re: LDWF deer regulations changes ????

Trying to have one set of rules for the whole state is stupid, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Except possibly lowering the limit.

The "i need to feed the kids" argument is a shitty one no doubt.

Quantity of deer allowed to be killed needs to be regulated, no doubt. A certain number of each sex can be killed by hunters without negatively affecting the overall deer herd.

"Quality" of deer that need to be killed is where I have a problem. Thats driven strictly by people wanting to kill big racked bucks. Some people want to kill whatever buck they see. Neither is more "right" than the other, from a herd management perspective.

I like killing big bucks, but I more like being able to kill whatever I so choose to kill.

I realize there are lots of people on small pine tree leases trying their best to have some kind of trophy management program and getting completely undermined by their shitty neighbors. Thats got to be frustrating, but don't look to the state to make them quit doing it. I have a big enough lease in a right enough spot that I can manage as I see fit and actually see results from it. Why should I have to quit doing that just because some other people far away can't get along?

The fact that I have to deal with doe days is all the proof I need that I dont want the state telling me that what I want to do is wrong. If I had my way itd be 6 points or better and as many does as you want at my lease, but that should be for us to determine, not the state as guided by some guys fed up with their drunk fat neighbors shooting spikes.

What about the folks far south who hunt in the marsh. You can't grow trophy bucks in the marsh and swamp. Obviously this needs to be managed by location in the state. I'm not against limiting the amount of deer killed. But this needs to be done case by case, not whole founded throughout the state. Each area and each habitat if very different. Overpopulation can be a bad thing.

Well of course they would. Pretty much anybody other than Hal Shockey would. That doesn't mean that it makes any difference which one you shoot as far as the deer population goes. You killed one buck in that spot either way.

The management goals of the people in this state are never going to align. I personally like it as it is. Were I in someone else's situation I might feel different, but that's irrelevant. We all own the deer as much as the next man does and I like it as it is, other than the stupid arse doe days.

quote:

---

Thats driven strictly by people wanting to kill big racked bucks.

---

Name me the hunters, aside from those on super managed properties, that will shoot the smaller buck versus the bigger buck if both are side by side.

None, every hunter desires the biggest buck they can kill.

quote:

---

but I'd be on board with something similar to Mississippi that protects more 1.5 year old bucks.

---

THat is all we are asking for, letting one get 4 on a side, or 13 wide, or some minimum would be painful for the ones wanting to shoot for one year. After that it would be business as usual, except the little four is now a medium 6 or 8.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that it makes any difference which one you shoot as far as the deer population goes. You killed one buck in that spot either way.

---

I disagree and a prime example. My daughters first deer was a spike. Tried to load the Ar quiet that morning and had a FtF tried to hit the forward assist and it still ftf then I sling shot it in and she shoots it.
There is no way a 2.5yr old or 3.5 yr old gets dead in that situation. That spike lives and my buck to doe ratio improves.
And yeah I agree there is not a blanket approach for the whole state and I’m sure soybean farmers wish the limit was unlimited!

quote:

---

Heard a rumor that LDWLF wants to cut the number of deer tags to three. Allowing only allow one buck (antler restriction of at least four on one side) and two antlerless deer. The rifle season would also be shortened.

---

I would prefer they do the following:

1. No more than two bucks per year. One of which to be at least 4 on one side.

2. Each deer license purchased includes one doe tag. Each hunting zone would have an allotment of doe tags that can be purchased over the counter at an additional cost. Once the doe tags are purchased, there is no more to purchase.

This would involve the LDWF to be much more actively involved in the enforcement aspect of their jobs, similar to many other states I have hunted. LDWF would also have to hire many more agents for this to be successful. We all know this will not occur, however.

quote:

---

1. No more than two bucks per year. One of which to be at least 4 on one side.

2. Each deer license purchased includes one doe tag. Each hunting zone would have an allotment of doe tags that can be purchased over the counter at an additional cost. Once the doe tags are purchased, there is no more to purchase.

---

If you don't increase enforcement, reduce the rifle season, or both, none of this matters.

Having a long arse rifle season, regardless of tag numbers issued, is going to hamper any efforts to improve the deer herd.

It's alot easier to catch a guy hunting with a rifle out of season than it is to catch a guy shooting over the limit. 90% of hunters aren't killing more than 3 deer, anyway. And rifle hunters kill more deer in this state than any other hunter group.

If you want to improve the herd, you have to shorten the rifle season. Plain and simple. Anything else is just going to fall short.

Just look at the WMA Managed Hunt data. While the average total harvest has decreased, the ratio of efforts to harvest has not.
The 10 year average for hunter efforts per harvest is 10. With the exception of 2015 (18.4) and 2010 (8.4), the yearly average hovers between 9.5 and 10.5. Yet, the hunter efforts have fallen off from a high of almost 26k in 2015, to alittle over 10k last year.

Less hunter efforts, but the ratio of efforts to harvest has remained the same. The number of tags isn't the issue. It's the number of gun days.

Modern firearm seasons accounted for 78% of the deer harvested in 2020 according to LDWF surveys. Primitive was next highest at 11%.

You want to improve deer hunting? Shorten the rifle season.