I put this on preditor masters forum too.

Other states are going to have to go to something like this since deer numbers are rising while hunter numbers are falling. Here in KY we can shoot one buck and unlimited does provided we buy a permit for each two.



Hunters split over doe-first rule
State tries to trim deer numbers in suburbs
BY CHRIS NISKANEN
Pioneer Press

On the opening morning of Wisconsin's firearms deer season Saturday, Brian Dickman seemingly hit the hunter's jackpot — two bucks ambled by within perfect shotgun range. Only he couldn't shoot them.

"An 8-pointer and a 6-pointer,'' the Hudson man said dejectedly. "They practically posed for me."

Dickman held his fire because of new regulations forcing him and thousands of other hunters in Wisconsin to shoot a doe before a buck. It is the first year for the so-called "earn a buck" rule in hunting zone unit 60M, which runs from Houlton along the St. Croix River to Prescott and includes the area around Hudson and Willow River State Park.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources gave earn-a-buck status to 60M and 20 other units in Wisconsin this year where deer populations far exceed state goals. The management goal for 60M is 10 deer per square mile, but the current population is more than twice that at 21 deer per square mile, said Kris Belling, a DNR wildlife manager based in nearby Baldwin.

Deer problems in Hudson and surrounding communities are no secret — residents say road ditches are littered with carcasses from car collisions. But how to control the herd can be hotly debated. Belling said requiring hunters to kill does before tagging a buck has proved effective because it reduces the number of deer that will give birth.

"A buck is the equivalent of shooting one deer, but shooting does will prevent more fawns from being born in the spring,'' she said. "But in general, statewide, earn-a-buck isn't the most popular thing."

Hunters understand the problem, but being forced to shoot a doe first and passing on an antlered white-tail — regarded as the trophy of the woods — runs counter to more than a century of buck-hunting tradition.

"Yeah, we understand the idea,'' said Brian Krohn, of Hudson, who was in Dickman's hunting party, "but since we saw bucks this morning, it's a terrible idea."

Hunters registering deer at the Burkhardt Cenex gas station were about evenly split on the new rule.

"They should let people shoot whatever comes by,'' said Robert Neubarth, of Hudson. "I think most people really don't like it."

Matt Schoeck and Wes Studtman both shot does Saturday morning, registered them at the Cenex station and received a special purple DNR sticker allowing them to hunt bucks.

They immediately went back into the woods.

"The bucks are running wild out there this morning, and hopefully, we can score something with headgear,'' said Schoeck, of North Hudson.

Hunters also can qualify for a purple buck sticker if they shot a doe last year or one with a bow earlier this year. Tony Knops, of Hammond, got a purple sticker after bagging a doe with archery gear earlier this fall.

"It's a good idea,'' he said of the earn-a-buck rule. "We don't need deer tangling with cars. Every mile, there's one laying on the side of the road out here."

Once largely rural, unit 60M, which includes parts of Pierce and St. Croix counties, has become a booming suburban area. That makes deer management more difficult, Belling said. There is less access to hunting lands; the landscape has become an ideal mix of crops and refuges for deer; and car-deer collisions are on the rise.

"More and more subdivisions are built every year,'' she said.

Managers set lower deer population goals in metro units, which 60M became in the mid-1990s, to keep deer problems at a minimum. Other nearby units do not have the earn-a-buck status because they have different goals, Belling said.

Deer managers say killing deer is the only effective method of controlling their numbers; some western Wisconsin communities are even hiring professional sharpshooters to do the job of hunters in urban areas.

In recent years, the DNR held special antlerless-only deer hunts in October, but some hunters didn't like the season, so the concept was dropped and earn-a-buck was instituted as an alternative. While the rule is new and somewhat experimental, it probably will remain in place for the foreseeable future in 60M, Belling said.

Scott Simpson, of Hudson, said he wished he could have bagged the 6-pointer he passed Saturday morning, but he was happy to shoot a doe.

"If it looks good in my freezer, I'll take it,'' he said. "Let's face it, you can't eat horns.

The nonhunting public needs to be reminded that hunting is the best tool managers have to reduce herd numbers when there are too many deer. This article puts the hunting community in a positive light for a change...lets not hope too many Bubba's start bitching "I can't shoot a buck...boo hoo" and spoil this chance.

Seems reasonable enough...killing does is an effective wildlife management tool.

MG

I have hunted under these rules. I don't think they work well.

Why because most people don't want more then one deer perseason. After they earn their buck most of them turn into horn hunters and pass up many smaller bucks that they would have shot if they hadn't shot a doe.

I have had no trouble with it as I bow hunt and "earned my buck early"

I hunt mainly for meat and have no trouble reduceing the deer herd.

Many hunters I talk with only want big horns don't eat much venison and could care less about shooting does.

But try and change the rules to allow for easier harvest. Boy do the hard core "sportsman come out of the wood work.

The hunting rules were put in place to protect a small deer herd. Our herd to booming out of control for many reason. It is time to lighten up some of the rules.

When trying to make it easier to harvest. All I hear it is not fair to the deer.

One are we trying to be fair or are we trying to reduce numbers.

The DNR has propose a longer hunting firearms season. But almost every one comes out against it.
The bow hunters whine that it takes another week or so away from them they only have 4 months now to hunt.
The snowmobliers and X countrys skiers yell about safety.

The gun hunter's yell that we won't have are traditional hunt. A lot yell we are going to kill off to many deer. We still have many people who don't want to shoot any does.

I would propose to reward deer killers if you bring in a deer they give you a free tag for every one you bring in. Instead of charging you extra. That way people who are know deer killers who have provern themselfs capable of killing deer get more chances to do so

Or how about a expensive buck tag and free does. Shoot all the does you want no lics no tags ect.

I can come up with many ways to get deer shot.
But increasing lic fees. Keeping in place rules for protecting the herd. Are not some of them.

I am all for taking the does out first.

I wish we had this in IL. The end result would be more larger bucks and a healthier population overall, IMO

MFH

Not no but heck no. Would suck opening morning see the biggest deer you have ever saw but you cant shoot it just because you havent killed a doe yet.
Bad idea, sucks

One vast improvement here in KY was the change to telecheck. No more loading a deer in a vehicle (no pickup? oops) and going to the telecheck system. Kill a deer, call it into the computerized system.

I don't know if I agree with doe-shooting bowhunters to be given the advantage of shooting their does during the archery season, then being the only ones in the woods come gun season with the "first crack" at the bucks. I am a bowhunter, but I am more of the "what happens in bow season, stays in bow season" belief. Even though bowhunters pay for the extra privilege, all should be equal come Day 1 of gun season.

I don't know if it's being done, but what a wonderful opportunity the sportsmen's groups have here to harvest piles of does and donate the meat to a worthy cause. Here in NY, we have the "Venison Donation Coalition", where successful hunters can bring their legally tagged deer to participating meat cutters, who process the deer and provide it to area food banks for distribution to needy families. This is at no cost to the hunter.

It provides hunters with incentive to harvest additional deer, help control the population and contribute to a worthy cause. I can't think of an easier way to truly portray hunters in a good light.

Erict

Wis has the same type of program.

The processers are soon over run with deer that they stop taking them.

As a processer one can one do so many free animals. Or does your group pay to have them processed.

Processors are paid, though I don't know how much. The Venison Donation Coalition is, I think, a non-profit organization and does take donations.

Hunters purchasing their licenses have the opportunity to donate directly while purchasing their license, which I'm sure gets a good number of donations.

I wish we had this where I am from in Michigan. I think it would get us a better herd. I also think they should eliminate the youth season unless it was to be " doe only".

quote:

Hunters also can qualify for a purple buck sticker if they shot a doe last year or one with a bow earlier this year. Tony Knops, of Hammond, got a purple sticker after bagging a doe with archery gear earlier this fall

I think that is the appropriate way to do it. Or open an early doe only season.

I have shot three bucks this year and seven does.

Yes that would be a good idea a doe only season.

The owner of the land where I hunt in Nebraska has a similar rule. You fill the freezer first and then look for one for the wall. That is one of the reason he likes for me and my friends to come back. For all three of us, the "trophy" we are looking for is a full freezer.

That policy has angered some of the other guys that hunt the land though.

The earn-a-buck rule bites, but it does work. That is, in those management units where it has been in place the result is a larger deer kill-- especially antlerless deer-- than in years when it was not in effect in those units. In the past three years (prior to this one) I had to pass up easy shots (like straight down between my feet) at some of the biggest bucks I've seen in the wild because I didn't have a buck tag yet.
This year in the part of Wisconsin where CWD is present (the area I hunt) we have essentially no limit on the number of deer we can take and they can be of either sex. Also, any antlerless deer we take this year counts toward a buck tag next year if the odious earn-a-buck is in place.
It really is a problem. Managing the herd to reduce numbers to a proper level would mean liberalizing the regs in ways that meet with vocal protest from one group or another, as p dog pointed out. The rules we have don't necessarily make sense from a game-management standpoint, but are the result of DNR trying to accommodate everyone who has an opinion, however ill-informed it might be. Add to that the fact that there are an awful lot of people who go deer hunting that just aren't real interested in venison, and you get what we have.

Similar rules are quite common place in certain (mountain) cantons in Switzerland. If those rules did not exist, nobody would shoot does.
- mike

You guys don’t know how good you’ve got it. In the west deer populations are dropping.. Here in Northern California we have thousands of square miles of huntable mountains with fewer and fewer deer. Most of us go through the 6-week season without seeing a shootable buck, and it only takes a single fork. I propose a pipeline to transfer some of those excess deer over here. Our Fish & Game would probably shut the valve due to not having an environmental impact report or some such. My sympathies for having to shoot two deer instead of only one.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
Similar rules are quite common place in certain (mountain) cantons in Switzerland. If those rules did not exist, nobody would shoot does.
- mike

um that is what doe only seasons are for.

A doe only season has a drawback, lack of participation.

I firmly believe that the only way one can reduce a deer population is to force a change in hunting practices, I know hunters who will never shoot a doe....period. they will go home empty handed unless they get that monster buck, which is all well and good, but it harms the gene pool in the long run, the selective removal of the best gene's, leaving those who while good, don't compare to the monster buck, that was removed.

I have seen petitions, circulated by hunting clubs, that want to restrict deer hunting to bucks only for a region, because they believe, contrary to all scientific evidence, that this will lead to better population, only wuss's or lazy hunters shoot does (believe me this mindset is alive and kicking in many area's) and since it would be harder to harvest a buck that would meet the criterion they wanted, they believed that the smaller bucks would then have the chance to grow into bigger bucks, never mind what the increased numbers would do to the enviroment and how the already high numbers of deer vehicle accidents would skyrocket, under such a system. never mind hte numbers of hunter's who would be discouraged from buying a license for the region, given the limited opportunity to harvest an animal under the rules, so less hunters, less money for wildlife management.

Horns are a bonus, nothing more, in my opinion, since I worry about filling the freezer, not the wall.

Good idea! Wish we had it in NY. Too many does around. Buck hunting would be better if a few mores does were removed plus a decrease in vehicle collisions.

We have to maintain a balance and does must be harvested where populations are out of control. I just meat in the freezer and could care less if they have horns or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Maltese Falcon:
A doe only season has a drawback, lack of participation.

I firmly believe that the only way one can reduce a deer population is to force a change in hunting practices, I know hunters who will never shoot a doe....period. they will go home empty handed unless they get that monster buck, which is all well and good, but it harms the gene pool in the long run, the selective removal of the best gene's, leaving those who while good, don't compare to the monster buck, that was removed.

I have seen petitions, circulated by hunting clubs, that want to restrict deer hunting to bucks only for a region, because they believe, contrary to all scientific evidence, that this will lead to better population, only wuss's or lazy hunters shoot does (believe me this mindset is alive and kicking in many area's) and since it would be harder to harvest a buck that would meet the criterion they wanted, they believed that the smaller bucks would then have the chance to grow into bigger bucks, never mind what the increased numbers would do to the enviroment and how the already high numbers of deer vehicle accidents would skyrocket, under such a system. never mind hte numbers of hunter's who would be discouraged from buying a license for the region, given the limited opportunity to harvest an animal under the rules, so less hunters, less money for wildlife management.

Horns are a bonus, nothing more, in my opinion, since I worry about filling the freezer, not the wall.

Yes there are those who wouldnt participate at all, but there are a lot who would just for the meat and to get and extra chance to hunt.

We have had doe-only seasons for a number of years. The way it has usually been done is that there is an early short season (usually in late October) where fireams or bows can be used in those units where the population is too high. In those same units we have also had week-long seasons in December. These have been in addition to our bow season, which runs from mid-September to early January, in which any deer may be harvested, and our "traditional" nine-day gun season, which runs from the Saturday before Thanksgiving through the Sunday after Thanksgiving and in which bucks only may be shot, unless an either-sex tag has been obtained (by lottery).
None of these has been enough to keep our population at an acceptable level. As much as most people don't like it, the draconian earn-a-buck rule seems to be the most effective way of getting a larger deer kill where it's needed.
Certainly it's not without it's problems. There are those who only want large antlers and may sit deer hunting out. In my experience these are mostly casual hunters who don't try real hard to kill their deer anyway. I have also seen firsthand where people have shot an antlerless deer, registered it to get their buck tag and then dumped the antlerless carcass in the ditch (minus the registration tag, of course.) Two years ago I found such a carcass by the side of the road a few hundred yards from the property I hunt. It was gutted and still warm!

quote:

Originally posted by Maltese Falcon:
I firmly believe that the only way one can reduce a deer population is to force a change in hunting practices, I know hunters who will never shoot a doe....period. they will go home empty handed unless they get that monster buck.

Boy, do I know people like that! Oddly enough, most of them are from Wis, too (not trying to point fingers - that's just the way my experience has been). People like this think they are above shooting a doe, and would never stoop to a doe, or let anyone in their camp shoot one either. They just don't get it. It's almost like antler greed.

Every single hunter has a part to play in managing the herd. If that means you have to shot a doe before a buck, you can't look at it like some kind of punishment or denial - look at it as doing your part. Appreciate those bucks that walk away knowing that you might have a chance later. Do things right and we (and our kids) will have deer to hunt for a long time.

Around here, we can get in on intensive harvet areas. If it's brown, it's down. As long as it doesn't have spots, it's fair game and we don't pick and choose. I wouldn't mind having to take a doe first. Heck we generally kill more does than bucks anyway.