|
|
Post by buddylee on Aug 5, 2006 11:11:57 GMT -5
If the DNR deer biologist said that he needed more data to come to a decision on whether the OBR had made a significant impact on growing older bucks would you be in favor of a 3 year two buck limit trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Aug 5, 2006 12:28:56 GMT -5
No brainer for me..
I want the DNR to make informed decisions about our deer herd.
To do that they need the very best and accurate information that they can get.
WHATEVER it takes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Aug 5, 2006 18:07:40 GMT -5
If the DNR deer biologist said that he needed more data to come to a decision on whether the OBR had made a significant impact on growing older bucks would you be in favor of a 3 year two buck limit trial?
If he needs more data, that means he needs more time. If he needs more time, that means he did not have the time to begin with, so how does he do this? He needs more help, which means more money to implement this strategy, which would mean an increase in the license fees to compensate for the freeze that seems to have been put in place as far as monies are concerned. Right? So how should Dr. Jim go about this? Inquiring minds are awaiting the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 5, 2006 23:29:59 GMT -5
If the DNR deer biologist said that he needed more data to come to a decision on whether the OBR had made a significant impact on growing older bucks would you be in favor of a 3 year two buck limit trial?
If he needs more data, that means he needs more time. If he needs more time, that means he did not have the time to begin with, so how does he do this? He needs more help, which means more money to implement this strategy, which would mean an increase in the license fees to compensate for the freeze that seems to have been put in place as far as monies are concerned. Right? So how should Dr. Jim go about this? Inquiring minds are awaiting the answer.That is pretty confusing. Could be the biologist wants to see if any trends are changed if the rules were reverted back to the previous way. No new employ ees needed for that. IMO, the new rule is here to stay for a while. Like it or not I would be very suprised to see it changed back to the 2 buck system. I would imagine we would see an adjustment in the license structer though. Just a random opinion though, no inside track. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 6, 2006 5:42:55 GMT -5
If the DNR needed a data from a 3 year 2 buck program of course I vote yes. They should do whatever they think needs done.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 6, 2006 7:46:54 GMT -5
Yes , it seems a fair enough trade since the OBR itself has been applied for several years . Follow the OBR with a 5 year 2 buck limit where data is also drawn and see how the numbers look then .
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 6, 2006 9:59:57 GMT -5
Yes , it seems a fair enough trade since the OBR itself has been applied for several years . Follow the OBR with a 5 year 2 buck limit where data is also drawn and see how the numbers look then . ..What numbers all we talking about?  ..Antler kill....antlerless kill..Or licenses bought???...maybe we should look at the age of Antler kill..Hmmmm |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Aug 6, 2006 11:55:48 GMT -5
We should do away with the silly obr altogether right now. All it ever was about was having certain peoples deer management wants shoved down the throats of all of us.
There is zero data to suggest it`s made any difference because zero data exists. It`s made zero difference because a very small percentage of hunters killed 2 bucks per year anyway. However, we all loved the dream of actually being able to take 2 bucks this season.
DNR, if you`re listening, submit to the MAJORITY of Indiana deer hunters, and send the silly obr to it`s final resting place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Aug 6, 2006 20:12:35 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of the two buck limit being a "Trial." That gives the impression that this is a new idea. Just go back to the way things were. The "second buck" that a few bowhunters took back in the day was a drop in the bucket in terms of over-all buck harvest. Very few people ever took two bucks. I never did, but I read about it happening and I always dreamed of it happening to me. If the OBR stays, it never will.
Stop punishing bowhunters! Down with the OBR!
|
|
|
|
Post by dec on Aug 7, 2006 6:52:07 GMT -5
No, no, no, no, no, .......
|
|
|
|
Post by dec on Aug 7, 2006 6:54:27 GMT -5
Stop punishing bowhunters! Down with the OBR! This is one bowhunter that was never punished by OBR. Down with the whining and crying! |
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Aug 7, 2006 7:57:40 GMT -5
Personally NO. But, if the IDNR honestly feels that they need the data I would say yes to a "5 year" two-buck study. If they needed 5 years of OBR data, they will need 5 years of two-buck data to maintain a fair playing field.
|
|
|
|
Post by heavyarrow on Aug 7, 2006 9:10:20 GMT -5
Let the DNR have what they need and let's quit managing deer by a hunter popularity contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Aug 7, 2006 9:41:57 GMT -5
We pay the DNR deer biologist pretty decent money to manage our deer herd for us.
We then undercut what he is supposed to do by trying to force our wishes on him.
MY opinion is let him make the decision and use whatever he feels is necessary to come to that decision.
If that means a 3 year two buck control trial, then so be it.
The deer hunters that still want to take only one buck in their area can still do that. Just because there would be a two buck control trial does not mean that anyone HAS to take two bucks.
Give the DNR what they need instead of what Heavyarrow called "a hunter popularity contest."
I voted - YES
|
|
|
|
Post by varmint101 on Aug 7, 2006 9:51:20 GMT -5
How many years did we have a two buck limit before the OBR? If anything they would extend the OBR to match that of the previous TBR to give it a real chance.
That said, I wouldn't mind the chance to kill two bucks a year. I never got that chance before because I started bowhunting when OBR took effect. I don't see that happening on my own land, but I'm thankful I still get the chance if drawn for a refuge hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 7, 2006 10:09:39 GMT -5
yes, if the DNR thinks they need the data, then have a five year 2 buck rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Aug 10, 2006 14:55:16 GMT -5
Whatever reason is given for going back to two bucks a year is OK by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Aug 10, 2006 17:07:07 GMT -5
Let biologists do their jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by polypros on Aug 18, 2006 11:26:05 GMT -5
This ONE buck thing is a beaten horse to say the least. I guess I would have to have hard data to make any input. Let's get down to brass tacks. Someone would have to age all the bucks that come into the check station for each year the OBR was in place to see if it is changing at all. I believe in scientific experiments with scientific results. What data are we interested in that we don't already have? If you don't have the data how can you make any comment? For instance how many people actually shot more than one buck back when we could take two? I don't know. Is it 1% or 15%. Are people letting bucks walk that they would normally have shot back in the two buck days?
|
|
..Antler kill....antlerless kill..Or licenses bought???...maybe we should look at the age of Antler kill..Hmmmm
