not about practicing what we preach. Its about allowing others the same opportunity. Not every person hunting the state of Indiana has 1000 acres to hunt on. Deer travel wide distances, often times crossing the property lines of several different farms and hunting properties. What one person tries to do on his farm may be completely cancelled out by the brown its down attitude of adjoining properties.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 22, 2006 14:48:49 GMT -5
Roger Its not about practicing what we preach. Its about allowing others the same opportunity. Not every person hunting the state of Indiana has 1000 acres to hunt on. Deer travel wide distances, often times crossing the property lines of several different farms and hunting properties. What one person tries to do on his farm may be completely cancelled out by the brown its down attitude of adjoining properties. So who is right? The deer hunter that wants to take a deer, any deer, or the deer hunter that wants to force his neighbor to hunt his way?? .
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 22, 2006 14:51:34 GMT -5
In order to compare us with other states that have multiple buck limits you have to compare their various seasons. Tennessee is on the same change that we are on. With them taking eleven bucks going down to three, that is a 72% change in the bag limit. We had a 50% change. You are going to see a much quicker and much more drastic change starting out.
.... With an excuse that they (TN) dont have the soil to grow big deer only old deer, that has no bearing at all. What about Texas, Alberta, Saskatchewan? I dont understand that comment. Maybe someone could explain to me how a country that sees more months of winter than it does all other three seasons combined can grow monster deer?? Sounds still like an advertisement from a business. We cant offer anything huge but what we lack in huge antlers we make up for in age. Come on guys they are playing on words here. Still trying to get into the deer hunting craze that is sweeping the outdoors world.
Guys its not that I am trying to talk you into believing in the OBR its just; look around and use some logic here. OBR is a catalyst to some great changes taking place within our herd. The IDNR has liberated the average hunter by giving them the chance to enjoy multiple doe tags, nearly limitless... how in the world can we be complaining about not getting opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Jul 22, 2006 14:56:22 GMT -5
Its not about forcing anyone to hunt any certain way. I think thats a bit of a stretch isnt it? That person still has the opportunity to kill any deer he chooses. Its just he can only make that choice once in a season. How is he forced to change his way of hunting if he wants to kill any deer. No one says hey you gotta shoot a deer if it has 4 points that are 3 inches long or longer. You can still shoot any deer youd like. RIGHT?
|
|
|
Post by jameslyon on Jul 22, 2006 16:02:24 GMT -5
So who is right? The deer hunter that wants to take a deer, any deer, or the deer hunter that wants to force his neighbor to hunt his way?? . Under the current RULEs, you can still take a deer, any deer, and you DON'T have to hunt the way your neighbor does. Those that support OBR just want to take ONE antlered deer, not two. Those who want to go to a two buck RULE seem to me to be the ones who are "worshipping" antlers. Let me offer a true story. During the 2001 season, I killed two very nice bucks, one of them scoring 128". I was ecstatic. During the 2002 season, I didn't see ONE buck that was a mature "shooter." Had the one buck RULE been in place for the 2001 season, I would have passed on one of those nice bucks and had an opportunity (barring a neighbor shooting it) to hunt a mature buck the next year. I would be much happier killing a mature whitetail buck every year than killing two one year and going who knows how many years before I see another. But that's just me...I don't have to drop everything I see with antlers on their head...there are plenty of does out there, and more than enough opportunities to take them.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jul 22, 2006 16:51:29 GMT -5
What a waste of bandwidth.
If you guys want a big buck to kill, just go hunt them. You don't need to get Indiana to grow you some. Or do you?
We've had big bucks since back in the '60s.
I LOVE to hunt big bucks as much as the next guy (hence the handle) but I want to HUNT them, not get the government to pass laws screwing up my neighbors hunts. They hunt the way they want and I hunt the way I want. That's fair, isnt it?
James my man, do you think that was the only two bucks out there? You killed them both, so you had to wait two years for a button head to grow some bone?
Heck, that 128 could have been mowed under by a Peterbuilt before next year.
By the way, I've hunted Tennessee and a good number of other states and do you guys know that those hillbillies down there can kill ALL THREE BUCKS WITH A GUN?
Our two buck limit was one with a bow and one with some sort of firearm and we are nip and tuck on percentages -even with this big buck savior, the OBR..
My opinion is that this was put into law because some people can't kill one good buck, much less two.
It's a deer welfare system.
|
|
|
Post by jameslyon on Jul 22, 2006 19:48:18 GMT -5
What a waste of bandwidth.James my man, do you think that was the only two bucks out there? You killed them both, so you had to wait two years for a button head to grow some bone? I hardly think that the two bucks that I described were the only bucks at my particular area, nor the biggest. I'm just saying that had I let one of those two deer go, there's one more mature buck that I COULD have possibly had the opportunity to hunt the following year. Perhaps the guy that's hunting across the fence from me did the same thing I did. Perhaps not...but IF he did, there go 4 mature whitetail bucks from our combined 80 acres of hunting ground. It's hard for me to believe that the bucks aren't getting bigger or better or more plentiful under the OBR, no matter what the graphs show.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 22, 2006 20:15:48 GMT -5
Number of older age-class bucks (2-1/2 years or older) harvested per square mile
Based on 2003 harvest data.Tennessee - .96 Kentucky - .55 Illinois – 77 Ohio - .62 Indiana – using 2005 data - .72 Tennesseee - using 2004 data - 1.15 Do you all want me to graph it for you? .
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Jul 23, 2006 1:16:00 GMT -5
We should re-arrange our hunting seasons and bring back the two buck rule. Its proven over and over again that the Archery hunters are bringing down considerably less deer, than any other season. Bow hunting is way harder than gun hunting in our state, and the numbers of deer hunters that hunt gun season proves this. If we allowed the Archery hunters to kill a buck, it might bring more interest into archery hunting and sell more tags, than it currently does. We need to figure a way to bring in, out-of-state revenue, regardless of what it takes. We might be in the top #10 in the best states to hunt, but yet we don't have any outfitters, or none that I'm aware of. For every non-resident tag that the DNR sells is equal to the $ amount of 6 resident tags, and the same can be said about turkey tags as well. I'm aware of the feelings some of you have about Outfitters and what they can do to the price of our property here in our state, but we have to give a little to get a little, whether you like it or not. Outfitters are abundant in all of our neighboring states, yet their hunters numbers aren't falling off any. Bringing back the two buck rule isn't gonna save the DNR's budget alone, and i don't see another price jack in the resident tags either. So something is gonna have to give, but going back to the way our seasons used to be isn't going to work either!! With our yearling buck average at what it is now, what do you think it would be, if we were allowed to kill 3 bucks? How selective do you honestly think hunters are when they kill three bucks? If i were allowed to kill 3 bucks, i'd be in my stand more often there for i put myself in position to harvest a more mature buck sooner or later, granted i killed two dinks or so before i shot him! Lug No comment Woody? Your killing me!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by RoadKill on Jul 23, 2006 7:33:38 GMT -5
Roger Its not about practicing what we preach.... I believe someone said that without the OBR, they would take a lesser antlered buck in bow and wait for the "big one" in gun season. That sounds like they're asking for rules to help them not be tempted to take the lesser antlered buck. Roger ....Not every person hunting the state of Indiana has 1000 acres to hunt on. ... I do, so does anyone that's willing to make use of all the public resources in Indiana. They may even have millions of acres to hunt. Roger ....Deer travel wide distances, often times crossing the property lines of several different farms and hunting properties. What one person tries to do on his farm may be completely cancelled out by the brown its down attitude of adjoining properties... Are you saying the adjoining property owners should be "regulated" to your way of thinking?
|
|
|
Post by RoadKill on Jul 23, 2006 7:40:02 GMT -5
What a waste of bandwidth......It's a deer welfare system.... Exactly!!
|
|