[callaojoe]

A 150" class 10 point can't become a booner if you kill him when he's a 150" Class 10 pt.
For years on here, you have lamented not having a booner. If that is truly your goal, you have got to pass on 150" deer, unless you just "luck" into one.

I personally, have no desire to ever pass on a 150" and will leave the booner to dumb luck some day.

 

[callaojoe]

This especially true for a 150" deer that has lasted until Jan13 without getting itself killed....

He just might be the buck of your dreams, but not this year.

 

[callaojoe]

My comment was meant to be construtive criticism, and provide to you and example how all of us as hunters can make the hunting better all on our own, I don't need MDC to mandate what everyone else does, when the best thing I can do, is take care of my own business.

If the 150" had presented a shot, would you have taken it?

 

[callaojoe]

Just saying Bob, if you truly want to kill a 170" plus buck some day, you have to let a deer like that walk.

Ya, you might get lucky and encounter one while still killing 130-150" every chance you get, but it's a lot more likely if you let the bucks with the potential to reach 170" walk.

I am in no way preaching this to anyone. I personally will be happy with every buck I ever kill that is in the 130-150" class, but I also do not bemoan the fact I have never killed a 170" buck. If it happens, great I'll be happy. If it doesn't happen, I'll still be happy. With the regs in place today, we have plenty of opportunity to kill bucks like that. changing a bunch of regs in hopes of marginally increasing the odds of a 170" don't make sense to me, when the best thing I can do, if I really want that, is to lay off the 130-150" deers. IMHO. Take it for what it's worth, I get your passion, I just think it's a wee bit misdirected.... one again, IMHO.

Best of luck got 2 more days to get it done. I have yet to kill a whitteee this year, that hasn't happened since the 1990's.... But, still happy, as I saw my wife have a banner season.

 

[callaojoe]

Putting OBR on NR's would save what, a handfull of bucks? I still say, you want to see more bigger bucks on the place you hunt, don't shoot them when they are sub 160" bucks.... That 150" buck has a much better chance of becoming a 160" plus deer on your wall if you don't shoot him, then telling NR's who probably don't even hunt near you they can only kill one buck next year.

I guess I see things to simply though, as changing regs for the whole state in an attempt to accomplish what you are not willing to sacrifice for to see it happen, does not make much sense to me. But, I fully understand that is my opinion, and some may not agree with it, and that's ok.....

 

[callaojoe]

Why would you feel NR's should be allowed 2 bucks? Doesn't matter to me if it's a handfull or 2000 spared. I just think OBR would make everyone be more picky about the buck they shoot and maybe result in an increase in doe harvest by residents and NR's alike. If population control is what it's all about then we need to encourage an increase in doe harvest.

Then do OBR for everyone. Why just NR’s?

 

[callaojoe]

Helpful advice.....

 

[callaojoe]

Personally, I've never understood the logic behind dislike of someone hunting in your state, just because they don't live there. But, we see it in every state where hunting occurs, some more than others, IL for instance is a very much anti-NR state.

I hunt in several other states, and don't want them hating on me, although some do.... I just don't understand it, we're all Americans in my book, just because I live here or there really don't matter to me. I welcome NR hunters to MO, the same I welcome residents. Get out there, enjoy your time in the woods. If hunting is negatively impacting game numbers, that's where limits and season length come in to play. If there is public land getting too much pressure, put it into a draw quota format. But biiitching about someone because they live across some arbitrary line is silly in my book.

I also don't believe anyone should ever have to pay more than $100 for a freak'n whitetail tag. But hey, that's just me.

 

[callaojoe]

I honestly don't have an issue with NR hunters, but I don't think for a minute they should get the same opportunity/tags as the residents of that state! I have mentioned it before, there is no-way NR should take a managed hunt spot from a resident that has applied. I do like the thought of NR fees being reciprocal with what their home state charges NR.

I do believe that Iowa does it right not guaranteeing NR tags and it helps keep leases prices down and resident opportunities open!

So, you would like it if IL treated you like an alien as well.... NR Tags is not an issue in this State....

 

[callaojoe]

I believe you may think otherwise in regard to NR is you hunted public! NR tags are driving up lease prices as well...and who is going to these outfitters?? Not saying NR are bad, but to imply they do not impact hunting opportunities and access to land is not accurate.

I have to apply for tags every year in IL and I am not guaranteed a tag, yes it sucks, but residents should come first, JMO. Not sure how that is being treated like an alien.

I do think MO needs to get control over public land better than they do, with more draw only hunts, etc. Most of them are complete chiiitshow come rifle season, and many are that way late archery now too.

 

[callaojoe]

I hope you don't get the impression that I'm against NR's coming here to hunt. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I would like to see a quality approach to NR opportunity vs quantity. Right now with unlimited NR tags it's a free for all that is out of control. If you don't see that in the circles that you run in thats great for you but that doesn't mean its not a problem for others. I do like reciprocal tag costs. Seems fair to me.

I hate that reciprical tag costs is even a consideration, but understand it when I pay $900 for a tag in MT or WY, or $500 for IL. The problem is those other states over charging for a deer tag. Not, that MO don't do Reciprocal. But, I am not against it really, just wish it wasn't needed.

I can understand restrictions on public land, but on my private land.... If my son wants to come back and hunt it, I don't think he should be restricted anymore than I am.

 

[callaojoe]

Next there will be DrRAWS at every CA across the state

Quickdraw for deer hunters, duck hunters seem to love it. 😎

 

[callaojoe]

On the opportunity vs mentality thing.

as someone who owns a very small sub 100 acre place to hunt. Although I know that any buck over 120” has a chance to be shot if I pass it, I also know I can’t kill it next year, if I kill it now. My new neighbor and I are both trying to let them grow, the outfitter near me, I cant speak for his clients. Just killed enough younger bucks in my life, I can pass on them easily even if it means someone else kills it.

so it’s a little of both imho. 👍🏻

 

[callaojoe]

I totally get it. My best 2 deer with a bow are a 160” 10pt and a 168” 12 pt. I’ve had close encounters with larger bucks as well. I routinely pass on 130 -140 class bucks. I hunted with rifle this year for the 1st time in over 20 yrs. Bow only since 2000 or so. I bought a new 7mm-08 this fall and I was itching to take a deer with it. I wanted the 1st to be a buck. I got an opportunity at a mature 8 with really good mass and took him. I personally think the deer was about as good as he’d ever get. Happy with that deer and the hunt. Every deer doesn’t have the potential to be a booner. My point is, I think everyone should shoot what makes them happy but to impact the herd on a macro level, regulation change has the most impact.

110% agree. You are doin it right!👍🏻👍🏻. But I don’t see reg changes happening that would reduce harvest numbers, i just dont.

 

[callaojoe]

Mentality as in waiting for the 1.5 yr old to grow up to 4.5 yr old ........Im saying most missourians have tags ,,,You're suppose to fill em with any legal deer right ? Thats money wasted if you dont fill them

There are a lot who feel this way, no doubt. Honestly there is a broad spectrum of hunters here in MO. Most who participate in archery season, are dedicated deer hunters, Rifle season you will have those dedicated deer hunters, guys who just want to be at camp, and those who just want to kill a deer, any deer. While at a base level I agree with 20's sentiments on deer hunting..... I just don't feel it's very realistic. Because, there are more than just the dedicated deer hunters to make happy. So, while I would actually support some of the changes he has proposed, I just don't see it happening, because I firmly believe MDC deer regs are more about population control, than enything else. Keeping the population in check is their no1 goal..... it is, what it is. And, you know what... Mo does have some seriously good deer hunting, and you can do things on the place you hunt, to make it what you want if you make a serious effort.... IMHO

 

[callaojoe]

Did we get it all figured out?