|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 23, 2010 11:18:29 GMT -5
What this plan does do is kill more doe by the group of hunters that is not being used as a "tool". While it doesn't give access it puts the bow hunter into the "urgency" frame of mind the DNR wanted the gun hunter to be in. Bow hunters who now sit and wait for the big buck will have to kill a doe and what better time to kill them when the deer aren't spooked. Either sex tag is not going to happen because of economics and unless some big incentives are giving to land owners to allow public access that will never happen either. This plan would increase the kill ratio and maybe get the numbers the DNR want if their true goal is doe reduction. h.h. Why are you assuming the bowhunter will kill a deer (the doe that earns them a buck) they don't normally kill? How do you know the marginal cost of that deer is one the bowhunter is willing to bear? I don't know but now many bow hunters sit and pass on doe waiting on the big buck. Using EAB they will want to take the doe early before the rut when the prize bucks appear. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by whiteoak on Aug 23, 2010 12:27:17 GMT -5
My problem with any kind of an EAB statewide is that there are areas in the state that do not have a high deer population. If you force everyone that hunts those areas to kill a doe first those areas will definitely be hurt for a long time to come. very good point. That would really put the hurt on the population in my area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 16:59:31 GMT -5
Sept. is a great time to kill does....bring the season in the first weekend of Sept. and make it doe only for archers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 18:29:28 GMT -5
I don,t like the earn a buck part for 1 most yrs i,ll only shoot 1 deer and i think it should be whatever i want , if you come and gut it out drag it out and butcher it for me than i,ll shoot a doe thats a lot of work if you want it that way it ought to be for gun to
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Aug 23, 2010 18:39:57 GMT -5
H.H., Your plan doesn't address the root causes of the problem: marginal cost of taking deer and access to land. We can propose all kinds of rules, weapons choices, seasons, bag limits, etc. we want, but until the hunter sees benefit for the marginal cost of the additional deer, that additional deer isn't going to be taken. Likewise, if we can increase the acreage available for hunting, we don't have to worry about marginal cost. The problem has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with economics. This is all true. Thing is, the proposal the DNR has on the table doesn't address these issues either. The reason for this is that herd reduction isn't the real issue at all , but only an excuse to change the regs to manage the herd for trophy bucks. Given a choice, I much prefer h.h.'s plan. I believe it would result in a larger doe harvest and not at the expense of taking away the most productive hunting days of the year from firearm hunters either.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 23, 2010 18:46:35 GMT -5
I don,t like the earn a buck part for 1 most yrs i,ll only shoot 1 deer and i think it should be whatever i want , if you come and gut it out drag it out and butcher it for me than i,ll shoot a doe thats a lot of work if you want it that way it ought to be for gun to Gun & muzzle loader hunters already do their part and kill 78% of the deer now. Its the bow hunter who gets to hunt 90 days thats not do theirs. Most of them sit and wait for a big buck passing on doe. All my plan does it make them step up to the plate and share some of the responsibility of deer management so the DNR wont move and cut the gun season. h.h.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 21:40:13 GMT -5
there is more to hunting than killing
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 24, 2010 2:03:47 GMT -5
there is more to hunting than killing I completely agree with your observation. Unfortunately, if social carrying capacity is driving the opinion bus and the perception is that there are too many deer (in places), then there hasn't been enough killing resulting from all the hunting. Thus the interest by the OP in making bowhunters to 'do their share.' I'm still waiting for the statistically significant data that predict a change in bag limits/seasons/weapons will cause the population of deer hunters to kill more deer than they would otherwise kill. With all due respect to the DNR spokesman, I'm not buying the "sense of urgency" nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Aug 24, 2010 8:23:37 GMT -5
"I don,t like the earn a buck part for 1 most yrs i,ll only shoot 1 deer and i think it should be whatever i want "
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that and Ive spent many seasons in the past doing the same and a LOT of hunters I know are in this same catagory.
I dont recall the numbers but wasn't it like 50 some percent of the respondants to the online survey saying the same thing? They shoot one deer and do their best to make that one deer a buck.
I feel were at an impass on this subject. A FEW hunters will go out and start shooting does to give away etc but true, for a lot, it's a lot of work in some of the areas hunted, plus extra cost of tags and mileage to get to a processor that takes them.......not mentioning time.
Telling ANYONE that they HAVE TO do something or another that costs them time and money is flat gong to be met with a solid wall of resistance.
I think the number of hunters WANTING does is increasing due to the economy and meat prices though. My records from 15 years of deer processing ending in the early 90s showed a full 70 percent of my hunters bringing in one deer.........a buck, and that's it.
While it IS improving, I don't think most realize the HUGE percentage of people that just buck hunt.
What this does as a whole, is push those of us that do "meat hunt" as much as buck hunt to try to cover more bases.
In that same online survey (dang I gotta find that again) if I recall right, the people wanting to take 3 deer or more was in the single digits of percentage.
The above mentioned impass is that I doubt many of us are willing to tell others what they should shoot (we dont either) and the fact that MOST just want to shoot a buck, period AND the state wants more and more does shot.
That's an elephant that we can only eat one bite at a time like anything else and most of us know there isn't a "quick fix".
The less expensive tags is a big bite needed for a lot of people but there isn't anything we can do (that I can think of) to make it less work, and WORK it is if it's NOT something you enjoy and WANT to do.
Maybe INCLUDE a doe permit with a buck tag? (temporarily) Just throwing ideas out there. I flat dont see an answer.
More antlerless seasons will give us meat hunters more TIME with less pressure (hopefully) but in the end, I see the biggest problem being that a large majority just flat don't want to, and shouldnt HAVE TO, shoot more than they enjoy shooting, want or want to give away, can afford and/or have time to take care of.
Unless the herd numbers get to some kind of balance acceptable by the state there IS going to come a time where they want more shot than hunters want to shoot as a group.
Not a pretty picture IMHO.
Ive no facts, and doubt they exist but.....250,000 deer hunters and 132,000 deer shot. Counting bad weather, crops up, time, bad luck.......whatever..........that still seems to be a pretty low percentage, especially when lots of hunters shoot multiple deer.
I'm not saying this is WORSE than other states. I dont think it is but danged if I can come up with a reason MOST dont shoot a deer other than.....they just didnt see the one they wanted??
just thoughts
God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Aug 24, 2010 9:30:04 GMT -5
Telling ANYONE that they HAVE TO do something or another that costs them time and money is flat gong to be met with a solid wall of resistance. <snip>The less expensive tags is a big bite needed for a lot of people but there isn't anything we can do (that I can think of) to make it less work, and WORK it is if it's NOT something you enjoy and WANT to do. Maybe INCLUDE a doe permit with a buck tag? (temporarily) Just throwing ideas out there. I flat dont see an answer. More antlerless seasons will give us meat hunters more TIME with less pressure (hopefully) but in the end, I see the biggest problem being that a large majority just flat don't want to, and shouldnt HAVE TO, shoot more than they enjoy shooting, want or want to give away, can afford and/or have time to take care of. Steve, you are absolutely right on the money about telling hunters they HAVE to do more. When was the last time the State told people they had to do something they resisted (other than pay taxes)? Yep, you guessed it. Resetting clocks for Daylight Savings Time. That went over like Tiger Woods' wife finding out what the 19th hole really meant to him. People fill out tax returns, put on new license plate stickers, and subject themselves to all kinds of other things at the demand of the state, none of which requires lots of physical labor. But to ask them to KILL a large mammal they don't want, GUT it out, DRAG it to the truck, LIFT it into the truck, and either EAT it or give it away is asking way too much. Nothing else compares to that unless you are incarcerated in a state prison. Your idea about including a doe tag (gratis?) with the buck tag is a good one. It is going to cost the State much less money to have licensed hunters reduce the herd than professional hunters and drivers doing it. They just need to realize the solution to increasing the doe harvest is economic and there is a cost involved. Asking hunters to do it for anything more than free is unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by kallen2818 on Aug 24, 2010 9:56:48 GMT -5
I agree that economics is a key factor and to me it is more the processing costs than the tag costs. I do not mind paying for and taking an additional doe, but I am not in a position to fork out another $100 (more or less) to have it processed. If the state put some subsidy money for free or reduced processing, then I think more hunters would be willing to take the additional doe. At least we would know that the meat would be used for a good cause.
|
|