|
Post by oldhoyt on Apr 14, 2009 13:19:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure what is meant by the notion of genetic defects increasing under the OBR.
I think hunters in general want to shoot bucks with large antlers, whether typical or not, whether they have brow tines or not. If anything, hunting in general selects against "good" genetics.
The OBR in my mind gives bucks a chance to get older, and theoretically allows deer to naturally sort out their dominance and breeding rights. The OBR should help with genetics.
I guess there are some guys that would shoot certain bucks to cull them from the herd, but don't do that because they can only shoot one buck. But, I've seen lots of studies showing "cull" bucks with very acceptable antlers if they live long enough to grow them.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Apr 14, 2009 13:27:31 GMT -5
I'll try to get it back on topic. I'm just not real trusting of the numbers, I hope telecheck improves the accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Apr 14, 2009 13:48:26 GMT -5
just curious do the people who live where they hunt like me ,find alot more small bucks left where they are shot instead of tagged''' since the obr. I find alot more
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 14, 2009 14:02:07 GMT -5
OBR creates a larger buck population, resulting in increased opportunities for hunters to take a buck. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? It seems blatantly obvious that allowing individual sportsmen to only kill half-as-many antlered deer per season... will save the lives of thousands of bucks. How does that translate to an overall increase in bucks killed? The best gun hunters could do, is kill every single deer that bowhunters would've gutted in October. That's unlikely, they probably only see 60/70% of those deer after they come out of feeding patterns and lock down. The end result is more bucks surviving, and hunters being more particular with their tags---- which in no way suggest an increased KILL of buck NUMBERS can be attributed to OBR. The overall IN kill numbers being analyzed here are a reflection of the state's deer population issues. Sasquatch, you do have the opportunity to see/pass and kill deer like that. You may not have the knowledge, the drive, the time or the commitment... but due to the public properties in this state, you do have the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 14, 2009 14:06:27 GMT -5
just curious do the people who live where they hunt like me ,find alot more small bucks left where they are shot instead of tagged''' since the obr. I find alot more That turns my stomach. To think that someone would shoot a deer, realize it suffers from ground-shrinkage, and walk away from it. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 14, 2009 16:15:24 GMT -5
OBR creates a larger buck population, resulting in increased opportunities for hunters to take a buck. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? It seems blatantly obvious that allowing individual sportsmen to only kill half-as-many antlered deer per season... will save the lives of thousands of bucks. How does that translate to an overall increase in bucks killed? The best gun hunters could do, is kill every single deer that bowhunters would've gutted in October. That's unlikely, they probably only see 60/70% of those deer after they come out of feeding patterns and lock down. The end result is more bucks surviving, and hunters being more particular with their tags---- which in no way suggest an increased KILL of buck NUMBERS can be attributed to OBR. The overall IN kill numbers being analyzed here are a reflection of the state's deer population issues. Sasquatch, you do have the opportunity to see/pass and kill deer like that. You may not have the knowledge, the drive, the time or the commitment... but due to the public properties in this state, you do have the opportunity. BUCK KILLS...Early Archery Buck Kills…1999 - 9,067 2000 - 10,935 2001 - 12,016 Pre-OBR Average - 10,6732002 - 7,397 2003 - 9,084 2004 - 7,985 2005 - 8,845 2006 - 9,390 2007 - 9,715 2008 - 9,193 Post OBR - 8,801 Difference – minus 1,872 ( - 17.5%)Firearm (Shotgun and MZ) Buck Kills 1999 – 37,075 2000 – 33,500 2001 – 36,082 Pre OBR Average - 35,5522002 – 39,560 2003 – 46,488 2004 - 43,107 2005 – 43,393 2006 – 39,438 2007 – 39,394 2008 – 41,431 Post OBR Average - 41,830Difference – Plus 6,278 (+17.5%)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 16:36:36 GMT -5
Woody, your numbers are interesting, but misleading. Even though there is an offsetting 17.5%, the numbers show a lot of difference. Not in the plus or minus of the archery harvest, because that is fairly consistant, with just a difference of 1,800 deer STATEWIDE. That is pretty much a wash and shows that archers are slightly more conservative after the rule change, and nothing else.
The gun and ML harvest numbers point to a real increase in the deer herd, and a good increase in the bucks being killed. I'd bet that the age of those bucks has also increased each of the years since the rule change. Also note that the harvest in 2003 skewed the numbers a bunch, and was a good bit highter than the other years.
The best part of the whole thing is that hunters are killing a lot more does than in the past, assuming that the button buck harvest is below 10%.
Overall, looks like there are more and better bucks in the herd than before the rule change, also more does as well.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 14, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -5
Now Woody you don't want to be called greedy do you? that is funny!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 14, 2009 19:48:09 GMT -5
Woody, your numbers are interesting, but misleading. Even though there is an offsetting 17.5%, the numbers show a lot of difference. Not in the plus or minus of the archery harvest, because that is fairly consistant, with just a difference of 1,800 deer STATEWIDE. That is pretty much a wash and shows that archers are slightly more conservative after the rule change, and nothing else. The gun and ML harvest numbers point to a real increase in the deer herd, and a good increase in the bucks being killed. I'd bet that the age of those bucks has also increased each of the years since the rule change. Also note that the harvest in 2003 skewed the numbers a bunch, and was a good bit highter than the other years. The best part of the whole thing is that hunters are killing a lot more does than in the past, assuming that the button buck harvest is below 10%. Overall, looks like there are more and better bucks in the herd than before the rule change, also more does as well. ..BINGO....Great Post
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Apr 15, 2009 11:37:21 GMT -5
Bingo=nope. OBR- Nope.
Natural increase of deer herd- which in turn entails more does, more bucks. Unharvested does = more bucks.
Special hunts were special hunts in the 80's, 90's. They weren't broken. The entitlement to extra bucks should not be the motivation to hunt them. The motivation should come from just wanting to hunt.
|
|