deep woods goat hunter
PMA Member
You me and everyone else. Something needs to be done to reduce NR pressure as well. Public, leases and buyers of land alike.
Missouri Survey on Non-Resident Hunting
- Thread starter deep woods goat hunter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
deep woods goat hunter
PMA Member
I'm not certain of that. MDC has a 1/8 of 1% sales tax on every transaction in the state though. So MDC is loaded. $249 mm budget last year if memory serves me right.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
“The Missouri Department of Conservation receives federal funding for conservation. The department uses this funding for acquisition, development, research, and forest fire control. MDC is funded by a one-eighth of one percent sales tax, which generates approximately $160 million in funding each year that goes directly to the agency. The department also receives funding from permit sales, federal aid, and income from sales and rentals.”
www.MO.gov
www.MO.gov
I would hope you would be correct as it fits my agenda and will result in more older age class deer to hunt with my bow, albeit only when I draw as NR. But for the approach of moving the gun season to be successful the buck harvest has to go down, allowing more bucks to get to older age class but reducing harvest success OR assuming that hunters will now harvest more older deer but less often. Success rate will not increase when the bucks get older. Also be interesting to see if hunter numbers will go down and leaving fewer hunters but more satisfied because those hunters have access to managed ground. Keep in mind MO does not allow “party” hunting like Iowa does on use of tags. And there WILL be one number increase FOR SURE IMO and that will be archery harvests and remember MO allows crossbows during archery.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Can someone post the number of NR deer hunters ? I saw 22k in 2021? It’s a big state with more deer habitat —different than Iowa. I could fully accept a cap on NR, as long as it’s not low like Iowa (6000) .
Skip mentioned 15,000? I could see that being acceptable? I have no idea where that number should be ?
Skip mentioned 15,000? I could see that being acceptable? I have no idea where that number should be ?
letemgrow
PMA Member
deep woods goat hunter
PMA Member
valid side note
letemgrow
PMA Member
These charts show % change in harvest in 2021-2022 compared to 2017-2018.
Granted the rifle swing can be 20K a year when it opens later in November when peak breeding is taking place. November 15th is the bane for a rifle opener...the 10th is a windfall. Along with weather always being a factor.
Granted the rifle swing can be 20K a year when it opens later in November when peak breeding is taking place. November 15th is the bane for a rifle opener...the 10th is a windfall. Along with weather always being a factor.
deep woods goat hunter
PMA Member
I think people that have been coming forever will still wait, BUT I'd be willing to bet they dont cut the NR # of tags down much from what they were selling otc.
Daver
PMA Member
Just my opinion...if NR tags were not limited in Iowa to the extent that they are now, access for residents would get far worse overnight than what it is right now...and it ain't great now. Also, some NR's have decided to sell, or move here, due to the growing number of years it takes to get a buck tag. Additionally, when the "party hunting loophole" was closed for the gun seasons that added a little more incentive to either sell or move here.
I don't know how it is going in MO, but there are big portions of the better areas in the state that are owned by NR's now. Make it easier for them and that percentage would go up dramatically, IMO. I would imagine the same thing would be true in MO, for the same reasons.
Agreed. As far as Minnesota and Missouri gun hunting the rut. Their choice but they will obviously decrease buck survival rates due to bucks being more exposed and the effective range of the firearm. Like has been mentioned, Iowa has the right regulations in place, especially for the midwest. If other States would implement our regulations they would likely all improve from a buck quality standpoint. Most would surpass Iowa due to more habitat and double the deer populations. I would guess that most hunters in Minnesota and Missouri don’t really know their areas true buck potential. Which might be better for them in the long run because that just leads to more competition and decreased access. It is a double edged sword. If Minnesota and Missouri would move their gun seasons into December and started kicking out giant bucks more consistently like Iowa. Everyone would flock there to either buy it up or lease it up. Even more than they have presently. Ultimately, leading to decreased access. Missouri is already getting locked up. It would be ridiculous with Iowa’s regulations.
Daver is right. Iowa would be far worse access wise if NR weren’t limited in the ways they are now.
So with your statement and the chart numbers this would just be to get ahead of a current trend but limited change to resource or hunter satisfaction from today? Makes some sense but is MODoC going to chase the boogie man? I think limiting NR tags makes sense but I also play the western game and am used to it. Do I think it truly fixes anything today based on the charts, not really other than maybe some overcrowding on public but unless the NR tag numbers allowed issued in draw drop significantly from the actual number crowding not likely fixed and MODoc may want the additional harvests.
Last edited:
I think we are saying the same thing. Unless MO decides to dramatically decrease the NR tags it will have limited if any impact and may actually be counterproductive. Especially if MO moves the gun season and starts cranking out more record book bucks. Access is a problem going forward in any state that has respectable trend of big deer. Iowa for example still has access issues for residents even when it takes NR six years to draw.
Last edited:
Daver
PMA Member
Specific to the bolded section above. IMO, where I think Iowa and Missouri could differ is that Iowa has such a small percentage of their landscape that is top end deer habitat. So even with fewer people going for the tags here, etc, there is A LOT less area in Iowa that is really good v. MO. So, if you somehow balanced the NR access in MO to be more like IA, I think you would go further in MO towards helping the access issue for MO R's. Just an opinion. It just seems to me that there is a lot more potentially "good" deer ground in MO, than IA.
Semi-related, sort of random thought...I have deer hunted in MO as a NR. It's been many years now and I was hunting on the ground owned/leased by the then owners of Hunter's Specialties, but man O' man, did they have some "stuff" locked up. I can recall sitting there in "Deer Shangri La" thinking, "I wonder where the people that live around here hunt now?...".
Me being me too
. All good my man!!!! Love it!!!!I clearly think a lot of guys share that view. As of today, a majority that will dwindle over time. The data is slowly shifting as the younger generation takes over.
So- for the benefits of a few days of blasting with rifles …. We have all these downsides we have discussed. Now, since we have to keep rifles in middle of rut, keep this in mind…
1) 2 weeks later on a calendar…. You are MAYBE talking the difference of 2-3 degrees in temperature on the yearly average. Plus it’s south of iowa into MO so temps are so much warmer than the great north like wi or mn or even iowa
2) age class is ruined for everyone - that season, the season after & continually. All because guys need to blaze high power rifles in early to mid November.
3) archery hunters are screwed. Maybe get one good week in late October or early November. If it’s warm- could be screwed for all of archery.
4) I’ve been around the gun during rut states. Rest of season sucks!!!!! In iowa - u can hunt any day, December through Jan 10 & it’s GREAT. In reality- most the gun during rut states…. 3 days in, it’s about toast. Rifles have been blazing, most the harvest is over. So, for 3 days, we ruin the state & ruin the resource.
5) does don’t get shot cause guys don’t wanna be blazing their high power rifles in those precious few good days of hunting when they “have to get their buck(s)”.
6) wide open unlimited NR tags for sure makes MO way worse than iowa!!!! & yes guys… MDC, if they limit NR’s, as they should, will let NRLO’s get tags so landowners won’t be impacted.
So- hunters in states that have “huge problems” (age class, no access, too many does, not enough does, whatever) not ever being able to change a thing for the better is mind boggling to me. All the while these folks agreed to things in last 20-30 years that ruined the resource (long list).
Bottom line: all the benefits MO would have if they adopted Iowas regs ….. better age class, more bucks, better doe management, better/longer archery season, far longer quality season (to the end of it!!!), less access issues, on & on…. CAN’T DO IT BECAUSE “that date on calendar for rifles has always been ____ so we can’t change it”. Or “it’s too cold” or “that might hurt MY CHANCES AT A BUCK”. Whatever. & I’m not saying I don’t empathize or understand- I do. It’s just it’s so obvious to ANYONE with any basic understanding of deer management that iowa does it right & MO is crippled with issues. & human nature of some “can’t change a thing!!!!!!”
Weigh out the benefits of moving the gun season vs the downsides. It’s no contest IMO. Literally, ALMOST everyone wins if MO makes common sense reg changes. Current system is madness.
Bucksnbears
Well-Known Member
Great thread.
Awesome viewpoints and a civil discussion.
I can only attest to Mn and the (assumed) reason for such an early season..
WEATHER.
Not so common anymore but, years ago, it was somewhat common to have big snows/ blizzards late oct/ early Nov. Virtually shutting down deer hunting in northern MN.
Heck, few even hunt up here now compared to even 10 years ago.
Awesome viewpoints and a civil discussion.
I can only attest to Mn and the (assumed) reason for such an early season..
WEATHER.
Not so common anymore but, years ago, it was somewhat common to have big snows/ blizzards late oct/ early Nov. Virtually shutting down deer hunting in northern MN.
Heck, few even hunt up here now compared to even 10 years ago.
Bucksnbears
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Just putting wood in the stove, thinking about this topic and had a brain fart.
Let's say, states had a 3 month rifle season.
Josh Q landowner knows he has a Giant buck on it and kills it Sept 15th, opening day.
He's accomplished his " goal" and would more likely let others hunt his ground (access) after he's done.
State has a firearm opener Nov 25 and lasts for 10 days. John Q landowner ain't no way in hell gonna let anybody bowhunt earlier on his parcel knowing he's got a giant on it he wants.
John Q knows he has to many deer on his property but wants the big guy for himself. Knows darn well he needs to remove some deer.
Season is 10 days and he kills biggie on the 8th day. 2 days left of season.
Vast majority of hunters have already given up trying to find a place to hunt.
Dunno, ?..any merit to that way of thinking?
I really don't see a reason to up the non_ res fees so high.
There are plenty of people that have the $$ to go where they want (not me).
All that will do is hamper guys like myself that can't afford to travel.
If tags are available, even at a super high price, there will always be those that are willing to spend the $.
Let's say, states had a 3 month rifle season.
Josh Q landowner knows he has a Giant buck on it and kills it Sept 15th, opening day.
He's accomplished his " goal" and would more likely let others hunt his ground (access) after he's done.
State has a firearm opener Nov 25 and lasts for 10 days. John Q landowner ain't no way in hell gonna let anybody bowhunt earlier on his parcel knowing he's got a giant on it he wants.
John Q knows he has to many deer on his property but wants the big guy for himself. Knows darn well he needs to remove some deer.
Season is 10 days and he kills biggie on the 8th day. 2 days left of season.
Vast majority of hunters have already given up trying to find a place to hunt.
Dunno, ?..any merit to that way of thinking?
I really don't see a reason to up the non_ res fees so high.
There are plenty of people that have the $$ to go where they want (not me).
All that will do is hamper guys like myself that can't afford to travel.
If tags are available, even at a super high price, there will always be those that are willing to spend the $.
Last edited:
In my opinion NR tags should be reciprocal of the tag prices and draw/point process as the surrounding states but that will never happen. I would settle for doubling tag prices, reducing NR tags by 50% (same annual revenue), and making the NR apply for either a bow tag OR a gun tag, not both. Maybe try building in a point system based on harvesting antlerless deer similar to an earn buck that incentivized NRs to participate in the population control efforts and not just buck hunting.Me being me too
I clearly think a lot of guys share that view. As of today, a majority that will dwindle over time. The data is slowly shifting as the younger generation takes over.
So- for the benefits of a few days of blasting with rifles …. We have all these downsides we have discussed. Now, since we have to keep rifles in middle of rut, keep this in mind…
1) 2 weeks later on a calendar…. You are MAYBE talking the difference of 2-3 degrees in temperature on the yearly average. Plus it’s south of iowa into MO so temps are so much warmer than the great north like wi or mn or even iowa
2) age class is ruined for everyone - that season, the season after & continually. All because guys need to blaze high power rifles in early to mid November.
3) archery hunters are screwed. Maybe get one good week in late October or early November. If it’s warm- could be screwed for all of archery.
4) I’ve been around the gun during rut states. Rest of season sucks!!!!! In iowa - u can hunt any day, December through Jan 10 & it’s GREAT. In reality- most the gun during rut states…. 3 days in, it’s about toast. Rifles have been blazing, most the harvest is over. So, for 3 days, we ruin the state & ruin the resource.
5) does don’t get shot cause guys don’t wanna be blazing their high power rifles in those precious few good days of hunting when they “have to get their buck(s)”.
6) wide open unlimited NR tags for sure makes MO way worse than iowa!!!! & yes guys… MDC, if they limit NR’s, as they should, will let NRLO’s get tags so landowners won’t be impacted.
So- hunters in states that have “huge problems” (age class, no access, too many does, not enough does, whatever) not ever being able to change a thing for the better is mind boggling to me. All the while these folks agreed to things in last 20-30 years that ruined the resource (long list).
Bottom line: all the benefits MO would have if they adopted Iowas regs ….. better age class, more bucks, better doe management, better/longer archery season, far longer quality season (to the end of it!!!), less access issues, on & on…. CAN’T DO IT BECAUSE “that date on calendar for rifles has always been ____ so we can’t change it”. Or “it’s too cold” or “that might hurt MY CHANCES AT A BUCK”. Whatever. & I’m not saying I don’t empathize or understand- I do. It’s just it’s so obvious to ANYONE with any basic understanding of deer management that iowa does it right & MO is crippled with issues. & human nature of some “can’t change a thing!!!!!!”
Weigh out the benefits of moving the gun season vs the downsides. It’s no contest IMO. Literally, ALMOST everyone wins if MO makes common sense reg changes. Current system is madness.
The pressure from out of state hunters and limiting access opportunities to residents is a real issue. While I don't have anything against NR hunters coming to Missouri to spend their money, they are going to effectively turn Missouri into the states that they left to come here to hunt. I think serving the residents interest should be at the top of the agenda, and doing so would benefit everyone when they have the opportunity to come hunt Missouri.
Limiting access to public land does seem like a slippery slope, however there are currently no restrictions on where the NR can hunt with their OTC tag. Hypothetically every single NR with an OTC tag could hunt Macon county or the same 3 CA which clearly is insane. Why not restrict and divide the eligible NR tags into zones or counties to help spread out the pressure and open some opportunities in those areas for MO residents. JMTC