|
|
Post by practicalsportsman on Nov 24, 2014 4:10:51 GMT -5
I was talking to a friend of mine about this and he thought it would be kinda nice. Let me explain the idea a little bit more, first off it would be a way of keeping the buck and doe harvest even such as if county A has a doe harvest of around 12,000 but only 4,800 bucks are taken, but county B has the opposite you would keep an OBR in effect. I know some of you will bash this idea only because your opposed to trying something new, but I say it has the potential to meet the goal of the IDNR. (Also this would be for resident hunters only non-residents would be allowed one buck.) If you refer to county A's numbers it makes a difference of 7200 which if divided by 2 comes to 3,600 and if you add it to the 4,800 you get 8400 and subtract 12,000 for 3,600 and we get 8400 of 1:1 ratio. Basically a county with a low buck harvest would qualify for a second tag opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Nov 24, 2014 4:14:31 GMT -5
If you refer to county A's numbers it makes a difference of 7200 which if divided by 2 comes to 3,600 and if you add it to the 4,800 you get 8400 and subtract 12,000 for 3,600 and we get 8400 of 1:1 ratio. Basically a county with a low buck harvest would qualify for a second tag opportunity. [/quote]
What ?? SMH !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Nov 24, 2014 5:31:50 GMT -5
No, generally because:
1. Harvesting only one Buck/year encourages Hunters to take only the largest Bucks with nice racks.
2. Having a one Buck/year limit, allows younger Bucks to grow and increases their numbers in a given county.
3. As Bucks grow older, they become wiser and can make Deer Hunting more challenging.
Now, I would support a lottery system where Hunters could draw for an extra Buck permit, but that Buck must be at least an 8-pointer with 15" spread. But ONLY in those Counties with enough Deer & meeting certain criteria.
Many WMA in Kentucky, Bucks must meet certain criteria, where they must have a certain amount of antler points and antler width between 15" to 18" depending on the Wildlife Areas requirements.
What really need to be regulated is the harvesting of Doe. I see, here in BOTH Indiana & Kentucky, unrealistic bag limits on the number of Doe. REMEMBER you need BOTH sex to produce MORE Deer. Eliminating excessive Doe harvest, in Counties with low Deer population, would allow more Deer in the future. In those Counties that has an excessive amount of Doe, then having a quota lottery draw for ONE extra Doe only, would be prudent. The harvesting of Doe is way too liberal in my opinion, and this is why many of you aren't seeing any Deer in your hunting spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 24, 2014 5:55:18 GMT -5
No, I would not support such an idea and it has nothing to do with following other states so there is no answer to your survey that I can chose.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 24, 2014 7:22:05 GMT -5
I have always said and still do; allow however many the state biologists believe to be in the best interest of the herd; don't really care what that number is. Then comes the but how do they know argument - well , they sure should have a better handle on it than you or me.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Nov 24, 2014 7:30:37 GMT -5
I have always said and still do; allow however many the state biologists believe to be in the best interest of the herd; don't really care what that number is. Then comes the but how do they know argument - well , they sure should have a better handle on it than you or me. State Biologists use Hunter Harvests data collected from previous years. This aids them getting a handle on Deer population trends from one season to the next. Thus setting bag limits in certain Counties. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 24, 2014 7:36:03 GMT -5
No, I would not support such an idea and it has nothing to do with following other states so there is no answer to your survey that I can chose. ^^^^ THIS AND ^^^^ THIS |
|
|
|
Post by jdaily on Nov 24, 2014 7:58:10 GMT -5
Heck yes! Or even more. Your first buck comes with your regular license and then you can buy an extra tag at a premium. On years that I killed my buck on the first day of archery, it would be nice to take more as I see them, if I'm willing to pay the price.
|
|
|
|
Post by chasingtails on Nov 24, 2014 11:36:42 GMT -5
This thread needs to be closed for shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 24, 2014 13:20:39 GMT -5
This thread needs to be closed for shenanigans. I am watching it; I'm sure Woody & Duff are as well. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Nov 24, 2014 13:27:31 GMT -5
Seems like the deer hunting is pretty good for most people these days with the OBR in place.. just look at all the bucks the folks here have been putting down. I am satisfied with only killing 1 buck in Indiana per year; shoot, with practically unlimited doe tags, there is no excuse for an empty feezer.
|
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Nov 24, 2014 17:03:25 GMT -5
I think that the DNR should do a survey after putting out all info over the last 2 years for hunters to scan over .The survey should be simple .Allow a second buck 1 bow buck one gun buck period .Lets face it more complication is not needed and hunters who are particular about what they will shoot in OBR will still be that way in two buck rules .I know I was and still am .One or two bucks will not make a difference there at all and might just get younger hunters back involved .i.e. a reason to keep hunting year after year and season after season .
The stuff you have just complicates the why we should hunt two bucks a year .
|
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Nov 24, 2014 18:39:13 GMT -5
I would have liked a 2br this year Opening Day Gun My doe from the time I shot it till I got down from the tree Grew a 3 1/4 in and a 4 1/2 in spike not as big around as a pencil real female looking fellow
|
|
|
|
Post by practicalsportsman on Nov 24, 2014 19:05:06 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to make it complicated just wanted it to be scientific, in my neck of the woods US 31 has about 75% buck road kills every November six years after OBR went into effect. I have only seen four does this fall and sixteen different bucks including the one I shot. I think it would be nice to have two bucks one being any size and the second having at least three points on one side and antlers past it's ears. But I have to say this idea is by county much like doe harvest.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Nov 24, 2014 19:12:38 GMT -5
Let's have a lot of fun and just close deer hunting and let hired sharp shooters take care of the overpopulation issue in certain areas. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on Nov 24, 2014 20:27:21 GMT -5
No. It has nothing to do with other states. I travel U.S 31 several times a week. Only dead deer from Peru to Rochester have been a couple does. Why would you want to kill more bucks if they are being massacred by auto collisions? If you aren't happy with what you shot then wait for a larger one. Remember EHD? My part of county still recovering from that.
|
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Nov 24, 2014 22:41:56 GMT -5
I want a no buck rule it seems as though it would be awesome to then see who truly got the biggest deer.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Nov 25, 2014 8:24:13 GMT -5
I agree with any idea that Practical comes up with. Over the years he has had tons of brilliant ideas. I just wish the DNR would listen to him    :/ |
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Nov 25, 2014 8:54:53 GMT -5
Yeah, why not two bucks. Just charge $500.00 for the special license, and a trophy fee of $50.00 for each point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 25, 2014 9:22:37 GMT -5
I agree with any idea that Practical comes up with. Over the years he has had tons of brilliant ideas. I just wish the DNR would listen to him :/ Who says that they don't?  |
|
:/