Comment on the OBR proposal...

[Willie]

The red is what I disagree with I guess. I'll volunteer myself as a personal example.

2010, I killed a 155" buck on Halloween. I had to doe hunt from then on out, obviously. I missed all of the rut. Did I miss 'the opportunity to get out and hunt A SECOND BUCK'? No. I still got to go out and hunt. I'd done plenty of damage in the buck category.

This year, I killed a buck that is over 200" gross. This was opening day of firearms. Did I miss not getting to hunt the following 13 days of firearms. Nope.

This is my thought process--OBR does lead to more mature bucks, which leads to more bigger racks. MOST hunters will trade getting one 150" buck for two year and a half 8 points per season. That minority that want 2 HRB bucks each season might seem a little selfish to me.

First off - congratulations on your fine bucks.

Whether the OBR leads to more mature bucks or it is a natural progression of an aging deer hunter group is debateable. That is why I am calling for a 3 year two buck trial conducted by our deer biologist to ascertain just how much each theory contributes to more mature bucks.

BTW - "Hunting" does is pretty easy to me in my area. It almost falls into the category of "shooting" does. Not even close to hunting mature bucks..

 

[Willie]

I have been having good seasons for many years now. What i do miss is the time I used to spend in the woods in bow season. I have just been concentrating on gun season. I can pop a few does easy enough then and any buck I chose.

During bow it was always, Will i see a better one later.

Ps I was one of the guys who did at times take more than one buck a year. Once it was 3 when you add in the state park hunt. I still see more deer overall now than since 1976.

I've seen a lot of bowhunters who feel the same way. They just hang up their biows and wait for the gun season. No telling how much money the state and retailers are out.

I know the last 5 years I've taken my "second buck money" to a two buck limit state - Illinois.


.

 

[onesurveyor]

I am all for OBR. I see less deer overall than I did 10years ago but I see more nice bucks than I did ten years ago. Hey just for fuel how about a "No Buck Rule" every 5th year.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

I am all for OBR. I see less deer overall than I did 10years ago but I see more nice bucks than I did ten years ago. Hey just for fuel how about a "No Buck Rule" every 5th year.

Im sure that would go over reeeaaalll good

 

[Yeah]

Forgot about Mississippi....where Dr. Stephen Demaris of MSU says it has lead to "high grading". Basically a lot of 8 point "potential" yearling bucks are being taken and cowhorns and forkies get a pass....even if they are mature.

Findings taken into account in moving the state to spread/beam criteria. An age requirement would probably be a step further in the right direction but expecting hunters to age deer on the hoof is wishful at best. While MS has more ground to support the herd, I'm not convinced their cropland and woodlots are as fit to produce racked out bucks as Indiana's. But despite that, I hunt 3 leases from the MS side of Memphis, to Greenville, to near the Homochito south of Natchez, and on each of them I can see more 150"+ bucks in a week than I can see all year on any of the places I hunt in IN.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to argue for a more active management of the herd as it develops as Mississippi appears to have done. I can't quite decipher whether that is what you are arguing for here, or if it is just a desire to shoot more bucks, but I agree the OBR has run its course as a management tool.

You have people here in Indiana, on this forum even, who seem to think allowing rifles would be the end of deer in the state. You'd never see one. Yet MS allows them, and more deer for fewer license fees, and the season just now wrapped up. You can even run the things with dogs. Somewhere someone is doing something right, and someone is doing something wrong.

 

[NDhunter]

Findings taken into account in moving the state to spread/beam criteria. An age requirement would probably be a step further in the right direction but expecting hunters to age deer on the hoof is wishful at best. While MS has more ground to support the herd, I'm not convinced their cropland and woodlots are as fit to produce racked out bucks as Indiana's. But despite that, I hunt 3 leases from the MS side of Memphis, to Greenville, to near the Homochito south of Natchez, and on each of them I can see more 150"+ bucks in a week than I can see all year on any of the places I hunt in IN.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to argue for a more active management of the herd as it develops as Mississippi appears to have done. I can't quite decipher whether that is what you are arguing for here, or if it is just a desire to shoot more bucks, but I agree the OBR has run its course as a management tool.

You have people here in Indiana, on this forum even, who seem to think allowing rifles would be the end of deer in the state. You'd never see one. Yet MS allows them, and more deer for fewer license fees, and the season just now wrapped up. You can even run the things with dogs. Somewhere someone is doing something right, and someone is doing something wrong.

I agree with you in general. I'm for OBR. But I really wonder who we are to judge other's hunting experiences and goals? If a clean kill of a spike makes someone ecstatic every year, who am I to judge? If he does that legally and ethically, I am happy for him.

I don't agree with making other people value a deer based on the inches of antler on it's head. That is crossing into a whole different moral hazard than OBR IMHO.

 

[cschwanz]

Please the leave the OBR as it stands. There are enough small bucks being killed each year as it is.

If you really want to see an increase in larger bucks, more people need to realize thta QDM actually works and more does need to be harvested. ON our proprty for example, we shot 7 does and 2 bucks. On the adjoining property behind us, they shot 10-12 bucks (they do so every year and refuse to shoot a doe). We are doing our part, but neighbors arent. Seems futile at times. The closer you can get the population ratio of does to buck to the 1:1 state, the bigger the bucks will be and the healthier the deer herd will be. When there are numberous unbred does lat in the fall/winter (3rd rut) bucks retain their antlers due to testosterone levels staying high. This causes later drops of antlers, which causes a later start the the growth the following year, giving them less time to grow and a smaller rack come fall.

Want bigger bucks? Keep the OBR and shoot more does.

 

[witdog2020]

First off - congratulations on your fine bucks.

Whether the OBR leads to more mature bucks or it is a natural progression of an aging deer hunter group is debateable. That is why I am calling for a 3 year two buck trial conducted by our deer biologist to ascertain just how much each theory contributes to more mature bucks.

BTW - "Hunting" does is pretty easy to me in my area. It almost falls into the category of "shooting" does. Not even close to hunting mature bucks..

Willie, I'm not sure of your age, but If I understand what is proposed about the 2 buck 3yr plan. This is exactly what we had prior to the OBR? We were allowed 1 Buck with Archery and 1 buck with a firearm, whether it be it be firearms season or muzzleloader?
I have been deer hunting long before, but I can see I have seen a significant improvement on bucks in all locations and counties I hunt. Most places I hunt I have for 20+ years.
What I have noticed, is many less and undersized does in all locations. I have voiced my opinions on their doe management but it falls on def ears. Some counties surely do have doe problems. Back when we hunted depredation permits down south (20yrs ago), I actually went out with a Conservation Officer and another DNR fella and inspected some corn fields and beans. The 1st 2 rows of beans didn't have any beans, withs some crop shading, and about 6-8 rows deep in the corn was completely knocked down. Deer took the blame for all, when the the actual culprit for the beans was turkeys. I hunted these spots for years. I seen the Turkeys picking the beans right off the plant. I also seen coon climbing up the corn stocks and knocking them down eating the corn.
I believe the program is flawed, but not the OBR. I don't mind the hunters for hungry program, but I love to hunt. I am not gonna go out and take 6 does and donate 5 to hunters for hungry no matter how much DNR begs. I love to hunt, but I don't think you should be able to donate more than 1 deer to the program. This falls almost into the wanton waste category for me. You cant share deer amongst buddies, or let someone else buy a tag to tag a deer you killed, but yes you can buy a tag and donate the deer to the hungry. There is no difference? Either way DNR gets their revenue? Hunters need to stand up, there are NOT too many deer, there are too many roads.

Yes its broken, but not whether or not I can take 1 buck or 2.

 

[Willie]

Willie, I'm not sure of your age, but If I understand what is proposed about the 2 buck 3yr plan. This is exactly what we had prior to the OBR? We were allowed 1 Buck with Archery and 1 buck with a firearm, whether it be it be firearms season or muzzleloader?
I have been deer hunting long before, but I can see I have seen a significant improvement on bucks in all locations and counties I hunt. Most places I hunt I have for 20+ years.
What I have noticed, is many less and undersized does in all locations. I have voiced my opinions on their doe management but it falls on def ears. Some counties surely do have doe problems. Back when we hunted depredation permits down south (20yrs ago), I actually went out with a Conservation Officer and another DNR fella and inspected some corn fields and beans. The 1st 2 rows of beans didn't have any beans, withs some crop shading, and about 6-8 rows deep in the corn was completely knocked down. Deer took the blame for all, when the the actual culprit for the beans was turkeys. I hunted these spots for years. I seen the Turkeys picking the beans right off the plant. I also seen coon climbing up the corn stocks and knocking them down eating the corn.
I believe the program is flawed, but not the OBR. I don't mind the hunters for hungry program, but I love to hunt. I am not gonna go out and take 6 does and donate 5 to hunters for hungry no matter how much DNR begs. I love to hunt, but I don't think you should be able to donate more than 1 deer to the program. This falls almost into the wanton waste category for me. You cant share deer amongst buddies, or let someone else buy a tag to tag a deer you killed, but yes you can buy a tag and donate the deer to the hungry. There is no difference? Either way DNR gets their revenue? Hunters need to stand up, there are NOT too many deer, there are too many roads.

Yes its broken, but not whether or not I can take 1 buck or 2.

I'm 72 years young and have been hunting deer since 1968.

Yes, I recall when we could hunt and kill 4 bucks in on year. 2 with archery, 1 with a shotgun and 1 with a MZ.

What I am asking is for the DNR to allow the deer bioloigist to do his job and conduct a 3 year two buck trial to see if the OBR made any significant and worthwhile change in our herd.

Yes, I know it was two bucks before, but LOTS of changes in deer hunting in the last 9 years BESIDES the OBR. Do a trial with the present methods and seasons and see what we get.

Not much to ask for is it?

 

[witdog2020]

Its a known fact people don't like change. It appears that most people like the rule. I like the rule, but I olny take 1 deer per year anyway, maybe 2 every other year. I think what you are asking could be revisited, because we see alot of quality bucks and it seems like they have hit a wall. It seems like a lot of bucks in that 130-150 class range. I don't think taking 2 bucks will help this. Logic says that hunters will take a smaller buck and thus reducing the chance of reaching a 3yr old plus. This doesn't take a biologist to figure out the math.
I was hoping you might touch on your opinions on the number of does taken? I get the surveys from the DNR and always fill them out. I just wonder, the survey pretty much is asking, what can we do to get the hunters to take more does. If you take so many does you can earn a buck and so on. Is there ever any discussion on reducing the does taken? I can agree in a lot of counties they have a lot of does.
I have had deer cameras out for almost 2 years, I swap memory cards and batteries every 3 months like clockwork. In the last 12 months or so, I have 7-8 different bucks, maybe 2 shooters? Its hard to age a deer from a photo or video, I use the brisket, and pot belly look to help age a deer. I can usually almost tell you what bucks are left or have been killed by Feb every year. I see about 3 mature does, and only see 5-7 does on cameras all year long. I am not down south, Im here in on the NE side of the state. This is drastically reduced from previous years. I blame it on the number of does that DNR allows hunters to take. The guy down the road him and his dad took about 8 or 10 deer between them, and kept 3. They donated the rest to the hungry. The didn't all come from here, some came from down south. I'm not sure how many came from my area. If they can eat 3 deer per year, some people more some less. Leave the rest. I used to enter a big doe contest every year, and be competitive. Theres no way to do that now around here does are young.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

Its a known fact people don't like change. It appears that most people like the rule. I like the rule, but I olny take 1 deer per year anyway, maybe 2 every other year. I think what you are asking could be revisited, because we see alot of quality bucks and it seems like they have hit a wall. It seems like a lot of bucks in that 130-150 class range. I don't think taking 2 bucks will help this. Logic says that hunters will take a smaller buck and thus reducing the chance of reaching a 3yr old plus. This doesn't take a biologist to figure out the math.
I was hoping you might touch on your opinions on the number of does taken? I get the surveys from the DNR and always fill them out. I just wonder, the survey pretty much is asking, what can we do to get the hunters to take more does. If you take so many does you can earn a buck and so on. Is there ever any discussion on reducing the does taken? I can agree in a lot of counties they have a lot of does.
I have had deer cameras out for almost 2 years, I swap memory cards and batteries every 3 months like clockwork. In the last 12 months or so, I have 7-8 different bucks, maybe 2 shooters? Its hard to age a deer from a photo or video, I use the brisket, and pot belly look to help age a deer. I can usually almost tell you what bucks are left or have been killed by Feb every year. I see about 3 mature does, and only see 5-7 does on cameras all year long. I am not down south, Im here in on the NE side of the state. This is drastically reduced from previous years. I blame it on the number of does that DNR allows hunters to take. The guy down the road him and his dad took about 8 or 10 deer between them, and kept 3. They donated the rest to the hungry. The didn't all come from here, some came from down south. I'm not sure how many came from my area. If they can eat 3 deer per year, some people more some less. Leave the rest. I used to enter a big doe contest every year, and be competitive. Theres no way to do that now around here does are young.

I agree with ever word in this paragraph. I really dont have anything else to say because you just said it better than I would be able to.

 

[Willie]

Less than 6,000 hunters double diPped during the the years.

The resource can handle a tbr easily.

We can kill 450+ does per year and only one buck. Does and bucks are still born at a 1.2 to 1 rate.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

We can kill 450+ does per year and only one buck. Does and bucks are still born at a 1.2 to 1 rate.

I agree with you here. Our doe-buck tag ratio is rediculously high. But killing more bucks to even it out isnt going to help our overall shortage of deer. Instead we need to drop the number of doe tags. That seems to be the general consensus in this thread.

 

[Willie]

I agree with you here. Our doe-buck tag ratio is rediculously high. But killing more bucks to even it out isnt going to help our overall shortage of deer. Instead we need to drop the number of doe tags. That seems to be the general consensus in this thread.

Why not both?

Better idea... how about having a three year 2 buck trial and let the deer biologist make the call?

 

[ctbreitwieser]

Why not both?

Better idea... how about having a three year 2 buck trial and let the deer biologist make the call?

Both what?

Either Im not understanding this, or it doesn't make sense. How exactly is a 3yr two buck rule going to help the overall shortage of deer in IN? To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

More people than not are very happy with the OBR. Hunters these days may not be shooting as many bucks, but the bucks that are being killed are generally much more mature deer than before. No one is going to kill a young/smaller buck because they know once they do they wont be able to shoot that monster if he walks in front of them. The two buck rule would only lessen the discipline of most hunters and many young bucks with good potential would be killed before they can reach that potential. I think that having to pass on the small shooter bucks makes that much more fun to wait for the big one.

What exactly is it that you are hoping to fix with a TBR, because I really am not understanding?

 

[firehawk1]

As much as I would like the trial of TBR, I don't see it happening. The reason is alot of hunters now feel it is the job of DNR to grow them big bucks. It is nothing but using the DRN to promote one type of deer hunting over another, ie trophy hunters.

Personally I think it would be interesting to see a NBR (no buck rule) for a couple of years IF one REALLY wants to grow mature bucks. Then I believe we would find out who are truly deer hunters, and who are hunting for bragging rights.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

As much as I would like the trial of TBR, I don't see it happening. The reason is alot of hunters now feel it is the job of DNR to grow them big bucks. It is nothing but using the DRN to promote one type of deer hunting over another, ie trophy hunters.

Personally I think it would be interesting to see a NBR (no buck rule) for a couple of years IF one REALLY wants to grow mature bucks. Then I believe we would find out who are truly deer hunters, and who are hunting for bragging rights.

I dont think this is true at all. There are still many deer hunters who get just as much enjoyment out of taking a young buck. However, I think the OBR cuts down on the "waste" of young bucks. If you need the meat just shoot a doe. And whats wrong with going after only big bucks? I think everyone would agree that is much funner to shoot a bragging worthy buck than a small one. If thats why someone hunts then good for them. Id rather have them only shoot one of the big guys than two.

The only buck I have ever killed was with my truck. I love hunting more than anything, and do it every chance I get. I have seen many very nice bucks while hunting that were definite shooters but just wouldn't come close enough or I never had a clean shot. I'm not going to shoot a young buck to make up for that though. Ill let him grow so the next season Ill have two bigger bucks to chase. I would rather shoot a doe, since my primary means for hunting is for the meat and just to enjoy being in the outdoors.

 

[firehawk1]

I dont think this is true at all. There are still many deer hunters who get just as much enjoyment out of taking a young buck. However, I think the OBR cuts down on the "waste" of young bucks. If you need the meat just shoot a doe. And whats wrong with going after only big bucks? I think everyone would agree that is much funner to shoot a bragging worthy buck than a small one. If thats why someone hunts then good for them. Id rather have them only shoot one of the big guys than two.

The only buck I have ever killed was with my truck. I love hunting more than anything, and do it every chance I get. I have seen many very nice bucks while hunting that were definite shooters but just wouldn't come close enough or I never had a clean shot. I'm not going to shoot a young buck to make up for that though. Ill let him grow so the next season Ill have two bigger bucks to chase. I would rather shoot a doe, since my primary means for hunting is for the meat and just to enjoy being in the outdoors.

We sound alot alike, I deer hunt for the enjoyment of it, antlers are just a plus.

I spoke with the state biologist before the OBR was put into effect. He stated it has never been proven to "work" anywhere it's been implemented. A hunter will pass that "smaller" buck early in the season, but would take it later in ML season. In other words a wash.

I agree with Willie about the TBR trial. It really cannot be proven the OBR is the reason some might be seeing more mature bucks. Could it possibly be that a percentage of hunters have matured and moved beyond the antler thing to simply enjoying the chance to be out in the woods?

We were asked to try the OBR almost ten years ago. What's wrong with a 2-3 year trial of a TBR? I contend some do not want it possibly proven the OBR is NOT the reason there are more mature bucks. It would not fit their agenda.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

We sound alot alike, I deer hunt for the enjoyment of it, antlers are just a plus.

I spoke with the state biologist before the OBR was put into effect. He stated it has never been proven to "work" anywhere it's been implemented. A hunter will pass that "smaller" buck early in the season, but would take it later in ML season. In other words a wash.

I agree with Willie about the TBR trial. It really cannot be proven the OBR is the reason some might be seeing more mature bucks. Could it possibly be that a percentage of hunters have matured and moved beyond the antler thing to simply enjoying the chance to be out in the woods?

We were asked to try the OBR almost ten years ago. What's wrong with a 2-3 year trial of a TBR? I contend some do not want it possibly proven the OBR is NOT the reason there are more mature bucks. It would not fit their agenda.

Ok, I understand what you're saying a little better now. I just dont think were ready for it yet. Our overall deer numbers are definitely low and I think that needs to be addressed first. Once our numbers are back up then maybe give it a try, but I dont think only 2-3 years is long enough to really understand if it works, and thats my problem with it. Since hunters on average seem to be taking bigger/more mature bucks, why not leave it that way instead of taking a chance on a new study that could potentially do more harm than good? Im all for studying the biology of deer, I have even thought about it as a future job, but if its working I dont think it should be messed with.

As far as passing a deer early in season and it getting shot in the late season, I agree with you. But I personally think if your willing to pass it in the early season, why shoot it in the late? Does a person really need a buck that bad?

While deer hunting is considered "sporting", I think its becoming too much of a "sport" and its losing its name of being a "pastime" or "lifestyle". I blame a lot of it on all the hunting shows on tv that constantly show these "professional hunters" shooting big bucks. I may be from a young generation, Ill be 23 in a month, but I think its making the younger generation of hunters think that its all about the big ones. I enjoy watching the shows, mostly because there aint else on... and Tiffany Lakoski, but I have a real problem with the way they portray hunters only shooting record deer and making people think thats what its all about. <<<But this probably for another thread. Sorry for that rant.

 

[firehawk1]

Ok, I understand what you're saying a little better now. I just dont think were ready for it yet. Our overall deer numbers are definitely low and I think that needs to be addressed first. Once our numbers are back up then maybe give it a try, but I dont think only 2-3 years is long enough to really understand if it works, and thats my problem with it. Since hunters on average seem to be taking bigger/more mature bucks, why not leave it that way instead of taking a chance on a new study that could potentially do more harm than good? Im all for studying the biology of deer, I have even thought about it as a future job, but if its working I dont think it should be messed with.

As far as passing a deer early in season and it getting shot in the late season, I agree with you. But I personally think if your willing to pass it in the early season, why shoot it in the late? Does a person really need a buck that bad?

While deer hunting is considered "sporting", I think its becoming too much of a "sport" and its losing its name of being a "pastime" or "lifestyle". I blame a lot of it on all the hunting shows on tv that constantly show these "professional hunters" shooting big bucks. I may be from a young generation, Ill be 23 in a month, but I think its making the younger generation of hunters think that its all about the big ones. I enjoy watching the shows, mostly because there aint else on... and Tiffany Lakoski, but I have a real problem with the way they portray hunters only shooting record deer and making people think thats what its all about. <<<But this probably for another thread. Sorry for that rant.

I see we are really on the same page. I agree with the hunting videos, they are not real. Anyone could take a mature buck from the honey holes they hunt in. I shot indoor 3D up in Wingate a few years ago. I had to laugh inside at the kids (teenagers) talking about how they had passed on this size deer and that sized deer. All they were doing was mouthing what they had heard on their videos. Unfortunately THAT is fueling this trophy mentality, bragging rights, etc...., totally missing the reason for being out there in the first place.

Rep to you.