Indianahick

There have been times and this year was one of them when maybe a fork was all you got to see or got a shot at. Personally I am a meat hunter first. And have taken more does than bucks, I loved it when they started the bonus does back in the 90's. I hunted two different places this year, in one where my and my partner have seen plenty of deer we saw maybe 10-15 all year. In the second I kept wondering why I was never seeing anything close always out in the middle of the corn field and looking toward the edge as the cut straight across. Climbed out of my ladder one morning and went walking, what I found was that someone put a tepee pop up blind about 50 yards from where I had my ladder. I could see my ladder from it. Then went walking down the tree row that the deer come out of to cut across the field, found lots of human tracks to my side of that cut off too. So yes if I had seen a forker close enough to shoot I sure would have. I figger a 150-160 class sure beats a 125 class doe. Oh by the way I like to call pounds as class. I am not out there to put something on the wall if it should show up fine, If not I want meat.

excalibur43

Ohio has one buck rule. I think it has helped toward harvesting more trophy bucks.

Gruntr Huntr

This is exactly the argument I used when trying to communicate with the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources regarding their decision to enact a two buck rule.

When Illinois went to the two buck annual limit a few years ago I attended their public meeting on this rule change. I don't know why they even bothered to have a public meeting except to meet the legal requirements because they told us, at that meeting, this new limit was an administrative rule and would go into effect no matter the opinions of the meetings. I insisted on knowing why these changes were being made. The IDNR response was that creating a limit was more 'correct'. When I questioned them on whether their 'rule' change was based on any biological basis, they told me that their harvest information (Illinois requires every deer harvested to be checked-in) revealed that the number of hunters who actually harvest more than the two bucks was too insignificant to have any effect on the herd, and, therefore, the rule would impact only an insignificant number of hunters who would oppose it.

My argument was that if the numbers were insignificant, why change it, because it would take guys that would harvest does out of woods before they could harvest all the does they normally would. (Myself included).

P DOG

I wouldnt mine a one buck rule here in Illinois as matter of fact I would like to see the Earn A Buck in affect in Illinois that would help out the herd because it would require you to harvest a Doe before you could take a Buck..JMO..... What I read on another thread is a great idea in Maryland you can shoot a buck first but then you have to shoot 2 does before you can harvest your second buck.......now that there is a great idea!

Beehunter

P Dog I like the sounds of the Maryland law, I would be a doe shootin fool If I could kill another buck, I pass up bucks every year and would like the option to kill two a year.

Gruntr Huntr

Why do you support something that puts unnecessary restrictions on deer hunters, if IDNR reports no significant impact on the herd when hunters harvest more than 1 buck?

Consider that there are some of us, maybe you included, who enjoy hunting by more than just one method. I like the opportunity to take a buck with my bow and a buck with my muzzleloader. Given those opportunities, I'm more than happy to take an equal number or even double that number of does. I think, in honesty, few are as strongly motivated to spend the sametime and money doe hunting without the opportunity to harvest a buck.

I may be wrong in this conclusion, but, if you look at the harvest numbers from the antlerless only season, I think I make a valid point.

kevin1

I have a challenge for the pro OBR guys:

The OBR was forced upon us by the active lobbying, sometimes behind closed doors, of a relative few would be bwanas, and the DNR has called it a "social experiment" at best. There is already lobbying to make it permanent, even though "the experiment" is not yet concluded and the data to date has not been fully collated and analyzed. So here's my proposal:

The OBR was supposed to be for a period of 5 years, then the data would be analyzed, probably for at least 1-2 years, although 5 was a possibility. The thought occurs to me that in order for the experiment to be valid the experimental data would have to not only be compared to the previous 5 years, but also to a control period of the same length where no bucks were killed at all. This way the number of mature bucks could be more accurately evaluated with less room for error. Basically, following the 5 year OBR period there would be a 5 year period of "antlerless only" hunting, then all data would be collected and analyzed. This would be of particular benefit to the DNR's herd management program since nearly all Indiana counties currently issue bonus permits, and as an added bonus there would be a gazillion newly created mature bucks in the 5-6 year old prime class for everyone to hunt, quite literally a booner behind every bush. I'm sure the farmers and insurance industry would be supportive as well.

Put your money where your mouth is, you want a restriction that guarantees the desired result, here it is.

Gruntr Huntr

This all sounds too familiar! When Illinois instituted the politically correct two-buck annual limit, other regulatory changes were taking place accomodating the 'bwanas'. Have you heard of the 'Golden Triangle' in Illinois where a majority of the B&C bucks have come from? Try getting a place to deer hunt there, nowadays. The 'bwanas' and others have closed offtens of thousands ofacresthat were once accessible to the average deer hunter!

If you want a B&C behind every bush, you better think ahead at what you may be losing. The vast majority of deer hunters don't define a 'trophy' by B&C standards. For most of us, a trophy is much more personal and much less competative.

I had rather have a place to deer hunt and know that I could eventually connect with a big buck, than to have big bucks running around everywhere but no place for me to deer hunt.

Beehunter

What is a 'bwanas'? I dont have a clue to what your talking about.

Indianahick

A bwana is a guide. Or simply a hunting guide or outfitter or a wanna be outfitter. The term bwana was borrowed more than likely from som old tarzan movie. Buster Crabbe maybe. Or simplier put a bwana is anyone that wants you to pay him to hunt for a trophy deer.