Antler restrictions

[Dan Salmon]

Wow, this is the first time I've seen anyone ask for Earn-A-Buck!

[scottflesher]

yea a very unpopular proposal, I know.
I haven't thought it through with any detail, but it sure would help thin out the does. It would probably also drop the revenue due to some hunters not willing to harvest a doe first. I'm sure the state wouldn't allow that.

[charlie 01]

I thought Ohio was a 1 buck state. Seems to me after someone had his buck of choice, he would shoot a few does for more meat. Here in Illinois, a person can shoot 2 bucks, and therefore presents a problem. For most people ( including me), 2 deer is plenty, and not enough does are harvested. All the nonresidents that come here, shoot their buck,( most outfitters only allow one buck) and they are gone. I'm not saying they are wrong. What I'm saying is, I think Ill should go to a 1 buck limit, and lets say 2 does. That way, you wait for the buck of your choice, (trophy or meat) and a couple of does to help control the herd. And as a added bonus, more bucks will get a chance to grow up.

[willseyville]

here in n.y we have antler restrictions in some of the state. there are none where i hunt and i hope there never are. but there is one thing i would change and that is one buck a year. the way it is now i can shoot three bucks this year. one for bow, one for gun and one for muzzleloader . for bow and muzzleloader it's buck or doe. during gun you have to take a buck and you can get doe permits . i would like to change gun season so it's like the other two and say if you take a buck on one tag you have to take a doe on the other two .i think that after a few years we would start seeing a lot more bucks [:)] wayne

[Dan Salmon]

I agree.  I wish Wisconsin would go to a (1) Buck per hunter per year rule.  There would still be people who shoot more than (1) buck because of party hunting, but those guys start wearing out their welcome really quickly in most deer camps.  This is a perfect way for the state to help manage the antlerless population without having to resort to Earn-A-Buck and similar policies. 

I also think that this works much like antler restrictions because the trophy hunters are more selective with what buck they are willing to shoot and it still allows the average Joe that hunts one or two weekends a year to fill the freezer with the first buck he sees.  In my mind, it's a win-win situation.

The problem is, in Wisconsin, being able to shoot a buck with both your bow tag and gun tag has become an entitlement and you know where that leads when anyone tries to change the way things are done.

[ishman]

Here in Pennsylvania we have 3 and 4 pt per side zones.I am in a 4 pt zone.Junior hunters, hunters 16 and under, can shoot any buck they want. Everyone else must follow the restrictions. I love it. Before the restrictions 90 percent of our buck harvest was 1 1/2 yr old bucks. If you saw a buck you had better shoot it because you may not see another one. We now have many more 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 yr olds and lots and lots of 1 1/2 yr olds. If just getting a deer is what someone wants, then shoot a doe. We have plenty of doe tags. The one downfall to the restictions is that your good genetic 1 1/2 yr old get shot, but most make it another year.

[scottflesher]

ORIGINAL: charlie 01

I thought Ohio was a 1 buck state. Seems to me after someone had his buck of choice, he would shoot a few does for more meat. Here in Illinois, a person can shoot 2 bucks, and therefore presents a problem. For most people ( including me), 2 deer is plenty, and not enough does are harvested. All the nonresidents that come here, shoot their buck,( most outfitters only allow one buck) and they are gone. I'm not saying they are wrong. What I'm saying is, I think Ill should go to a 1 buck limit, and lets say 2 does. That way, you wait for the buck of your choice, (trophy or meat) and a couple of does to help control the herd. And as a added bonus, more bucks will get a chance to grow up.

Charlie, you're right Ohio is a one buck state. The issue I have is that most hunters won't shoot does. They only buck hunt. With the rising popularity of deer hunting, everybody and their brother hunts now, so it seems as if it could hurt the herd if too many bucks are taken and not enough does. Where I hunt, I don't see the state reinvesting much of the money they receive from licenses back into improving herd quality.
I know it would be unpopular to require every hunter to harvest a doe before they were eligable to purchase a buck tag, and to be honest, i'm not sure I'm in favor of it. I was just mentioning that to prove a point and stimulate some thought on the forum.

[charlie 01]

ishman: How many bucks could you take in the season before the restictions? And how many now? What is your doe population now? Do you think hunters are shooting a lesser amout of does? I belive if it was one buck most hunters would wait for the the trophy they want and pass on small 6 and 8 pointers. I shed a lot and I can show you 10 pt. antlers that are small baskets, (some so small they fit in the palm of your hand), that most would not take, yet would be legal to take and yet that deer is nowhere near its potential. Almost like a waist of a good buck.
 
Ohio: I find it hard to believe that if a hunter shot his buck, that he would'nt go out and shoot a doe. Maybe it's just me, but I like to keep hunting.  It's enjoyable to be out there.
 
In the early years in Mich. with a bow, you could take a buck or doe, but only one. With gun, only one and it could only be a buck. After a few years the doe herd built up, so they started issueing doe permits in over, populated areas. In Ill. back then, with gun or bow you could only shoot one deer per lic. and you either had a bow or gun lic. not both. Boy, did our deer herd start to grow. We had plenty of deer. then came the two season hunter. You could get both. Then soon after you could take more than one deer per lic. Now we are at two bucks and some amout of does. 
 
wayne in N.Y. I wonder if the state might think if they cut it down to one buck, that some hunters would not buy some of those permits(gun,bow,or muzzl.) You know the state would not want to loose revenue.
Dan in Wisc. I think this would hold true for Wisc. too. I thought I heard Wic. has earn-a-buck. I also heard when it first started people were picking up road killed does and were turning them in for their earn-a-buck, till conservation got wise to it.  
 
 
 

[ishman]

Charlie, We have only been able to take 1 buck per year, before and after antler restrcitions. Our doe poputation is defintily down. Which to many is a bad thing, but in reality, its better for the herd. Quite a few people have stopped shooting does because they hardly see any deer.            
       
You nailed it right on the head with shooting deer with 8 or 10 pts, but with small spindly racks. Your good genetic bucks are getting shot off when they are 1 1/2, before they have a chance to be nice. i guess that is the downside to antler restictions. A postive it has had is that people have changed there tune on it. At its inception, it was highly unpopular. But now more people have shot there biggest bucks and are seeing more big bucks, which is making them more selective.
 
    Managing deer on a statewide level will probably never have the results everyone wants. And doing it on a statewide level is nearly impossible. But it may just change the way people think when that little basket 8 walks by.

[charlie 01]

I just feel sorry for the guy who is only a meat hunter, and would shoot any kind of antlered deer. But does not care to shoot a doe so the herd can grow some. He is sadly caught up in this antler restriction that he really does not want to partake in, but has to watch those bucks that he can't shoot, just walk on by. And hey, how many chances does a  guy get to take a deer.