Interesting logic
- Thread starter Hedgelj
- Start date
I've been to the big buck banquets. I won't go back for my own recognition. I probably won't enter another buck unless it meets B&C. If I shoot additional B&C I probably won't enter them.
I share this to say: I think the numbers will always be a bit off. Lots of guys (many in this forum) who simply don't care to enter their bucks. I suppose every state is that way. I also believe deer densities and hunter densities vary greatly state to state. It would be really hard to quantify the "best deer hunting state". You can't come up with that title based on entries.
I share this to say: I think the numbers will always be a bit off. Lots of guys (many in this forum) who simply don't care to enter their bucks. I suppose every state is that way. I also believe deer densities and hunter densities vary greatly state to state. It would be really hard to quantify the "best deer hunting state". You can't come up with that title based on entries.
I’m confused. Is there a question? My interpretation is that Rex is saying Ohio is one of the best states for deer hunting, regardless of what others point to as “faults” in our current regulations. And I would completely agree with him.
This is what i read it as. He was being polite about telling people to quit bitching.
whitetailjunky3
Junior Member
- 983
- 109
Nobody wants to be number 2 that just means we are the first losers. lol. Honestly just my opinion I think we need to go to a draw system like Iowa for non residents. It’s crazy how many places a year locals loose to non residents with deep pockets that know money talks. I also think we should go to earn a buck for a few years and see what that does to the caliber of bucks running around. Just my own 2 cents.
JARHEAD
Active Member
I've never been to a banquet despite having 3 deer that I expect would hit the booner category. I suspect their are many more like me in other states.
JARHEAD
Active Member
I used to try to kill the biggest deer I could find. Just for me. Now I just try to fill the freezer.
JARHEAD
Active Member
I guess it's just maturing as a hunter or as a person.
Yes he's stating that were that good.
But i think the argument fails if you accept what is and don't argue what could be if the focus was on a quality deer herd (and the definition of quality varies from individual to individual).
Personally i think our here is not being managed for any indicators other than a lower total number. I think we have exceptional bucks in spite of the "management" and think that if we were to manage for quality we would be better.
That also leads to the debate over does a bigger buck lead to a better hunt? can't eat them and we have multiple threads over what negatives big buck hunters have done in recent and not so recent history.
So
just a debate
I've filled my freezer every year since 2010 and that makes me happy.
When I look at those numbers I think I should try hunting Kentucky and Indiana.
Close by and over the counter tags, plus there is also turkey hunting in the spring if you already have a license. I have hunted Kentucky many times for turkey always on public land and there is always plenty of deer sign .
Or maybe TOO should have an out of state get together, camp and hunt.
Close by and over the counter tags, plus there is also turkey hunting in the spring if you already have a license. I have hunted Kentucky many times for turkey always on public land and there is always plenty of deer sign .
Or maybe TOO should have an out of state get together, camp and hunt.
Problem is, you are catering to trophy hunting. As if this isnt turning fast towards "pay to play". In my area I have already seen what weeding out the best of the best genetics does. Leave it alone, its working for everyone right now.
Edit: that is if your concern here is about antler size.
Edit: that is if your concern here is about antler size.
As a marketing guy by education, you can make the #s say whatever you want them to say. Sure, we're #2, but what if that means the entire country has lost 20 net inches on average across book buck entries, or we're killing 20% less qualifying bucks? In other words, the entire country is moving in tbe wrong direction and I guess it's cool to be #2, but if today's #2 was 2010s #7, I don't necessarily think that's a good thing.
I'm speculating a little without digging up the data, but anecdotally, I believe this is the case. Here's another analogy: Is it better to be #2 in the SEC or #2 in the SWAC? Sure, you're #2 either way, but one is prestigious and the other not so much. In my opinion, being #2 today is not what it would have been in the early 2000s and I think that's the measuring stick many, myself included, are using to measure their satisfaction or frustration with today's herd.
Mike has a point, but it's oversimplified for my liking. If you've been hunting for more than 20 years in Ohio, I think you have a case to complain and if I were making mine, it would be to ban baiting and move to a NR lottery for non-landowners.
I'm speculating a little without digging up the data, but anecdotally, I believe this is the case. Here's another analogy: Is it better to be #2 in the SEC or #2 in the SWAC? Sure, you're #2 either way, but one is prestigious and the other not so much. In my opinion, being #2 today is not what it would have been in the early 2000s and I think that's the measuring stick many, myself included, are using to measure their satisfaction or frustration with today's herd.
Mike has a point, but it's oversimplified for my liking. If you've been hunting for more than 20 years in Ohio, I think you have a case to complain and if I were making mine, it would be to ban baiting and move to a NR lottery for non-landowners.
We are talking about Boone and Crockett class bucks. Lets just look at it for what it really is. 99 percent of hunters will never even see a true Booner in their lifetime let alone harvest one. A 140 to 155 inch buck is a real trophy to most people.
I agree and would say this is the baseline for my frustration with the current state of affairs. If we go back 10+ years ago, there were more 140-160" deer than there are now. At least for me and I'd expect a lot of guys would agree. What you're saying is a great distinction within, or to your point, outside of the data Mike presented. We're unraveling a complex onion when attempting to find a root cause, but I think it's fair to say that despite our #2 ranking, Ohio is on the backside of the quality curve.
So this is pretty interesting. What really IS the metric for ranking where we're at with deer hunting quality? Is it the number of 170+ inch book entries, or is it the number of 140+ inch book entries? If it's 170+, then why? And if that relative number is declining, say compared to 10-20 years ago, then what is causing the decline? Is it baiting, crossbows, non-resident hunters, cost of tags, or a deer population that's too high, or a combination of these? After all that, is it simply a debate and criticism that's based on one hunting cohort's perspective (those who consider "quality" as a reflection of the number of Booner entries)? What if another cohort's perspective is that Ohio is current at its peak for deer hunting quality? Who do we cater to?