Explain The Numbers

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

http://www.indianasportsman.com/photopost/data/522/OBR_Statistics.jpg Can someone explain These Numbers ...:coco:

[Main Beam]

Basically it compares the average harvest pre-OBR ('99-'01) and post-OBR ('02-'05).

If we are going to show numbers these are the numbers I like to see....no explanation needed here! Do we have '05 HRB results yet??????:bouncy:

http://www.indianasportsman.com/photopost/data/500/medium/DSC00003.JPG

[Scott Werstler]

Going to be awhile, I still have over a dozen incompleted forms from people who owe the entry money or a signed fair chase. Had a few others who wanted a measurement (and bugged me several times to measure their deer right away) and then haven't returned my calls on getting the entry stuff done. Some of these deer measure over 160 typical.

Don't want to complain, but just be honest with me up front. If you don't want it entered, I will still measure the deer, no problem. It's the ones that say they are going to, and appear excited about it, and then don't follow through that grinds on me a little. Being as anal retentive as I am, it bugs me not to have my files cleaned up going into 06.
Just venting a little. Boone & Crockett changed a few things on moose measuring and on the other forms, so they sent me a new set of scaore sheets to use in 06. I was just straightening everything up and looking at all the incomplete entrys in my brief case last night.

[Munsterlndr]

http://www.indianasportsman.com/photopost/data/522/OBR_Statistics.jpg Can someone explain These Numbers ...:coco:
Exactly what is it that is unclear? The Baseline average is three years of pre-OBR data averaged, it is displayed in blue. The Four years of OBR data is averaged and is displayed in Red. The Change is the percentage of change from the Pre-OBR average to the post OBR average. These numbers allow you to compare & contrast the pre-OBR vs. the post OBR period and show which part of the deer harvest statistics have shown the most change. The percentages after each number are the portion of the harvest that each category made up, of the total. For example in 2004, 38% of the total archery harvest was made up of bucks.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

I was Just wondering How are we Killing more Deer with a One Buck Rule.....I know it was explained Before But would Like to see somthing Again!!!!! So I can Refer to it at a Later Date.....No trick Question Here!!!! Thanks

[DadOfFour]

Did anyone else notice that the percentages didn't change in the firearms catagory? Pre-OBR bucks made up 45% of the average harvest, post-OBR they still make up 45% They dropped more significantly in archery (9% drop) however, total harvest the percentage of the harvest that is bucks only dropped by 2%. Also, if you look at the numbers we're harvesting more bucks post OBR than we were pre-OBR.

Can somebody explain this to me, it would seem, at least to me, that the OBR hasn't really done very much, or am I missing something?

Edited to add: I want to make it clear I am NOT against OBR, I'm just not sure what the OBR is doing, maybe I'm missing something?

[trdtnlbwhntr]

Here is my take on it. The obr has caused awareness of what it takes to see bigger deer. Simple as that. We can compare numbers we can say hey it works hey its a load, whatever the fact of the matter is it helped joe schmoe wake up and say wait a minute if i kill this my season is over and I am hunting does only. If I kill this then he isnt going to get any bigger and i wont be able to see a bigger one next year. Ive seen it taking place on properties that are usually brown and down and its a wonderful thing. Awareness to the idea that passing small bucks is ok its what needs to be done and that it works. Along with this it has made the DNR realize we need to harvest does. Which makes the herd in a closer balance. Crunch the numbers they can be twisted any which way you like. For example...
in the years 2000 and 2001 the buck harvest was up and the doe harvest down respectively by 2 percent. That means that things were working before the obr was put in place if you believe everything the numbers are showing. I wish we would all just put the numbers away. Anybody can make them say what they want. The fact is and I firmly believe it the OBR needs to stay because it makes more and more people aware of what it takes to see bigger deer and it allows those that are trying to manage their farms to do so succesfully without the effects of neighbors and their attitudes and now everyone is on the same playing field.

[scrapewatcher]

Did anyone else notice that the percentages didn't change in the firearms catagory? Pre-OBR bucks made up 45% of the average harvest, post-OBR they still make up 45% They dropped more significantly in archery (9% drop) however, total harvest the percentage of the harvest that is bucks only dropped by 2%. Also, if you look at the numbers we're harvesting more bucks post OBR than we were pre-OBR.

Can somebody explain this to me, it would seem, at least to me, that the OBR hasn't really done very much, or am I missing something?

Edited to add: I want to make it clear I am NOT against OBR, I'm just not sure what the OBR is doing, maybe I'm missing something? my take is that although the chart doesn't appear to show that much change in numbers what the chart doesn't show is the age structure available now more so than 4 yrs. ago. the obr is great for age structure of bucks availabe in the caliber that most hunters dream of taking. more 2, 3, 4, 5, yr. old bucks. the charts show percentages of bucks compared to does in which yrs. pre and post obr but that's it. then look at the book entries and see how the quality has improved steadily in just 4 yrs. that's the proof in the pudding so to speak. can you see where this is going? there's still young bucks being killed but at the same time there's more being able to get older thanks to the obr. it can only get better.

[Dean Weimer]

Very well stated Scrape.....

In a nutshell.....it appears that, from a percentage standpoint, that buck numbers haven't changed much, but alas a 4% decrease translates into quite a few animals statewide. Also, remember that doe harvest has climbed by this same percentile margin. Also huge. Any biologist worth his salt out there will tell you that when more female deer are killed, the number of mature bucks will also climb. More hunters are killing does...which trims the herd, and consequently more bucks are slipping through to older age classes. I only looked at the firearms numbers too.

What you have to remember is that there are more bucks available to be harvested now than ever before, and like Scrapewatcher says, more of these bucks are getting older. Why? Because the OBR only allows an individual hunter to kill one. You kill your buck, and then the other one you may have killed a few years ago is going to live. Also, these hunters who have taken there buck will, if they want more venison, kill does. ANd remember, herds which experience proper doe harvest will recruit more mature bucks. It's a nice cycle....

On the flip side.....this is why the number of bucks killed overall may not change drastically from here on out, because there are more bucks (and consequently more older bucks) in the herd now than ever before. Simply put, more bucks available (as a percentage of the herd as a whole) means that more hunters will have a better opportunity to kill one.

Also, keep in mind that the overall harvest figures are based on formulas and not true numbers. In other words, they don't count all the deer at all the check stations that are checked in statewide. The numbers of fawns harvested is based on a formula. HOw they get this formula I don't know.

Something we don't know: How many deer are there in Indiana?

[Dean Weimer]

I was Just wondering How are we Killing more Deer with a One Buck Rule.....I know it was explained Before But would Like to see somthing Again!!!!! So I can Refer to it at a Later Date.....No trick Question Here!!!! Thanks
Brewer, remember too that 75% of Indiana's counties were issued more antlerless permits prior to last season. This in part helps to explain why total deer numbers were up last year.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Maybe they are Counting Button Bucks as Bucks....The numbers say Bucks and Does...not Antlered and Antlerless!!!!! just my thought!!!!!

[Munsterlndr]

In looking at these numbers a couple of things are worth noting. First, OBR has had the biggest impact on the make up of the archery harvest numbers. This makes sense since archers were the ones that were most likely to shoot two bucks a year. It has caused an overall reduction in the number of bucks harvested during archery season and has caused a corresponding increase in the number of does harvested during archery season. This is a good thing, we want to encourage hunters to pass on smaller bucks and harvest more does. The average doe to buck ratio in the archery harvest under OBR is 60/40. That is an awesome harvest ratio! Prior to OBR the archery ratio was 49/51. This awesome B/D harvest ratio in archery season has also helped further enhance the overall combined harvest ratio.

To some this harvest ratio may not mean much but when you compare these harvest statistics to another state, particularily a state like Michigan, which allows two bucks to be harvested, you see a dramatic contrast. In Michigan the average B/D harvest ratio for the last seven years has been 56% antlered bucks vs. 44% antlerless deer. This average is the same for both firearms & archery seasons. Michigan kills more bucks than does year in and year out. That is the recipe for really lousy deer hunting and that is what OBR helps prevent. OBR encourages hunters to harvest more does and to be more selective in the bucks they harvest. Another statistic which was not included is the change that the OBR has caused in the age of bucks harvested. Prior to OBR 2.5+ year old bucks made up only 39% of the total buck harvest. After OBR that figure has increased to 49% of the total harvest. During this same period there has been a 33% increase in the doe harvest, as well.

OBR has and will continue to do good things for Indiana deer hunting. Don't make a huge mistake and throw it all away, just so a small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

OBR encourages hunters to harvest more does and to be more selective in the bucks they harvest.

OBR has and will continue to do good things for Indiana deer hunting. Don't make a huge mistake and throw it all away, just so a small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year. Amen Brother......:bowdown:

[treehugger]

All I know is for every buck I killed last year I killed 3 does. For a state to not to have an estimate of how many deer there is crazy and for the numbers to derived from sort of formula and not actuals is even more bizarre. That's a perfect snapshot of Indiana government for you though.

[Dean Weimer]

You mean "government" don't you tree?? My hat goes off again to our Michigander friend who is well read and speaks very well. You are great with numbers and easy to read and understand.

[DeerDemon]

Don't make a huge mistake and throw it all away, just so a small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year.


A small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year??


How can any bucks be saved when:

1) A small number of hunters are bagging two bucks a year?


2) More bucks are being killed today than prior to the OBR.

Sorry, but this does not add up.

[treehugger]

Don't make a huge mistake and throw it all away, just so a small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year.


A small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year??


How can any bucks be saved when:

1) A small number of hunters are bagging two bucks a year?


2) More bucks are being killed today than prior to the OBR.

Sorry, but this does not add up.
If more bucks are being killed today than prior to the OBR, and a hunter is only killing 1 buck then by brilliant deduction that means more hunters are hunting and taking a buck. More does are being killed too, which is one of the benefits of OBR.

[JL]

Don't make a huge mistake and throw it all away, just so a small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year.


A small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year??


How can any bucks be saved when:

1) A small number of hunters are bagging two bucks a year?


2) More bucks are being killed today than prior to the OBR.

Sorry, but this does not add up.
I would guess that if you did a census of the buck population in IN it is much greater now than it was five years ago. When there are more bucks out there, there are more opportunities to harvest them. In my opinion, the OBR has had a hand in helping the buck population increase. So, if you agree with this statement (which I'm guessing you don't) then you'll see the OBR has in fact "saved" bucks.

[Scott Werstler]

You are right Tree,

From the open and unbiased meetings that the DNR held to gain hunter input on deer hunting regulations, (when they were suppose to be listening to me and my opinions) I was told that the average Indiana hunter just wanted to kill a buck, any buck and for that reason Indiana's seasons are located on the calendar where they are and are open for as long as they are. Furthermore, there was no interest to change that.

If that is true, and that is the DNR's plan for Indiana hunting, then I would have to say the numbers tell me the OBR did an excellent job in increasing the opportunity for the average Indiana deer hunter to bag a buck. In fact, since each buck must be taken by a different person, the number of successful buck hunters in Indiana (still think the sate should be renamed Purdue) has risen since the OBR has been in place.

More bucks being killed, more different people doing it, the record book growing exponentially in entry's, what a DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's move on to something debatable, if I take one antlered buck in 2006, can I then take more than 1 bigfoot?? If I take 2 bigfoots am I greedy, if I only take 1 am I supporting a bigfoot welfare program? "There out there, you just gotta know how to hunt them................." Carve that on my tombstone somebody, its killing me!

[oldrookie]

Scott.....I think you need a break......got to the woods!;)


oldrookie:tongue:

[treehugger]

You are right Tree,

From the open and unbiased meetings that the DNR held to gain hunter input on deer hunting regulations, (when they were suppose to be listening to me and my opinions) I was told that the average Indiana hunter just wanted to kill a buck, any buck and for that reason Indiana's seasons are located on the calendar where they are and are open for as long as they are. Furthermore, there was no interest to change that.

If that is true, and that is the DNR's plan for Indiana hunting, then I would have to say the numbers tell me the OBR did an excellent job in increasing the opportunity for the average Indiana deer hunter to bag a buck. In fact, since each buck must be taken by a different person, the number of successful buck hunters in Indiana (still think the sate should be renamed Purdue) has risen since the OBR has been in place.

More bucks being killed, more different people doing it, the record book growing exponentially in entry's, what a DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's move on to something debatable, if I take one antlered buck in 2006, can I then take more than 1 bigfoot?? If I take 2 bigfoots am I greedy, if I only take 1 am I supporting a bigfoot welfare program? "There out there, you just gotta know how to hunt them................." Carve that on my tombstone somebody, its killing me!
Wow, thanks Scott...I don't hear that much!!! OBFR = ONE BIGFOOT RULE...can I get a hat for this too? Will there be public meetings?

[Duckz-N-Buckz30]

The numbers are a little skewed as well since there are more in state hunters every year. There are also more coming from out of state.

OBR is working, just think if we could get everyone to use QDM too.

[JL]

Let's move on to something debatable, if I take one antlered buck in 2006, can I then take more than 1 bigfoot?? If I take 2 bigfoots am I greedy, if I only take 1 am I supporting a bigfoot welfare program? "There out there, you just gotta know how to hunt them................." Carve that on my tombstone somebody, its killing me!
What about the "bigfoot savings?" You're not saving any bigfoots with a OBFR!

[DeerDemon]

Two different subjects guys.

Granted that the passing of bucks in early archery season has helped the gun hunter get a buck (just like Jim Mitchell said it would), but that is not the discussion.This rule was not supposed to be an affirmative action rule.

Of course we are in an expanding herd situation. That has NOTHING to do with the OBR.The herd was geared up for that prior to the OBR.

Once again, if there were only a "few" (per munsterlander and Jim Mitchell)taking two bucks a year how in the world could the OBR make any difference at all?

"One Bigfoot Rule"? Are you guys ever serious? Or is that a defense mechanism when you don't have an good answer?

[Munsterlndr]

A small number of hunters can bag two bucks a year??


How can any bucks be saved when:

1) A small number of hunters are bagging two bucks a year?

Woody, this is so simple that even you can understand it if you try hard enough. If you can only take one buck, it is much more likely that you are going to wait for a decent one to come along. Pretty simple. In the past you would have arrowed a basket six knowing that you would have another opportunityfor a bruiser during firearms season. Now, if you take that basket six you are done for the year. The result is that you are much more likely to hold off waiting for a decent buck.

Also, what is almost more important that saving bucks is shifting the type of buck that is harvested. Due to OBR you are seeing an older age class of deer making up a larger part of the harvest. Let em go and let em grow! Let those 1.5 year olds get another year of growth on them and the potential for shooting a bigger buck is increased substantially. Not exactly rocket science, here.

[treehugger]

Two different subjects guys.

Granted that the passing of bucks in early archery season has helped the gun hunter get a buck (just like Jim Mitchell said it would), but that is not the discussion.This rule was not supposed to be an affirmative action rule.

Of course we are in an expanding herd situation. That has NOTHING to do with the OBR.The herd was geared up for that prior to the OBR.

Once again, if there were only a "few" (per munsterlander and Jim Mitchell)taking two bucks a year how in the world could the OBR make any difference at all?

"One Bigfoot Rule"? Are you guys ever serious? Or is that a defense mechanism when you don't have an good answer?
We provide plenty of good answers...but seems as though there are some that always disagree no matter what those answers are...especially when the facts don't line up with their skewed opinions.

[QuailDancer]

We provide plenty of good answers...but seems as though there are some that always disagree no matter what those answers are...especially when the facts don't line up with their skewed opinions.Very tactful tree, but you may as well be talking to a brick.

[scrapewatcher]

why can't these guys ever explain why they have this undying need to kill more than one buck any way? even if your not an antler worshiper. the liberal doe harvest is quite real. the sad fact of the matter is that these guy's didn't get 2 mature bucks a yr. when the obr wasn't around they got 2 yearlings spikes or 4 prongers. from big game in the united states to big game in africa or any where any wildlife biologist will tell you that a well balanced age structure in any big game species means a healtheir heard mentally and physically.

[Scott Werstler]

I'll get serious again when there is something worth debating. Or when you or one of the other degreed biologists on here answer some of the legitimate questions I've asked on deer browse and habitat improvements. Since I'm such a hack biologist myself. It's not hard to find my questions, go to my name in the Members List and click on Threads started by me. I haven't started that many.

[DeerDemon]

Woody, this is so simple that even you can understand it if you try hard enough.
First off let's set the record straight just like I did jbwhittail. I am not Woody nor cutnshoot.

Now, have I attempted to talk down to you? Then I appreacite the same courtesy.

If you can only take one buck, it is much more likely that you are going to wait for a decent one to come along. Pretty simple. In the past you would have arrowed a basket six knowing that you would have another opportunityfor a bruiser during firearms season. Now, if you take that basket six you are done for the year. The result is that you are much more likely to hold off waiting for a decent buck.
But you said only a "few" were doing that. Now which is it?

Since 58% of ALL bucks killed are killed in the opening weekend of gun season where is the passing of that "basket six" or "let him go, so he can grow"? Are not the gun hunter only always been limited to one buck?

You said this rule only affects a "few" that killed a second buck. No, that is not right it affects all two season bowhunters that might get lucky enough to kill in early bow season.. or the two season gun hunter that tags out in gun seaosn and can't hunt the late bow season for a buck.

Also, what is almost more important that saving bucks is shifting the type of buck that is harvested. Due to OBR you are seeing an older age class of deer making up a larger part of the harvest. Let em go and let em grow! Let those 1.5 year olds get another year of growth on them and the potential for shooting a bigger buck is increased substantially. Not exactly rocket science, here.
Please explain your statement better than that. As you can see by the harvest numbers of bucks, we are not saving any.Your "few" statement is very revealing.

Due to OBR you are seeing an older age class of deer making up a larger part of the harvest .

As far as the older age class, that was already happening per Jim Mitchell.

Now whom should I believe, my paid and acredited IDNR deer biologist or a poster on the net from another state?

[Scott Werstler]

If I'm fortunate enough to take a mature buck in the early bow season I'll be too drunk or hung over to hunt the firearm or late season anyway.:chillin:

How' bout them Bears anyway? Monsters of the midway again.

[Munsterlndr]

First off let's set the record straight just like I did jbwhittail. I am not Woody nor cutnshoot.

Now, have I attempted to talk down to you? Then I appreacite the same courtesy. Whatever your real moniker may be, you exhibit the same Modus Operedi as Woody, that of creating the illusion that you are actually interested in an intellectual discussion when you really have an ulterior motive. It becomes kind of tiring when you ask the same questions over and over, ignore the answers you are given and then engage in meaningless hyperbole concerning the ineffectiveness of OBR.


Please explain your statement better than that. As you can see by the harvest numbers of bucks, we are not saving any.Your "few" statement is very revealing. My comment was urging Indiana hunters not to abandon the success that has been achieved by OBR for the benefit of a few hunters who harvested two bucks. What you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge is that the impact of only being able to shoot one buck extends much farther than to the few hunters who were actually successful in their endeavor to harvest two bucks. When hunters can shoot two bucks they tend to be much less choosy on the first buck they harvest. They may never actually harvest the second buck, they just know they have the opportunity to do so. This results in lots of 1.5 year old deer being shot. If you go to OBR, hunters are going to be much more choosy about which buck to take. This means they will pass on many younger bucks that will live another year and be harvested as a much bigger buck. It also increases the chances that hunters will harvest a doe, which is beneficial to the herd. As far as saving any, OBR is saving more 1.5 year olds, that is clear from the harvest data. Until Indiana starts keeping track of the size of the herd,there is no way to compare year to year to know whether the herd is increasing, decreasing or is stabilized.



As far as the older age class, that was already happening per Jim Mitchell.

Now whom should I believe, my paid and acredited IDNR deer biologist or a poster on the net from another state?Oh really? Here is quote from Dr. Mitchell in 2002, prior to the implementation of OBR.

"I believe that this rule will not appreciably change the antlered age structure "

If the age structure was already trending up it's funny he did not point that out.

This is what he said the next year after the first year of OBR.
"In fact, the first year (of the one-buck regulation), the harvest of our 1 1/2-year-old bucks did decrease and the harvest of older bucks increased,"

Seems to contradict what you stated, don't you think?

The fact is that after reading a lot of Dr. Mitchell's views, it is clear that he has been opposed to OBR from the start and continues to oppose it. This opposition does not seem to be based on scientific grounds, as he has never published any data that would support the idea that OBR has had a negative effect on Indiana deer hunting. The head of the big game department in Michigan is also opposed to the OBR, again without having a scientific basis for doing so. In Michigan, the opposition stems from a perceived threat to revenue. I'm not sure what Dr. Mitchell's objection is but he is starting to look pretty silly when trying to explain away the success of OBR by saying those things would have happened anyway. How much credibility does a biologist have that can't even tell you how many deer there are in Indiana? I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions on that one.

[JL]

"One Bigfoot Rule"? Are you guys ever serious? Or is that a defense mechanism when you don't have an good answer?We're never serious on this site, and by the way, welcome back, DeerDemon. What happened...no, wait....let me guess. The OBR banter slowed down on HI and you're here to stir it up because you feel lost without a chance to put the OBR supporters in their place? Just wondering.

[Dean Weimer]

No soup for you!!!!!

[Dean Weimer]

What about the "bigfoot savings?" You're not saving any bigfoots with a OBFR!
Yes, but amazingly, there are way more "trophy" bigfoots out there than ever before. Are the space aliens planting these on us too?

[Dean Weimer]

The fact is that after reading a lot of Dr. Mitchell's views, it is clear that he has been opposed to OBR from the start and continues to oppose it. This opposition does not seem to be based on scientific grounds, as he has never published any data that would support the idea that OBR has had a negative effect on Indiana deer hunting. The head of the big game department in Michigan is also opposed to the OBR, again without having a scientific basis for doing so. In Michigan, the opposition stems from a perceived threat to revenue. I'm not sure what Dr. Mitchell's objection is but he is starting to look pretty silly when trying to explain away the success of OBR by saying those things would have happened anyway. How much credibility does a biologist have that can't even tell you how many deer there are in Indiana? I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions on that one.
Geee, I thought I was the only one who was seeing this.....Keep up the good work Munsterlander. What do you do for a living, if you don't mind my asking?

[Munsterlndr]

Geee, I thought I was the only one who was seeing this.....Keep up the good work Munsterlander. What do you do for a living, if you don't mind my asking?
I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.... :lol:

Just kidding. I'm self employed. My interest in research and statistics is related more to my academic background than to my employment. I have BA's in psychology and history and an MA in political history. I've owned the same small business for the past 15 years and I'm also the managing partner of a Real Estate Investment LLC.

[Dean Weimer]

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.... :lol:

Just kidding. I'm self employed. My interest in research and statistics is related more to my academic background than to my employment. I have BA's in psychology and history and an MA in political history. I've owned the same small business for the past 15 years and I'm also the managing partner of a Real Estate Investment LLC.


What about Whitetail Biology? Where'd you get your training at?

[Munsterlndr]

What about Whitetail Biology? Where'd you get your training at?
No formal training, I'm Just a compulsive reader. I don't watch TV at all except for the occasional football game. I just read a lot and absorb data. Hunting is one of my major passions ( along with woodworking) and after having read extensively about all facets of the subject for the last 20 years or so, it's kind of inevitable that some of the knowledge would rub off. Certainly not an expert, though, by any means. I know just enough to be dangerous. :lol:

[Dean Weimer]

I hear you. Truth be known, many people are very well informed these days because of all the great info. out there. I'm like you, I've read, absorbed, etc. etc. mucho info. for the last 20 years. When you're really into something you tend to pick up on it more readily. In the modern age whitetail management has grown by leaps and bounds, and, as you know, some state agencies aren't in step. Unfortunately, many agencies don't necessarily manage the herd for the sake of the deer, and/or the hunters who hunt them. It's all about the Benjamin$.

[Scott Werstler]

I don't know why Dean asked. I knew you were an armchair biologist because you make sense and actually answer a question when asked one. Weimer pay attention.

[Paul/3]

I think there is something everyone is missing and thats the number of attlerless bucks taken. I,m not sure of the numbers but from speaking with hunters that take antlerless deer 2 out of 5 our bucks. Add this to the number of people who don,t checkin there deer and use the same license over and over. I bet there are twice the number of bucks taken now then five years ago.

[Scott Werstler]

It's one here somewhere, but jbwhitetail posted what the antlerless (button) buck harvest has been. I think it has been toggling between 9,000 and 11,000 of the antlerless take each year.

[Munsterlndr]

In almost every State that I have seen statistics compiled for, the BB componant of the antlerless harvest runs around 20%. The only way to decrease this figure is through educational efforts. Explain to the guys you hunt with how to identify a Button Buck. Hold off on shooting a lone antlerless deer, it is probably a BB. If you see a group of antlerless deer don't target the tallest one, chances are it's a BB hanging out with it's family group. At the end of the day, don't lose too much sleep over the number of BB's that get whacked. This age & gender group has one of the highest natural mortality rates so some of them are going to get hit by cars or killed by predators, anyway. If you make a mistake enjoy a good meal of Veni-veal. MMMMMM! ;)

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Going to be awhile, I still have over a dozen incompleted forms from people who owe the entry money or a signed fair chase. Had a few others who wanted a measurement (and bugged me several times to measure their deer right away) and then haven't returned my calls on getting the entry stuff done. Some of these deer measure over 160 typical.

Don't want to complain, but just be honest with me up front. If you don't want it entered, I will still measure the deer, no problem. It's the ones that say they are going to, and appear excited about it, and then don't follow through that grinds on me a little. Being as anal retentive as I am, it bugs me not to have my files cleaned up going into 06.
Just venting a little. Boone & Crockett changed a few things on moose measuring and on the other forms, so they sent me a new set of scaore sheets to use in 06. I was just straightening everything up and looking at all the incomplete entrys in my brief case last night.Hay scott....You got any Numbers Yet??? seen some Posted some place else .... Just want to see the Real numbers...you the MAN...and Honest also!!!!