Deer gun season to possibly increase in 2020.

[retrieverman]

@retrieverman I think that you being a landowner and having to pay for non-resident fees is nuts. We don't even need the hunting license if we are on our own property. I know it says that being a resident of another state and owning real property here doesn't make you a resident but it just seems wrong to me. Property records are legal records and should suffice for hunting regs. This law needs to be changed IMO.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it is what it is.

Agree, but there will need to be a system of checks. Not to keep bringing up the way Kansas does things, but they just did a huge investigation over the last couple of years busting "NR landowners" who claimed to own land, etc, etc so they could get the cheap tag(s). NR landowner/tenant must own at 80 acres that produces either crop or livestock income and they can only hunt that property under that cheaper NR landowner tag, otherwise they have to do the NR drawing and spend the $530ish if they want to hunt somewhere else in the state. It went unchecked for a long time and when it did get checked, lot's of folks got busted in that deal.

Hmmmm...I’ve never thought about it, but I guess selling my OK land and buying in KS is an option.

 

[Parks 788]

Funny how this topic always comes up about changes to the deer hunting regs, it always devolves into the NR hunters are the cause of most of the ills with regards to Oklahoma deer hunting.

 

[Okie4570]

Funny how this topic always comes up about changes to the deer hunting regs, it always devolves into the NR hunters are the cause of most of the ills with regards to Oklahoma deer hunting.

If the commissioners approve it based on the influence of outfitters, and some of the comments I've seen on FB about Texas companies not wanting cooperates leases in OK because the rifle season has been too short is true, then there may be some merit to it.

 

[Parks 788]

Nope! Everyone that hunts in the state of OK has an affect on the deer population. Some positive and some negative. So, how many hunters from TX are actually coming up to OK to hunt and where are these TX hunters actually hunting? Yeah, there may be some impact in some small areas of the state but you cant blame these TX or other out of state hunters for the ills of OK deer hunting in general nor should you punish NR hunters that may be hunting in the Northern part of the state.

As soon as you bring in the antler restrictions debate into the equation and how that could positively affect the deer herd you essentially pointed out that Oklahoma (residents) hunters are the problem. For years, I've seen pics of locals during hunting season with grown men and women pictured with fork horns and other young bucks. Both recent and old pictures from years ago. Far more resident hunters are taking this type of deer than any NR hunters.

You all threw a fit 10 years ago when the buck limit went from three deer to one deer. Hell, at this time, I'm all for a one buck limit. I only hunt rifle season anyways. Down the road i'll hunt two of the three seasons once I move. What I think makes the most sense at this time, if action is truly needed would be antler restrictions. Give it 10 years and with a total point minimum of 6 points or minimum of 4 points on a side if not symmetrical. Or, if people complain too much then if you allow two bucks in a season then you have a first buck minimum of 6 points then your second buck must be 8 points. If you are a meat hunter then shoot a couple of does.

 

[Okie4570]

Nope! Everyone that hunts in the state of OK has an affect on the deer population. Some positive and some negative. So, how many hunters from TX are actually coming up to OK to hunt and where are these TX hunters actually hunting? Yeah, there may be some impact in some small areas of the state but you cant blame these TX or other out of state hunters for the ills of OK deer hunting in general nor should you punish NR hunters that may be hunting in the Northern part of the state.

As soon as you bring in the antler restrictions debate into the equation and how that could positively affect the deer herd you essentially pointed out that Oklahoma (residents) hunters are the problem. For years, I've seen pics of locals during hunting season with grown men and women pictured with fork horns and other young bucks. Both recent and old pictures from years ago. Far more resident hunters are taking this type of deer than any NR hunters.

You all threw a fit 10 years ago when the buck limit went from three deer to one deer. Hell, at this time, I'm all for a one buck limit. I only hunt rifle season anyways. Down the road i'll hunt two of the three seasons once I move. What I think makes the most sense at this time, if action is truly needed would be antler restrictions. Give it 10 years and with a total point minimum of 6 points or minimum of 4 points on a side if not symmetrical. Or, if people complain too much then if you allow two bucks in a season then you have a first buck minimum of 6 points then your second buck must be 8 points. If you are a meat hunter then shoot a couple of does.

-My first reply to your comment starts with "If", so yep everything I said could be valid
-Nowhere did I say that everyone hunting deer isn't a factor, resident or NR
-SE and SW Oklahoma is full of Texas hunters and Texas leases, that's common knowledge and not a secret if you live here. Some KS hunters come down here to hunt, it's cheap.
-You're missing the whole point, Oklahoma isn't "punishing NR hunters" by any means now, it's cheap to hunt here.
-Antler restriction is only a problem for Oklahoma hunters that want to(or will) shoot small bucks
-It makes perfect sense that a someone paying for a NR tag won't shoot a small buck, nobody here is saying otherwise......
-"You all threw a fit"..... nope, I've always been a one buck proponent, still practice this on my own, yes many of the fork horn hunters threw a fit I'm sure
- IMO the some of the wildlife commissioners seem to have personal interests other than what the majority of the constituents or biologists are in favor of, I don't think any public "outcry" makes any difference, as they're not an elected position.
- Your last sentence is the head scratcher issue for Oklahoma hunters, and even the ODWC asked on their FB page. "What are the reasons that Oklahoma hunters don't shoot more does". the answers were all over the board, but the most common answer is that they shoot they first thing that walks up..............which is usually young bucks at nearly every corn pile or feeder. Most of the guys/gals I know that don't have a LTHL only buy a buck tag.

There's many factors, everyone's not going to approve no matter what direction they go, I just hate to see "lobbying" influence a non elected position that affects everyone.

 

[Parks 788]

-You're missing the whole point, Oklahoma isn't "punishing NR hunters" by any means now, it's cheap to hunt here.

Cheap by whose or what standard? $300 to hunt mediocre deer is not cheap. If state-wide, Oklahoma was consistently producing 150-180 class bucks then sure, that would be cheap. If NR fees are cheap then maybe the resident license and tags should be increased significantly. Nothing worse than a resident hunter paying next to nothing to hunt then being an jackass and shooting a fork horn. Sort of a double whammy.

What is the end game or what does the ODWC want out of a possible extended deer gun season? What is their objective overall? Major increase of buck and doe populations state wide? Better quality bucks? More money for overall projects and improvement of wildlife habitat?

 

[dennishoddy]

KS takes care of it's NR landowners a little better than OK, and charges more for NR hunters that aren't landowners. I've seen several times already where KS guys have their buck already for the season and are looking for OK places to hunt so they can take another buck..............

Ok gun season opens up a week before Ks gun season if it's still the way it used to be. The northern WMA's are pretty much full of Ks hunters during that time. Kaw lake is predominantly Ks hunters if one drives around and looks at vehicle tags.

In defense of retrieverman, I'd think a Tx landowner of Okla ground should get some sort of break. My question is that do Oklahoma's neighbors other than KS give a break to nonresident landowners in their states that reside in Oklahoma?
What does Ks do? Edit: I see this last sentence answered.

My grandkids were Ok residents when born, but as Tx residents now. I have to pay non-resident fees to take them fishing when they come to visit.

 

[retrieverman]

Ok gun season opens up a week before Ks gun season if it's still the way it used to be. The northern WMA's are pretty much full of Ks hunters during that time. Kaw lake is predominantly Ks hunters if one drives around and looks at vehicle tags.

In defense of retrieverman, I'd think a Tx landowner of Okla ground should get some sort of break. My question is that do Oklahoma's neighbors other than KS give a break to nonresident landowners in their states that reside in Oklahoma?
What does Ks do?

My grandkids were Ok residents when born, but as Tx residents now. I have to pay non-resident fees to take them fishing when they come to visit.

Texas ain’t giving anybody a break on license fees just because they own property in TX, and OK ain’t going to either. Y’all can get that out of your head right now.

As far as the proposed rule changes, I’m a conspiracy theorist in that I believe ANY changes the ODWC (or TX or KS or...) makes is going to be done to benefit some special interest group. Personally, I don’t believe biology is as big of a factor as revenue in these decisions.

 

[dennishoddy]

I don’t believe biology is as big of a factor as revenue in these decisions.

Your exactly correct. The governor wants to promote tourism for the tax money on everything. Fishing was his first initiative and Hunting won't be far behind.
The Cervid deer farming operations have a huge influence on our hunting commissioners. I mistakenly joined their lobby group years ago when they first came to Ok. One meeting and I was done. Guess where they came from? Revenue is #1 in the eyes of some commissioners as political appointees.
You don't see any of us common folk ever get nominated for that position.
IMHO, the commision should consist of 50% non-political appointees. Common folk that are hunters. How that would happen is open for debate, but it never will happen in reality.

 

[Okie4570]

Cheap by whose or what standard? $300 to hunt mediocre deer is not cheap. If state-wide, Oklahoma was consistently producing 150-180 class bucks then sure, that would be cheap. If NR fees are cheap then maybe the resident license and tags should be increased significantly. Nothing worse than a resident hunter paying next to nothing to hunt then being an jackass and shooting a fork horn. Sort of a double whammy.

What is the end game or what does the ODWC want out of a possible extended deer gun season? What is their objective overall? Major increase of buck and doe populations state wide? Better quality bucks? More money for overall projects and improvement of wildlife habitat?

Agreed cost is relative, but OK is cheap in comparison to surrounding states. And the overall objective seems to be kill more doe, but I'm not sure I've actually seen that stated.

Ok gun season opens up a week before Ks gun season if it's still the way it used to be. The northern WMA's are pretty much full of Ks hunters during that time. Kaw lake is predominantly Ks hunters if one drives around and looks at vehicle tags.

In defense of retrieverman, I'd think a Tx landowner of Okla ground should get some sort of break. My question is that do Oklahoma's neighbors other than KS give a break to nonresident landowners in their states that reside in Oklahoma?
What does Ks do? Edit: I see this last sentence answered.

My grandkids were Ok residents when born, but as Tx residents now. I have to pay non-resident fees to take them fishing when they come to visit.

KS guys talk about hunting Kaw all the time on the KS FB pages.

Texas ain’t giving anybody a break on license fees just because they own property in TX, and OK ain’t going to either. Y’all can get that out of your head right now.

As far as the proposed rule changes, I’m a conspiracy theorist in that I believe ANY changes the ODWC (or TX or KS or...) makes is going to be done to benefit some special interest group. Personally, I don’t believe biology is as big of a factor as revenue in these decisions.

Bingo......

Your exactly correct. The governor wants to promote tourism for the tax money on everything. Fishing was his first initiative and Hunting won't be far behind.
The Cervid deer farming operations have a huge influence on our hunting commissioners. I mistakenly joined their lobby group years ago when they first came to Ok. One meeting and I was done. Guess where they came from?
Revenue is #1 in the eyes of some commissioners as political appointees.
You don't see any of us common folk ever get nominated for that position.
IMHO, the commision should consist of 50% non-political appointees. Common folk that are hunters. How that would happen is open for debate, but it never will happen in reality.

I know you can't always believe what you read on the internet but, the theme here seems to be somewhat consistent everywhere..........