Missouri Whitetails - Your Missouri Hunting Resource banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In my current career, one of the things we strive to do is "manage by metrics" and not by "gut feel".

With that in mind, and in the spirit of all the recent regulation/APR threads on here, I propose that MDC manages via simple metrics.

And this is how I propose they do it....

Step 1: Eliminate the "Any Deer" tag.

Step 2: Based on current doe population and desired doe population, offer for sale EXACTLY that many Doe Tags. Even better, make doe tags "county based" so we can target at a county level, not a state level. Keep the price reasonable to allow folks the ability to shoot many does and/or buy tags for different counties they would like to hunt.

Step 3: Institute a new Buck Tag. It would be good for one buck statewide, any method you choose. If we really have so few bucks, why should you be able to shoot more than one per year? And, if you can only shoot one per year, won't you be a LITTLE more selective WITHOUT forcing APR's? As with the doe tags, only so many of these will be for sale each year based on the desired doe to buck ratio, desired total deer population, etc. Additionally, buck tags will be somewhat pricier....say $40. But, if unused, they can be turned in for a "FREE" tag the following year. Another couple of incentives to let the little ones walk.

Real simple...no counting points....eliminates worrying about "mistakes"....AND does NOT infringe on how anyone chooses to hunt.

So....who wants to start the CAF4 for KING CONSERVATION AGENT band wagon? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Not a bad plan in general, but could use some tweaking as mentioned by Gutpile.

As noted with regards to the limited # of doe tags, doe harvests certainly need to be regulated at a more precise level than state or even region wide. But allowing only a certain # per county will inevitably lead to a made rush for "Antlerless Tag" as indicated by Gutpile and you can be assured that those people who hunt multiple counties or even think of hunting multiple counties would buy a tag juts to have it and many never even fill them or attempt to fill them.

With a little more work it could be a viable proposition though and I would not mind the 1 buck any method at all.

Booner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
I think the beef of the theory is just purely a reduction in the number of buck tags issued and more antlerless only tags issued. I'm not sure how much impact there would be on the buck harvest, though. Granted, if you bow hunt, you would have 1 buck tag to work with versus 3. But for rifle hunters only, there wouldn't really be any difference. Rifle season accounts for most of the deer killed anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
i like a lot of what you said , but the conservation dept is not goin to go for the return an unused tag for a free one. There are too many non filled tags each year that would cut into their profits if they did this. maybe if you had an unfilled one year, it can roll over and the next year you have two. this would make hunters maybe pass a years worth of little bucks to build their numbers they can take. So they can have one in rifle, then bow, or muzzle loader.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
As for the rush towards doe tags. Three possible "tweaks". (1) Allow a hunter to purchase doe tags based upon his past reported success. This would encourage accurate checking and also the filling of these doe tags. (2) Legally allow party hunting. This would make it much more likely that exactly the number of does targeted for harvest would be harvested. (3) Only sell some portion of the desired doe tags before the season and allow the purchase of additional doe tags as you check in a doe.

As for the landowner permits, these would have to be accounted for before offering permits to the general public. Part of the whole equation so to speak.

As for the return of unused Buck Permits. There would be NO refunding of money, just the ability to use it in a following year. Hence the reason they cost more. I personally would be less likely to use a tag that cost some multiple more than a doe tag on a small buck if I knew I could just tuck it in my vest for next year.
 

·
Cooler Semi-Elitist
Joined
·
4,906 Posts
I like your responses to our responses.:eek: I think their would be a little bit of a headache in the earn-a-tag approach with telecheck. That is you kill a deer, check it, go to buy a tag at wally mart and the system is not yet updated so you can't buy your next tag etc...

Also, allowing party hunting in light of your number one would certainly favor those who party hunt...I bought 50 tags, I have 20 people hunting on those next year I can again get an outrageous number of tags and so one.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Gutpile...not sure if you are serious or dripping with sarcasm. ;)

Anyhow....I think it would be a modified earn a tag. Some way to keep all tickets from being purchased by a select few but also allow/encourage people to actually use them.

I am not completely sold on party hunting, especially without having some type of "tag cap" in place for individuals. Maybe even a "modified party hunting" where you could submit your "party" the same way you apply for managed hunts. In other words....in my case....just myself, my hunting partner, the landowners and a couple others would be in our party and able to telecheck any of the other's tags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
WOW....that modified party hunting is a stroke of genius...

...someone appoint me KING now. :D

Seriously, we all know that party hunting occurs in many cases anyhow. By implementing what I proposed, there would be no "illegal" ramifications of it. Most of these parties hunt certain properties anyhow and this would help encourage filling the tags that were sold based on desired kill (i.e.: micro QDM as many on here want already), AND, the pre-registering of parties is another "thread" that could be used for game law enforcement, metrics, etc.

Dang....sometimes I amaze myself. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,683 Posts
I love the idea of the one buck tag costing more so it can be used the next year, that would encouarge guys to let the little ones walk cuz you will still have that tag nexy year. I would make it a possible"2 year permit" If you dont kill the first year you can use it the next, but thats all then you purchase a new "2 year permit"

As for the doe tags i like that too but i want to be able to kill at least 2 with both bow and rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Ok I like this idea, but lets add a few more regulation, oh like only allow a landowners to get a buck tag if he or she allows a hunter or hunters to hunt his or her land off a list of hunters that the MDC has that are looking for a place to hunt and it cannot be someone that the land owner knows, it has to be a total stranger, now that would be great, if the landowner does not want to go for it then he or she and anyone else in his household that wants to hunt bucks on the property would have to purchase that same $40 buck tag to, heck lets just do away with the free landowner tags all togther the MDC need all the money it can get. oh and shotguns with slugs or ML sounds good to.:dancin:
 

·
Former Chicken Man
Joined
·
20,390 Posts
Originally posted by blevely
What's party hunting?
If you have four guys hunting together, each with three tags, that's that's twelve deer that can be taken. It doesn't matter which of you shoot them. One guy could shoot eight, another guy shoot one, and another guy shoot three. :cheers:
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
5,631 Posts
I think it sucks and it's too complicated.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top