I've been putting this question off for a while, but I'm curious as to how everyone feels about the earn a buck system. Even if you don't want to vote I would like for you to post your thoughts.
I would like to hear the reasoning behind your thoughts on this as well.
Could you explain what it is, im not sure i have ever heard of it.
i voted it's a joke. i'm not totally closed minded on controlling the herd but asking a hunter to pass on a good buck is stupid, and asking that same hunter to shoot any anterless deer just to have the right is stupid. i have seen so many baby deer shot so those hunters could just have the chance to shoot a buck. most hunters weren't waiting for an older or bigger doe, just the first antlerless deer.
and now because of Eab, and all the extra antlerless tags given out in WI, now many areas have decimated the herd numbers. i hope that we can find better solutions to herd control and not just eliminate the population because the insurance companies keep lining the pockets of our gov. officials
QuoteOriginally posted by gregk:
Could you explain what it is, im not sure i have ever heard of it.
typicaly earn-a-buck is where you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck!
I didn't vote but I am not a fan of earn a buck, and the only no option didn't seem quite right either!
The thing to keep in mind is, deer management is really deer hunter management. Changing tags, seasons, etc, is done mainly to either get more guys in the woods and to kill more or less of a certain sex of animal.
There is no such thing as deer management of a huge wild herd without hunter "trigger" management. Trigger management is deer management of large state herds.
I think EAB is a tool for area's where necessary.
However, it sounds like Wisconsin is having compliance/enforcement issue's, where a guy at camp kills a doe and everyone uses the same doe to check in.
I wonder if "earn a 2nd buck tag" in states like WI, MI and IL where multiple buck tags are offered might be a better system in real world practice?
Frankly, instead of earn a buck in 2 buck states, it seems that going to a one buck only rule, all year, like OH, IN and KY has, increases antlerless harvest, since hunters aren't passing as many females and holding out for bucks, since they have 2 buck tags. While one buck rule is popular with some and unpopular with others, I'd personally love to see a one buck rule in heavily pressured states like Michigan. We have 300,000 bow hunters, most with compounds and xbows, and around 700,000 firearms hunters, half with centerfire rifles.
With probably the worst buck to doe ratio in the country, the highest amount of yearling bucks being part of the harvest every year, around 65% yearling bucks, and herd problems with TB and CWD, allowing guys to kill 2 bucks with all that going on really is poor hunter managemant, in my opinion. With such intense hunting pressure and so few antlered bucks per hunter, it would seem one buck per hunter should be enough.
I believe that when IN went from 2 bucks to one buck, the buck harvest stayed about the same, but antlerless harvest went up around 10%. That seems like possibly a better avenue.
However, now states in big financial trouble, which is pretty much all of them, won't want to give up the license revenue from 2 buck tags and no state legislator is going to vote yes on a license fee increase if going from 2 buck tags to one, with the economy. So it's a catch 22.
I didnt vote. but, I think it should be used in certain areas but only in gun seasons. I feel that with a bow. if they are in trad bow range we have EARNED a shot at that deer.
I'm not a fan because there have been some years when my first deer of the year has been a nice buck because it was my first opportunity of the season. However I have taken several does after taking a buck each of those seasons.
It is often a result of our failing to do our part in the hunting equation: Kill enough does.
I've listened to lots of guys puff up their chests and announce that they don't kill does. They will however shoot a little buck in an area overrun with does.
As a landowner I suffer from too many deer, the vast majority of them does with a few immature bucks. I've spent a lot of money putting electric fence around tree plantings because of the deer.
It's been surprisingly successful at getting deer herds in balance where it is used.
I favor it where needed.
IMHO, earn a buck is the most effective, most valid method to force hunters to reduce deer numbers. You can argue whether or not deer number should go down in your area, but there is simply no argument against the effectiveness of earn a buck programs.
Buck/doe ratios get out of whack for one reason. Management professionals and hunters together don't kill enough female deer. Earn a buck addresses the problem rather than treating symptoms the way liberalized permits or point systems do.
We don't have earn-a-buck in my state. But I'll say this. If someone offered me a doe tag, I'd snap it out of their hand so fast, I'd be like Grasshopper finally snatching the pea out of Master Po's hand! I want the meat.
mwmwmb, my feelings exactly!
If we as Trad hunters were allowed "special privileges" the gunners, x-bow folks and all the rest would whine and some beauracrat would "solve" the problem.
EAB programs are tools used to make the public feel better. The programs are not meant to manage deer but control people, revenue, and perceptions. I don't like them.
The 'tools' in the green, liberal, human-hating
'I know better' crowd are the problem.
That said, hunters are the truest form of conservators of the resource. If, we don't stand up and get into the conversation at the policy levels, then what 'they' hand out is what 'we' deserve!
Anybody that knows me knows that my belief goes: It's a great topic, and it should be dicussed...BUT....What will YOU do to change it??
What will you DO to make it better?
One buck-IMHO- here in Indiana is working.
Billy,
while I agree with some of what your saying. I realize that we will never get speacial privileges, which is probably why i am against them overall.
But it is not just the
"'tools' in the green, liberal, human-hating
'I know better' crowd are the problem." I dont know about IN but we just dont have a big problem with Anti's in AR. it is a small state and most everyone either hunts, has hunted, or has close relatives that hunt.
It is also the other side described well by LKH as " guys puff up their chests and announce that they don't kill does. They will however shoot a little buck in an area overrun with does." That are also the problem in many areas.
a prime example of this is the area i hunted some this year. it is all old school thinking folks that think killing does is bad for the heard and shoot 1.5yr old 6pts. I cant tell you how many does i saw all year >50. I saw one legal buck. In our part of the state we can kill 4 does but most dont kill any. they fill there 2 buck tags and go home.
AS Jeff said.
"Buck/doe ratios get out of whack for one reason. Management professionals and hunters together don't kill enough female deer. Earn a buck addresses the problem rather than treating symptoms the way liberalized permits or point systems do."
Earn a buck does not mandate you kill a doe first, but rather an antlerless deer. Any antlerless deer.
The concept sounds great until you have been sitting in the deer woods for seven days and finally a little critter comes by you. You WILL shoot it, no matter what it is because you have no other choice if you desire to hunt for a buck during the rut. It also helps cause folks to do what was written up earlier (cheat).
One big issue is when folks that own good hunting property come onto public ground to shoot that antlerless deer cause they don't want to screw up their own property.
Earn a buck does not address the problem in the real world, only on paper. It is way more complicated than just agreeing to shoot an antlerless deer first.
ChuckC
I would not be in favor of earn a buck. I would hate to be in my stand and have a nice buck come in and not be able to take him. Some years on my farm I will see lots of does, then some years I don't.
This is what I was getting at with the 'tools'.
I think it was Elinski(sp?), who basically said, 'Use their own tools and ethics against your opponent. They will have a hard time living up to them.'(paraphrased)
In other words; the 'tools' (people or rules) are set against hunting.
- People: the anti- fur, anti-archery, anti-meat groups; who elect legislators...
- Rules: Laws and restrictions that are set up to fail and then allow the people above more rhetoric
Now, as for those amongst us...It's we the "ethicals" who have to stand up to them, teach the young, and do what's right.
I know, tall orders and requests but, is there anyone else who will do it??
We pay the fees. We pay the taxes. We are the ones who abide by the rules. Why are we the ones who must suffer?
Unless WE get involved and try to change things; only we will lose or heritage.
Then the animals we love and hunt will suffer because of our loss.
I don't know how we can cause the rule makers to understand that EAB has not/will not work the way they intend it to. But, I do know that hunters are the only ones who can make the
CO-s , DNR, Legislators, etc...understand what we KNOW; everyone else is operating on theory.
I hunt hard with my longbow. I try to make my 'grounds' better and not deface them. I study my deer. I learn their habits and schedules. I believe that when I get that buck, I will have earned it; doe or not,first.
I also know the plants and browse that are in my area. I know when things are changing. Maybe what we need is more agriculture education or habitat education.
I haven't seen any Cadillac hooded deer for a long time. How did that useless practice come to an end? The 'tools' on our side were shamed? educated? forced? to stop things like that. How?
What I'm getting to is; okay, EAB is not working. How do we fix it?
QuoteOriginally posted by ChuckC:
One big issue is when folks that own good hunting property come onto public ground to shoot that antlerless deer cause they don't want to screw up their own property.
ChuckC
That's a great point that most people don't think about Chuck. What about the people that go onto heavily pressured areas that don't need the doe herd thined to take their antlerless deer. That causes the opposite of what was intended.
I teach hunter education and we get blasted with questions all the time.....Mojostick has it right.....it is all about managing hunters and good education.....we have people in our state that will shoot EVERY buck they see and never take a doe, then they whine about not seeing any LARGE racked bucks......it is very hard to change a mind set that has been taught for the last forty years.....I agree with some sort of buck and doe managment , but until the DNR's pour millions into the system for enforcement, it all goes back to "self control and ethics"....just my humble opinion......
I'm all for it. Better yet harvest 2 does and get 2 buck tags.
Something for everyone to keep in mind regardless of your stance on EAB or any other game management technique is this. Hunters, and Anglers for that matter, have taken the place of natural mortality in almost all systems today. Game and Fish agencies are required to manage the resource with several things in mind
1. Game and Nongame species
2. Disease
3. Public Safety
4. Consumptive and noncomsumptive use
Not everything we do (I work for a game agency) is based on hunting and fishing even though that is where the majority of our funds come from. It is also impossible to please everyone and keep the resource in the forefront. Some folks want meat, some want horns, some just want to be out there and no matter what we do somebody gets upset. By in large EAB is only used in extreme circumstances of overpopulation on an imbalance in buck:doe ratio. Basically they are used because hunters (I am also one of those) are not doing our part to control the population by harvesting enough does. And we as managers must take drastic action to force the hand of hunters because they wont do it voluntarily.
As a caveat I must admit that I manage fish populations and may not know the intricacies of deer management and their are different issues accross the country. But remember this. Game agencies dont do something just piss off an individual person or group of people. Their actions are based on science and sustainable resources for everyone, or at least that is what I base my decisions on. If you dont think that is the case let them know. Call your local office and see what the real story is, dont always believe what you hear at the coffee shop or at the local trad shop. Biologists work for you and for the resource and speaking from experience here are usually just as frustrated as you are when things dont work out the way we want them too.
Caleb
Caleb, the idea itself is not a problem. We have had earn a buck here for numeerous years now.
One of the big problems is that it continues on as a requirement, unchanged, even though a great majority of hunters you interview complain about not even seeing a deer during several days of hunting this past year.
Imagine hunting for over twelve days and seeing one deer, on the last day. This is in Wisconsin mind you, where just two years ago I would have seen deer every single outing and had shot opportunities probably 50% of the time out.
Yes, we needed to reduce the herd, but don't be saying we are not doing aour part. Where did the deer go if they are still there. IF they are not there. . . why ?
Look at our kill numbers for this year (combined everything gun, bow, bazooka, whatever) we are down over 25%. Course the DNR says it was the weather, and the hunters (I am getting really sick of hearing that one), this and that and the other. Never once do they come out and say... well we may be wrong.
Sure, there are areas of high deer density, but frankly, not very many folks in Wisconsin believe the DNR anymore regarding that. They (the DNR) seem to think every single patch of woods has deer packed in, just waiting to jump out in front of a car.
There are well over a million acres of public access land in this state. I wonder how many of those acres are "vastly overpopulated".
I don't have the answer. But something is broken. That is why folks are up in arms about this topic.
ChuckC
The intention of earn a buck regulations is a good...try to get more hunters to take at least one doe per year. However, I don't like the concept because I think it cheapens the taking of a doe. I fear some hunters might be tempted to take an otherwise unethical shot in order to "earn the buck". Bowhunters are already the best in terms of taking a high percentage of does vs. bucks than any other hunter. In fact, whenever we convey the benefits of bowhunting and bowhunters we should remind managers that bowhunters are tickled pink to take does...and bucks.
Whether one likes ENB Earn-A-Buck or not the fact remains that if you are trying to reduce herd numbers in high density areas, it works! In fact for whatever reason, it may be the only thing that works. Like everyone else who likes seeing deer or has had to pass on a great buck I cannot say it is my favorite thing. No matter how much I dislike it though it does work and I for one would hate to see it eliminated as a herd control tool. Like any tool when it is used indiscrminately it can be very bad like many of us in Wisconsin learned. Where I live in Door County Wisconsin we have seen this used 5 years in a row until it was dropped last season. The effects were devestating on the herd. The goal here was to get the deer numbers down to 15 deer per square mile. In the Northern half of Door County you can make a strong argument that we have way surpassed that goal. The way the DNR in Wisconsin counts deer is another issue of great concern and volumes have been written on how they do it using Sex,Age,and Kill (SAK)formuala. It sounds like in the future they are now going to take more into account the winter severity, predation, poaching, car kills, etc. I don't think any two issues,even baiting, have split and divided deer hunters in Wisconsin more than ERB and the way the DNR counts deer and determines goals and numbers.
While Wisconsin might very well be at the crossroads on what happens with the deer herd it is not actually the first time Wisconsin, in its long whitail history has had to deal with it. I would highly recommend a new book "On The Hunt" by Robert C. Willging to gain excellent insight on this whole topic. While the book is about Wisconsin I am sure people from many other states will see a similar if not identical pattern when it comes to the whitetail deer.
Coffee,
I have good friends in Sparta that are pretty upset with WI deer hunting. Of course the event of finding CWD in your wild deer herd started the great reduction in the deer herd. WI was the unlucky state to be the first major eastern deer state to find CWD. States all around have followed the WI strategies very closely because no one knows who's next. My county here in KY has about 40 deer/mile which is probably about 15 deer/mile too high but the hunter in me sure likes it.
QuoteOriginally posted by mwmwmb:
I didnt vote. but, I think it should be used in certain areas but only in gun seasons. I feel that with a bow. if they are in trad bow range we have EARNED a shot at that deer.
Amen to that statement.
I would be in favor of better deer management as an option. If a bowhunter arrows a selective doe, say one of the older does, and presents proof of such to their DNR or like us here in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) then would recieve a buck tag becuese he has helped thin the ever growing doe population that we have.
I see more does killed along the highway, than bucks, and deer damage is expensive to repair as I found out with a new vehicle two years ago when the deer hit me. Had I of smacked her with the front of my rig, it would have totaled the SUV as she was a big whitetail and at 65 mph the impact is not soft.
Make it an option.
I live in WI in a CWD zone. I am on the northern side of the CDW zone. We have had earn a buck in force in this GMU for about 5 years now, maybe more. (Don't want to take the time to look it up, but it's probably more than 5.) It has definitely decreased the deer herd in my area. There are less does, and less deer in general, but the buck ratio has gone up. The problem is that the overall deer numbers are getting progressively worse (substantially lower, buck or doe.) But I guess that is the intent of deer management in a CWD unit. If you are after a big buck, the good buck ratio doesn't do you any good, if you can't shoot a doe first because of low numbers. This is what leads to the cheaters, with double registrations, etc. In the past, I have gone without shooting a buck, as I have had difficulty in shooting a doe, any doe. Or, I have shot a doe, but then did not run into many bucks due to low population. I pass on the nubbin bucks to fulfill the EAB requirement. A gun hunter will not do that, on average. So if the intent of Earn a Buck is to battle CWD, it is probably the only tool that will work. I understand why they use it. If it is for other reasons, they should consider using it sparingly or not at all, as it will greatly reduce the herd within a relatively short period of time.
I really am disgusted in this whole CWD thing, as are most hunters around me. I have my theory on why and how CWD started in WI, but that would hijack the thread and probably start a brawl. If someone is interested in that, they can PM me. But watch out for that disease, it can really screw up your hunting.
I have hunted WI all my life. When EAB first came out I thought it was dumb. The next 2 or 3 years we killed some nice bucks and saw some even better ones but the herd size was low and we saw few does. Then for 2 years all I saw were bucks who were easy to rattle up. Now for the past 2 years if you saw a deer you could count your blessings.
I think EAB is a great management tool however, I think management needs to manage better. They can start by taking a proper census.
I dont know the exact figures but deer kill was down 25% from the previous year and down 30% the year before and down 15% the year before that. I would say that would mean it is down probably about 40% in 3 years.
They blame the weather and lack of hunter movement moving deer every year. Every hunter I know from around the state is reporting few if any sightings. If it was greed issue, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Fewer people will travel and pay the fees for an out of state hunt due to the lack of deer. Many hunters say they will not hunt the following year. Sooner or later they may not. Will the herd recover? Sure! they just have to find an accurate way to calculate herd size 1st.
EAB good management tool if used correctly and ended when numbers are again at a good level.
EAB may be better than some of the alternatives. Here in Mississippi we just lost a good portion of our buck hunting through the passage of a new law that makes part of the former bow season an antlerless-only season for gun and bow hunters. The insurance lobby won this one. I'd rather have EAB than this "solution".
EAB may not be the best solution, but we have to do something to thin the does or pay the consequences.
Hi Don,
You will still be able to take a buck with a bow in that antlerless PW season....just not with a primitive weapon. I hope that eases the sting a little.
Thanks Mark- I missed that! It gets confusing when a 45/70 is a primitive weapon but a bow isn't.
The real issue I have here with this earn a buck thing is that too many of the people deciding to make these changes in any state are appointed and not voted into office. The only person that is voted into a states office that has the authority to change seasons, fees, limits, etc is the governor. Your states lead biologist is appointed, your states DNR chief is appointed. The committee that decides to change these structures, yup you guess it appointed. So when it comes down to it if you want to change something you have to burden the governor of your state to get what you want.
I live in Indiana and have hunted here my whole life. 6-7 years ago special interest groups claiming to be for the 'hunters' of the state passed the OBR (one buck rule) This was merely a stepping stone to passing more laws to alter the seasons down the road. Now the DNR is claiming that after passing the OBR we have a burdening deer herd. We need more deer killed, we need have an over population.
The appointed officials idea is to move gun seasons out of the rut, shorten the seasons, and start a two day doe only gun season in Oct. All the while not changing the price of out of state tags.
The ultimate repercussions of this move will be widespread leasing/outfitting making it impossible for citizens of this state to hunt deer in their state without breaking the bank to afford a lease. Out of state leasers are not going to come into this state to shoot a doe, they are going to kill a buck and go home leaving the herd to flourish until next year. When they come back to shoot their buck and go home. There has to be a point in which earn a buck is instituted to keep the herd in check, there also has to be a point where outfitting/leasing is stopped to control the herd.
For example on a single leasing website there is almost 6000 acres of Indiana farm land in various counties locked down that are not being hunted. Having read the contract that these farmers sign. The land remains unhunted till it is leased. If it doesnt get leased that year nobody hunts it and the herd is left to pop out of control.
Before you decide to make changes think long term. The people in charge of Indiana have not and the people who pay their salaries and taxes in this state are going to suffer in the long run.
Like it was said earlier, lots of things look good on paper till the rubber meets the road. Be careful what you wish for.
Dustin I agree with your statement about the leasing of land also. We have 2500+ acres that we used to hunt on right behind my fathers house and one day it was offered up for lease. The way it was supposed to work was the surrounding property owners were supposed to be offered the first chances to buy in on the lease. We were the nearest property owners and were never offered a chance. Needless to say it was leased to a bunch of guys from out of town who all had way more money than we do and out of the 20 some about 2 actually hunt on the property.
I wish Gerogia would institute earn a buck. I'm tired of earning does with my bumper. IMO horn fever has made too many deer hunters lose sight of the things that should be important in hunting its all about kill some XXXX inch buck. I like to see big bucks like anyone but find the disdain people have for killing does strange
the deer herd here in GA is way out of wack
Here in CT we get replacement anterless tags in some management zones when you kill the deer on private property and register the deer at a check station. In the same zones, when you register 3 anterless deer you can get an either-sex tag (EAB).
EAB has shown in many cases that, when used correctly, it can effectively bring the population numbers down quickly.
I get 6 tags (3 either sex, 3 anterless; two of them are for the January season) with my Archery Permit. Then I can get 3 antlerless tags and one either sex tag for the regular season on private land and another tag for the regular season on state land. That's 11 deer right there, then throw the nearly unlimited replacement tags into the mix...
The state is trying to get the deer population down to reasonable levels. Right now, a good part of the state is at 3x the carrying capacity of the land. That's not good for any of the species sharing the woods. The problem is hunter numbers are continuing to fall, and the hunters we do have aren't coming close to filling their tags due to lack of time in the woods.
the deer population nationwide is thru the roof, what I find funny is young people complaining about the deer population being low in Ga when just 30 years ago the limit was 2 deer ( now its 12) same with my home state of Wisconsin the legal kill is way way larger than it was in the 60s when I was a high school kid yet the hunters complain of lack of deer.
I like hunting them but IMO there are too many of them most places
One more thing down here my friends simply wont kill a doe they are so concerned a big racked buck will be following and they will miss their chance. If earn a buck was instituted it would force them to kill some does and get the herd back in balance.
I am not really in favor of any govt intervention but so far the hunters here in Ga aren't really cooperating most guys pass on does
insurance rates for deer collisions are on the rise also
Bobman don'tjust look at the deer kill numbers, look at the hunter numbers too. I have unlimited tags available in the CWD area for the last five years at least. Course, I don't hunt here any more because I am tired of not seeing any deer.
Drive the highways. Pretty rare to see a dead deer anymore around here. I wonder if that means that the deer are looking both ways now ?
It is a good tool to decrease numbers, but I think that the DNR wants eradication, not just lowering the numbers.
Two or three years ago I saw a fair number of deer when I went hunting. I rarely see one now.
ChuckC
I am not all that interested in the EAB for Oklahoma. I don't really think it will increase the number of deer taken for all the seasons. We have several doe-only hunting seasons and a generous doe limit for archery and other methods.
Someone mentioned that Wildlife Department officials are not elected.
Not sure how it works in other states, but here in Oklahoma the Commission members ARE appointed by the Gov. The agency director is hired by them but is a true wildlife/natural resources profesional. Of course some are better than others (I think the one we have now is VERY GOOD).
All the biologists are profesionals as well. Does politics get played sometimes? Sure, that kind of thing happens anywhere and everywhere.
I sure don't think electing individuals to our Wildlife Conservation Commission is the answer. Even in a rual state like Oklahoma, only 12-14% of residents hunt. Nowhere near enough to gain a majority. We could see Commisioners elected who would like to see an end to hunting.
OkKeith
QuoteOriginally posted by ChuckC:
Bobman don'tjust look at the deer kill numbers, look at the hunter numbers too. I have unlimited tags available in the CWD area for the last five years at least. Course, I don't hunt here any more because I am tired of not seeing any deer.
Drive the highways. Pretty rare to see a dead deer anymore around here. I wonder if that means that the deer are looking both ways now ?
It is a good tool to decrease numbers, but I think that the DNR wants eradication, not just lowering the numbers.
Two or three years ago I saw a fair number of deer when I went hunting. I rarely see one now.
ChuckC
if it helps eradicate the CWD then it will be worth it IMO
I agree with LKH - landowners often suffer crop/land damage from too many deer, and taking YOUNG does is the most effective way to help them - and give them incentive to let us hunt. Bowhunters may have "earned their right" to take a buck in our OWN eyes. The only thing I question about EAB is hunters who game the system by checking in "doe kills" online before they've harvested any deer.
What if it was implimented only during the firearms season?
I like Ohio's rule of only 1 buck per season. I have seen plenty of good ones on public ground with this rule in place. Earn a buck might be ok, but I don't think Ohio needs it.
i will put in my 2 cents on this whole issue here where i live in sc we can purchase doe tags for 5 bucks a piece for 3 years ive hunted with my longbow praying for a shot on any deer buck or doe i have yet to have a shot on either this is an area that bow season starts on sept1 and gun season starts on sept 15 and both go out on jan 1 when gun hunting i shot all my deer in a bow situation no more than 30 yards granted im still learning buthere is the issue we can get tags for does but they are not valid until sept 15 when gun season starts also they are not valid on any game management areas in our county also there is no limit on bucks in our county this is a place where good hunters will have their freezer full by early rut by full i mean 4 to 5 deer taken with some hunters killing more than 20 deer per season i just dont understand the ethics i went more than 30 times this year bow in hand and saw 6 deer a doe and 2 yearlings the six is the same set seen twice we dont have eab here but we need something because i dont hunt racks i hunt food and enjoyment and respect the animals i am hunting but why not let the bowhunters use the tags the first two weeks and on public land i just dont understand it makes no sense id love to be able to see deer 15 out of 30 trips
but we can only purchase a total of 4 tags and are not required to fill any of them
Not sure what part in Ohio your from but where we live it' swould be suicide! Our deer numbers have drastically fell over the last 3-4 years and this would only contribute to it. I'm actually hoping that the state drops our doe tags this year to only one. My opinion that is.
I think it is a stupid law/rule. To ask a hunter, especially one shooting the kinds of equipment we tend to prefer to turn down what could potentially be the buck of a lifetime on opening day because he hasnt killed his quota of does is beyond dumb. I know of no hunter who would turn down a doe after he shoots his buck if the shot presented, especially when they eat so much better than a rank, tough old warrior full of sinew. At least I wouldnt!
Earn a buck is good at reducing numbers. Its a great tool and the number of hunters that actually have to turn down a good buck is few, very, very few.
I like this tool the government is using right now.
Drought! it will make weak fawns who will starve this winter. :readit:
If hunters cannot regulate the population from good hunting practice the government will always step in, whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter, they will do it anyway.
I agree with Chuck C 100% of course he and I hunt similar areas in WI. and see the same Idiocy.
I hate the earn a buck rule! They had this law on a few game reserves here in Mississippi a few years ago. Herd population went down quick and there were lots of button bucks taken as result of this law. People shot the first thing that resembled a doe jus so they could have a chance at harvesting a buck. There was even a few people that had really nice bucks taken away from them by game wardens because they had not killed a doe yet.
IMHO, if even one person has to let a buck walk that they would be proud of shooting archery tackle of any sort, then it is an injustice in my eyes. If they wanted to impact the deer herd and thin the does out a bit, they'd issue several doe tags, like 5-7 tags for each licensed hunter. If he didnt fill the max number of tags, then the next year it gets cut by 2 tags each year he doesnt meet his quota til all they get is 1 buck and 1 doe.
If a person refuses to shoot even 1 doe, then they dont get a buck tag the next year... instead 3 doe tags, and they'd have to fill at least 2 doe tags during the season to apply for their buck tag.
This would incentivize folks to shoot does to get the numbers where the DNR wants them. You'd still have all season to fill them, not turn down a lifetime deer to shoot a floppy ear.
Dave
Oh, it has happened Dave. Several times to me. The only reason I killed a buck last year is cause they relaxed the rule, and when the number of does goes down to the point that you don't even see a deer for a dozen evenings worth of hunting, it gets pretty frustrating.
So, folks leave the area or stop hunting. That works really well too I guess. Then nobody kills any deer in the area.
Used to be during gun season the area sounded like a war zone and even getting a parking spot in the site parking area was tough, with spillover all along the road. Last year there was plenty of room and very few shots at all where I hunt. My son sat in a good funnel area all day and never saw a deer, although one was shot 100 or so yards away.
Good thing is. . . less crowded.
ChuckC
I agree Chuck.
Dave, by your standards, if a guy Does not have a chance to kill a doe for 3 years and then a buck of a lifetime walks past, he's again in the same situation and by law must let it walk. It's the same thing. :dunno:
At our farm in southern wisconsin after several years of "deer reduction" and "earn a buck", all I would see is 2-3 deer per season. All Bucks! when before the norm was 100-200 deer per season. (often the same deer many times over)
There always has to be a law, and there will always be shortcomings. The problem is, if hunters do not take the opportunity to practice responsible herd management, someone else will IE government. The problem is, when someone else tells you how to do something, then we have a beef because its not the way we "want it". The problem is there are too many "trophy hunters" and populations get out of control.
The problem is, once the state cuts adequate funding for a proper census, they use old, outdated and incorrect numbers.
If they think the population is higher than it is, and give out as many free tags as you want, well then you have guys who kill, for the sake of killing and you get dismal deer numbers.
Now that their herd is practically extinct, hunters would rather spend the same amount of Money and go on an out of state trip for the same week, rather than sit at home and see nothing.
Earn a buck, is a great program when used properly but the state needs to cut it when it has done its job. In wisconsin, you could carry your doe tag from the previous year. So sure, the first year it is in operation, you may have to pass the buck of a lifetime but theoretically, you have the rest of the season to make sure it doesn't happen again.
There will never be a management law that will sit well across the populous. 2 years ago, an Old timer chastised me for shooting a doe, because "I only shoots bucks", he said.
He was dumbfounded when I told him I had passed on 12 different spike bucks that year. he is stuck in an old way of thinking and will take it to his grave. Without proper education, these hunters will make up the masses. Maybe another decade or two will change things, but changing a commonly held belief is difficult.
Cyclic, my little layout there was for an area that was overpopulated... in other words, that should be the purpose for the earn-a-buck program to even be instituted... if there are no does to be shot, then it shouldnt be there in the first place.
Hey look, I frankly dont believe in the earn-a-buck system at all, and it should be left up to hunting clubs or landowners to regulate who can shoot what on the properties they lease out. Not that they own the animals, but they can at least set limits on what folks can shoot on their land access. I believe that farmer or club membership knows better what's on their cameras, fields, and food plots than the state. Also,no one with any common sense would shoot all the does bc you'd eventually have no deer at all but if a law states that's all you can shoot, then that's what'll get shot.
But, if the state is gonna get involved, I at least think it ought to be fair to the occasional hunters, and in 3 years, in an over-crowded area, most could connect with at least one doe and still get their trophy buck.
I agree no system is fair to all but that is the price we pay for the state owning the animals... just like in England when the nobles owned them; that caused all sorts of problems too. King's deer, lol.
Dave
Dave,
I agree with you, I'm just burnt out from a state who cannot get it right.
The Government could get involved without getting involved. they could hold seminars and clinics. teach hunters and landowners, but then again that would take an effort.
When I first heard of earn a buck I hated the idea. then came the next 3 years of earn a buck, which brought more and bigger bucks than I have ever seen in my life. After that became the "I cannot see a deer to save my Life". Most hunters were frustrated. Many took the laws into their own hands by taking illegal bucks, due to wanting meat.
I think all state programs should be monitored and adjusted. In WI DNR case, it was but their premises for decision making were way off. All they had to do was talk with sportsmen and the deer check stations from around the state. could have been much easier and less costly.
Funny how saving money can cost more, isn't it?
I hear ya man. Alabama is overrun with does in some areas and if folks dont stop shooting 4 points, we will never have anything. I agree that it can be very frustrating no matter where you are.
I support 'earn a buck' BUT I do think ALL bowhunters should be able to count a doe harvested any time within the previous year so the hunter can hunt without having to pass on a really good buck first. Forcing hunters to pass bucks so they can harvest a doe can be frustrating. And I think other weapons seasons should be held to the same standard.
There are some really good points made here. Dave, you say that you don't know any hunter that would pass on a doe after shooting a buck. Well, you don't know some of the guys that I know. The ones that wait until opening day of firearms season, trespass on someone elses land, set in another guy's stand then shoot a buck that someone else has been watching all year. Then they're either done for the year or they illegally take more bucks and have other people tag them or don't tag them at all.
The problem is, you have to have these kinds of laws because you can't counbt on people to do what's right anymore.
I'm not saying we need this rule in Ohio, I just wanderd how people elt about it.
Buckeye those are the guys who'd find their tires flat at the end of a hunt... Not to mention be kicked outa the club, at least any club i have ever been in.
Buckeye my dad has a saying... "laws and locks are for honest people"... Those folks are gonna do that no matter how many laws are set in place. So while you are earning your buck, theyve killed 3. Deer are still dead just not on your wall.
Dave