Quality Deer Regulations for Missourians

[deep woods goat hunter]

I just learned a little about a non-profit 501c recently when I attended a prescribed burn seminar where they were trying to get like minded folks in a 3 county area to create an prescribed burn association. There's benefits/grants available if you go that route, but it doesn't come without some paperwork to file with the MAN (IRS) annually as I understood it. Unfortunately, we failed to get enough interest to move it along but the 501c and benefits sounded interesting. I wonder if there's some benefits or grants available for this effort?

Our areas will be through education and environmental conservation. I have some resources on this and will dispatch after we get our stamp
Thanks for heads up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sligh1]

I am on board with your ideals but what you need to think about is perspective…. To you and I more mature bucks is the goal but to the majority of deer hunters in MO to include both R and NR is the system is not broken. I looked into the numbers and there are not a lot of NRs taking more than one buck in MO already. I do feel age structure could improve with better scoring deer being a result but the majority of the people gun hunting WANT to hunt rutting bucks with a rifle. MO does not allow party hunting which IMO is the most effective harvest method for a non rut rifle season. Yes I know a pretty standing corn or bean plot is really good but Joe Weekend or Joe Public does not have that option. I think you would actually negatively affect hunter recruitment by moving the rifle season out of the rut and you would hurt revenue also because gun hunting the rut is the big draw for both R and NR. I am pulling for you but unfortunately MO deer regs are for Joe Weekend hunter or the two weekend gun hunter rather than mature deer with big racks. And it still produces good deer in the current system. Could it be better, YES. For my ideals but maybe not for Joe Rifle….. The transition you are proposing would be several years to come to fruition and most hunters want instant gratification. Example: If average Joe has a chance at a 130” deer and knows he has several that size in the garage but COULD hold off and hope that deer is 150 next year. I can tell you the answer but I’m guessing you know what the majority woul do. Gratification today don’t worry bout tomorrow mindset. Not a Naysayer just making sure those of us with big deer in our heads understand there are other viewpoints.

I agree with most of your views but there’s a vastly different way to look at it and a GROWING % of guys who have a different outlook….
1) it’s not just growing bigger bucks. It’s guys saying - there’s a balance of age class. A few bucks can actually reach maturity. Right now it’s not balanced & it’s incredibly rare. More rare & less balanced vs neighboring states. That’s not biologically sound. Science backs the argument of a balanced age structure. More hunters each day back this argument. Older hunters hold the other argument: “I want to just shoot a buck”. “I have to shoot a buck”. “Keep it the way it is BECAUSE: that’s the way it’s always been”. There are FACTS in this debate. & the 1st/younger group - by definition- wins those arguments.

2) 4 states & u are dead last between the 4 & MO has the most potential between the 4. It’s a losing argument “we need to keep it the same”. This is typical BROKEN GOVERNMENT 101!!!!! Leave it the same: access to quality hunting for residents will continue to dwindle as the “hard core” guys that want a balanced age structure grow & lock up more land. That group is GROWING each year. The more u keep hunting “crap” - I’d argue the faster & harder land becomes locked up. IL & MO are way way way more locked up vs crossing into border than iowa. I see this weekly with my own eyes. All areas have threats & problems but IL & MO are compounded & will get far worse if course isn’t changed. MI never changed…. Let it stay “crap”… listened to stubborn idiots & in last 25 years, 1/3rd of hunters QUIT!!!

3) moving gun out of rut would HELP hunter recruitment after 2-3 years. Here’s why…. When there’s a balanced age structure across state after 2-3 years (which is 100% what would happen!!!!!!) ….. the pressure to lock up pockets of good management will dwindle. Folks locking up land at light speed right now will simmer down as the whole system is LIFTED UP!!!! People are locking land up BECAUSE of the current regs & system sucking!!!! “Joe Rifle in middle of rut guy” is gonna keep losing access & eventually quit. This will slow or reverse if the whole state has more opportunities for everyone. Again- Iowa & KS are less locked up vs crossing that magic line. There’s a very real reason for this. Limiting of NR’s is also part of the reason why as well.

4) this old tired argument of “it’s always been this way so it needs to stay this way” is: wrong, ineffective, based in emotion vs logic, doesn’t win a basic biological discussion, etc

5) rifles in middle of the rut result in high powers out when bucks, especially YOUNG/IMMATURE are foolish & suicidal. Rapidly increases the immature buck killing & the snowball of a destroyed system is never allowed to dig out of the hole. It’s a failed model, it’s antiquated & the results are disastrous in so many capacities.

6) doe Management is HARDER when rifles in
Middle of rut. Does are hiding. Bucks are visible. When I’m bow hunting peak rut is when I see the fewest does period. Least effective model for population management. More guys keep locking land up to insulate from crap regs - harder it will be to manage does as well.

7) archery hunters lose. Say Rifle season starts “Nov 10”…. Likely a handful of warm days in there. What’s that give for premo archery hunting???? MAYBE 7 days??? Iowa & kansas give the whole month of November to archery. Vastly more OPPORTUNITIES for archery hunters. & gun hunters in iowa or kansas still have incredible opportunities!!!! Gun hunters in IA & KS have BETTER opportunities vs MO. Period. Not one group is winning in MO for any hunter or season…. EXCEPT the decreasing stubborn group of hunters that “just wants to rifle young dumb bucks that are easy to kill”. I’d argue 90%+++ of any group would benefit from the change. My BOTTOM LINE argument- u change it so season is later…. After 2-3 years - almost no hunters of any group would want to go back to the old crap system that’s the disaster we see today. FIX IT!!!!!!!

Is it hard to solve & change? Sure. Anything great is. Anything. Those that want align more with other vastly better states have the winning argument. The dinosaur “has to keep sucking cause it’s always sucked” group has the losing argument. This is a debate & movement like many others. One side has a merited winning argument, one side just has stubborn emotion.

Other winners with this argument are: more revenue for state. More access & opps for residents. States like iowa & kansas getting less pressure cause the best potential state got its head of its a$$ & actually ran it right. Folks are exhausted from listening to the dinosaur crowd & nay sayers that will keep places a disaster. It’s time for a change, it can happen & the facts are on that side of debate.

 

[deerdown]

There's a lot of emotion on this topic for sure.

My questions are: 1) what does a balanced age structure look like? I hear folks talking about it, but quite honestly I have never seen numbers put up that says here's what it is. Anyone have this info? Is it geographical/regional/based on habitat,based on carrying capacity? What's the details behind a Balanced age structure?
2) What is the actual estimates of where the herd is now ? I see that as important to understand how much you have to move the needle/what it'll take to get there. How much you have to move the needle clarifies the breadth of changes required to get there.
3) What will each "thing" changed do to get there? NR Permits halved will get you x% there in x years. Moving rifle to Dec 1-12 will get you x% there per year.
I think the answers to those types of questions will give the effort solid footing for change.
Does IA have a balanced aged structure? If so why? What's the numbers? Just how I look at things I guess. I like to see specifics before taking a bunch of actions that I really don't know the impacts of.

 

[Sligh1]

There's a lot of emotion on this topic for sure.

My questions are: 1) what does a balanced age structure look like? I hear folks talking about it, but quite honestly I have never seen numbers put up that says here's what it is. Anyone have this info? Is it geographical/regional/based on habitat,based on carrying capacity? What's the details behind a Balanced age structure?
2) What is the actual estimates of where the herd is now ? I see that as important to understand how much you have to move the needle/what it'll take to get there. How much you have to move the needle clarifies the breadth of changes required to get there.
3) What will each "thing" changed do to get there? NR Permits halved will get you x% there in x years. Moving rifle to Dec 1-12 will get you x% there per year.
I think the answers to those types of questions will give the effort solid footing for change.
Does IA have a balanced aged structure? If so why? What's the numbers? Just how I look at things I guess. I like to see specifics before taking a bunch of actions that I really don't know the impacts of.

I’ve spent 30 years hunting maybe 10 different states. Anecdotally, in very short summary: u know it when u see it. Iowa has a vastly better age structure than any of the surrounding states. Indicators of this would be: anyone who has hunted multiple states & areas within them: simply ask. . Iowa - with a tiny slice of habitat - always being in top few of B&C states would be a huge indicator of overall balanced age structure. Large deer in general are older. By definition. That’s the simple biggest factor why some states in Midwest suck where others are great. Amount of bucks able to get age vs being shot down as immature young bucks. Why MN went from best B&C state to a joke…. Their age class was destroyed. Why countless buddies who hunt in iowa & MO have standards based on where they hunt “i will shoot 5.5 & older in iowa. If I go across line, I’ll shoot 3.5 year olds”.

Balanced age structure is a pyramid. Some bucks top of pyramid - full maturity. Iowa & kansas have a robust pyramid. Do I have the data on it? NO. Is it reality? Absolutely. MI’s pyramid is pretty much stacked at bottom with 1.5’s & looks nothing like iowa. MO is better than MI- no doubt. But it’s not balanced.

KEY: Hunters are the most informed on these issues. Serious hunters who have experienced years in countless states are the most informed. Better than: a firearms group. Politicians. Insurance companies, etc etc. They need to be a HUGE part of this debate. & they haven’t been historically. Even speaking with over half (guess) of house & senate folks in iowa - overwhelmingly they say “we don’t hear from hunters!!!! We fundamentally control regs & we hear from angry farmers, special interests & insurance companies but don’t hear from hunters!!” This year was first time that changed significantly. So- the debate hasn’t been equal or balanced. Get serious hunters involved & this debate goes a different direction.