close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Indiana OBR Harvest Statistics

Discussion in 'Indiana Whitetail Hunting' started by Munsterlndr, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. I'm a numbers kind of guy and I was interested in taking a look at what kind of statistical evidence there might be to prove or disprove the benefits of the OBR. So I made a spread sheet with all of the harvest data since 1999 and broke it out into a three year non-OBR baseline and 4 years of OBR data. If you compare the averages from the baseline and the OBR years there are some interesting numbers. It looks like OBR has had the biggest impact on the Archery season which is not surprising since archers were the ones who would have used the second buck license. While archers make up a small part of the total harvest the change still has a positive impact on the overall statistics and will be good for the Indiana deer herd.

    By the way, for the purposes of this spreadsheet the early and late archery totals were combined and the firearm & muzzleloader totals were combined for each year.

    conclusions:
    1) There has been an average increase of 18% in annual doe harvest.

    2) There has been a 10% increase in annual Buck harvest.

    3) There has been a 2% increase in the percentage of does in the harvest and a corresponding 2% decrease in the percentage of Bucks that make up the harvest. This means more bucks are being protected under OBR.

    This data would indicate that OBR is helping to increase the number of does harvested and increase the percentage of does in the harvest. This has been accomplished while actually showing an increase in the annual buck harvest.

    Looking at these numbers I'm hard pressed to see why anyone would want to go back to the baseline years.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Hey Munster, Our doe harvest was liberalized back in 1996 (I think). Could you find this info. and show the good people how the age structure of our bucks began to pick up prior to the OBR inception. I've said it time and again....The tremendous increase in doe harvest actually jump started the improved age structure prior to OBR. People who aren't in favor of the OBR always point to this fact and say, "The age structure of bucks had increased prior to OBR!!"
     

  3. My source for the data was the IDNR web site and the data only goes back to 1999 on-line. My suggestion is that the people who are not satisfied with this data dig up the previous data. This looks pretty good to me! ;)
     
  4. I'm plenty satisfied with this data, but you're a better number cruncher than I am....
     
  5. Graphs we need Graphs!!!!

    Deer demon/CNS?Woody.........

    would you graph this for us? or maybe someone who knows how......... Us lowly OBR supporters aint too dang smart.....lol
     
  6. I keep hearing 6,000. That we are only saving 6,000 bucks because that is how many 2nd buck tags were filled during the two buck era. I think 6,000 (if it is a true number) is huge.

    92 counties in Indiana, take away cities and lets say it equals 90. Take away roads, water, and houses and what is left? 85 counties of habitat? 6,000/85 is 70. That means 70 deer per county get to live atleast one more year. Lets assume most counties are 10 miles x 10 miles. 100 square miles/70 is 1.42. That means we have 1 older buck per 1.42 square miles of habitat. A buck roams about 6 square miles during the rut. 6/1.42 = 4.22. That tells me there can be 4.22 bucks that are atleast 1 year older passing through my hunting area since the OBR. Anyone else looked at it this way?

    I know the overall buck harvest is the same so that means if the original 6,000 bucks made it because of the OBR the first year then those 6,000 were harvested at an older age. It should just keep compounding itself until the same 54,000 plus bucks are harvested each year, but each time more are older.

    P.S. It's a lot easier to get guys to practice QDM and pass up little bucks if they get to see one or two of these feeding in a bean field in August.
     
  7. I have to comment on a very serious note to the numbers shown.

    It has been said and proclaimed as fact that the archers have been hurt by this rule(some call it a trial) and hunters have left archery season.. New hunters are unwilling to hunt in early archery season. But when I look at the numbers something jumps out at me.......

    Early archery season hunters(and we all are just that, "hunters") are doing the managing job and enjoying the season.

    I gotta do this in my crazy way so bear with me

    1999...54% does

    2000...50% does

    2001...49% does

    Anyone see a trend here?...doe harvest falling...by archers......

    Now three years of OBR(first three years I wouldn't want to "cherry pick")

    2002...60% does

    2003...56% does

    2004...62% does

    And in 2005 IDNR allowed archers to use antlerless permits for the first year...

    Suprise........ numbers stayed the same........ 62% does.

    Funny thing is fella's the Pope & Young Record Book as well as Boone & Crockett Book had record entries from Archers in the same years as OBR..

    I'll get Paul Vice to get the numbers and I'll post them And Deer Deemon/Woody/CNS..... we can sort them so the 65% let off rule will not influence the numbers........ is that ok for you?

    Archers are willing to take does(some of them;) ) and are taking older bucks..

    I have to go look at some numbers...........:banghead3
     
  8. JB -
    What you noticed makes perfect sense. Prior to OBR during archery season the percentage of bucks that made up the archery harvest was increasing and the percentage of does was decreasing. It's pretty obvious that the fact that an archer could arrow a smaller buck and still have a license to use on a bigger buck during firearms would cause that trend. Take away the second buck license and what happens? The trend reverses itself. Guys are still going to be out bowhunting but are more likely to harvest a doe and wait for a bruiser to walk by. It's just common sense!
     
  9. HRB archery entries........

    These are archery deer over 140"

    1996...25

    1997...30

    1998...28

    1999...34

    2000...41

    2001...35

    2002...64 First year OBR.......we lost hunters .........lol

    2003...81....... we lost archery hunters....

    2004...65.... the OBR does not work and we are losing hunters.

    Folks I'm posting the numbers, funny how we see the same type numbers when we compare archery to overall harvest as far as buck harvest. seems the archers did the job and became SELECTIVE when mandated........

    Anyone see the magic year in HRB data?

    Dean why don't you get B&C data on archery kills....... be fun to see another mirror.
     
  10. I'll try Joe. Perhaps Scott can help as he has the books and I don't. Scott?
     
  11. Thanks Scooter, I've been trying to explain this without all the mathematical wizardry that you used......
     
  12. Munstrlndr

    What you have also missed was AFTER the archery hunter killed his archery buck he still had an antlerless tag to use.

    I heard it "I killed a buck with my bow, now I'll wait for a trophy with my gun"... yup sure did until the next set of antlers walked by in gun season....

    Your numbers show the tale of the tape........... we reversed the orbit of deer management.

    DeerDemon.......... did Dr Mitchell have the day off?..........LOL.

    Woody/ deerdemon/CNS.......... you can speak, or do you need the coach?
     
  13. i have a thought , why dont the indnr use this archery season to determine the fate of the obr , the way i see it the majority affected by this is the archery hunter ,and most archery hunters i know are a different breed of hunter they seem to be more dedicated , and hard working at the sport than your regular weekend warrior, , not saying anything bad about weekend hunters we are all hunters, but bowhunting takes more dedication , persistance,& will to be successful than gun hunting, so why dont the dnr put out a survey with every bow license sold & all lifetime license holders because gun hunters only arent affected by this anyway i think the majority vote would be to keep the obr. all the personal attacks going on over this issue is rediculous i personally am for the obr but will kinda be glad when this debate is over so we can all go back to being sportsman together, the more we work together the more productive we all will be . dont forget to give that extra doe to hunters for the hungry or some other worthwhile org. that is the kind of publicity our sport needs!!!! not the bickering:banghead3
     
  14. Rowdy

    Rowdy

    209
    0
    0
    ORB seems to be working to me.
     
  15. 1. I'll buy that, but what you neglected to say was that the increase didn't occur until the past two years. Why is that? Could it possibly be because that is when the DNR increased the antlerless quotas and allowed them to be used in archery season last year?

    2. We went from two bucks per multiple season hunter down to one per with a 10% increase in the number of bucks killed and this proves that the OBR was effective in protecting bucks? It seems to me that you would want the buck harvest to decrease not increase in order to prove the rule change was protecting bucks.

    3.
    LOL, no it simply means that more does than bucks are being killed. See #'s 1 & 2.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
2012 DNR Harvest Summary Report (Indiana) Indiana Whitetail Hunting Oct 8, 2013
12,594 Turkeys were harvested this Spring in Indiana. Indiana Turkey Hunting Jun 27, 2012