Missouri Deer Hunters
02-13-2007, 04:49 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,118
Missouri Deer Hunters
I just got done chatting w/ the MO whitetail biologist, by email, and thought some of you might like see what Mr. Hansen had to say:
My questions:
I'm sure you are aware of the hype surrounding trophy bucks in our bordering states, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas. These states have begun to consistently produce more big bucks than Missouri despite our excellent genetics and farmland habitat, especially north of the Missouri River. It seems to me that we are just as capabable of producing as many or more trophies than our bordering states but we dont. I have noticed that the states i previous mentioned have several factors that differ from our seasons and limits. They all have later opening rifle seasons, reduced buck harvests for a total season, 2 to MO's 3 (archery and firearms), and more restricted non resident requirements. Are you and the MDC considering any of these factors or is our goal and/or strategies different?
I also realize that MO has the 4pt antler restriction and I believe this is a great start for helping our herd. I know it has some flaws but its does more good than harm in my opinion. Is there any plan on implementing this statewide? Is this restriction working as intended in your eyes? What are the procedures/penalties for violating this?
What are numbers of resident deer (archery and firearm) permits issued compared to non-resident deer permits issued? Do you think this number is to high and, if so, will limiting non-resident permits be discussed after the 2007 season? I did notice that we have increased the price of our non-resident permits this year. Was this to reduce their numbers or to keep prices inline with other state's non-resident tags?
Hansen's repsponse:
Hello Dennis - As you know, the primary reason Kansas, Illinois, and Iowa produce more adult bucks is that we shoot our bucks at a higher rate and, as a result, they do not live as long in Missouri. The question then is why do we shoot them at a higher rate. It is likely that there is no single reason; you touched on several. I think that the most important reason is that we have far more hunters that those states (probably more than the 3 states combined). Throw on top of this the fact that our firearms season is in the middle of the rut when bucks are most vulnerable and you can see why we shoot our bucks at a higher rate. I do not believe that a 3 buck limit has any effect. In 2005 only 153 persons took 3 antlered bucks. Also, allowing centerfire rifles probably has a minimal effect on buck harvest rates.
We are in the middle of an evaluation of antler point restrictions. Our goal with this regulation was to shift harvest from bucks to does,thus allowing us to better control populations and produce more bucks in older age classes. Thus far it appears that we are taking more bucks 2 1/2 years of age and older because of the antler restriction but in northern Missouri doe harvest has not increased. We will continue with the regulation through 2007 and then decide where to go from there. I doubt that we will go statewide because there are parts of southern Missouri where the regulation is probably not appropriate biologically or socially. The penalties for violation of the antler restriction,like all of our regulations, depend on the circumstances. In some cases fines are imposed; others may involve warnings.
We are always looking for better ways to manage deer in Missouri. We will have discussions about the future of antler restrictions and possibly shifting seasons around after the 2007 deer season. This process will probably include public meetings and hunter surveys next winter. The changes to be discussed might include moving the November portion one week later, moving the antlerless portion into October and pushing the Muzzleloader season into late December.
In 2006 we issued 863,621 resident firearms (landowner and purchased, any-deer and antlerless) and 33,038 nonresidents firearms (same categories as for residents). We issued 311,564 resident archery permits (same categories as for firearms) and 9,098 nonresident archery (same categories as for residents). I do not believe this number is too high; they take a very small proportion of the deer. The increased nonresident fee was more to align them with other states than to reduce nonresident numbers.
My questions:
I'm sure you are aware of the hype surrounding trophy bucks in our bordering states, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas. These states have begun to consistently produce more big bucks than Missouri despite our excellent genetics and farmland habitat, especially north of the Missouri River. It seems to me that we are just as capabable of producing as many or more trophies than our bordering states but we dont. I have noticed that the states i previous mentioned have several factors that differ from our seasons and limits. They all have later opening rifle seasons, reduced buck harvests for a total season, 2 to MO's 3 (archery and firearms), and more restricted non resident requirements. Are you and the MDC considering any of these factors or is our goal and/or strategies different?
I also realize that MO has the 4pt antler restriction and I believe this is a great start for helping our herd. I know it has some flaws but its does more good than harm in my opinion. Is there any plan on implementing this statewide? Is this restriction working as intended in your eyes? What are the procedures/penalties for violating this?
What are numbers of resident deer (archery and firearm) permits issued compared to non-resident deer permits issued? Do you think this number is to high and, if so, will limiting non-resident permits be discussed after the 2007 season? I did notice that we have increased the price of our non-resident permits this year. Was this to reduce their numbers or to keep prices inline with other state's non-resident tags?
Hansen's repsponse:
Hello Dennis - As you know, the primary reason Kansas, Illinois, and Iowa produce more adult bucks is that we shoot our bucks at a higher rate and, as a result, they do not live as long in Missouri. The question then is why do we shoot them at a higher rate. It is likely that there is no single reason; you touched on several. I think that the most important reason is that we have far more hunters that those states (probably more than the 3 states combined). Throw on top of this the fact that our firearms season is in the middle of the rut when bucks are most vulnerable and you can see why we shoot our bucks at a higher rate. I do not believe that a 3 buck limit has any effect. In 2005 only 153 persons took 3 antlered bucks. Also, allowing centerfire rifles probably has a minimal effect on buck harvest rates.
We are in the middle of an evaluation of antler point restrictions. Our goal with this regulation was to shift harvest from bucks to does,thus allowing us to better control populations and produce more bucks in older age classes. Thus far it appears that we are taking more bucks 2 1/2 years of age and older because of the antler restriction but in northern Missouri doe harvest has not increased. We will continue with the regulation through 2007 and then decide where to go from there. I doubt that we will go statewide because there are parts of southern Missouri where the regulation is probably not appropriate biologically or socially. The penalties for violation of the antler restriction,like all of our regulations, depend on the circumstances. In some cases fines are imposed; others may involve warnings.
We are always looking for better ways to manage deer in Missouri. We will have discussions about the future of antler restrictions and possibly shifting seasons around after the 2007 deer season. This process will probably include public meetings and hunter surveys next winter. The changes to be discussed might include moving the November portion one week later, moving the antlerless portion into October and pushing the Muzzleloader season into late December.
In 2006 we issued 863,621 resident firearms (landowner and purchased, any-deer and antlerless) and 33,038 nonresidents firearms (same categories as for residents). We issued 311,564 resident archery permits (same categories as for firearms) and 9,098 nonresident archery (same categories as for residents). I do not believe this number is too high; they take a very small proportion of the deer. The increased nonresident fee was more to align them with other states than to reduce nonresident numbers.
02-13-2007, 07:58 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ILLINOIS
Posts: 1,207
RE: Missouri Deer Hunters
That's pretty cool that he took the time to write such a detailed response. I had no idea you guys had that many hunters.
The only thing I disagree with is the effect of allowing rifles. Illinois and Iowa are shotgun only states and I believe that has alot to do with the quality of bucks. I saw a couple of bruisers that I could have dropped with a rifle, but with slugs (and open sights), theylive to see another season. I love it that way. Some may disagree, but I would hate to see a rifle season in Ill !
The only thing I disagree with is the effect of allowing rifles. Illinois and Iowa are shotgun only states and I believe that has alot to do with the quality of bucks. I saw a couple of bruisers that I could have dropped with a rifle, but with slugs (and open sights), theylive to see another season. I love it that way. Some may disagree, but I would hate to see a rifle season in Ill !
02-18-2007, 07:09 PM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arnold, MO
Posts: 2
RE: Missouri Deer Hunters
That is a very interesting post thanks, it's great to see our biologist is so willing to communicate his ideas and thoughts. I do see where as shotgun/muzzleloader only would reduce some kills, but prob alot of those long rifle kills are on does too. I think that you touched on moving the gun season away from the rut a little more, and I think that would have a major impact of little bucks being killed, that and a statewide antler restriction would not hurt my feeling either.
02-21-2007, 10:33 AM
#4
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 342
RE: Missouri Deer Hunters
Great post! I have to say that I am generally very pleased with the Missouri Department of Conservation. They do a really great job and deserve much more credit than they get.
I like the idea of re-arranging the hunting seasons that Hansen proposed. Making the rifle season a week later could make a huge difference in the harvest totals.I'm not sure if there willbe much public support forit though.
I like the idea of re-arranging the hunting seasons that Hansen proposed. Making the rifle season a week later could make a huge difference in the harvest totals.I'm not sure if there willbe much public support forit though.
