# anyone heard?



## flypilot33 (Feb 9, 2006)

There was a wildlife officer down here that told some people that the state was thinking about changing the regs next year for deer hunting. He said that they were thinking about switching it to where you would have to tag a doe before you can hunt antlered deer or making Ohio antlerless for a year or so. Has anyone else heard anything like this? I can understand and would actually like to see the doe before buck law, but the statewide antlerless only, i cannot see Ohio doing that, that would just be stupid.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

i dobn't hunt anymore,but still have an interest in it.with herds as they are,i can see their intentions and the doe first idea doesn't seem to be bad.not sure how much it would affect the numbers though.i think rather than that,or doe only,a draw system may be something to look at.have lottery with x number of bucks,based on pops per county.limit the buck tags to a number they think would help the ratio.
it seemed to work in the opposite when doe tags were limited that way.entire state was antlered only,with drawings in certain counties,for special antlerless permit.limit was still one deer of either sex per season with the special tag.
with the multiple limits now,it would be a bit different,but probably possible.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

It seems unlikely to me for them to got to Earn a Buck, but it's possible I suppose. I really don't think it's fair to new hunters and those that don't get out often, so I hate the idea, unless absolutely necessary. We're not to that point. If they'd just create antlerless tags at a reduced cost, say $10, I think more people would be inclined to takes more does.
They would never make the whole state antlerless only, so I suspect the whole story you heard was nothing more than a rumor.


----------



## chase845 (Nov 2, 2005)

I think, if they did implement a rule requiring you to take a doe before a buck, after a couple years people would really appreciate the rule. I think the quality of bucks would increase and I think the rut would really be better to hunt (more competition)


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

does anyone remember 10 years ago where the state had an extra antlerless gun weekend after deer season? I took my first deer that weekend when I was thirteen.

I think that was a good idea to reduce deer numbers and still maintain quality buck hunting in the state.


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

I seriously dought that will happen, but there again you never know. That's usually what I do anyway. I get the does for freezer meat then hunt the remainder of the season for that Big buck, :! that hides from me most years


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

I think it would be a good idea to try. I also think it would have more affect on the deer population than the quality of the herd. I think they should implement this is areas where the population is an issue. If you were to take more females out of the gene pool than males, then it means less fawns in the spring, and so on and so on.

I see this also having an effect on those people who only go out for gun season, or those who only go out for a few days. This could also have an impact on out-of-state license sales (which by the way is big money for the ODNR).

SO, I believe this to be a rumor. We'll see.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

I am with M.Magis with thinking that they need to reduce the cost of the antlerless tag and that may help promote bigger harvests. I really don't like the "doe first" concept and can't imagine it working. What happens to the guy that goes out on opening day and has the buck of a lifetime pass right under his stand? Are you telling me that they expect anyone to pass on that?

Another program that may help promote a few more deer harvested would be a program to donate the deer to a Feed the Poor type of program. Other states have such programs. Ohio has a program if you can call it that where you can donate your deer but I believe you still need to pay the processing fee for it.


----------



## freyedknot (Apr 10, 2004)

just a thaught : maybe people would be in an even bigger hurry to shoot their does + more accidents/injuries?


----------



## bronzebackyac (Apr 19, 2005)

If that happened there would be alot more poaching of big bucks. Like BKR said, alot of people are not going to pass up that monster standing in front of them. I also don't know how they would do the discounted tag for a doe. Would they have seperate tags for antlerless and antlered? I think they use to do that years ago didn't they?


----------



## Fishstix (Aug 16, 2005)

I too, would support this idea.


----------



## steelmagoo (Apr 13, 2004)

I would be against having to pass on a buck just because I hadn't shot a doe yet. I can't afford to spend many days waiting for just the right deer, and I don't eat the antlers.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't think anyone has any need to worry about this type of proposal becoming a reality anytime in the immediate future.


----------



## chase845 (Nov 2, 2005)

I changed my mind. I'd be real pissed if a booner stepped out opening morning. Maybe they could have a rule where if you shoot a buck before a doe there's some kind of extra fee or something. If not, I guess you wouldn't see anymore opening day bucks.


----------



## rockbass (Apr 16, 2004)

I am split on this. I think for the guy that is out all week long, he has a better chance. For the guy that is only able to take one day of work off and get maybe 8 hours of hunting in. He may sit out all day, trying to get a deer for the freezer, end up only seeing a buck or two and have to go home empty handed. He misses out on the meat he was going to eat on till next season, and misses out on the money it cost him to get his tags and what not. The cost is part of what turned me off of hunting. If they just need to thin the herd, they should simply lower the cost. Keep the buck tags up, but have other doe only tags at low prices. I know they like getting the money from the deer tags now, but I am sure they would get much more by lowering the price. I know lots of people that just don't hunt because the prices of tags that you may not get to use.


----------



## BassBlaster (Jun 8, 2006)

I had a guy from Wisconsin tell me about the Earn a Buck program and said they started it a few years ago and it has really increased the buck quality and decreased the doe population. I think it's a great idea. I also think the people that would be against it are the guys that are hunting solely to hang antlers on the wall. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to put a Booner on my wall someday, but theres more to hunting than just bagging that big buck. Besides this program could increase the quality of bucks and give more of us a chance to get that monster buck. I vote YES.


----------



## lastv8 (Oct 11, 2004)

had a guy tell me about this last week. I think it would suck, but the deer numbers right now are off the hook. I had a friends dad get killed on his motorcycle this year thanks to a deer. Look how much $$$$ the insurance companys are putting out right now to repair cars. I can see them doing something. this is OHIO, so who knows.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

why change anything?
we live in one of the BEST states in the nation to hunt whitetail deer!!!
something has been done right in the past and should stay that way.the herd is healthy,and ALOT of trophy bucks are taken each year.
thin them(does) out where it's needed by making extra doe permits available.
it'd be a bummer to have that once in a lifetime buck come by and not be able to take him!


----------



## flypilot33 (Feb 9, 2006)

The only benifit would be to fix the ratio. As most people know the buck to doe ratio is way off. I think that would be the reason for changing anything more than population control. I don't see them saying no bucks for a year, I had just heard that.


----------



## Pure river (Sep 12, 2005)

I would not be for and "earn a doe" policy. Like many have mentioned, not being able take a great buck if the opertunity presents itself is just not right. I am however...sorry..distracted...victiora secrets fashion show in on NBC....whewwhh.....ok.. back on track...

I would however be in HUGE favor of some kind of antler restriction that would parallel programs recently implemented in PA and many southern states. Discounting doe tags to get people to buy and shoot more does would accomplish anything. 

Does are abundant in the state, as well as the yearly crop of 1 1/2 year old bucks. I am not quite sure what the birth rate sex ratio is, but I think i remember seeing slightly higher buck birth. There is a high percent of hunters that would be happy with A DEER..the first deer they see is "soup for the pot" Many times, this deer be it bow season, or gun season is a small antlered year and a half old buck. If hunters were FORCED to pass on these deer and with our over abundant doe herd, chances are they WOULD get an opertunity to harvest a doe with just a little patience and fill their tag, with what we hear ohh sooo often.."meat in the freezer"..

This accomplishes herd number management, and helps to re-establish a proper buck to doe ratio in the state, while by default allowing more bucks to reach an older age. Once hunters accept and ambrace the antler restrictions they will quickly see that there will be plenty of opertunity to harvest an antlerd deer...and BETTER older age class antlered deer at that. 

Granted, antler restrictions are just that..a "Restrictions". It is true that this would restrict some people from harvesting "a deer". But by restricting some...many more hunters would benifit and more importatnly the herd as a whole!! The biggest problem with restrictions is people, expecially hunters do not like to be restricted. I feel the posotive of restrictions far outweigh the negitives. Just think of our highways if we were all aloud to drive the speed we wanted to?? It would be chaos. I think in just a short pierod of time, anlter restrictions would take our Ohio deer herd to the next level. Yes..its amazing now..but could be out of this world.

NOW.. if we can just get the state to quit issusing an OVERABUNDANCE of crop dammage permits!!! They will give one farmer 20 permits to whack and throw in a ditch..but keep our prices and bag limits set where they are???

LET THE HUNTERS CONTROL THE NUMBERS..not some summer rifle happer farmer and his buddies getting their rock off in June blasting deer with a 30.06!!!.but..that is a whooooolllle other thread!!!!

pr


----------



## flypilot33 (Feb 9, 2006)

I like the idea of antler restrictions. And I take offense to the summer rifle hunters. I have been on one of those on and off few about 5 years. lol. On my property I have my own restrictions for anyone who hunts it. Like said at first it will be tough but after a few years you will start to see how good of a thing it is by a higher number of larger buck sightings.


----------

