Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Missouri Survey on Non-Resident Hunting

You’re missing it. Residents here tell nrlos “you knew the rules when you bought here” when nrlos want a rule change to benefit them. Well, some rules that benefited the nrlo changed. That’s all they’re saying. That’s not catering, it’s changing a rule that was in place.

I’m a rlo now but there’s a definite double standard on this site when it comes to rule changes. I have experience on both sides of the coin.
 
Windlooker said:
You’re missing it. Residents here tell nrlos “you knew the rules when you bought here” when nrlos want a rule change to benefit them. Well, some rules that benefited the nrlo changed. That’s all they’re saying. That’s not catering, it’s changing a rule that was in place.

I’m a rlo now but there’s a definite double standard on this site when it comes to rule changes. I have experience on both sides of the coin.
Click to expand...
I’m just saying IDC if the rules changed or not. The changes were needed and people were taking advantage of it. Not to mention how many people were buying a buck tag through an outfitter and outfitted hunt carrying a NR doe license and party hunting. When changes are needed they need to happen.
 
iowaqdm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure what changed in Iowa exactly. We had a million page thread about it, so I don't want to rehash it. However, 20+ years ago, most of the state of Iowa was hunted like "public." Of course you had to ask permission, but almost no one told you no. You were sharing with multiple guys, but were able to get access to thousands or tens of thousands of acres. There were more top end bucks by far. My guess is ehd and technology, but could be something else. It's funny the guys that have been in the land game for 20 or 30 years talk about multiple B&C bucks on very small tracts back then. Now people are buying up massive tracts, spending $$$$$$$ to make the habitat as perfect as possible, then a drone survey reveals there aren't any truly giant bucks on the property. How do we get it back to what it was? How do other states turn their state into what it was? Regulations? Culture?
 
Muskrat24 said:
The numbers don’t support that statement. Look at the charts. You may want to believe that it’s all the NR fault but how many people that knock on your door to hunt do you say yes to? There has been a 10 fold decrease ish for one increase in NR tags. I know of plenty of residents that have locked their land down for themselves or family. NR haven’t caused the drop in resident access alone. The greed of someone else shooting MY buck or MY up and comer has more to do with it. Plus the unrealistic goal that there is a booner behind every tree like they see on TV to only be disappointed. The younger age groups want immediate and EASY trophy’s and when that doesn’t get fulfilled they go golf.
Click to expand...
This is a great point. Before my kids were old enough to hunt, I let other people hunt my land once I was tagged out and I only had 30 acres at that time. Now, with 4 of us hunting a relatively small piece of ground, we usually don't tag out in a whole season.

I used to be lucky enough to hunt an 865 acre contiguous farm with only one other bowhunter. Come gun season we were putting the owners friends in our best stands.

It seems like that mindset has changed.
 
Obviously bad regulations hurt a state first and foremost but I feel like the “good guys “ leaving those states and moving to a better state has to be the second worst thing that happens. I’m not 100% in the “go fix your own state” camp here but in my county alone there’s gotta be 3-5,000 acres that’s either leased or owned by Minnesota hunters. I’m in no way saying one bad thing about any of them they are managing deer the same as I am. But 5,000 managed acres of deer hunting ground in Minnesota would still be pretty damn good. And I’m just using Minnesota as an example.

It reminds me of how a lot of 3rd world countries will have gifted kids that grow up to be a doctor or something special and they have zero problem legally immigrating to any nice country they want. They call it the brain drain, their government doesn’t do anything to retain talented good people that would have been an asset to their society. The first chance they get they’re gone.

I guess what I’m trying to say is there’s a lot of Michigan guys, Wisconsin guys, Minnesota guys, North Dakota guys, Missouri guys doing it the right way and being good conservationists etc. but the problem is the majority of them are doing it in a different state instead of their own.
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted by Hardwood11
  • Reason: DD
Show…
News from the region

Statewide

By

Joe Jerek

Published Date

04/07/2026

Body

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) is asking Missouri deer hunters and others for feedback on potential regulation changes to the Wildlife Code of Missouri for nonresident deer hunting.

One regulation change under consideration for the 2026 deer season would reduce the nonresident antlered buck bag limit from two to one. Nonresident landowners would maintain an antlered buck bag limit of two.

A regulation change under consideration for the 2027 deer season includes requiring nonresident deer hunters to purchase a Nonresident Public Land Deer Hunting Permit for $165 to be able to pursue, take, possess, and transport deer on public land in Missouri.

Beyond the 2027 deer season, MDC is considering establishing a draw for nonresidents to be able to hunt deer on public land or on public and private land.

According to MDC, nonresident participation in Missouri’s deer season has increased considerably in recent years and some resident hunters have expressed concern about how it is impacting their hunts, particularly on public land.

According to MDC, there were approximately 20,000 nonresident deer hunters who hunted in Missouri 20 years ago. That number was about four percent of the state’s nearly 475,000 total deer hunters. By last year, that number had more than doubled to about 42,000 nonresident deer hunters in Missouri, accounting for about nine percent of the state’s nearly 475,000 total deer hunters.

MDC notes that nonresident hunters make valuable contributions to local economies and communities when traveling to Missouri. Many small businesses and Missouri landowners benefit from the contributions of nonresident deer hunters.

MDC also strives to provide quality hunting opportunities for resident hunters and recognizes the important contributions resident hunters and landowners make to sustain Missouri’s deer herd. The proposed changes to nonresident deer hunting are designed to address resident hunters’ concerns.

MDC values public input and previously asked for feedback from deer hunters about nonresident deer hunting in a 2024 survey of deer hunters and a public commenting opportunity conducted as part of the Department’s Deer Management Plan update.

MDC also surveyed a sample of 56,000 resident hunters and 1,800 nonresident hunters in 2025 regarding resident and nonresident hunting and collected public comments. MDC also held 10 open houses around the state in 2025 to seek public input on deer management in Missouri.
 
deep woods goat hunter said:
Thats encouraging. Hopefully they will do the right thing for the resource and residents.
Click to expand...
Whatever they do… they do . I hope they allow for a gradual change…so Nonresidents can decide if they want to participate in a lottery or not .

I personally won’t. The change that needs to be made is moving the rifle season back two weeks out of the rut. It doesn’t sound like that’s on the table .

The quality won’t improve much without that change.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Whatever they do… they do . I hope they allow for a gradual change…so Nonresidents can decide if they want to participate in a lottery or not .

I personally won’t. The change that needs to be made is moving the rifle season back two weeks out of the rut. It doesn’t sound like that’s on the table .

The quality won’t improve much without that change.
Click to expand...

I would guess the residents who don’t have access to private land see the problem as more than just quality. They probably also see the problem as increased pressure on public land, which is also supported by the data. In that case, limiting nonresident pressure would help alleviate pressure on public land.
 
IsThisHeaven? said:
I would guess the residents who don’t have access to private land see the problem as more than just quality. They probably also see the problem as increased pressure on public land, which is also supported by the data. In that case, limiting nonresident pressure would help alleviate pressure on public land.
Click to expand...
Yeah I understand that. The public is very busy I’m sure.
 
Hardwood11 said:
Whatever they do… they do . I hope they allow for a gradual change…so Nonresidents can decide if they want to participate in a lottery or not .

I personally won’t. The change that needs to be made is moving the rifle season back two weeks out of the rut. It doesn’t sound like that’s on the table .

The quality won’t improve much without that change.
Click to expand...
There are areas that will see the quality increase, just not widespread. I have zero NR' in my area. Go North 30 Miles and it gets pretty crowded with NR's.
Access is the biggest issue that MDC is concerned about for residents. Not Quality. They want more deer killed. And they have realized now that the NR's over the counter has not achieved that. Residents with better access will get kill numbers on the rise if I had to guess.

I just like the fact that they are reacting to a survey in a positive way, because eventually I think firearms season moved back will be the consensus as old timerz phase out. my .02
 
deep woods goat hunter said:
There are areas that will see the quality increase, just not widespread. I have zero NR' in my area. Go North 30 Miles and it gets pretty crowded with NR's.
Access is the biggest issue that MDC is concerned about for residents. Not Quality. They want more deer killed. And they have realized now that the NR's over the counter has not achieved that. Residents with better access will get kill numbers on the rise if I had to guess.

I just like the fact that they are reacting to a survey in a positive way, because eventually I think firearms season moved back will be the consensus as old timerz phase out. my .02
Click to expand...
That is a hilarious comment. Wanting more deer killed has zero to do with these proposed changes. I have talked to MO MDC from local agents to the state biologist and every one stated that these changes that are proposed will likely reduce harvest numbers. But the access on public and hoping more bucks on landscape in those areas will increase. The stance on this discussion has been that NR don’t kill does so all the sudden these NR hunters getting one less tag will increase the harvest?? And NRLO will still be able to kill two bucks. I’d say these changes will help with public crowding some but limited otherwise. Potentially reduce income but I’d have to do more research on the number of NR that purchase archery and rifle licenses. Also be interesting to see how many NR shoot more than one buck now. PURE GUESS but I’d bet it is small percentage to total herd. I have recently talked to several people in MO impacted by the NR and NR outfitters and these changes will not make an impact. The guided hunts are typically NR hunting one season annually. Again, these changes have most chance to have an impact on public. Going to a draw will be interesting.

I agree with you that some change is good and using survey to do it is good.
 
Last edited:
I might have missed this somewhere. Did they specify a number of NR tags they will allocate ?

The cap number ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom