|
|
Post by birddog on Aug 18, 2009 13:31:08 GMT -5
Until then they will accomodate themselves.
Jackc,
Above is what you said earlier,I feel like their job is to accomodate us, the sportsmen/women of this state,who do they work for..US!!!!!!
In my line of work I have to accomodate others ,so why can't they do the same??
|
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 18, 2009 13:34:50 GMT -5
You need to read Jack's post again........... Take note of this
"Most are outdoors folks with jobs also who are volunteers."
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 18, 2009 13:47:20 GMT -5
Meetings like these are one of those things that you just pick a time and date for ..... you will never satisfy everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Aug 18, 2009 14:26:30 GMT -5
I thought this was about the OBR  |
|
|
|
Post by batchief909 on Aug 18, 2009 14:33:54 GMT -5
Until then they will accomodate themselves. Jackc, Above is what you said earlier,I feel like their job is to accomodate us, the sportsmen/women of this state,who do they work for..US!!!!!! In my line of work I have to accomodate others ,so why can't they do the same?? You seem to have a beef with Jack lately, and would honestly like to see you take it to a PM. I for one am tired of your subliminal comments.  |
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 18, 2009 16:23:22 GMT -5
I thought this was about the OBR We hijacked the hread........ Now it is "Getting hunters involved in the process of making change and controling how our wildlife is managed in Indiana"...... Im not sure that will all fit though.lol OBR isn't going to change right away. Something tells me in the next two years we will have 200 more threads on the subject and everybody will still say the same thing......... |
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 18, 2009 17:29:36 GMT -5
Duff - will PM you on my bank account for the million $$$'s....
The answer as to how/why the legislature got involved in deer management is simple: Rep. Bill Friend.
IMO, Mr. Friend, who gets substantial campaign finance backing from a well known insurance company in this state, saw an opportunity to play politics with a hot button issue for the insurance CEO's (deer/vehicle accidents), while at the same time lining up IDNR in his crosshairs as payback for their stance on high fence hunting ops being shut down (guess who else is putting big money in his coffers), and for the coup de grace, he manages to enlist support for this cockeyed 30-county eliminate the deer plan from other reps (many of whom are supposedly pro-hunting and pro-IDNR management) because Indiana's current legislative balance between democrats and republicans is so close, these guys are exchanging favors right and left to get each other's bills passed. Got the picture?
As was said earlier, there is no real scientific evidence of rampant over-population in any part of the state, and as I and others pointed out (tried to point out) in the legislative committee hearings, raising the bag limits isn't going to solve their perceived numbers game. There well may be certain areas where deer are creating a lot of accidents, but IMO, that's an IDNR and INDOT problem to solve via precision targeting of hunting pressure in those limited areas.
The legislature got involved, as they always do, not because the need really exists, but because there is political hay ($$$$$'s and power) to be made on this issue.
On the OBR reality check: I was on the old DAC group that suggested OBR with the goal of decreasing the number of yearling bucks that were being taken at that time, and ALL the hunter representative groups and wildlife groups and landowner groups were in favor of the concept of the rule change AS A LIMITED TRIAL. DAC had no authority to require IDNR to adopt OBR or any other suggestion that came from that group, so no one was duped or dragged kicking and screaming into approving the rule. IDNR could have just as easily passed on the suggestion and kept the old bag limit scheme.
The statistical problem with "proving" OBR, IMO, is two-fold. First, there were umpteen changes made to other deer-related regs during the trial period. Bag limits changed dramatically in some areas, tag fees went up a couple of times, etc. Second, IDNR has always used a harvest-based biological analysis, which is driven by hunter numbers and hunter access. Population "estimates" are based on the number of deer harvested, as to answering the question of whether the deer herd is increasing or not. The problem with this concept, as I've said many times before, is that there is a finite number of hunters willing to take a finite number of deer, so looking at harvest figures as an index of population density is simply illogical. It's the equivalent of trying to figure out how many cars were on the road on a given day by looking at accident statistics.
Interestingly, INDOT does not use the above approach, but rather uses traffic count devices to determine precisely how many cars are traveling on a given piece of road over a specific period. So, until IDNR does the same, i.e. live population studies, to determine population densities county by county and statewide, we have no clue what the real population dynamics are in Indiana. Many other states have been experimenting with trailcam counts, track density surveys, and other similar methods to achieve live population estimates, so why can't Indiana do the same?
Specifically with OBR, many opposed to it are essentially asking IDNR to prove the negative, by embracing the statement that stats can't prove OBR is working. Well, they're not proving it isn't working either. The original concept of OBR was not to reduce the buck harvest; it was to shift the harvest away from younger deer. I agree with Woody and others to an extent that a certain population of hunters were maturing in their selectivity before and during OBR. But I also agree totally with Greghopper in that for a perhaps much larger population of "average" deer hunters, i.e. those guys who couldn't begin to tell you what QDMA stands for, the OBR has made a significant shift in their thinking about what buck they will take, because they only get one. In other words, both sides are right, BUT ONLY TO A POINT...
Bottom line is that the only way you're going to prove OBR one way or the other is to quit looking at harvest figures as your final baseline (eliminate hunter selectivity as a factor) and do live population studies that count the number of yearling versus mature bucks in the population. Either that or eliminate OBR as yet another "trial" and keep looking at the same old harvest figures and a crystal ball to try and figure out what's happening in the herd...
OK, I'm done... move over Camby and Gundude and pass the buttered...
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 18, 2009 18:50:55 GMT -5
Duff - will PM you on my bank account for the million $$$'s.... Interestingly, INDOT does not use the above approach, but rather uses traffic count devices to determine precisely how many cars are traveling on a given piece of road over a specific period. So, until IDNR does the same, i.e. live population studies, to determine population densities county by county and statewide, we have no clue what the real population dynamics are in Indiana. Many other states have been experimenting with trailcam counts, track density surveys, and other similar methods to achieve live population estimates, so why can't Indiana do the same? ... I agree with that, or even if they would do like they do for waterfowl hunters or even creel clerks for fishing. Survey the sportsmen. Waterfowl hunters get random surveys from the fed to get baseline stats on Did you hunt for "x" this year? How many times? What specifically were you hunting? How many did you harveste (approximately), and even some polling type questions about what do you think about? Creel clerks go out and gather data from fishermen's catch and effort. You'd think it would be easy to implement such a tool for the deer that we are forced to check in. I can see telecheck coming into it's own here where you add the option to take a voluntary poll. Supplement it with scientifically accurate survey taking and sampling I think we could get some good info from the hunters and harvested deer without dealing with increased manhours involved in track density and trail camera work. |
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Aug 20, 2009 10:13:36 GMT -5
I 'think" (don't say anything  ) that the DNR does deer hunter surveys every few years and they get their estimated numbers from those. Just counting licenses doesn't work as there are way too many lifetime license holders and landowners that don't buy OTC yearly licenses. |
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 20, 2009 14:16:32 GMT -5
Racktracker - I haven't seen one in several years, but last hunter survey I had seen was more along the lines of a "satisfaction" survey... nothing on how many deer did you see, or did you see more/less, etc...
Back in the old days, IDNR biologists actually went out and counted deer... don't think they've done that for some time...
They do have the bowhunters survey, but I think that's aimed at other wildlife populations... not sure why a similar program couldn't be set up for deer sightings....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 14:34:54 GMT -5
Statistical surveys are very expensive to conduct, even when done in house. A lot of them are done by independent sources so that it will relieve the agency from bias, still a lot of people will claim they are not valid if it doesn't suit their agendas.
A survey of all hunters would be cost prohibitive and would have the same results.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 20, 2009 16:15:49 GMT -5
Statistical surveys are very expensive to conduct, even when done in house. A lot of them are done by independent sources so that it will relieve the agency from bias, still a lot of people will claim they are not valid if it doesn't suit their agendas. A survey of all hunters would be cost prohibitive and would have the same results. Yea it all cost money. The average person does not understand statistically significant polls conducted in a scientific manner. Let them complain not one decision is made or even discussed that doesn't upset someone. What is the cost of not having a valid population estimate? It could cost the DNR the ability to manage a resource. I don't know if it would or not but if the DNR needs to get a better handle on the population they will have to change something. A simple poll is easily done over the phone. Anyone that registers with the HIP has to provide basic info when you get your number. Sure some give bogus numbers but that is where statistics will give a standard error type info. Not sure why they couldn't do the same with deer hunters. If we get to go to telecheck that would be a very easy place to impliment such a poll. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 16:27:20 GMT -5
2002 Kentucky hired Cornell U. to do a survey to judge the acceptance of expanded crossbow hunting and overall hunter satisfaction of KYDFWR policies and programs. The aim was to contact 13,500 people, broke up in several groups to get a statistical analysis of what landowners and hunters had on their mind. That survey cost close to $100,000 and was poo-pooed by everyone that didn't want expanded hunting, even though it was done by a certified method and proven true in every respect. It's no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more surveys than absolutely required.
|
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Aug 20, 2009 20:51:08 GMT -5
surprised the insurance companies hasn't brought back the two buck seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 20, 2009 21:25:56 GMT -5
...It's no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more surveys than absolutely required. Or insert "no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more than absolutely required." When every time they turn around they are getting second guessed by armchair biologist, legislators, and paid like crap to boot. I don't care if they are paid any better as everyone has the option to find another job, but I know they get tired of the "experts" telling them how to manage the resource they are responsible for. |
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Aug 21, 2009 16:14:26 GMT -5
...It's no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more surveys than absolutely required. Or insert "no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more than absolutely required." When every time they turn around they are getting second guessed by armchair biologist, legislators, and paid like crap to boot. I don't care if they are paid any better as everyone has the option to find another job, but I know they get tired of the "experts" telling them how to manage the resource they are responsible for. Actually they entered their jobs knowing that they are responsible for the resource and also more responsible for the satisfaction of every hunter who enjoys the outdoors here and in ever other state that they would seek a job in . That is ultimately whet public service is and they are a branch of government thus they are public servants Their job is not just about doing whatever they feel like they want to do or making some small group happy . So if they are tired of hearing how we as individuals or masses want the herds managed then at th point they are done listening to all of us it is time for them to either get out or be put out of the job they are doing period .I would go as far to say there are many hunters who have more real field experience and working deer knowledge than some of those who rarely get out from behind the desk that they sit behind . I am sure that many of you like myself work with some real collage educated idiots who can quot books and theory like they are going out of style. But when it comes time to use common sense and implement things that are needed or wanted its lites out for them .That is the point where that education ends and lack of life experiance begins. Not all but many of these types are in every work force and biologists and bureaucrats are not exempt from this interesting syndrome . I mean look at the knee jerk response to CWD in Wisconsin and their badly failed EAB rules that are now suspended due to hunter and landowner outrage. If you want a full briefing or viewpoint to this just visit archery-talk or one of the large deer hunting chat sites it will truly open your eyes to the fact that they are not always right and many plans they lay are fools folly. |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 21, 2009 16:22:26 GMT -5
One has to wonder why we are still having this OBR debate 7 years later. After all, given the grandiose claims for the success that would be achieved by the OBR the results should have been pretty obvious and hard to ignore. Instead we see tortured logic, moving goals, and desperate attempts to deflect any questions about the lack of results from the rule's most ardent supporters.
After all these years the nagging question still remains; What exactly did we give up our opportunity for?
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 21, 2009 17:54:10 GMT -5
Or insert "no wonder why agencies don't want to do any more than absolutely required." When every time they turn around they are getting second guessed by armchair biologist, legislators, and paid like crap to boot. I don't care if they are paid any better as everyone has the option to find another job, but I know they get tired of the "experts" telling them how to manage the resource they are responsible for. Actually they entered their jobs knowing that they are responsible for the resource and also more responsible for the satisfaction of every hunter who enjoys the outdoors here and in ever other state that they would seek a job in . That is ultimately whet public service is and they are a branch of government thus they are public servants Their job is not just about doing whatever they feel like they want to do or making some small group happy . So if they are tired of hearing how we as individuals or masses want the herds managed then at th point they are done listening to all of us it is time for them to either get out or be put out of the job they are doing period .I would go as far to say there are many hunters who have more real field experience and working deer knowledge than some of those who rarely get out from behind the desk that they sit behind . I am sure that many of you like myself work with some real collage educated idiots who can quot books and theory like they are going out of style. But when it comes time to use common sense and implement things that are needed or wanted its lites out for them .That is the point where that education ends and lack of life experiance begins. Not all but many of these types are in every work force and biologists and bureaucrats are not exempt from this interesting syndrome . I mean look at the knee jerk response to CWD in Wisconsin and their badly failed EAB rules that are now suspended due to hunter and landowner outrage. If you want a full briefing or viewpoint to this just visit archery-talk or one of the large deer hunting chat sites it will truly open your eyes to the fact that they are not always right and many plans they lay are fools folly. I agree wholeheartedly. These guys choose to go to school to be a biologist knowing they would hopefully work for the DNR. I am one of those college educated idiots that went to school for fisheries biology. I chose not to go for the biologist as the competition was tremendous and the pay was unbelievable. Until the competition slows down for these jobs I can't see the state increasing the pay! I don't doubt many of you guys are top notch deer biologist or wildlife biologist. A hunger for habits and behavior and habitat coupled with years of hunting makes many of us biologist in our own right. Much like a hobby gardener is a minature farmer. Not really a true farmer that is capable of making decisions on a large scale but very capable and knowledgable many with higher yeilds and better quality. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 21, 2009 18:16:42 GMT -5
One has to wonder why we are still having this OBR debate 7 years later. After all, given the grandiose claims for the success that would be achieved by the OBR the results should have been pretty obvious and hard to ignore. Instead we see tortured logic, moving goals, and desperate attempts to deflect any questions about the lack of results from the rule's most ardent supporters. After all these years the nagging question still remains; What exactly did we give up our opportunity for?  |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 21, 2009 19:10:38 GMT -5
One has to wonder why we are still having this OBR debate 7 years later. After all, given the grandiose claims for the success that would be achieved by the OBR the results should have been pretty obvious and hard to ignore. Instead we see tortured logic, moving goals, and desperate attempts to deflect any questions about the lack of results from the rule's most ardent supporters. After all these years the nagging question still remains; What exactly did we give up our opportunity for? Don't worry your not going to see it.....You dont want to see it and you and many others like you will never see it. No need to be sad-in about it because you can go to any other Hunting site in Indiana and they see it..... One thing to remember is that ALL the OBR folks are happy with "One" set of Antlers while a few others see the need for TWO sets...... I guess the folks who want more then one buck per year are just lost shooters. They are not bad people just a bit misguided likely with some type of need to attempt to boost their self image or pride via things called antlers.... |
|
) that the DNR does deer hunter surveys every few years and they get their estimated numbers from those. Just counting licenses doesn't work as there are way too many lifetime license holders and landowners that don't buy OTC yearly licenses.
