Missouri Whitetails - Your Missouri Hunting Resource banner

Missouri Department of Conservation proposes adjusting permit prices, and wants public input

3307 Views 127 Replies 40 Participants Last post by  Double lung central
Missouri Department of Conservation proposes adjusting permit prices, and wants public input

Missouri Department of Conservation Sign


The Missouri Department of Conservation is proposing adjusting prices for most hunting, fishing, trapping, and commercial permits to keep up with rising costs of goods and services it uses to manage its more than 1,000 conservation areas along with nature centers, shooting ranges, fish hatcheries, and other facilities.
MDC received initial approval on the proposed permit price adjustments from the Missouri Conservation Commission at the Commission’s May 19 open meeting at City Hall in Washington, Mo.
Missouri is home to more than 1 million anglers, 500,000 hunters, and several thousand trappers. MDC issues nearly 2.6 million hunting, fishing, and trapping permits each year. Most MDC permit prices have remained the same for the past 20 years while costs for goods and services have increased significantly since then.
“In early 2003, the price of a resident firearms deer permit was $17 and the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas was $1.42,” explained MDC Director Sara Parker Pauley. “Jump ahead two decades to May 2023 when the cost of a resident firearms deer permit is still $17 while the cost of a gallon of gas is about $3.30. That cost increase adds up considering MDC purchased nearly 908,000 gallons of gas in 2022 to run vehicles and equipment.”
Pauley added that, on average, most resident hunting and fishing permit prices would be adjusted by about $1.
“Compared to other states, Missouri permit prices are in the middle-to-lower end of the scale and would still be a bargain,” she said. “The average price of a resident firearm deer permit for surrounding states is $54 compared to Missouri’s proposed price of $18.
Additional revenue from permit sales will help MDC maintain and improve its nationally recognized programs and services for hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers, and others. Conservation efforts supported by revenue from permit sales include:​
  • Maintaining and improving nine fish hatcheries around the state that raise and stock more than 7 million fish annually for public fishing – including about 1.3 million trout at five hatcheries.
  • Maintaining and improving more than 70 public shooting ranges around the state.
  • Ongoing habitat work on nearly 1,000 conservation areas, including 15 intensively managed wetlands for public hunting and wildlife watching.
  • Expansion of popular youth offerings such as the Missouri Archery in the Schools Program, which has reached more than 200,000 young archers at nearly 700 Missouri schools, and the Discover Nature Schools Program, which helps more than 87,000 Missouri students each year at more than 700 schools around the state learn about and connect with Missouri outdoors.
  • Helping more than 24,000 landowners create and maintain habitat for wildlife.
  • Research on the health and sustainability of deer, turkey, quail, waterfowl, songbirds, fish, bears, elk, and other species.
  • Evaluation of the effectiveness of harvest regulations for fish and wildlife game species and understanding resource-user preferences.
  • Restoration, monitoring, and protection of imperiled and endangered species and habitats.
  • Removal of invasive species that threaten the health of native species and habitats.
  • Maintaining and improving 15 nature and interpretative centers around the state.
Pauley added that most Missourians are generally familiar with some of the work MDC does, but there are new challenges — with added costs.
“In addition to everything we offer and the work we are known for, we have new and expensive challenges,” she said. “Our staff are dealing with more and new invasive species and wildlife disease outbreaks. And the costs of many things we must buy regularly keep going up, from fuel to fish food.”
Some of the proposed permit price increases are:​
  • The price of a resident hunting and fishing permit would go from $19 to $20.50. The average price for surrounding states is $42.47.
  • The price of a resident fishing permit would go from $12 to $13. The average price for surrounding states is $23.
  • The price of a resident small game hunting permit would go from $10 to $10.50. The average price for surrounding states is $26.57.
  • The price of a resident trapping permit would go from$10 to $11. The average price for surrounding states is $29.38.
  • The price of a resident spring turkey permit would go from $17 to $18. The average price for surrounding states is $47.69
  • The price of a resident firearm deer permit would go from $17 to $18. The average price for surrounding states is $54.06.
  • The price of a resident antlerless deer permit would go from $7 to $7.50. The average price for surrounding states is $24.21.
  • The price of a youth resident antlerless deer permit would go from $7 to $7.50. The average price for surrounding states is $24.21.
  • Those under 16 and over 65 years of age will still get no-cost small-game hunting permits and no-cost fishing permits.
For more information on the proposed permit price adjustments, including a complete list of permits, current and proposed prices, average prices of similar permits for surrounding states, the last year the permit prices were raised, and other information, visit the MDC website at this link.
Permit sales account for about 17 percent of MDC’s annual revenue. Other significant revenue sources for MDC include the Conservation Sales Tax at about 62 percent and federal reimbursements at about 15 percent of total MDC revenue. Sales and rentals, interest, and other sources make up the remaining 6 percent of MDC revenue. MDC receives no funds through fines from tickets or citations, and no funding from the state’s general revenue funds. For more information, read the MDC Annual Review for Fiscal Year 2022 in the January 2023 issue of the Missouri Conservationist online at this link.
MDC will next seek public comments about its proposed permit price adjustments.​
See less See more
61 - 80 of 128 Posts
Or just leave alone cause it’s perfectly fine how it is and the government making more money is a stupid idea in every aspect of life including hunting
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I really don't have much of a problem with NRs around my property in Benton County. I like the resident landowner tags. Last year we only took one buck that was during youth season. Agreed to layoff bucks as we had taken several mature bucks previous 3 years.For 40years I purchased NR landowner permits. Even today I usually endup buying a resident archery tag to hunt son-in-laws family farms in NC MO. Have to admit when I lived in KS hated paying the NR Landowner fee. Looking back it was really relatively cheap.
Recall back in early 70s when they first liberalized doe permits it was crazy in Putnam County. The hunters from Iowa flocked to county fo several years. They shot the hell out deer. My dad was so PO. Sure enough started to see decline in the herd for awhile. Looking back I am sure it was part of MDCs master plan to reduce herd.
Think APRs help control killing of bucks but no doubt many NRs will not lay off younger bucks if they are legal. This has to have an effect on mature buck numbers. Also use up their doe tags. Most are not gonna eat the tag.
Doesn't KS have a 1 buck rule? I would be in favor of that for NRs either during archery season or rifle season. Also increase in tag fees for NRs not out of line. As many have stated our NR tags are dirt cheap compared to many other states.
I agree, NR tags are cheap, and 1 buck rule for NR is fine with me too. However, If you expect the deer herd to improve dramatically by addressing the NR harvest with 22k tags sold vs 288k resident tags, I think you're kidding yourself. A big issue is trigger control for improving big buck population and that's a problem for NR and Res alike.

I don't think you can get a state wide movement of the gun season out of the rut, however, I think that is the number 1 reason for the imbalanced age structure in Mo. Honestly I'd try to get the MDC to approve a subset of counties to approve a gun season later in the year as a trial. I think they'd be more open to doing something like that for a test. I'd like to see the northern 1/3 of the state counties test a Dec gun season for 5 years and a 1 buck rule annually per person for those counties. Give a bonus doe tag if they (MDC) wants pop control per tag.
If that hasn't hit a nerve yet, let's face it, Res tags are cheap as well, you guys beechen about a $1-$3 increase, lol. I know what you're going to say "we have the 1/8% sales tax too". Last I checked, the average cost to a Mo resident for that tax was $24 a year. So in essence you're paying $41 for multiple deers tag. What's the surrounding states charge for Res deer tags? I know in Nebr it's more than than $41 since you also have to buy a habitat stamp with your deer tag and you only get to harvest 1 deer. The average price of a resident firearm deer permit for surrounding states is $54.
How much conviction do you have in improving the "age structure", only those ideas that impact others, or all ideas that may impact you as well?
Sounds like a lot of you want to improve the hunting in Mo, but not change what the Res can harvest off 1 tag, but that's where another big impact would be made. I wish you luck, but I think some of you are in an echo chamber with flawed assumptions and beliefs. Northern Mo could be as good as Iowa in terms of Big Bucks, but it would require sacrifice from everyone if you want to show significant progress in a short period of time (5 years). In the end I think everybody would be happier, but you have to convince the MDC and that's likely no small task, because I think the "improve the age structure" movement is in the minority. And I believe, as soon as you are unwilling to show your conviction to the cause, you'll lost credibility because I don't think it shows the seriousness of your effort because I'd assume most of the 'improve the age structure' hunters are also bow hunters. People who rifle hunt only would see this as unfair - the bow hunters get to chase and shoot big bucks during the rut and then they get to rifle hunt for another buck during rifle and 'we rifle only hunters' get forked. . Does anyone doubt that going to 1 buck harvest in those selected counties for everyone AND pushing rifle to Dec wouldn't yield the fastest results? In 3 years it'd look like you were hunting Iowa IF the right counties were selected for the trial.
I have no dog in this fight - while I am a NR Landowner since 2009, I haven't hunted Mo for the last 2 years and have no current plans to hunt anytime in the near future. I think I'm being fairly objective at this point. I kinda threw this response together, but I think the jest of my argument was made. Make a proposal, show you're willing to sacrifice too, otherwise, don't pretend it's for everyone because it'll appear you're just forking over rifle hunters. In that case, the rifle hunters might just propose then that No One should get to hunt the rut. Fair is fair they might say, and honestly, they might have a point. .02
Blast away.....
See less See more
I agree, NR tags are cheap, and 1 buck rule for NR is fine with me too. However, If you expect the deer herd to improve dramatically by addressing the NR harvest with 22k tags sold vs 288k resident tags, I think you're kidding yourself. A big issue is trigger control for improving big buck population and that's a problem for NR and Res alike.

I don't think you can get a state wide movement of the gun season out of the rut, however, I think that is the number 1 reason for the imbalanced age structure in Mo. Honestly I'd try to get the MDC to approve a subset of counties to approve a gun season later in the year as a trial. I think they'd be more open to doing something like that for a test. I'd like to see the northern 1/3 of the state counties test a Dec gun season for 5 years and a 1 buck rule annually per person for those counties. Give a bonus doe tag if they (MDC) wants pop control per tag.
If that hasn't hit a nerve yet, let's face it, Res tags are cheap as well, you guys beechen about a $1-$3 increase, lol. I know what you're going to say "we have the 1/8% sales tax too". Last I checked, the average cost to a Mo resident for that tax was $24 a year. So in essence you're paying $41 for multiple deers tag. What's the surrounding states charge for Res deer tags? I know in Nebr it's more than than $41 since you also have to buy a habitat stamp with your deer tag and you only get to harvest 1 deer. The average price of a resident firearm deer permit for surrounding states is $54.
How much conviction do you have in improving the "age structure", only those ideas that impact others, or all ideas that may impact you as well?
Sounds like a lot of you want to improve the hunting in Mo, but not change what the Res can harvest off 1 tag, but that's where another big impact would be made. I wish you luck, but I think some of you are in an echo chamber with flawed assumptions and beliefs. Northern Mo could be as good as Iowa in terms of Big Bucks, but it would require sacrifice from everyone if you want to show significant progress in a short period of time (5 years). In the end I think everybody would be happier, but you have to convince the MDC and that's likely no small task, because I think the "improve the age structure" movement is in the minority. And I believe, as soon as you are unwilling to show your conviction to the cause, you'll lost credibility because I don't think it shows the seriousness of your effort because I'd assume most of the 'improve the age structure' hunters are also bow hunters. People who rifle hunt only would see this as unfair - the bow hunters get to chase and shoot big bucks during the rut and then they get to rifle hunt for another buck during rifle and 'we rifle only hunters' get forked. . Does anyone doubt that going to 1 buck harvest in those selected counties for everyone AND pushing rifle to Dec wouldn't yield the fastest results? In 3 years it'd look like you were hunting Iowa IF the right counties were selected for the trial.
I have no dog in this fight - while I am a NR Landowner since 2009, I haven't hunted Mo for the last 2 years and have no current plans to hunt anytime in the near future. I think I'm being fairly objective at this point. I kinda threw this response together, but I think the jest of my argument was made. Make a proposal, show you're willing to sacrifice too, otherwise, don't pretend it's for everyone because it'll appear you're just forking over rifle hunters. In that case, the rifle hunters might just propose then that No One should get to hunt the rut. Fair is fair they might say, and honestly, they might have a point. .02
Blast away.....
Is IL a OBR, is Iowa OBR, heck residents there can shoot two with firearms!!!

fierarms hunters that don't archery hunt have it easy now, so that is a lame excuse for them!

I agree that OBR and december season would be better than just one, but seeing how a couple neighboring states have 2 bucks max and late season and way better age class I would be more incline for mix....as opposed to further taking opportunity form the true archery hunters!
I agree, NR tags are cheap, and 1 buck rule for NR is fine with me too. However, If you expect the deer herd to improve dramatically by addressing the NR harvest with 22k tags sold vs 288k resident tags, I think you're kidding yourself. A big issue is trigger control for improving big buck population and that's a problem for NR and Res alike.

I don't think you can get a state wide movement of the gun season out of the rut, however, I think that is the number 1 reason for the imbalanced age structure in Mo. Honestly I'd try to get the MDC to approve a subset of counties to approve a gun season later in the year as a trial. I think they'd be more open to doing something like that for a test. I'd like to see the northern 1/3 of the state counties test a Dec gun season for 5 years and a 1 buck rule annually per person for those counties. Give a bonus doe tag if they (MDC) wants pop control per tag.
If that hasn't hit a nerve yet, let's face it, Res tags are cheap as well, you guys beechen about a $1-$3 increase, lol. I know what you're going to say "we have the 1/8% sales tax too". Last I checked, the average cost to a Mo resident for that tax was $24 a year. So in essence you're paying $41 for multiple deers tag. What's the surrounding states charge for Res deer tags? I know in Nebr it's more than than $41 since you also have to buy a habitat stamp with your deer tag and you only get to harvest 1 deer. The average price of a resident firearm deer permit for surrounding states is $54.
How much conviction do you have in improving the "age structure", only those ideas that impact others, or all ideas that may impact you as well?
Sounds like a lot of you want to improve the hunting in Mo, but not change what the Res can harvest off 1 tag, but that's where another big impact would be made. I wish you luck, but I think some of you are in an echo chamber with flawed assumptions and beliefs. Northern Mo could be as good as Iowa in terms of Big Bucks, but it would require sacrifice from everyone if you want to show significant progress in a short period of time (5 years). In the end I think everybody would be happier, but you have to convince the MDC and that's likely no small task, because I think the "improve the age structure" movement is in the minority. And I believe, as soon as you are unwilling to show your conviction to the cause, you'll lost credibility because I don't think it shows the seriousness of your effort because I'd assume most of the 'improve the age structure' hunters are also bow hunters. People who rifle hunt only would see this as unfair - the bow hunters get to chase and shoot big bucks during the rut and then they get to rifle hunt for another buck during rifle and 'we rifle only hunters' get forked. . Does anyone doubt that going to 1 buck harvest in those selected counties for everyone AND pushing rifle to Dec wouldn't yield the fastest results? In 3 years it'd look like you were hunting Iowa IF the right counties were selected for the trial.
I have no dog in this fight - while I am a NR Landowner since 2009, I haven't hunted Mo for the last 2 years and have no current plans to hunt anytime in the near future. I think I'm being fairly objective at this point. I kinda threw this response together, but I think the jest of my argument was made. Make a proposal, show you're willing to sacrifice too, otherwise, don't pretend it's for everyone because it'll appear you're just forking over rifle hunters. In that case, the rifle hunters might just propose then that No One should get to hunt the rut. Fair is fair they might say, and honestly, they might have a point. .02
Blast away.....
Apparently you didn't follow my post. We passed on multiple 2-3 year old bucks last year. Our choice, we had taken several mature bucks the previous 3 years. Anyone that thinks limiting the bucks NRs can take wouldn't impact the buck quality has their head in the sand. I have no statistics to prove it but I would bet 80% or more NR will shoot first legal buck they see. They just are not gonna eat that tag.
How many of thosebucks might reach a mature 4-5 yr old my guess is several
I am 75 I have seen lots of changes in deer hunting over my time. Some for the better some for the worst. I recall when we first started archery hunting in 1971 there were very few bow hunters and those few took very few deer. As equipment improved especially with compounds and release aids the success ratio went way up. Now with crossbows it's even greater.
I remeber in northern MO just seeing a deer was cause for excitement.
I admit in those early years our group took any buck we saw. Does were not legal during gun season back then.
We are in the Golden years of deer hunting in MO . We can make it even better with a few common sense changes.
I am one who feels preference should be given to residents and possibly NR landowners. Move gun season back. Have a draw system for NR gun permits like KS. Only allow 1 buck for NRs either during archery season or rifle season.
MO has the potential to be a true trophy state if managed properly.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Make 80 acres the minimum for 1 free LO tag,

emplement the app system for checking in and out of state public land, Kansas has done this and it is not as crowded on some public state lands.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Make 80 acres the minimum for 1 free LO tag,

emplement the app system for public land, Kansas has done this and it is not as crowded on some public state lands.
Agree
Is IL a OBR, is Iowa OBR, heck residents there can shoot two with firearms!!!

fierarms hunters that don't archery hunt have it easy now, so that is a lame excuse for them!

I agree that OBR and december season would be better than just one, but seeing how a couple neighboring states have 2 bucks max and late season and way better age class I would be more incline for mix....as opposed to further taking opportunity form the true archery hunters!
Why are you always so belligerent? First NR hunters, now rifle hunters....
I am not going to point out the obvious counter argument to you if you can't see it for yourself, which is apparent you can't. You're going to fail with those arguments for change imo.

Apparently you didn't follow my post. We passed on multiple 2-3 year old bucks last year. Our choice, we had taken several mature bucks the previous 3 years. Anyone that thinks limiting the bucks NRs can take wouldn't impact the buck quality has their head in the sand. I have no statistics to prove it but I would bet 80% or more NR will shoot first legal buck they see. They just are not gonna eat that tag.
How many of thosebucks might reach a mature 4-5 yr old my guess is several
Well, my post wasn't directed at you, but I'm willing to have the discussion. Let's play it out. Let's say 80% of NR fill their tag. That means 17,600 deer harvested. Of that 17,600, lets say 80% are less than 4 yo. That means 14,080 are under the age structure people want. Now how many will the resident rifle hunters shoot out of that number? Dead is dead, they won't grow regardless who shoots them. You think that just because the NR hunters didn't shoot them they get a pass to grow to 5 or 6 years old? Now, let me ask you how many resident rifle hunters will do the same as the NR and shoot the first legal buck they see for the meat pole? I bet it's the same percentage or very close as the NR, and there are 22k NR tags vs 288k resident tags, that means it only takes 4.88% of the resident hunters to shoot those deer that the NR didn't shoot. ...why would non land owning residents be any different and not shoot the first deer they see? You think they have a let them grow mentality because they're residents?, they have basically the same opening weekend to hunt as the NR. You think the resident hunters are going to eat their tag but the NR won't. So say it isn't 80% success for Res rifle hunter, say it's 50%...22k vs 288k tags..... and Land owning hunters are a tad different than non-land owning hunters, but the % of those non-land owning hunters shooting the first legal bucks are probably close to each other in either case. My long winded point is this - if you want to make a difference, and see it quickly, the residents have to participate, otherwise I think the effort fails....

In regards to your second post, I agree. Residents landowners should get first preference, then non-land owning residents followed closely by NR land owners, then NR non land owners last. My point was lets think out of the box and get the 'mature buck population' up fast. But I think the whole effort falls apart when you want to give archery hunters the best 2 weeks of the year and put the rifle hunters, the majority of hunters, in the gar hole. I think they'll balk, they get 12 days a year vs how many for archery hunters? And you want to take away that precedent of rifle hunting in the rut away from them and give it to the archery hunters benefit? That's a failed strategy imo.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
First resident hunters pay a lot less for their tag. A non resident pays heck of lot more and more inclined to take first legal buck. Also most NRs only hunt for couple weekends so they feel more pressure to fill their tag to justify the cost.
Look I have nothing against NRs but bottom line is our NR tag is too cheap compared to other states. Personally would like to see a draw system for NR tags.
If I am not mistaken cost for archery permit in KS totals to $555. MO is $265 for either archery or firearm. So for $530 a NR can hunt both seasons and take 2 bucks. Less than KS charges just for archery and 1 buck. If MDC wants more.money increase NR tags big time. Institute a draw system at least for rifle season. This state will never reach its potential unless some changes are made.
I really don't have much of a problem with NRs around my property in Benton County. I like the resident landowner tags. Last year we only took one buck that was during youth season. Agreed to layoff bucks as we had taken several mature bucks previous 3 years.For 40years I purchased NR landowner permits. Even today I usually endup buying a resident archery tag to hunt son-in-laws family farms in NC MO. Have to admit when I lived in KS hated paying the NR Landowner fee. Looking back it was really relatively cheap.
Recall back in early 70s when they first liberalized doe permits it was crazy in Putnam County. The hunters from Iowa flocked to county fo several years. They shot the hell out deer. My dad was so PO. Sure enough started to see decline in the herd for awhile. Looking back I am sure it was part of MDCs master plan to reduce herd.
Think APRs help control killing of bucks but no doubt many NRs will not lay off younger bucks if they are legal. This has to have an effect on mature buck numbers. Also use up their doe tags. Most are not gonna eat the tag.
Doesn't KS have a 1 buck rule? I would be in favor of that for NRs either during archery season or rifle season. Also increase in tag fees for NRs not out of line. As many have stated our NR tags are dirt cheap compared to many other states.
I disagree. Most of the NR I know, including me, don't travel to MO to shoot a 2 year old. Quite frankly, that's what all my local neighbors do.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Pretty sure the rut is in full swing in early December and 70,000 bucks that don’t get killed the first two days of a 12 day peak rut November the hunting will be still be good!

What I meant to say is any firearms hunter that is unwilling to hunt archery these days….really, with a crossbow it can’t get much easier than using a rifle!
  • Haha
Reactions: 1
I disagree. Most of the NR I know, including me, don't travel to MO to shoot a 2 year old. Quite frankly, that's what all my local neighbors do.
Honestly, I don’t care what anyone shoots! I do care or would like to see a a week or teo later timing when 70,000 bucks get killed (in just tow day).
First resident hunters pay a lot less for their tag. A non resident pays heck of lot more and more inclined to take first legal buck. Also most NRs only hunt for couple weekends so they feel more pressure to fill their tag to justify the cost.
Look I have nothing against NRs but bottom line is our NR tag is too cheap compared to other states. Personally would like to see a draw system for NR tags.
If I am not mistaken cost for archery permit in KS totals to $555. MO is $265 for either archery or firearm. So for $530 a NR can hunt both seasons and take 2 bucks. Less than KS charges just for archery and 1 buck. If MDC wants more.money increase NR tags big time. Institute a draw system at least for rifle season. This state will never reach its potential unless some changes are made.
I think where we disagree is that you believe a resident, just because they have paid less, are more apt to eat their rifle tag. And I'm specifically speaking of non-land owners here. I believe non-land owning resident hunters will shoot a sub-mature deer regardless if it's their first day or their fifth day or their 10th day. It doesn't really matter when they shoot it if they still end up shooting a sub-mature deer. I would also disagree that resident rifle hunters hunt that many more days than a NR non-land owning, rifle hunter, although that is a moot point really.
Land owners, Res or NR I believe are more apt to pass sub-mature deer. I believe they have more reason, and more a mindset to let them grow as it is their deer herd for years to come.
Non-land owning rifle hunters, whether they are Resident or Non-Resident will try and fill their tag with any legal deer equally or nearly equally in my opinion. We can choose to disagree on this point.
The rest of what you say I agree with.
See less See more
of the 3 leases I was on here in Missouri
1. I was the only bow hunter, come rifle season the 8 guys would shoot anything with antlers and fill their doe tags.
2. 2 of us bow hunted. Same as above, but one year a guy shot a "nice" buck, so I was told.
3. 5 of 6 bow hunted, I was the only one who just bow hunted. Landownerr said only 140 or above unless you ever shot deer with a bow, then anything.
After rifle season, while talking to a neighbor across the street , he sad mid-week the landowner, his brotherr and 2 nephew's shot 8 small bucks and a pile of does.
reason not on any of the leases
1. LO son formed a LLC so they would get free permits
2. LO hired a person to manage all their land, raised the lease prices 3 fold ( I heard the hunting is a lot better now)
3. I turkey hunted there until the LO sold the land to a grp of guys from Illinois, shot my biggest turkey ever there
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
of the 3 leases I was on here in Missouri
1. I was the only bow hunter, come rifle season the 8 guys would shoot anything with antlers and fill their doe tags.
2. 2 of us bow hunted. Same as above, but one year a guy shot a "nice" buck, so I was told.
3. 5 of 6 bow hunted, I was the only one who just bow hunted. Landownerr said only 140 or above unless you ever shot deer with a bow, then anything.
After rifle season, while talking to a neighbor across the street , he sad mid-week the landowner, his brotherr and 2 nephew's shot 8 small bucks and a pile of does.
reason not on any of the leases
1. LO son formed a LLC so they would get free permits
2. LO hired a person to manage all their land, raised the lease prices 3 fold ( I heard the hunting is a lot better now)
3. I turkey hunted there until the LO sold the land to a grp of guys from Illinois, shot my biggest turkey ever there
Lease prices have sky rocketed last few years. Even here in the Ozarks landowners are leasing their land. Hard to get permission to hunt. Just glad I have my own property to hunt. Again I say with proper management MO can have even better hunting in the future. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with moving gun season back a few weeks. I enjoying bow hunting much more. Weather isn't an issue for me heck most years its too darn warm early Nov. I can recall when gun season fell over Thanksgiving lot of guys had that Fri off so got in an extra day of hunting. I say start the rifle season the Fri after Thanksgiving run it for 14 days forget the second doe season or move to early Jan
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I think where we disagree is that you believe a resident, just because they have paid less, are more apt to eat their rifle tag. And I'm specifically speaking of non-land owners here. I believe non-land owning resident hunters will shoot a sub-mature deer regardless if it's their first day or their fifth day or their 10th day. It doesn't really matter when they shoot it if they still end up shooting a sub-mature deer. I would also disagree that resident rifle hunters hunt that many more days than a NR non-land owning, rifle hunter, although that is a moot point really.
Land owners, Res or NR I believe are more apt to pass sub-mature deer. I believe they have more reason, and more a mindset to let them grow as it is their deer herd for years to come.
Non-land owning rifle hunters, whether they are Resident or Non-Resident will try and fill their tag with any legal deer equally or nearly equally in my opinion. We can choose to disagree on this point.
The rest of what you say I agree with.
I can agree, many still just want to shoot their buck, but I do believe while APRs were in that may have changed a little, still not waiting on a giant, but some no longer shooting the 1.5 yo.

if it come to OBR to move the season, count me out, I archery hunt because I want more that 12 days to hunt these awesome creatures.
I can agree, many still just want to shoot their buck, but I do believe while APRs were in that may have changed a little, still not waiting on a giant, but some no longer shooting the 1.5 yo.

if it come to OBR to move the season, count me out, I archery hunt because I want more that 12 days to hunt these awesome creatures.
Agree I like the two buck rule for residents at least I generally pass during gun season unless its a nice mature buck. I will still be able to archery hunt after gun season for a buck. Also agree on waiting on a giant. Just won't happen in my neck of the woods.
May be possible closer to Iowa border
I am a NR and own a farm in Northwest Missouri (I'm a Michigan resident), I wouldn't be opposed to a point system and a one buck rule for NR hunters. Fair is fair if you don't live in that particular state you have your own set of guidelines to follow as a guest. I also hunt Ohio every year (have been for 11 years now as a NR), the one buck rule is truly proof in the pudding.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I am a NR and own a farm in Northwest Missouri (I'm a Michigan resident), I wouldn't be opposed to a point system and a one buck rule for NR hunters. Fair is fair if you don't live in that particular state you have your own set of guidelines to follow as a guest. I also hunt Ohio every year (have been for 11 years now as a NR), the one buck rule is truly proof in the pudding.
Unfortunately, there would be a resident mutiny if they went to 1 buck rule.
Unfortunately, there would be a resident mutiny if they went to 1 buck rule.

Only for NR hunters is what I was implying, not Missouri residents. Not my place, but NR definitely should have their own set of rules. Just my 2 cents
  • Like
Reactions: 2
61 - 80 of 128 Posts
Top