Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2009 9:05:16 GMT -5
Nice report here: www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_972-DeerBiologicalCheckStationAnalysis2008.pdfInteresting to note that the OBR has resulted in very slight or actually no real gains in the age of male deer shot during the first weekend of the season. Since 1993, when rounded off, the average age killed in that period is 2 yrs. old. Average age of does shot then is basicly the same, but slightly higher at 2.5 yrs. old. The researcer notes that "The average age of harvested males has slowly increased since 2000. It is unknown whether this is a result of the implementation of the OBR in 2002." Looks as if the increase was already in the process and can not be directly linked to the rule change in 2002. The report also paves the way for introduction of Telechek when it's time, by noting that only small first year fawns will have to be estimated as they are most often to be processed at home instead of a commercial processor. Shouldn't be a biggie to come up with a good number on this small segment of the harvest.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 14, 2009 9:25:42 GMT -5
This is what I would have figured.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 14, 2009 10:12:52 GMT -5
dbd870
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Aug 14, 2009 10:40:28 GMT -5
Geeze here we go again...Ok,My understanding after reading the report is that these deer were sampled/aged from Fish and Wildlife areas, throughout the State..Since they have to physically examine deer to age them, I assume they did not examine any deer taken from privately owned farms where management and hunting pressure is day and night, compared to Public land..So needless to say, the report finding are skewed....and also, why we're discussing it...does it really matter if the age structure increased dramatically? It's all relative, to each individual properties, hunting, number of hunter harvesting deer on said property, and thier management implementation....
OBR does not have to be all about the age structure to prove rather it's sucessfull or not...How about the fact it provides more oppourtunities for hunters regardless of the age the deer is..They're more bucks,therofore making better hunting experiences/oppourtunities for hunters across the board....Why is the debate always focused on age structure when it comes to OBR....?
By the way I have 10 years of photos on two farms I've hunted, and I get pictures of much bigger bucks these days, and more frequently since OBR...Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 14, 2009 10:48:01 GMT -5
Nice report here: www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_972-DeerBiologicalCheckStationAnalysis2008.pdfInteresting to note that the OBR has resulted in very slight or actually no real gains in the age of male deer shot during the first weekend of the season. Since 1993, when rounded off, the average age killed in that period is 2 yrs. old. Average age of does shot then is basicly the same, but slightly higher at 2.5 yrs. old. The researcer notes that "The average age of harvested males has slowly increased since 2000. It is unknown whether this is a result of the implementation of the OBR in 2002." Looks as if the increase was already in the process and can not be directly linked to the rule change in 2002. The report also paves the way for introduction of Telechek when it's time, by noting that only small first year fawns will have to be estimated as they are most often to be processed at home instead of a commercial processor. Shouldn't be a biggie to come up with a good number on this small segment of the harvest. WRONG....It goes from 1993=2.05 to 2008 =2.36 in Adult Male a increase almost every year ....TELECHECK ...and if we change to a TELECHECK we need a new way to compute age in antlerless deer also.......
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 14, 2009 10:50:58 GMT -5
Staying out of it. (so this thread stays open.)
Nice flag greg
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Aug 14, 2009 11:03:33 GMT -5
I'm neither a fan nor an opponent of the OBR since I never take more than one deer a year anyway. However, the report suggests exacts NOTHING. The age structure (if it is even relevant) was increasing well before OBR took effect. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea the OBR is the sole reason ofr the increasing size of the harvested deer (this is a a quote from yesterday's deer meeting). The idea of the OBR was brought forth solely as a societal request not a scientific one. Don't put too much store in this report as the deer biologist will deny that it supports or negates the OBR. It's simply data that provides no conclusions in this particular issue. The OBR sunsets in September of 2012.
Jack
P.S. How's that Keith?
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 14, 2009 11:05:59 GMT -5
Attaboy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2009 14:47:08 GMT -5
Nice report here: www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_972-DeerBiologicalCheckStationAnalysis2008.pdfInteresting to note that the OBR has resulted in very slight or actually no real gains in the age of male deer shot during the first weekend of the season. Since 1993, when rounded off, the average age killed in that period is 2 yrs. old. Average age of does shot then is basicly the same, but slightly higher at 2.5 yrs. old. The researcer notes that "The average age of harvested males has slowly increased since 2000. It is unknown whether this is a result of the implementation of the OBR in 2002." Looks as if the increase was already in the process and can not be directly linked to the rule change in 2002. The report also paves the way for introduction of Telechek when it's time, by noting that only small first year fawns will have to be estimated as they are most often to be processed at home instead of a commercial processor. Shouldn't be a biggie to come up with a good number on this small segment of the harvest. WRONG....It goes from 1993=2.05 to 2008 =2.36 in Adult Male a increase almost every year ....TELECHECK ...and if we change to a TELECHECK we need a new way to compute age in antlerless deer also....... 2.05 rounded off equals 2........2.36 rounded off equals 2 When telechek comes in, you'll need a NEW way to compute age of fawn deer harvested, which can very by 3 months normally. Shouldn't be a real big problem to solve. Jack is correct, the report does not prove that the OBR is improving anything, yet anyway.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Aug 14, 2009 15:56:37 GMT -5
If you round to the nearest tenth, 2.05 rounds to 2.0 or 2.1, take your pick. 2.36 rounds to 2.4, but I am not a statistician so I am not sure if the data are statistically significant. However, because the posted numbers are taken to two decimal points it might (or might not) indicate that they are significant to one decimal point. Just posting, not arguing one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 14, 2009 16:07:41 GMT -5
If you round to the nearest tenth, 2.05 rounds to 2.0 or 2.1, take your pick. 2.36 rounds to 2.4, but I am not a statistician so I am not sure if the data are statistically significant. However, because the posted numbers are taken to two decimal points it might (or might not) indicate that they are significant to one decimal point. Just posting, not arguing one way or the other. Thank You..........glad to see we are doing "INDIANA" math!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2009 16:11:31 GMT -5
Yeah, but we're dealing with a deers age, which is either 1.5 or 2.5, so there is no sense in rounding to tenths. Looks like most of the deer killed opening weekend are still a mix of yearlings and 2.5's The key point was that it hadn't changed much since the rule change.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 14, 2009 16:19:41 GMT -5
It will always be an "unknown" as there are 937 bazillion variables in deer hunting. No matter as the OBR proponents will keep saying "It's the OBR!"
Jack,
The OBR sunsets in 2012 IF it is not extended again or made permanent. The likelihood of us EVER going back to two bucks (one with gun and one with a bow ) is SLIM and NONE and SLIM left town last week,. That leaves NONE.
Pity....but that is the way it is.....
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 14, 2009 16:33:58 GMT -5
OBR does not have to be all about the age structure to prove rather it's sucessfull or not...How about the fact it provides more oppourtunities for hunters regardless of the age the deer is..They're more bucks,therofore making better hunting experiences/oppourtunities for hunters across the board....Why is the debate always focused on age structure when it comes to OBR....? More opportunity?? That's definitely a stretch to come up with killing one buck provides MORE opportunity than the option of killing two.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Aug 14, 2009 16:42:05 GMT -5
Why doesn't anybody ever mention that results of the OBR, positive or negative, are virtually impossible to prove? Someone shoots a big buck... Was it on a large tightly controlled tract? A heavily hunted small property? A suburb? All these things have a lot bigger effect on how likely a deer is to survive that any harvest rules or restrictions. None of these charts and graphs even take poaching into account, and CO's tell me they are convinced that poachers take a large percentage of the biggest bucks. There is no way to prove if a deer reached a certain size due to the OBR. Years ago, if you shot a big buck, it's luck, and if some dude shoots a big buck these days, everybody says, "See! the OBR is working!"
It's just a matter of time before we have point restrictions and spread requirements. People swallow every BS article and video that comes out promising magical deer management solutions, never realizing it's all baloney aimed at selling special seeds and every other stupid hunting product out there.
If I ever do shoot a really big deer, I hope I'm going to be smart enough to realize it was at least 50% luck, and not get the big head about it.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 14, 2009 16:43:24 GMT -5
OBR does not have to be all about the age structure to prove rather it's sucessfull or not...How about the fact it provides more oppourtunities for hunters regardless of the age the deer is..They're more bucks,therofore making better hunting experiences/oppourtunities for hunters across the board....Why is the debate always focused on age structure when it comes to OBR....? More opportunity??That's definitely a stretch to come up with killing one buck provides MORE opportunity than the option of killing two. Yes "One" dead Deer leaves more Deer for others to shoot/kill....Some don't understand that but the "Majority" do ...That's why we have a OBR....
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 14, 2009 16:58:36 GMT -5
It will always be an "unknown" as there are 937 bazillion variables in deer hunting. No matter as the OBR proponents will keep saying "It's the OBR!" Jack, The OBR sunsets in 2012 IF it is not extended again or made permanent. The likelihood of us EVER going back to two bucks (one with gun and one with a bow ) is SLIM and NONE and SLIM left town last week,. That leaves NONE. Pity....but that is the way it is..... Honestly I believe that since there was already {2009} prior to the 2012 sunset,a study shown by a biologist {the state spent time on and money} at this meeting and there was no "real " or tangible advance in age or herd value to the continuation or attributed to the OBR ,and since the states DNR coffers are at all time lows with participation falling off .That there will be a resurgence in the form of a 3-5 year test to return to the TBR as the state said that there would be and should be to prove if there was or is any advantage or need to remain in a OBR . So in short this is the same type preparations and pre imp[lamentation reduric that was used to go to OBR so in turn they are preparing us I believe for a period return to the TBR {For study reasons } They will find that we will take 3000-5000 more bucks depending on the year as in weather ,temps and crops and the age structure will remain the same and overall buck herd numbers will continue to grow just as the doe numbers have for the last decade .Good study and I predict that it is only the start of hunter education and desensitizing top the fact that TBR will be returned in 2012 .JMHO OH yhaaa it is about time that they realize that the OBR did nothing but dash opportunity and cause a loss of hunters that need to be out there to take a doe or two when the lead flies instead of sitting at the house because they have taken their one buck and usually a doe or two .Oh and need I mention the loss of opportunity due to the loss of a second buck tag?
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 14, 2009 17:12:03 GMT -5
More opportunity??That's definitely a stretch to come up with killing one buck provides MORE opportunity than the option of killing two. Yes "One" dead Deer leaves more Deer for others to shoot/kill....Some don't understand that but the "Majority" do ...That's why we have a OBR.... For those who might think in these terms in the above post !!! Ummm no it doesn't !!!.All it does is make some of the more successful hunters leave the woods early thus the gratuitous doe or two that these buck killers will take while hunting for that second buck will normally take if give the chance or a reason to be in the woods longer than just early bow season will not fall they will just walk on by in most instances an empty stand .What a shame but hay they want herd control the hard way they made the rules that limit success and opperatunity didn't they. .There are way more buck deer than hunters in our state at this current time, and that number continues to grow annually .All OBR did was appease hunters who always struggled with killing buck deer .Lets face it if a hunter needs others out of the woods and out of the way and having a few other hunters taking only one buck instead of two to get their buck . .Wellllll they have way larger issues with their hunting style or land than a few extra bucks falling in the area they hunt to a good bow hunter or two.. I mean all we did after the OBR was kill more bucks than the year before through the first 3 years of the OBR and continue to take more it seems yearly.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 14, 2009 17:50:40 GMT -5
People swallow every BS article and video that comes out promising magical deer management solutions, never realizing it's all baloney aimed at selling special seeds and every other stupid hunting product out there. If I ever do shoot a really big deer, I hope I'm going to be smart enough to realize it was at least 50% luck, and not get the big head about it. I don't think anyone could have said it more eloquently!! +10
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 14, 2009 18:10:15 GMT -5
[/quote] Yes "One" dead Deer leaves more Deer for others to shoot/kill....Some don't understand that but the "Majority" do ...That's why we have a OBR....[/quote] No, it just forced more people to wait until gun season to kill their buck rather than take one with a bow and I think the statistics bear this out. You watch them all bow season hoping that big arse "monster" your "majority" promised would be behind every tree to show up and when it doesn't you have to settle for the same o same o very nice and nothing to be ashamed of run of the mill that hunters in other states would die for Indiana buck you settled for last year. My lands we are in the top ten what more does people want? Be happy with what the good lord and genetics provide for us now. Nothing is going to change that, it is what it is. The hunters that got fooled and that pushed for the one buck rule {bowhunters} have been the one class of hunters that have killed less deer every year since the inception of the OBR. This isn't a case of "majority" rule by any means. This rule was brought upon all hunters by a few wannabe outfitters who took advantage of bow hunters to limit opportunity under the false guise that the "bucks will be bigger. " Well its 8? years into this "study" and the deer aren't any bigger and everyone still doesn't kill a "wallhanger" every year so what's up? According to the study the deer killed are a little over 2 months older .... oh yea the rule made such a humongous difference didn't it? The rack sizes are the same, so someone lied didn't they?
|
|