Any truth to these 2009 changes???

[Rafe Hollister]

A decent compromise would be a week of firearms season before Thanksgiving and another week in December. IL splits their season into a 3-day weekend in each Nov & Dec. so it can be done.

[Two Tall the Neanderthal]

The best possible change would be to get the darn gun season off the peak of the rut. The would help to stop the 96.5 percent mortality rate bucks have to weather to make it to 3.5 years old.

[Duck Me Runnin]

TT,

I havent killed a deer that sported headgear in the last 5 or 6 years. ( somewhere between 10 and 15 deer ) I really couldn't care if they scheduled rifle season to avoid the rut.

Snake,

ML in Sept. , and slickhead season in Oct ? !!! I sure the helll hope you are dead wrong about that. We have miserably warm temps in rifle season as it is. That scenario would suck anal warts.

I don't give a chit about antler restrictions, impose 'em statewide. But, trying to lure more OOS hunters, or attempting to appease you rack freaks is total bullchit !

I hope it blows up in the faces that try to hide their forking swelled heads.

[Rafe Hollister]

DMR, I'm sure that's true that you aren't a horn hunter. Neither am I. However there are plenty of folks out there that pass up a dozen does to shoot the first thing with ivory on top. I hunt(ed) with some of them. They'd rather take a 100 lb. forkhorn over a 140 lb. doe because "does are for kids". Having firearms season during the rut only makes it more possible for that to happen.

Also having antlerless season in October makes perfect sense. First of all, some bucks have already dropped their by mid-December when antlerless season currently exists. Second, and most important, a lot of bred does are being taken. If they were taken in October it is a lot less energy expended by the bucks during the rut that is currently going to waste.

Antler restrictions are working well right now. We are seeing a lot of good bucks taken that would've been killed before 3.5 yrs. I'm not a horn hunter, but a really nice rack would be great to see once in a while, and maybe I'd even take one sometimes.

[RB]

MOCraig said:
I love huge racks, and they make my head swell.

I love huge racks on the ladies....makes my head swell too.

[Two Tall the Neanderthal]

DMR, I shoot plenty of slicks... I wouldn't call myself a trophy horn hunter per say. I don't shoot small racked bucks, but If I get a chance to take an older buck a year, that's a bonus. The reason they need to move that rifle season off the rut has a lot more to do with heard balance than anything else. We have a horrible ratio of does to bucks, less intense ruts and an incredible mortality rate for all male deer. Our hunting season works hard to counter act natural deer patterns.

I've been wrong plenty in my life and I may be wrong as heck now. But I?d love to see doe seasons before regular rifle season, and have regular rifle fall after the peak of rut.

[Rafe Hollister]

RB, what grade are you in this year?

[Showme]

so let me ask this question of your opinions. TTN brought up the doe to buck ratio is out of balance. I can see his point and understand it.

My questions is, and I know there are scientist that get paid to figure this stuff out and already have a number I am sure, but does there need to be more bucks or less does to make the balance where it should be?

I mean, if you all are talking about moving the gun season off of the rut to give the bucks a better chance, but we have doe season that goes on forever anymore and endless tags in places.....what is the answer?

[Rafe Hollister]

There's such thing as "carrying capacity", which is a population, usually an approximate range, where the overall health of the deer herd will be at its best. That is, optimum production of offspring, lower transmission of disease, ideal distribution of age classes, etc. This will obviously vary from county-to-county. The best way to achieve that balance is with a well-regulated doe harvest. Since one buck can breed dozens of does, there can be a very high doe:buck ratio and every doe can be bred. However this will lead to a shallow gene pool. An ideal doe:buck ratio should be around 2:1 or so. Estimates I've seen place MO around 5:1 and that will vary by location.

If the firearm season is moved off the rut, fewer bucks will be killed. Primarily because the bucks won't be moving as much. That way not every Cletus with a gun will be out there firing at antlerz. Right now, everyone has a good chance at killing a mediocre buck. Antler restrictions and moving the rifle season back will allow more people to have a realistic chance at a good buck sometimes.

[Two Tall the Neanderthal]

I also beleive it will tempt the average hunter into taking does when they don't normally.

[Warmouth]

I see your point dabs. I have spent some time in a deer stand, and I have seen maybe 3 bucks that would be 3-4+yrs old after of the rut, maybe (that's while hunting). What everyone is hoping for is to turn into IL, IA, or WI, and have big bucks all over durring the bow season, and enough around that you still have a shot at a dandy durring gun season, whenever that would be.

With the damage tags and unlimited doe seasons, I don't think worrying about doe mortality is a big issue. There will almost always be more does than bucks. Even in nature bucks have a higher mortality than does, and they are born 50/50. The problem would be getting hunters out in Oct to take advantage of the early doe season. Those buck hunters Rafe was talking about could care less about shooting a doe, and that may cause a big disruption in the whole works.

I do think that less deer overall is better than too many. To get the age class up closer to what it would be naturally, you need to control the rubes, and that is why everyone wants the general buck season out of the rut. With that move you are already causing folks to shoot more does in the gen firearms season, or go home empty handed.

I would prefer a point restriction state wide with the current timing of the gun season, and an early Oct doe gun season. You could maybe push the gun season back a week, but that may cut into some hunting with Thanksgiving being such a big family holiday. Maybe not though, if you put the start of the gun season where the last weekend is now. That wouldn't do much for changing anything regarding gunning in the rut though.

[Showme]

I know not everyone is this way, but I would be interested to see how many mulitple buck killers there are each year. If a person bow hunts, and firearm hunts and gets drawn for a managed hunt, that is up to 4 bucks that person could kill.

I don't see a problem with the way things are now personally, we go out and shoot deer. Doesn't matter if it is a buck or doe - it is kinda like shooting a hen mallard....why do we do it? Because they taste just like the drake mallards.

I realize many people are not of the same mindset, but if there are already pretty much free reign (limited by pocket book only for the most part) on does - then I think cutting the number of bucks a year back to one no matter of the method would be your answer. I bet that would improve your chances of getting in some of the managed hunts if you could only kill one buck per year - move all of the managed hunts back past rifle season and most wouldn't hold on to their buck tags "just in case".

That, or maybe one, with the exception of the managed hunts only one buck??


I think this will happen though, especially in conjunction with tele-check. Every additional limitation put on hunters is going to increase the occurance of cheating the system.

If I was given the choice of fishing a lake where I could catch 30 bass that were 2 pounds a piece everytime I went or fishing a lake where I could catch one 9 pounder every third time I went, I am going to the lake where it is full of 2 pounders - maybe it is the ADD - but that is just me.

Six ducks per day is much better than a couple deer per year - you all should try it.

[Two Tall the Neanderthal]

Dabs, it's not so much the hunters that kill multiple bucks, it's about the gun season where the success rate is so high on bucks in general.



Here is the deal. There are about 12 days a year shooting bucks with a rifle is like killing fish in a barrel. That is the hard rut that our gun season is timed with. Move that off the rut and you've effectively cut down the number of bucks hunters will kill. Nearly the same as limiting the buck harvest, but without the regulations. The only reason every other buck shot during rifle season isn't a 3.5 year old or better is because they already killed them all last season. I'm not kidding when I state the facts that less than 5 of 100 bucks survives to 3.5 years of age due to hunting mortality alone. Listen I'm not bitching about this because I want to be some elite jackass and kill only big bucks. If that ratio comes closer into check, and people are guided "forced" to kill more does because dopeyazz bucks aren't standing everywhere, then you watch and deer hunting overall will improve. That means for doe hunters, buck hunters, bow hunters, gun hunters and everything in between.



Ruts will be more intense and longer, second ruts will be more intense, and deer won't necessarily be more prevalent, but they will be more enjoyable to hunt.

If I was given the choice of fishing a lake where I could catch 30 bass that were 2 pounds a piece everytime I went or fishing a lake where I could catch one 9 pounder every third time I went, I am going to the lake where it is full of 2 pounders - maybe it is the ADD - but that is just me.

Think of it like this, that would be like combining those two lakes to have one where you could catch 15 4-pound bass every time you went.

[Duck Me Runnin]

Warmouth,

Everyone isn't hoping to achieve Il.,Ia, blah, blah status, so that you arrow flingers have big bucks running all over during bow season. And maybe even have a few left over so that rifle hunters could have a chance at one.

That is a biased line of shitt, and exactly what I meant by my previous post. There ain't a rifle hunter out there that feels the need to help you limb benders. I know I sure as helll don't.

[Tigerhaze]

Two Tall the Neanderthal said:

Dabs, it's not so much the hunters that kill multiple bucks, it's about the gun season where the success rate is so high on bucks in general.



Here is the deal. There are about 12 days a year shooting bucks with a rifle is like killing fish in a barrel. That is the hard rut that our gun season is timed with. Move that off the rut and you've effectively cut down the number of bucks hunters will kill. Nearly the same as limiting the buck harvest, but without the regulations.

I agree with you TTN, but I just don't see MDC implementing this for the very reason you point out. Each successful gun hunter taking a buck is basically a billboard for hunting-related tourism and the economic impact that goes with it. I can't see the State wanting to take that chance of negatively impacting the gun hunting success reputation. Having said that, for once it may be good that MDC doesn't derive its operarting budget from the general assembly and maybe they'll make the right choice from a scientific/conservation standpoint instead of a political/economic one. Maybe



My freezer is full of does either way