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
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 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.
Is IL a OBR, is Iowa OBR, heck residents there can shoot two with firearms!!!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.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.....
AgreeMake 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.
Why are you always so belligerent? First NR hunters, now rifle hunters....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!
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....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 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.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.
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).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.
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.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.
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 Janof 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
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.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.
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.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.
Unfortunately, there would be a resident mutiny if they went to 1 buck rule.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.