Kentucky,Pennsylvania and Ohio
Whitetail Deer
How do you like having a one buck limit ? Would you replace it with a 3 buck limit like Wv if you could ? For the record i wish Wv would adopt a 1 buck limit .
Our one buck limit is just fine.come gun season and the Amish start its brown its down.it helps to keep a few bucks around for next year.
I'm fine with 1 buck limit and no way would I want it to change.
Im in ky and i have no problem at all with it. Especially since there are many button bucks unintentionally killed as does that can be tagged as antlerless.
Can you tell a difference in the size of the racks and balance of the herd since implemented? If so,how long did it take to make a difference ?
1 buck is great. Makes many hunters more selective and its paying off in quality.
Too many hunters to change the limit. We have more than enough that kill as many as they can as it is. As far as size of the racks and balance of the herd, are you referring to the antler restrictions or a one buck limit? If you are talking antler restrictions, in my opinion, everywhere i hunt it has made a very big difference in more bigger bucks. Not necessarily meaning there are giant bucks everywhere, but many more big bucks being taken and noticeably more 2-3 yr olds, which is the intention of the restriction.
The ONLY way to get deer to a mature age is "human management".
Ohio has always been one buck and that's part of the reason we've had so many big bucks taken over many decades. In a state of 12 million people (and a LOT of hunters) it takes hard management to keep buck quality up.
I'm fine with Pa having 1 buck limit, we are one of the most hunted states when it comes to hunter numbers and anything other than 1 buck would decimate the deer population. We have enough slobs and poachers already that effect the herd numbers, unless they want to completely eliminate Pa's herd it's fine the way it is. We have antler restrictions in place which helps a lot, makes the hunter think before shooting instead of the old brown it's down mindset, it also adds an element of doubt once the gun season opens up, after the first few days of gun most areas are void of hunters. If you can find a spot with limited access you pretty much have it all to yourself from that point on.
Hunt Ohio and Pa. One buck is all I need, can always shoot doe in Ohio. I have not drawn a doe tag in Pa in years. The dear herd there is much healthier since they reduced the herd size in our area and bucks are living longer and getting bigger with the antler restrictions. Wouldn't change anything.
I can't imagine more than 1 buck in PA. We wouldn't have any deer left. 1 million gun hunters on opening day.
I'm all for the One buck limit in Pa.. The deer in Pa are the best I've seen ever the last 10 years. I would get to see 0ne, two and sometimes 3 P&Y buck taken in a season.. Now I'm see 7 or 8 a season and seeing typical bucks in the o 160 to 180 class sure is nice. Last year we had a non typical that scored 226&6/8.. I've seen more 140 class live bucks here in Pa the last 5 years, than the last 20. Our hunting number for rifle buck hunters is way down, I don't think that Pa had 600k hunters hunt opening of buck season last year. At one time maybe in the 90's we had I guess 1.2 million hunters out on open day rifle. Sadly that is one reason that the deer in Pa are getting to live long.
Anyone know how many Pa bucks are making P&Y over the last few years as compared to say 10 years ago.
Now that the xgun is in Pa and a lot of hunters are using them and are killing big deer with them, I don't think we will ever know how many big deer are really get shot in Pa. My guess is it's 50/50 bow's to xguns. here in Pa. If we didn't have xguns I believe we would have a lot more P&Y deer,as you can't score an xgun in P&Y.. ED
I didn't realize doe tags were by draw in PA. Are buck tags draw too?
Ohio, Only one buck tag come with your general license. Doe tags are draw, but most times most ppl putting in will get a tag. Then if not sold out they have another draw for unsold tags. Then again if not sold out and then over the counter after a date.. In some zones after a date you can buy as many doe tags as you want. ED
I agree with Charlie, when I was young here in NY I hunted a bow only area. If you shot a doe you could turn her head in to DEC and get a tag good for a buck or a doe. The way it worked you could kill 5-6 bucks a year legally. I was young and dumb and for about 10 years I did just that. I would kill a good one very couple a years but I killed a lot of 1.5 and 2.5 year olds. Now 20 plus years later we can still kill two a year but we see bigger and better bucks as folks are now letting them grow. I am all for antler restrictions and one buck limit. I believe it only takes a few years too notice a difference. Scooby
If they ever change Ohio to more than one buck limit, I'll be moving...
I like the antler restrictions in PA. I don't like the 1-buck limit. I don't think a 2-buck limit would greatly increase the harvest totals, and it definitely wouldn't affect the deer herd. Every doe would still get bred.
Here's why a 1-buck limit stinks, and I've had this happen to me numerous times. It's mid-late October, and you have a 115-120" buck standing at 15 yards. Do you shoot him? You still have 3 months of bowhunting, but only one buck tag. I usually wind up passing that deer, then not having an opportunity at a bigger buck. What's worse is the year you shoot a decent buck, then have to watch a true slammer walk by at 10 yards and you don't have a tag.
Most hunters don't even kill one buck, so having a 2-buck limit would not change much. I wouldn't even care if they raise the license fees and also charge $100 for the second tag. The PGC needs the funds, why not raise them?
I certainly like one buck limit.
HerdManager - Personally, the situation you pose is precisely why I like it. Tag out early, go grouse hunting, scout new territory, try some fall fishing. If I had another buck tag in my pocket I would not have the self-control not to sit in a treestand until that tag was filled also. I love bowhunting, but in some ways it would be more accurate to call it an addiction. I get to experience other things in the fall when I tag out early!
It's funny my brother and I were just talking about this. I think the one buck limit is good cause I know if I had two buck tags I would kill at least one buck a year the first halfway decent buck that comes by that I would normally let walk would get shot because I still have a second tag to hold out for a slammer. So I think the quality of the buck would go down slightly.
I'm very much in favor of our 1 buck limit here in PA. I do think it would have a net overall impact on the number of bucks that reach maturity because of the number of hunters that are currently unwilling to spend their one tag on a small but legal buck because they don't want to end the season early. It works here. I can only get one doe tag for my home unit, but I can get 2 for the neighboring unit and have land I can hunt there with plenty of deer so if I'm willing to drive a little bit I can shoot multiple does. This past year I shot 3 does on 3 different properties but didn't shoot a buck. The drawing system is a hassle but I do think its necessary because there are a lot of hunters (some of my relatives included) that would kill every last deer they legally can even if its the last one in the county then complain that they have so much meat they don't know what to do with it and whine next year that they don't see any deer.
Let's be clear. PA is not managing the deer herd for trophy bucks. They are managing the herd to be healthy, and the buck harvest has zero effect on the health of the deer herd. No matter how many bucks get shot, every doe will get bred.
If PA really cared about how many bucks were harvested, they would limit the number of license sales (there is a buck tag issued with every license). So if the State doesn't care whether they issue 600k or 1.2 million buck tags, they obviously don't care how many bucks are shot. And they shouldn't, because it doesn't affect the health of the deer herd. Hence, there is no good reason to not allow 2 bucks per hunter (or the option to buy a 2nd tag after using the first).
Correct Pa is not managed for trophy. But I think that the system in place now is the best way to get bigger deer and keeping the hunters happy. If I was asked what I'd like to see in Pa deer management I would make it state wide 4 points on a side. At this time I don't ever think we will see a draw for Buck tags or a two buck limit.
The setting of a buck limit...or any wildlife regulation, should have nothing to do with antler size. regulations should be based only on the following criteria and in this order: (1) Ecological need; (2) Biological need; (3) Financial feasibility; (4) MAJORITY of hunter desire or satisfaction. Once a parameter is set, a regulation should be changed only on the following criteria: (1) Scientific or biological need; (2) satisfaction of the MAJORITY of hunters. No state is or should be in the trophy management business.
The problem with antler restrictions is that mature 6 points cannot be shot unless the law allows or if there's an either/or minimum inch requirement. The problem with minimum inch requirements, is people shoot bucks and then leave them in the field once they get up on them and appreciate the ground shrinkage.
Idly, I agree with your statement. That is why the one buck rule has worked well here in KY. Doesn't matter if you kill a spike, 2 year old 10 point or a 5 year old, 180 inch 10 point, you are done killing bucks after that for the year. It takes a several years to get ingrained into people's thinking, but it definitely changes the age structure of the buck population. I like the law but still think the quality of the hunt is not defined with how many inches of antler is laying on the ground.
So do you think the majority of hunters in your states now support a 1 buck limit. Here in Wv i think most hunters want better management but no changes made yet. Even our state bow association will not support lowering the limit
Mp, about 15 or 20 Years ago my state started managing deer for the better. Reducing doe and set a minimum number of points on a side of 3 points in most of the state, a few Western countries have a 4 points a side. The second year after it started, I saw good results. A few years later just about everyone agreed that we were see bigger bucks that we never saw before. Some don't like now seeing 20 or 30 deer a day. But I would not wasn't to go back the way it was before AR came about.
I'm all in for 1 buck tag as long I can still hunt and kill some does. For me, it's part of the fun challenge to decide whether to use up your buck tag or hold onto it when a nice buck walks by. I always tell myself when I pass up on a nice buck that I fine because I have some doe meats in freezer and I will look & find his sheds.
I totally agree with Charlie's statement. Self control is not a lot of people's strong suit. In Iowa, as a landowner, I can shoot up to 3 bucks, which I've never done. In the past 20 years I think I have filled 2 buck tags in the same season, twice.
I will give our DNR kudos for the way our deer herd is managed, for the most part. Putting our gun season in December is a huge factor for the numbers of quality bucks, plus in certain areas they have reduced the number of doe tags several years ago which has helped increase our numbers locally. Now, if we could get them to stop listening to Farm Bureau so much!
Think about this, in regard to an antler restriction: There is one good one. If you set a minimum of a 16"-inside spread AND eight points, you have a great AR. That will eliminate over 90% of your 2.5 and younger bucks from the kill. That is great. Now the downside. Unreported kills and deer left in the woods will skyrocket. That AR should be done only in a closely controlled situation and on private land.
On public land and statewide, a points on one side AR looks great in the short term. It too has a considerable downside. First, the deer left int he woods and unreported things comes up again. But of greater concern iis the long term impact. In MS, where just such an AR is in force and has been for some time, they are now getting reports from various management areas that the antler size on the bucks is actually declining. That is due to "high-grading". With a point restriction, you are just about guaranteeing the best bucks genetically, will be killed at a young age. Therefore, they cannot pass those genetics along. A second consideration, when attempting to improve herd genetics is the failure to recognize the contribution from the does. And, third, who decided large antlers were a sign of good genetics? The buck with the largest antlers is not always the dominant or genetically superior buck.
When imposing an antler restriction...of any kind, if the manager or biologist does take into account all of the negative possibilities, negative results can happen. My personal opinion is that an AR should be in place ONLY on private land where each hunter can be monitored. In a state where online or phone check-in is permitted, not only is it a waste of time, it is a considerable detriment to deer management.
The state is charge with providing and protecting a healthy deer herd, not with providing trophy antlers behind every tree. Once you have online or phone in checking, you have flawed data and that produces flawed results. Therefore almost all restrictions become useless. Just my opinion of deer management. However, before jumping on the bandwagon for AR's, I suggest you get some accurate information from the MS biologists on how well it is working long-term down there and WHY they put it in place to start with. Pretty interesting.
Well said bowriter. Everyone thinks it's a one fix for all. PA did it due to sheer number of hunters. As PA was a one buck state before AR's. Misuse of words by pro AR guts like better management, healthier herd, etc. is common because in their mind horn size means better management. While horn size ican be an indicator of health, ecosystems decide individual health. Not horn size. And, the absolute truth that all serious breeders of domesticated animals look for the best female genetics as well as the male traits they wish to achieve in their breeding pairs. It's a odds gamble and truly mind boggling at that when one stops to consider the amount of deer that actually make P&Y minimums versus the total bucks. It isn't something that is genetically guaranteed.
You hear so many hunters say AR's are the answer to their problems. Notice I said their problems. But, it isn't a fix all. It takes habitat to see the results. And most of these guts think habitat is a pasture field with mature timber surrounding it. That's the problem.
Bottom line is AR's should not be used as a blanket management strategy by states in all but the rarest cases. Educating hunters and improving habitat is the answer for statewide plans. But, all be boys, PA and Ohio did it so, everyone one else should too based on their success. What most of these guts don't know or is not telling you is PA was producing big feer a long time before AR's. And the state implemented the AR's with a drastic in tease in doe harvest to stop the decimation of the habitat by the deer. Not to grow bigger horns. God Blesd
