how do you feel about earn a buck?

[Caleb the bow breaker]

Something for everyone to keep in mind regardless of your stance on EAB or any other game management technique is this.  Hunters, and Anglers for that matter, have taken the place of natural mortality in almost all systems today.  Game and Fish agencies are required to manage the resource with several things in mind

1. Game and Nongame species
2. Disease
3. Public Safety
4. Consumptive and noncomsumptive use

Not everything we do (I work for a game agency) is based on hunting and fishing even though that is where the majority of our funds come from.  It is also impossible to please everyone and keep the resource in the forefront.  Some folks want meat, some want horns, some just want to be out there and no matter what we do somebody gets upset.  By in large EAB is only used in extreme circumstances of overpopulation on an imbalance in buck:doe ratio.  Basically they are used because hunters (I am also one of those) are not doing our part to control the population by harvesting enough does.  And we as managers must take drastic action to force the hand of hunters because they wont do it voluntarily.

As a caveat I must admit that I manage fish populations and may not know the intricacies of deer management and their are different issues accross the country.  But remember this.  Game agencies dont do something just piss off an individual person or group of people.  Their actions are based on science and sustainable resources for everyone, or at least that is what I base my decisions on.  If you dont think that is the case let them know.  Call your local office and see what the real story is, dont always believe what you hear at the coffee shop or at the local trad shop.  Biologists work for you and for the resource and speaking from experience here are usually just as frustrated as you are when things dont work out the way we want them too.


Caleb

[ChuckC]

Caleb, the idea itself is not a problem.  We have had earn a buck here for numeerous years now.  

One of the big problems is that it continues on as a requirement, unchanged, even though a great majority of hunters you interview complain about not even seeing a deer during several days of hunting this past year.  

Imagine hunting for over twelve days and seeing one deer, on the last day.  This is in Wisconsin mind you, where just two years ago I would have seen deer every single outing and had shot opportunities probably 50% of the time out.  

Yes, we needed to reduce the herd, but don't be saying we are not doing aour part.  Where did the deer go if they are still there.  IF they are not there. . .   why ?

Look at our kill numbers for this year (combined everything gun, bow, bazooka, whatever)  we are down over 25%.  Course the DNR says it was the weather, and the hunters (I am getting really sick of hearing that one), this and that and the other.   Never once do they come out and say... well we may be wrong.  

Sure, there are areas of high deer density,  but frankly,  not very many folks in Wisconsin believe the DNR anymore regarding that.  They (the DNR) seem to think every single patch of woods has deer packed in, just waiting to jump out in front of a car.

There are well over a million acres of public access land in this state.  I wonder how many of those acres are "vastly overpopulated".

I don't have the answer.  But something is broken.  That is why folks are up in arms about this topic.  
ChuckC

[Bowwild]

The intention of earn a buck regulations is a good...try to get more hunters to take at least one doe per year.  However, I don't like the concept because I think it cheapens the taking of a doe. I fear some hunters might be tempted to take an otherwise unethical shot in order to "earn the buck".  Bowhunters are already the best in terms of taking a high percentage of does vs. bucks than any other hunter. In fact, whenever we convey the benefits of bowhunting and bowhunters we should remind managers that bowhunters are tickled pink to take does...and bucks.

[coffee]

Whether one likes ENB Earn-A-Buck or not the fact remains that if you are trying to reduce herd numbers in high density areas, it works!  In fact for whatever reason, it may be the only thing that works.  Like everyone else who likes seeing deer or has had to pass on a great buck I cannot say it is my favorite thing.  No matter how much I dislike it though it does work and I for one would hate to see it eliminated as a herd control tool.  Like any tool when it is used indiscrminately it can be very bad like many of us in Wisconsin learned.  Where I live in Door County Wisconsin we have seen this used 5 years in a row until it was dropped last season.  The effects were devestating on the herd. The goal here was to get the deer numbers down to 15 deer per square mile.  In the Northern half of Door County you can make a strong argument that we have way surpassed that goal.  The way the DNR in Wisconsin counts deer is another issue of great concern and volumes have been written on how they do it using Sex,Age,and Kill (SAK)formuala. It sounds like in the future they are now going to take more into account the winter severity, predation, poaching, car kills, etc. I don't think any two issues,even baiting, have split and divided deer hunters in Wisconsin more than ERB and the way the DNR counts deer and determines goals and numbers.
While Wisconsin might very well be at the crossroads on what happens with the deer herd it is not actually the first time Wisconsin, in its long whitail history has had to deal with it.  I would highly recommend a new book "On The Hunt" by Robert C. Willging to gain excellent insight on this whole topic.  While the book is about Wisconsin I am sure people from many other states will see a similar if not identical pattern when it comes to the whitetail deer.

[Bowwild]

Coffee,
I have good friends in Sparta that are pretty upset with WI deer hunting.  Of course the event of finding CWD in your wild deer herd started the great reduction in the deer herd. WI was the unlucky state to be the first major eastern deer state to find CWD.  States all around have followed the WI strategies very closely because no one knows who's next. My county here in KY has about 40 deer/mile which is probably about 15 deer/mile too high but the hunter in me sure likes it.

[Cottonwood]

Originally posted by mwmwmb:
I didnt vote. but, I think it should be used in certain areas but only in gun seasons. I feel that with a bow. if they are in trad bow range we have EARNED a shot at that deer.

Amen to that statement.

I would be in favor of better deer management as an option.  If a bowhunter arrows a selective doe, say one of the older does, and presents proof of such to their DNR or like us here in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) then would recieve a buck tag becuese he has helped thin the ever growing doe population that we have.

I see more does killed along the highway, than bucks, and deer damage is expensive to repair as I found out with a new vehicle two years ago when the deer hit me.  Had I of smacked her with the front of my rig, it would have totaled the SUV as she was a big whitetail and at 65 mph the impact is not soft.

Make it an option.

[Mike Theis]

I live in WI in a CWD zone. I am on the northern side of the CDW zone. We have had earn a buck in force in this GMU for about 5 years now, maybe more. (Don't want to take the time to look it up, but it's probably more than 5.) It has definitely decreased the deer herd in my area. There are less does, and less deer in general, but the buck ratio has gone up. The problem is that the overall deer numbers are getting progressively worse (substantially lower, buck or doe.) But I guess that is the intent of deer management in a CWD unit. If you are after a big buck, the good buck ratio doesn't do you any good, if you can't shoot a doe first because of low numbers. This is what leads to the cheaters, with double registrations, etc. In the past, I have gone without shooting a buck, as I have had difficulty in shooting a doe, any doe. Or, I have shot a doe, but then did not run into many bucks due to low population. I pass on the nubbin bucks to fulfill the EAB requirement. A gun hunter will not do that, on average. So if the intent of Earn a Buck is to battle CWD, it is probably the only tool that will work. I understand why they use it. If it is for other reasons, they should consider using it sparingly or not at all, as it will greatly reduce the herd within a relatively short period of time.

I really am disgusted in this whole CWD thing, as are most hunters around me. I have my theory on why and how CWD started in WI, but that would hijack the thread and probably start a brawl. If someone is interested in that, they can PM me. But watch out for that disease, it can really screw up your hunting.

[Cyclic-Rivers]

I have hunted WI all my life.  When EAB first came out I thought it was dumb.  The next 2 or 3 years we killed some nice bucks and saw some even better ones but the herd size was low and we saw few does. Then for 2 years all I saw were bucks who were easy to rattle up. Now for the past 2 years if you saw a deer you could count your blessings.

I think EAB is a great management tool however, I think management needs to manage better. They can start by taking a proper census.  

I dont know the exact figures but deer kill was down 25% from the previous year and down 30% the year before and down 15% the year before that. I would say that would mean it is down probably about 40% in 3 years.  

They blame the weather and lack of hunter movement moving deer every year.  Every hunter I know from around the state is reporting few if any sightings.  If it was  greed issue, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Fewer people will travel and pay the fees for an out of state hunt due to the lack of deer.  Many hunters say they will not hunt the following year. Sooner or later they may not.  Will the herd recover? Sure! they just have to find an accurate way to calculate herd size 1st.

EAB good management tool if used correctly and ended when numbers are again at a good level.

[Don Stokes]

EAB may be better than some of the alternatives. Here in Mississippi we just lost a good portion of our buck hunting through the passage of a new law that makes part of the former bow season an antlerless-only season for gun and bow hunters. The insurance lobby won this one. I'd rather have EAB than this "solution".

EAB may not be the best solution, but we have to do something to thin the does or pay the consequences.

[Stringwacker]

Hi Don,

You will still be able to take a buck with a bow in that antlerless PW season....just not with a primitive weapon. I hope that eases the sting a little.

[Don Stokes]

Thanks Mark- I missed that! It gets confusing when a 45/70 is a primitive weapon but a bow isn't.

[Dustin Waters]

The real issue I have here with this earn a buck thing is that too many of the people deciding to make these changes in any state are appointed and not voted into office.  The only person that is voted into a states office that has the authority to change seasons, fees, limits, etc is the governor.  Your states lead biologist is appointed, your states DNR chief is appointed.  The committee that decides to change these structures, yup you guess it appointed.  So when it comes down to it if you want to change something you have to burden the governor of your state to get what you want.
I live in Indiana and have hunted here my whole life.  6-7 years ago special interest groups claiming to be for the 'hunters' of the state passed the OBR (one buck rule)  This was merely a stepping stone to passing more laws to alter the seasons down the road.  Now the DNR is claiming that after passing the OBR we have a burdening deer herd.  We need more deer killed, we need have an over population.
The appointed officials idea is to move gun seasons out of the rut, shorten the seasons, and start a two day doe only gun season in Oct.  All the while not changing the price of out of state tags.

The ultimate repercussions of this move will be widespread leasing/outfitting making it impossible for citizens of this state to hunt deer in their state without breaking the bank to afford a lease.  Out of state leasers are not going to come into this state to shoot a doe, they are going to kill a buck and go home leaving the herd to flourish until next year.  When they come back to shoot their buck and go home.  There has to be a point in which earn a buck is instituted to keep the herd in check, there also has to be a point where outfitting/leasing is stopped to control the herd.
For example on a single leasing website there is almost 6000 acres of Indiana farm land in various counties locked down that are not being hunted.  Having read the contract that these farmers sign.  The land remains unhunted till it is leased.  If it doesnt get leased that year nobody hunts it and the herd is left to pop out of control.  

Before you decide to make changes think long term.  The people in charge of Indiana have not and the people who pay their salaries and taxes in this state are going to suffer in the long run.

Like it was said earlier, lots of things look good on paper till the rubber meets the road.  Be careful what you wish for.

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

Dustin I agree with your statement about the leasing of land also.  We have 2500+ acres that we used to hunt on right behind my fathers house and one day it was offered up for lease.  The way it was supposed to work was the surrounding property owners were supposed to be offered the first chances to buy in on the lease.  We were the nearest property owners and were never offered a chance.  Needless to say it was leased to a bunch of guys from out of town who all had way more money than we do and out of the 20 some about 2 actually hunt on the property.

[bobman]

I wish Gerogia would institute earn a buck. I'm tired of earning does with my bumper. IMO horn fever has made too many deer hunters lose sight of the things that should be important in hunting its all about kill some XXXX inch buck. I like to see big bucks like anyone but find the disdain people have for killing does strange

the deer herd here in GA is way out of wack

[Jeremy]

Here in CT we get replacement anterless tags in some management zones when you kill the deer on private property and register the deer at a check station.  In the same zones, when you register 3 anterless deer you can get an either-sex tag (EAB).

EAB has shown in many cases that, when used correctly, it can effectively bring the population numbers down quickly.

I get 6 tags (3 either sex, 3 anterless; two of them are for the January season) with my Archery Permit.  Then I can get 3 antlerless tags and one either sex tag for the regular season on private land and another tag for the regular season on state land.  That's 11 deer right there, then throw the nearly unlimited replacement tags into the mix...

The state is trying to get the deer population down to reasonable levels.  Right now, a good part of the state is at 3x the carrying capacity of the land.  That's not good for any of the species sharing the woods.  The problem is hunter numbers are continuing to fall, and the hunters we do have aren't coming close to filling their tags due to lack of time in the woods.

[bobman]

the deer population nationwide is thru the roof, what I find funny is young people complaining about the deer population being low in Ga when just 30 years ago the limit was 2 deer ( now its 12) same with my home state of Wisconsin the legal kill  is way way larger than it was in the 60s when I was a high school kid yet the hunters complain of lack of deer.

I like hunting them but IMO there are too many of them most places

[bobman]

One more thing down here my friends simply wont kill a doe they are so concerned a big racked buck will be following and they will miss their chance. If earn a buck was instituted it would force them to kill some does and get the herd back in balance.

I am not really in favor of any govt intervention but so far the hunters here in Ga aren't really cooperating most guys pass on does

insurance rates for deer collisions are on the rise also

[ChuckC]

Bobman  don'tjust look at the deer kill numbers, look at the hunter numbers too.  I have unlimited tags available in the CWD area for the last five years at least.  Course, I don't hunt here any more because I am tired of not seeing any deer.

Drive the highways.  Pretty rare to see a dead deer anymore around here.  I wonder if that means that the deer are looking both ways now ?

It is a good tool to decrease numbers, but I think that the DNR wants eradication, not just lowering the numbers.  

Two or three years ago I saw a fair number of deer when I went hunting.  I rarely see one now.

ChuckC

[OkKeith]

I am not all that interested in the EAB for Oklahoma. I don't really think it will increase the number of deer taken for all the seasons. We have several doe-only hunting seasons and a generous doe limit for archery and other methods.

Someone mentioned that Wildlife Department officials are not elected.

Not sure how it works in other states, but here in Oklahoma the Commission members ARE appointed by the Gov. The agency director is hired by them but is a true wildlife/natural resources profesional. Of course some are better than others (I think the one we have now is VERY GOOD).

All the biologists are profesionals as well. Does politics get played sometimes? Sure, that kind of thing happens anywhere and everywhere.

I sure don't think electing individuals to our Wildlife Conservation Commission is the answer. Even in a rual state like Oklahoma, only 12-14% of residents hunt. Nowhere near enough to gain a majority. We could see Commisioners elected who would like to see an end to hunting.

OkKeith

[bobman]

Originally posted by ChuckC:
Bobman  don'tjust look at the deer kill numbers, look at the hunter numbers too.  I have unlimited tags available in the CWD area for the last five years at least.  Course, I don't hunt here any more because I am tired of not seeing any deer.

Drive the highways.  Pretty rare to see a dead deer anymore around here.  I wonder if that means that the deer are looking both ways now ?

It is a good tool to decrease numbers, but I think that the DNR wants eradication, not just lowering the numbers.  

Two or three years ago I saw a fair number of deer when I went hunting.  I rarely see one now.

ChuckC

if it helps eradicate the CWD then it will be worth it IMO