isatarak

I read in the Sunday paper where they are having a hearing coming up on possible changes to wildlife regulations. They go out into the communities each year to get input from the citizens.

One thing I noticed they were to consider is a decrease in the number of bucks a person can kill. Now it is 3, but in order to do that you have to kill at least one with a bow.

If they are trying to implement changes to allow for bucks for bigger racks, is this really going to help? I did kill 3 this year, but all 3 were good bucks. I don't really think the number of hunters that kill 3 is all that great, though.

I would be more in favor of requiring some type of point restriction like some other states have. Like maybe at least 3 or 4 on a side.

I would also consider making the second week of rifle season does only.

Another would be to require anyone shooting a button buck to have to check it in as a buck and not an "antlerless deer" if they haven't already checked in a buck.

Maybe a point system where a hunter could kill more deer if he killed does instead of bucks so maybe the meat hunters would be encouraged to kill does instead of small bucks.

In my county, the doe harvest is only slightly less than the buck harvest, so I think we have a pretty good balance in the deer herd.

Maybe you don't even care about bigger racks. What are your ideas?

alsaqr

i have a problem with the way OK does deer season. While you shoot only mature bucks,most hunters shoot anything with horns. The general rule is thatif it has visible antlers itis dead, including spikes.That, coupled with the rampant poaching and spotlighting, takes a horrible toll on the buck population.

i've shot my share of does and wish that OK would go to the "earn a buck" rule: Killed a buck with agood rack this year for the first time in many years. Wish that OK would require a hunter tocheck a doe beforehe isallowed to shoot a buck.

okietreedude

I think antler size restrictions could work and I do believe decreaseing the # of bucks taken will work. If your a bow hunter and see a 6 pt in range, if you have 3 tags, you might take it because it is a buck w/in range and you have 2 other tags to get your 'trophy'. If you only have 2 tags, you might pass on it becase you dont want to 'waste' a tag on a small deer.

I do like to take deer w/ large antlers but in the area i hunt, there are guys that shoot anything w/ horns. This makes big deer far and few between.

If the state is wanting more does harvested, (1) they could also increase the fee for the buck tag (double or more). How many people would pay the extra? (2) buck only days during the middle of the week, excludeing thanksgiving day. (3) first week of season does only, second week either and implement #2.

I also think the idea of button buck is just that - buck. Sorry, you just lost your buck tag dude. On the flip side, that may decrease the number of does taken on the idea of not wanting to screw up the sex identification. also an increase of wanton waste.

I dont think there is any clear way to increase the size of the animals. mischief will go on. but this may be the way to start.

hey, new thought here, what about buying deer tags that can be used all season, regardless of take method?

isatarak

alsgar, what town are you near? I am about 25 miles SW of Enid. As far as poaching, I don't really see much of it here. It's really almost a thing of the past.

On the button buck issue, I would make a hunter check it as a buck if they hadn't already checked a buck. If they already checked in a buck, I would not penalize them for then bringing in a button buck.

The idea of lowering the buck limit from 3 to 2 in my opinion would not change the harvest that much. I don't know a lot of people who shoot 3 bucks. I think the bulk of bucks are shot by people hunting muzzleloader and rifle season and killing 2 bucks.

Raising the price per tag on bucks might not be a bad idea or any other incentive to encourage not shooting small bucks. However someone like me with a lifetime lisence doesn't really care what the price of tags are.

A lot of people want to kill a "buck" because it sounds better than saying you shot a doe. In my experience, young bucks are the easiest deer to kill. And for eating, we all know you can't beat a doe.

How about the possibility of allowing someone the option of killing a doe on a buck tag?

I also agree with making a deer tag universal for each hunting method, but the State won't do that. It would cost them money. Every tag not filled is money in the State's pocket.

I'm leaning toward favoring an antler point restriction. Maybe 3 on the main beam at least on one side. I've seen a few deer around here without brow tines, so I don't think I would count the brow tine.

The problem I see with that is that I have seen a lot of really nice basket racked 8 points with beautifully shaped racks that would be great bucks in a couple of years, so those deer would be killed in place of a crappy spike or a 6 point with an inferior rack.

I was never really in favor of adding an extra week to the rifle season and I think that just adds to more small bucks being killed.

John Deer

I'd be in favor of a point restriction. We lease property and we only take more mature bucks. We actually killed 3 does and only one buck so far this year. I personally passed up around 20 different bucks this season. I did see 3 shooter bucks, but none gave me an opportunity with my bow. If we want meat for the freezer, we shoot does. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see a point restriction of 4 on one side enacted for the state. There is alot of public ground that gets hit pretty hard around my home and I'd love to see less small bucks taken off of it.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd be in favor of an earn a buck policy. Many times, I don't shoot does till close to the end of the season. In my area, I want all the does I can untill after the rut winds down to increase the possibility of bucks coming in to check them. I don't want to kill the doe that I've been seeing regularly from my stand incase she may have come in and brought that buck right by me. I don't want to have to feel as though I have to kill the doe first. I don't know though, it may throw the herd ratioout of whack. Not that it isn't already out of whack in my area.[:'(]

okietreedude

So thiswould be around the Ames area?

I am in Enid.

Small world huh?

alsaqr

isatarek,

i live near Lawton. There is some poaching in Comanche county.Thepoaching becomes more serious the farther east and south you go. In Garvin countythere is a lot of poaching.In far SE OK poaching seems to be a way of life; so much so that there is no special antlerless season there.

Itotally agree with an antler restriction. A Minimum of four points onone side would do it. There is such a restriction on elk-at least five points on one side.

isatarak

okietree, you got it. I live about 4 miles SE of Ames and my property is 1 1/2 miles west of town.

davs2601

I grew up In Lawton....and I am glad I finally got out of there. I agree with the point restriction. I am more inclined to have at least 3 points on at least one main beam. I dont think that earning your buck would help, I think it would be highly detrimental to the herds. I do agree that any button buck should be counted as a buck.

I wish there was a better way to help out the public hunting areas. They get hit extremely hard and I wish there was a better way to hunt the areas. Dont get me wrong I enjoy being away from work and home being out in the woods. But some action everynow and then sure would be nice. I think next year I am going to look into a lease if there is anyone needing someone to go in with.

Anyone know of any good public spots??

davs2601

Is anyone planning on attending the meetings. I thought I had read on the departments site that sportsmen could attend.