I think its about time. When they dropped the total limit from 3 bucks to 2 bucks they only impacted the bow hunters who account for a very small percentage of the overall deer harvest in the state. It basicly had no effect on the number of bucks taken. This will make some difference, but not alot since the majority of deer hunters are gun only hunters.
One-buck proposal for the combined muzzleloader and gun seasons
- Thread starter The German
- Start Date
The ancient purpose of hunting is to obtain meat. This talk about "quality bucks" loses me. I agree with the idea that we should shoot more does for managment reasons. I don't understand the aesthetic reasons humans have cooked up to decide what is and what isn't a quality buck.
I plan on it, but with a toddler, the money isn't exactly easy to part with currently.
I'm with you there, I dont have any pride issues checking in a 60lb yearling doe, better quality meat in the freezer is what I'm after. I also liked the idea posted above about not being able to buy that second buck tag until you've checked in a doe. Sounds like a reasonable way to get those trophy hunters to harvest a few does.
I am against the proposal and I don't think if it passes it will result in a larger doe harvest. The population problem, where there is one, isn't a case of too few bucks, it's too many does, and not all areas have a population issue. I hunt in Osage Co. and, for the last few years, we see about an equal number of bucks to does, so I have no need to increase the doe harvest. In fact, until this year, we haven't taken ANY deer off the property because the buck/doe ration is fine and we haven't seen any bucks that we wanted to take.
If you limit the harvest to one buck only, lots of people will not hunt both seasons. This will result in fewer deer tags sold (lower revenue for ODWC) AND a lower doe harvest. How will the doe harvest decrease?? Lots of people are out there are hunting for a buck, they don't primarily go to shoot a doe, but will do so incidentally, so, if you take away the opportunity to shoot a second buck and they kill one during muzzleloader season, they will stay home and the doe harvest will go down.
Once again, reducing the buck limit has NO effect on those who only hunt gun season, just like the reduction from 3 bucks to 2 only affected the archery hunters, this proposed rule change will only affect the archery and muzzleloader hunters.
If you limit the harvest to one buck only, lots of people will not hunt both seasons. This will result in fewer deer tags sold (lower revenue for ODWC) AND a lower doe harvest. How will the doe harvest decrease?? Lots of people are out there are hunting for a buck, they don't primarily go to shoot a doe, but will do so incidentally, so, if you take away the opportunity to shoot a second buck and they kill one during muzzleloader season, they will stay home and the doe harvest will go down.
Once again, reducing the buck limit has NO effect on those who only hunt gun season, just like the reduction from 3 bucks to 2 only affected the archery hunters, this proposed rule change will only affect the archery and muzzleloader hunters.
it was roughly 5000 Antlered deer. Statewide that is significant enough. My guess is that it will not be very much more than 5000 bucks annually if this passes. Last year there were roughly 10,500 bucks taken during muzzle loader season. I doubt a large percentage of those hunters tagged a buck in rifle and smoke pole season. 50% would be on the high side I think.
Point restrictions are junk in a state that does not have nutrient problems. Again, if you impose a point restriction, then you will take the best genetics before they ever have a chance to mature.
Let the price of beef and groceries continue to rise and you will see an increase in doe harvest.
While you may have some valid points, it is speculation and your opinion that lots of people will not hunt both seasons, resulting in less tags and a lower doe harvest. It could have the opposite effect. There are lots of meat hunters that like a nice set of horns too, so if they can't shoot another buck, they may just as well take another doe. I can't say. The purpose of the proposal is not to increase the doe harvest, but to increase the age of the bucks taken.
