This link also tells where MDC will hold public meetings around the state to explain the proposed changes and gather public feedback. You can also go to the MDC website to send your comments directly here: http://mdc.mo.gov/about-us/public-notices/comment-deer-management/deer-management-comments
One of the proposed changes is to reduce the number of antlered bucks allowed during archery season from 2 to 1. I am *STRONGLY* opposed to reducing the limit of antlered deer during the archery season to 1. I have been an avid bow hunter for nearly 15 years and during that time have never taken 2 bucks with my archery gear and tag...although my family and I like to try. After the firearms season in Southern Missouri all deer are scarce and bucks acceptable to shoot are mostly nocturnal. However, we hunt every year until January 15 trying because we love to bow hunt. I seriously doubt that a significant percentage of bow hunters harvest 2 antlered bucks during the archery season. So essentially, this proposal significantly limits hunter opportunity and will have very little benefit towards the goal of increasing the deer herd or age structure of bucks. A better proposal would be to impose an antler point restriction either during the entire archery season or at least after the firearms season OR for the second archery antlered buck. The current proposal is in direct conflict with the rationales for opening archery season to crossbows (increase hunter opportunity and recruitment). It makes no sense! I work hard to manage the deer herd on my property and this proposal would significantly limit the ability of my family to pursue whitetails with no overall benefit to the deer herd locally or statewide. I would much rather see the firearms season divided up into two shorter portions ( a November portion and a December portion) for a total of 9 to 10 days and impose antler point restrictions statewide or as stated above.
It appears that the proposal to open archery season to crossbows is not based upon sound wildlife biology but on the desire to sell more archery tags. The Department is aware that this will result in more deer killed so the proposal is to make that up by reducing the number of antlered bucks allowed during archery season from 2 to 1 knowing that the existing archers will still buy their tags. This takes away from the dedicated and serious archers. Crossbow permits are already liberally available to anyone with an injury or condition preventing him or her from shooting a bow. And why not simply propose to allow apprentice and youth crossbow permits if the goal is recruitment of hunters? I would whole-heartedly support that.
And it does not it make sense to impose greater restrictions on RESIDENT archers and not impose greater restrictions on NONRESIDENT gun hunters. This also looks like an attempt to put tag revenue ahead of biology. The most effective way to manage the deer is to manage the trigger. The most effective way to manage Missouri’s deer herd is to regulate the firearms portion of deer season. This should be the mantra of the Missouri Department of Conservation Department’s biologists. I am not a wildlife biologist but it has been said that “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” There are many reasons why this suggested mantra is obvious.
1) Center fire rifles are highly effective, accurate and require minimal skill to be lethal. This equates to a much greater chance for success for the hunter, meaning a harvested deer. Firearms hunters will have the greatest impact on the deer herd.
2) Archery hunters are fewer in number. The number of firearms hunters taking to the woods on the opening day of season is greater than the armies of most small countries. I don’t have the numbers but I am sure that the total number of archery hunters is a small percentage of the overall number of firearms hunters.
3) Firearms deer hunters are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the overall deer harvest. Conversely, archery hunters produce a small percentage of the overall deer harvest. Thus, further restricting the archery regulations will have an extremely limited impact on the size or age structure of the deer herd yet will limit hunter opportunity.
4) Archery hunters are more likely to abide by the statewide regulations which currently exist. This certainly does not apply to every archery or firearm hunter but talk to your agents and look at conviction statistics and I am sure that you will find that, overall, firearms hunters are less likely to follow the existing regulations. By its very nature archery hunting is an endeavor with low odds for success. A hunter who chooses utilize archery methods is less concerned about success (a harvest) as he or she is about the experience and quality of the hunt and is therefore less likely to “cheat” to achieve success (a harvest).
5) Archery hunters are more likely to self-impose regulations beyond what the law requires. Again this does not apply to every archery or firearm hunter but as a group archery hunters are more likely to be pursuing a certain “quality” of animal or quality of hunt instead of just any success (harvest). Therefore, an archery hunter is more likely to “pass” on harvesting a deer in hopes of harvesting a particular type of deer or doing it by a certain method even knowing that this might result in an un-filled tag. In other words, in the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Hunter Education Manual called, Today’s Hunter in Missouri, The Five Stages of Hunter Development are discussed. By and large gun hunters are more likely to be in stages 1 or 2 the shooting stage or limiting-out stage where the primary focus is getting off a shot or limiting out whereas bow hunters are more likely to be in stages 3 - 5 the trophy, method, and sportsman stages where the focus is on a particular quality of animal, the method used or the total experience of the hunt. It follows that, since archery hunters are more likely self-restricting, archery seasons are less in need of regulation.
6) Archery hunters are more likely to be “managers.” Once again, this does not apply to all firearm and archery hunters but archery hunters are more likely to engage in habitat management such as timber stand improvement, native grass establishment, food plotting, native browse enhancement, trail camera surveys, prescribed burning etc. This kind of monetary and “sweat equity” investment creates a respect and appreciation for the resource (deer) and makes the hunter more likely to be conservation-minded and self-impose restrictions. On the other hand, the majority of firearms hunters are consumers or users of the resource with no investment into it. This creates a lack of self-incentive in the firearm hunter to protect the resource unless required to do so. Thus more regulations are required for the firearms season. It’s common sense: a person takes better care of something if he or she had to work for it, invests in it or pays for it, and “owns” it. And the natural converse is, if a person has no investment into a thing he or she is less likely to care for and protect it.
The bottom line is that, regulating the firearms season will have a tremendous impact on the deer herd and is the most effective way to manipulate, control and impact the size and quality of Missouri’s deer herd. On the other hand, tinkering with the archery regulations will have very limited impact to the deer herd but have the significant negative result of disillusioning conservation’s biggest supporters and limiting hunter opportunity.
So how should the Missouri Department of Conservation regulate the firearms deer season?
An initial observation is that Missouri is situated square in the middle between Illinois, Iowa and Kansas. These three states have long been considered the “go to” states for quality whitetail hunting in terms of the number of animals and trophy potential for deer. Missouri has a decent reputation too but watch enough hunting shows and you’re far more likely to hear the hunter bragging about getting the “coveted Iowa tag” or being excited about getting to travel to the “great whitetail states” of Kansas or Illinois. Also, the number of whitetail outfitters in these three states far exceeds the number in Missouri. This means that people are more willing to pay good money to hunt those states than they are in Missouri, meaning that they think hunter opportunity is better in those places. And having traveled to some of these places myself I can tell you there is a difference in the size and quality of the deer herd. The difference in those three states is that they have far more restrictive firearms deer season regulations, period. It’s that simple.
In 2013 the overall deer harvest in Missouri was significantly lower than previous years. Since then, the Missouri Department of Conservation has been conducting numerous hunter and public opinion surveys and the Department is now proposing numerous regulation changes with the purported goal of increasing the deer herd, although not much is said about its quality. Based on all of the foregoing, considering the deer herds in neighboring states and with the understanding that the most effective way to manage Missouri’s deer herd is to regulate the firearms portion of deer season the following are some possible suggestions:
1) Modify the firearms season dates. Traditionally Missouri has had a comparatively long and intense firearms season allowing the use of center fire rifles in the peak of the rut, the time when deer activity is high, especially for young bucks not paired with does who are traveling seeking a mate. Our neighboring states mentioned do not have this type of long, intense firearms season which allow long-range rifles. The three previously mentioned states either have their firearms season after the peak rut or break the seasons up shorting their length and intensity. Our Department could move the season back after the peak rut, break the season up into two seasons (a November portion and a December portion) with the same number of days but divided, or simply shorten the season. This would reduce the length and intensity of the season which means less stress on the deer herd and better recovery post-rut and pre-winter.
2) Modify the allowable methods during firearms season. At least two of the neighboring states mentioned allow only shotgun and/or muzzleloaders during the firearms deer season. Modern shotguns and muzzleloaders have increased in effective range and accuracy but are nothing like the long-range capabilities of many center fire rifles. The truth of the matter is that the average Missouri firearm hunter is an ethically accurate shot only to about 200 yards maximum yet many have weapons enabling them to take shots far beyond that range. Every year after firearms season I observe numerous wounded deer on my trail cameras whose wounds could not have been sustained as a result of an ethical shot. I’m sure many of these deer perish. Limiting the methods to shotguns, muzzleloaders or maybe even calibers like 30/30 would reduce the chance of deer being wounded and not recovered as a result of shots beyond the hunter’s effective range. There could be exemptions to this requirement for apprentice and youth hunters.
3) Impose antler restrictions statewide. There has been much debate amongst deer biologists as to whether this is effective at increasing the age structure of bucks but as it stands now the “if it’s brown it’s down” philosophy reigns for a majority of the firearms deer season. If the goal is to increase the deer herd, you have to decrease the deer harvest. Eliminating young bucks from the harvest would help significantly to achieve those goals. Visit any meat processing plant on the opening day of firearms deer season and you are sure to see a large number of bucks 2 years of age or less. There could be exemptions to this regulation for apprentice and youth hunters.
4) Reduce tag availability or increase price for nonresidents. The three neighboring states mentioned previously either have reduced availability of firearms tags to non-residents by limiting number and having lotteries and drawings, much higher prices than Missouri or both. In Missouri, unlimited tags are available over the counter at a price much lower than the three states mentioned. Changing this would have the obvious result of increasing the deer herd. Related regulations could be to restrict the methods available for nonresidents or impose nonresident antler restrictions on bucks.
5) Eliminate the antler-less portion of the firearms season. This could be a temporary fix to the number of the deer herd and could be modified as to a region or on a county basis depending on deer numbers and only a yearly basis. 6) Break the State up into management units with different as-needed regulations in each. North of the Missouri River is far different than south. As stated previously the most effective way to manage Missouri’s deer herd is to regulate the firearms portion of deer season. The suggestions stated above are likely to have the greatest impact towards the Department’s stated management goals whereas proposals to modify the archery season are likely to have no significant benefit. Therefore I hope the Department will have the courage and public support to make the appropriate changes as needed.
Whether you agree or disagree with what I have written I hope that you will go to the links provided at the beginning of this message and voice your comments directly to MDC or attend one of the many scheduled public meetings.
One buck per year regardless of take and they can solve half the battle without changing anything else.
I will add one other point, the managed hunts need to be resident only or 10% max to NR's.
One buck per year regardless of take and they can solve half the battle without changing anything else.
I will add one other point, the managed hunts need to be resident only or 10% max to NR's.
Call it what you may, crossbows give some folks the opportunity to take advantage of a longer deer season. Some of those folks may not be able to get a doctors excuse. Some will not be able to pay for doctor visit just for said excuse.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Blugrass
What are your thoughts on eliminating archery opportunity by eliminating 1 archery buck tag? That absolutely reaks of the fact that the MDC KNWOS that crossbows will be popular and also that CROSSBOWS are a much more efficient weapon than archery bows and therefore will increase the kill numbers!
Why not 2 bucks total, max 1 with a firearm?
Organize archery insisted and worked with the MDC years ago to make certain that crossbows would be available to those folks of all ages that had a medical/physical condition that limited their use of regular (real) archery equipment. We are told that there are over 10,000 folks using this exempt permit. That is GREAT ! What isn't great is that the MDC has never, to my current knowledge, survey these folks to determine their success rate or opinions on the usage for able-bodied folks. This alone is a travesty, and oversight of a valuable scientific resource of Missouri crossbow users. Can some one explain to me why the MDC would ignore this huge group for getting great information? Maybe because it might not help the direction that want OR have been told to go? In a period of deer hunting in Missouri where the MDC is proposing cut backs in deer bag limits/buck limits/and season limits.....it seems incredible that they are proposing the use of highly superior "gun-like weapons" for the entire archery season FOR ALL !
I agree with your buddy about a success survey. Good idea.
On another note, I never did get my crossbow exempt permit from MDC. I sent off for it but never got it. I just carry my doctors excuse with me. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the number of MDC permits.
By the way, do you hunt over a food plot? Use a trail camera? Use scent killer? Ambush from high tree stand? Use a grunt call? Maybe you don't, but a lot of "Bowhunters" who call themselves bowhunters do. Give me a break!!
This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Do you really think a crossbow has the same capabilities a rifle does?
That statement is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. I must assume you have never shot a crossbow past 50 yards, maybe never at all, and with a statement like that I'm wondering if you have very much experience with a rifle.
I will say this. Something you have failed to realize, probably thru lack of any experience with the weapon. The crossbow is a short range weapon. Very short range, just like ANY bow! Yes just like any bow you can shoot it out to 100 yards, however you are not going to ethically hunt with any bow at that range!
Obviously a rifle however can easily obtain kill shots at 100 yards and honestly upwards of 1,000 plus yards depending on the exact caliber and rifleman holding the weapon. However for arguments sake we can probably both agree that even a moderate rifleman can make 300 yard kill shots, which are very common in the western part of the states. Do you really believe a crossbow can do this?
I'm not going to get in argument over which "bow", compound or crossbow, is easier to hunt with or even argue if they should be allowed in archery season or not. However your statement, "The only difference in a rifle and a crossbow is that a crossbow shoots an arrow instead of a bullet", is absolutely absurd in my opinion.
Finally I also believe you sell bow hunting WAY short when you say "90% of the difficulty of archery hunting is DRAWING THE BOW." Most hunters I know and talk to refer to the challenge of getting the animal close! Within bow range! Yes you gotta draw the bow in their presence but man is it a challenge even getting them that close to begin with!
http://www.bestcrossbowsource.com/crossbow-arrow-drop-charted-test-results/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVxA1KP_k90
At any rate, the capabilities of a crossbow can in NO WAY be compared to a rifle they aren't even close to each other. The ONLY comparison that can be moderately made is in the way they look. They both have stocks and triggers and can both be fitted with a scope on a rail. That is where the similarities end!
When presented with the facts, making the argument that crossbows are like rifles and that's why they should be illegal during archery season really only makes you look foolish, and hurts your credibility when arguing against them!
That to me is the essence of bow hunting. If someone wants to use a crossbow, all the power to them.
But , God forbid , crossbows ever replace bows and arrows , mankind will have lost of the purest forms of hunting mankind has ever known.................archery hunting with a bow and an arrow.
Most rifle hunters I know dont practice at all. I know more than a few "Archers" who simply hurl a few downrange to confirm pin settings.
Lets not pretend that bow hunters are all ethical, or that crossbows are a threat to YOUR choices.
Just my opinion, but the indians used the "difficult" method, and todays bowhunters use the "easy" method.
1) Missouri rifle season is smack dab in the middle of the rut, it's a recipe for eating up good bucks before they are ripe 2) Missouri has a 3 buck limit. This allows Missouri hunters too rarely need to stop and think about their entire season when encountering a buck...if they shoot a small one they have a chance for 2 other bucks regardless. 3) too much firearms hunting in general. Missouri has a youth farm season, general firearms season, muzzleloader season, pistol and all weapons season.
We give an almost unlimited number of non-resident tags.
We have an either sex tag for residents that is good for any season as long as you use the legal weapon for that season and our KDWP&T commissioners have decided to allow anyone who wishes to use a crossbow to do so in the archery season. So now any rifle hunter who didn't wish to learn how to shoot a bow is now a crossbow hunter in the archery season.
We have no form of registering animals taken so our biologist have no way of recording the harvest.
Good luck if they put crossbows in the archery season for anyone. The success rate for crossbows is much higher than conventional bows(longbow, recurve or compound). That is one piece of information our KDWP&T has been able to gather from random surveys sent out to hunters.
We have tried for several years to get a check system sat up to get an accurate harvest count and real information on how our heard is doing and how animals are being taken (with what weapon). The best we can get is a voluntary survey that KSWP&T sends out to gather data.
