|
Post by duff on Aug 15, 2009 13:27:53 GMT -5
That's a good point. Many will quit after one deer, but most will quit after they get their one buck. If they have both tags maybe they will be more inclided to spend more time in the field and as a result be more likely to kill a doe while out there.
You certainly won't kill anything if you are not out hunting to begin with, unless it is with your vehicle on the way to work. Bottom line, if we want to kill more deer in the state specifically does we have to make it more likely the current hunters will kill at least one more each year or recruit more hunters.
Adding the second buck tag most certainly will keep more guys in the field and more time in the field usually means more deer killed IMO. Certainly not everyones but that is OK!!!
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Aug 15, 2009 15:17:09 GMT -5
Scoot over Gundude, I'm sittin next to you.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 15, 2009 20:28:12 GMT -5
1 or 5 bucks whatever but if ANY of you think the legislature should be involved in any way you have lost your mind. Let's not involve them at all if we can help it. Talk about a screwed up mess!!!!! Ok go back to beating your blow fly invested dead horse......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 7:51:40 GMT -5
Thought the Legislature was already involved in every rule change at some point?
I also remember the "core group" of the IDHA p;raising Legislature involvement in more than opne issue, even one in Ky., where the Legislature is not invloved in every decision. That one was when the Ky. Legislature stopped a crossbow expansion. The IDHA leader thought that was just peachy then.
|
|
|
Post by powderfinger on Aug 16, 2009 8:05:21 GMT -5
I don't think it will make the full trial period before the legislation steps in and adds the archery buck back. What is a better way to increase shrinking DNR revenues and address herd reduction then add the archery buck back? You guys sitting back and applauding your selfs for the getting the OBR better come up with a better plan than the one being proposed to the legislation now of increasing the does harvest X2 each year in each of the highest deer/car accident counties. h.h. Really? What does killing bucks have to do with herd reduction...c'mon??? Does no one see the real reasons for the OBR??? Its not about saving more bucks, its about changing the mindset of those that go out and take only bucks to a more "herd management" based mindset. OBR=kill more does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 8:13:27 GMT -5
If OBR=kill more does, then it's not working. Wouldn't be a deer reduction need if it was? I doubt it would be very hard to prove that hunters will stay in the woods longer if they have a buck tag left, once it's gone, interest dwindles quickly. More hunters in the woods=kill more does.
|
|
dsg69
Full Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by dsg69 on Aug 16, 2009 8:33:48 GMT -5
Maybe we need to try pre-school math and everyone will understand what = stands for.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 16, 2009 9:21:00 GMT -5
If OBR=kill more does, then it's not working. Wouldn't be a deer reduction need if it was? I doubt it would be very hard to prove that hunters will stay in the woods longer if they have a buck tag left, once it's gone, interest dwindles quickly. More hunters in the woods=kill more does. Wrong..... Look at 2007... When was alot of antlerless shot??? after "OPENING WEEKEND" after most shot there "ONE BUCK" ...Hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Aug 16, 2009 10:36:25 GMT -5
Is the OBR working? Just ask an outfitter type or maybe I only bowhunt type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 10:51:42 GMT -5
If OBR=kill more does, then it's not working. Wouldn't be a deer reduction need if it was? I doubt it would be very hard to prove that hunters will stay in the woods longer if they have a buck tag left, once it's gone, interest dwindles quickly. More hunters in the woods=kill more does. Wrong..... Look at 2007... When was alot of antlerless shot??? after "OPENING WEEKEND" after most shot there "ONE BUCK" ...Hmmmm Where does it say those killing does after the first weekend had already killed their buck??? It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 16, 2009 10:55:50 GMT -5
Like it or not if we as hunters don't come up with a better plan to increase the deer harvest each year the legislation will! I don't want the legislation involved in setting bag limits or seasons but rest assured if we don't change our way of thinking, they will! If some of you don't get the big antlers rubbed out of your eyes and see the whole picture of the state herd management you will have the legislation make the decisions for you.
Adding a late doe season in January with the ability to use un-used license will increase the kill (by how much?) but doesn't increase DNR revenue? By that time most guys are burnt out on deer hunting and have all the deer meat they need.
Adding the archery buck back will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding crossbows to all archery season will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding a 5 day early primitive muzzle loader season in October(side hammer guns, open sites, conical or patched balls only) will increase the kill and DNR revenue.
Someone on here said the OBR will add more hunting opportunity and now I understand what they meant. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 16, 2009 12:08:11 GMT -5
If OBR=kill more does, then it's not working. Wouldn't be a deer reduction need if it was? I doubt it would be very hard to prove that hunters will stay in the woods longer if they have a buck tag left, once it's gone, interest dwindles quickly. More hunters in the woods=kill more does. Wrong..... Look at 2007... When was alot of antlerless shot??? after "OPENING WEEKEND" after most shot there "ONE BUCK" ...Hmmmm How do those numbers prove anything again? Where does it say those who shot a doe have or have not shot a buck already??? The doe bag limit has been moved to insane levels state wide and that did not really reflect in the overall harvest. Give another buck tag in another weapon and see how it affects the doe harvest. Sounds like a good "experiment" such as OBR was defined to be by INDR.
|
|
|
Post by powderfinger on Aug 16, 2009 12:44:55 GMT -5
If OBR=kill more does, then it's not working. Wouldn't be a deer reduction need if it was? I doubt it would be very hard to prove that hunters will stay in the woods longer if they have a buck tag left, once it's gone, interest dwindles quickly. More hunters in the woods=kill more does. AHA! Ask yourself this...who says there is a reduction "need" ? If some of you don't get the big antlers rubbed out of your eyes and see the whole picture of the state herd management you will have the legislation make the decisions for you. I agree hornharvester, you OBR opponents need to stop worrying about killing more bucks and take some does.
|
|
|
Post by powderfinger on Aug 16, 2009 12:46:55 GMT -5
Adding a late doe season in January with the ability to use un-used license will increase the kill (by how much?) but doesn't increase DNR revenue? By that time most guys are burnt out on deer hunting and have all the deer meat they need. Adding the archery buck back will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding crossbows to all archery season will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding a 5 day early primitive muzzle loader season in October(side hammer guns, open sites, conical or patched balls only) will increase the kill and DNR revenue. Someone on here said the OBR will add more hunting opportunity and now I understand what they meant. h.h. LOL...talk about pushing a personal agenda...
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 16, 2009 12:47:19 GMT -5
Like it or not if we as hunters don't come up with a better plan to increase the deer harvest each year the legislation will! I don't want the legislation involved in setting bag limits or seasons but rest assured if we don't change our way of thinking, they will! If some of you don't get the big antlers rubbed out of your eyes and see the whole picture of the state herd management you will have the legislation make the decisions for you. Adding a late doe season in January with the ability to use un-used license will increase the kill (by how much?) but doesn't increase DNR revenue? By that time most guys are burnt out on deer hunting and have all the deer meat they need. Adding the archery buck back will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding crossbows to all archery season will increase the kill and DNR revenue, adding a 5 day early primitive muzzle loader season in October(side hammer guns, open sites, conical or patched balls only) will increase the kill and DNR revenue. Someone on here said the OBR will add more hunting opportunity and now I understand what they meant. h.h. Bologna...."Do it..or we they will!" Hogwash... Who are they talking about when they refer to "we"? Without cooperation from sportsmen, the legislature isn't going to fix a damned thing regarding the deer population. What they gonna do??? get all the "Two Buck" guys to thin the Herd....Hell we shot less Deer when the Two Buck rule was in place. And we have many years of Data to prove it..Hmmm Iam sure alot of people shoot Deer and make donations each year. The day they are forced to start hunting to make the legislature happy...that will end. Iam sure many have ZERO problem going back to shooting enough to fill there own freezer. Want a bet there not alone on this? There is no need to throw the "entire" state under the bus to fix a few problem areas.
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 16, 2009 14:16:32 GMT -5
Wrong..... Look at 2007... When was alot of antlerless shot??? after "OPENING WEEKEND" after most shot there "ONE BUCK" ...Hmmmm Where does it say those killing does after the first weekend had already killed their buck??? It doesn't. Ditto you are reading alot into the taking of a few does I think it proves nothing how do you know that those were not taken most likely buy hunters who had not taken a buck and just want some deer meat or just to end it and get back to the house or work
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Aug 16, 2009 14:50:10 GMT -5
No popcorn...just a big 'ol ... NOBODY including our deer biologist, past, present and future, knows for sure. The ONLY thing dead deer tells you is that someone decided to pull the trigger on that given day. GH, You're right - lots more does being killed under the OBR now than in the recent past. Lots more bucks too. Since very few deer hunters kill more than one deer it is a pretty safe bet that it will be a buck IF they can do it. I've seen way too many deer hunters that are after bucks only. Once they kill that buck, they are done, fine', kapoot. Stick a fork in them...
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 16, 2009 15:43:00 GMT -5
What they gonna do??? get all the "Two Buck" guys to thin the Herd....Hell we shot less Deer when the Two Buck rule was in place. And we have many years of Data to prove it..Hmmm Thats because there was less deer. Perhaps killing bucks does more to keep the herd thinned out than you you OBR fellas want to admit. Before the one buck rule I killed 2 to 4 does per year plus one or two bucks. Since the inception of the "one buck rule" I limit myself to 1 doe a year for a little meat and then I spend the rest of the time waiting on that big ole monster you all promised would be behind every tree. The reason why?? Because if everyone killed does like you OBR fellows want there wouldn't be any does left and I figure someone is picking up the slack for me somewhere and maybe it will balance out. And then there is the fact I'm getting older and if it ain't worth mounting it ain't worth dragging out because bucks ain't worth much more than sausage for eating.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 16, 2009 16:41:20 GMT -5
Who came up with the notion that we are over-run with deer? Sure, there are a few areas that are heavily populated, maybe even over populated, but it sure isn't that way state wide.
In my opinion, the population is about right in my neck of the woods. They aint starving, and they aren't dying of disease.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Aug 16, 2009 18:44:05 GMT -5
Areas that are over-run with deer usually have access issues. IMO, obr gains have been a state of mind more than anything, and the usual buck slaughter the first couple weeks of firearms has shifted from mostly 1.5yr olds to more 2.5 and 3.5 year olds. Indiana could be back to two bucks if the firearms seasons had been shortened and moved later. All we have now is a compromise that still keeps us from being a true trophy state like Illinois or Ohio where you have more of a realistic chance at a mature buck even on small tracts or public. Really, a decent compromise if you have large tracts of good ground and time and effort to wait on a mature buck in our state. Just like everything else, all in want you want.
|
|