Gary in Duncan has the right idea. Keep the two buck allowance but the second buck is a bonus for killing a doe. The ODWC could issue a confirmation number for a doe kill that can be input when checking in the second buck.

We all have plenty of tags for doe meat for the freezer. The only reason “old school” hunters want to shoot two bucks is greed and habit. If you have not hunted in a state like Kansas with a 1-buck limit, you don’t know how much we are missing out on in OK. People who are against a 1-buck limit obviously know very little about proper deer management.

When OK goes to a 1-Buck limit, everyone who is foolishly against it now will admit it was the best thing ODWC ever did. 5 years after a 1-Buck Limit is in place, OK will become an awesome deer hunting state. But we will never have great deer hunting with an outdated 2-Buck Limit, pre-rut muzzleloader, and a peak rut rifle season. It’s not 1989 anymore, yet there are still some hunters who act like it is. Let’s get progressive Oklahoma!

I have been a deer biologist for 28 years. Oklahoma is behind the curve when it comes to managing its buck age structure. They need to do what is best for the deer herd and go to a 1-Buck Limit. With a 2-Buck Limit, ODWC is more interested in making big money and less interested in managing deer properly. Oklahoma deer hunters; you are missing out on some great deer hunting by not supporting a 1-Buck Limit.

If you want better deer and better hunting, a 1-Buck Limit is the simple solution. That is a fact. If you want meat like Jim said; shoot a doe or 3. Need proof? Hunt just one day in Kansas (1-buck) and see if you ever want to go back to a rusty old 2-Buck state like Oklahoma. Trust me; it will open your eyes-

Sounds like all the deer shooters above who are against a 1-Buck Limit have the old “greedy antler fever” and need to shoot a doe for freezer meat. I thought the greedy “yearling-skull-plates-n-a-cardboard-box” fever went away in the 1990′s. I guess some people still have it.

[...] Readers buck up about buck limitsNewsOK.com (blog)Oklahoma deer hunters are in a debate about whether the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation should reduce the buck limit from two to one. Here are some emails I received in response to Sunday's column suggesting that the overall buck limit be …The hunt is on: Elk, white-tail numbers good; antelope, mule deer aren't as strongGreat Falls TribuneKendus: Deer baiting a topic of debateThe News JournalOUTDOORS: Opening weekend of deer season specialOneida DispatchHelena Independent Record -Statesman Journal -St. George Daily Spectrumall 30 news articles » [...]

[...] Readers buck up about buck limitsNewsOK.com (blog)Oklahoma deer hunters are in a debate about whether the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation should reduce the buck limit from two to one. Here are some emails I received in response to Sunday's column suggesting that the overall buck limit be …2012 general-season buck deer hunt begins Saturday with big changesCache Valley DailyOutdoors digest: Youth duck seasonsKansas City StarThe hunt is on: Elk, white-tail numbers good; antelope, mule deer aren't as strongGreat Falls TribuneThe News Journal -SurfKY News -Oneida Dispatchall 35 news articles » [...]

I am shocked that ANYONE in 2012 would be against a 1-Buck Limit! I agree with biologist Tom; sounds like greed and habit to me. We all have plenty of doe tags for the table so there is no reason anyone needs to harvest more than 1 buck per season. Turn your manly, ego switch off and lean on the ODWC to update their antiquated 2-Buck Limit and reduce it to 1. A 1-Buck Limit will provide everyone with great deer and deer hunting in Oklahoma.

How are you backing your arguments for a one-buck limit? what are the statistics based on? With the implementation of online check-in stations there is absolutely no way you can judge the average age of bucks being killed (before that i’ve never seen a jaw pulled at a check station). I think that the opportunity to kill two bucks a year is privilege and most the time I never even punch that second tag. As for the QDM argument. Y’all are trying to compare our state with KANSAS?!?! hmmm. only one thing.. have you ever been to Kansas? HUGE DIFFERENCE. CRP… Agriculture… WATER… Ingredients that grow big bucks, not to mention you can’t afford to hunt there (no wonder why there are giants everywhere)!! I’m all for going to a one buck limit if you tell me you can plant half the state of oklahoma with soybeans, corn and alfalfa… If you want to see bigger bucks on your property, implement antler/age restrictions. Offer educational courses for hunters… There are a multitude of ways to inform people about QDM and yet our state officials and biologist would rather “limit” our time in the woods.

Here is something I wouldn’t be opposed to and maybe this would change my mind. Instead of sending those duck/goose surveys in the summer… ODWC, send out a deer survey with information regarding your previous season.. I would like to know the statistics of how many people who hunt actually use both buck tags. After that I think you have a better/worse argument for basing your one-buck limit ideas. If you limit us to one buck, they better greatly increase the amount an out of stater has to pay for a license and tag… i.e. you’ve compared us to Kansas.. Maybe institute a draw system for them boys from Texas who like to come up and lease all our land to shoot all our dinks… Ooops! Didn’t mean to open that can of worms..

Have you looked at a prime farmland or rainfall map of KS and OK? They match. In fact we get more rain in SE OK than anywhere in KS. THEN look at a B&C density map along that KS/OK border. All those red and orange counties meet our white and yellow counties right down the line! I am a crop consultant covering both states and Texas. Their landowners, land use, CRP/Pasture/Cropland ratio, soils, rainfall, and crops grown are the SAME! When are hunters going to let this “corn and beans” “magic beans in a bag” grow big deer, mentality go? Some of the biggest bucks in Kansas are in areas way out west in a 20″ rainfall with sage, yucca, cactus, and wheat fields. But they are big because of a 1-BUCK LIMIT and December Gun Season.

“Ingredients” that grow big deer are AGE, AGE, and AGE. And bucks age with a 1-Buck Limit in place and a post-rut gun season. All the KS, IA, ILL, & OH bucks start out small, just like ours. They don’t eat a corn cob and a soybean and grow a 200″ rack their first year. These bucks are afforded the opportunity to age due to conservative, progressive, 2012 deer hunting regulations in those states. Something we don’t have in Oklahoma because of an outdated, complacent wildlife dept. & miss-guided, ill-informed hunters who argue against new ideas without even knowing what they are arguing about. They are chasing their tail if they want bigger bucks, but still want to shoot 2 bucks with lethal arms during pre-rut and peak rut year after year.

Every hunter in my area is in favor of a 1-Buck Limit. Bravo to Ed for writing about a great idea! Nobody can put real biology or science behind “needing” to shoot more than 1 buck per year when we have all the doe tags you might want. Good Job to the ODWC on allowing many does to be taken. Bad Job to the ODWC for not getting their buck bag limits lowered and up to date with better states like Kentucky, Ohio, and Kansas.

Bill, I agree. ALL hunters in my area are ready for a change. Like several people have pointed out, sounds like the guys who still want to whack 2 bucks, and are vocal about it, are just plain greedy. With ALL the doe tags we ALL have, why would anyone want to shoot 2 bucks anymore? Looks the vast majority of comments are Pro-1-Buck! Great to see most hunters supportive of a 1-Buck. Fact is, many many ODWC biologists are also Pro-1-Buck statewide, yet won’t stand up for what they know is biologically sound science simply due to the “ties” that bind.

I agree with a 1-Buck Limit. What hunters who are arguing against a 1-Buck don’t realize, is they are hurting themselves majorly for future “opportunities”. A 1-Buck Limit will provide awesome hunting opportunities all across the state. Why would a 1-Buck Limit “limit time in the woods” with all the doe tags and special seasons we can all participate in? If you need more “time in the woods” don’t shoot the FIRST buck that walks by and stay in the field. No one is stopping you from spending time in the woods from Oct-Jan deer hunting. That is your choice to shoot a buck early and be out of buck tags.

I agree! 1-Buck Limit would be the best thing for our deer and deer hunting. I hunt a small property and would love for my neighbors to only be able to take 1 buck per year. I pass every buck until they are fully mature, regardless of rack size or shape. This would sure help my deer mgmt. goals. I would not fight this fight if I lived in Kentucky where they only let hunters shoot one buck. I would have better hunting and so would my neighbors. I would think most hunters only hunt a small to average size piece of land like me, so they too should support a 1-Buck Limit. Don’t look at this like they are taking something away! They are doing what is best for the deer herd and future of deer hunting in Oklahoma by considering a 1-Buck Limit. Biologists around the U.S. agree that a 1-Buck Limit is what is best for the DEER HERD because it allows more bucks to reach mature age classes which is good for the social balance and herd dynamics of all deer herds.

Looks everyone is on board with a 1-Buck Limit! Except for a few people who have had their head in the sand for the last 30 years. If you all would study up and read about the many benefits of a 1-Buck Limit, you would not feel this reduction is in any way “limiting”. This is a good thing Ed wrote about and the folks who have commented against it have a lot to learn about deer hunting and proper deer management. My friends and family also hunt small places, and we would fully support a 1-Buck Limit.

I also hunt a small lease and would support a 1-Buck Limit! These guys who are against this is are missing the forest for the trees! My family has asked for a 1-Buck Limit for years and the ODWC is only interested in making money and does not want to do what makes the best biological sense for the deer herd. Sad. I plan to send a letter to my Wildlife Commissioner and ask that they support what Ed wrote about. A 1-Buck Limit- Everyone who loves to deer hunt and cares about the future of our sport should support a 1-Buck Limit.

Oklahoma has the same potential as ANY other big buck state in the U.S. We would have just as many big bucks as Ohio or Iowa if we went to a 1-Buck. We have the habitat, rainfall, genetics, and ag. All we need is one thing we have always lacked; AGE. A 1-Buck is the missing link to great deer hunting in OK!

I hunt public land and would be for a 1-Buck limit in Oklahoma. The public land in Kansas and other states I have also hunted with conservative regulations (1-Buck, Shotgun/Muzzleloader Only etc) is much better than what we have in Oklahoma. As I said, I hunt public land and would love to shoot a big buck someday, but will never see one if we do not consider a great change like a 1-Buck Limit. PUBLIC LAND HUNTERS, if you want to also have better deer you should support a 1-Buck Limit. This will provide a ton of mature bucks for both public and private land hunters. This is a fact. I can’t believe anyone would not be for a 1-buck limit with all the info that is out there today on its many benefits.

I may be the only lady commenting here, but I just became a hunter 5 years ago. I pass every young buck I see and was rewarded with a 5.5 year old last year that was awesome. He scored 164.5″ and I am very proud of him. I work hard to manage our little hunting spot with food plots and cameras. I wish we had a 1-buck limit as it would help me manage my age structure. Since we cannot enroll in DMAP, I would like the state to do what is best for the herd and go to a 1-buck limit. I wish Oklahoma would wake up and quit fighting a 1-buck limit like a bunch of greedy children. We need this in our state and I would support a 1-Buck Limit! Anyone who loves deer hunting as much as I do, man or woman, should support this change. Lisa L. OKC

Lisa, I am also a female hunter. I highly support this and so does my entire family and everyone I work with. My husband and I hunt a small family farm and we try to do things right, but it is hard to reach our goals with liberal deer regulations in Oklahoma. We enjoyed Ed’s article and highly support a 1-Buck Limit in OK. Brandy Claremore, OK

I am ALL FOR A 1-BUCK LIMIT! Lets do it. Why would anyone argue with a great thing? Should have gone to a 1-Buck 20 years ago.

I want better deer hunting. I also hunt a small place like most hunters in OK. We are missing out folks. I support a 1-Buck Limit! I have about 12 guys I work with and every single one of them support a 1 buck-limit in OK. Put us down for 13 votes in favor of this idea! Great idea. Thanks Ed

I hunt a small family farm with my children near Cushing. We all support a 1-Buck Limit. Great to see so many positive comments! Looks like ODWC has some work to do and reevaluate some of their “surveys” because obviously everyone here wants a 1-Buck Limit in our state. Back to the drawing boards ODWC. Time to make things better in our state and go to a 1-Buck. Such a shame that those greedy few hunters in Oklahoma who are stuck in the 80′s and still want to kill a truckload of bucks, argue this great idea. Looks like they are few and far between anyway.

I want to kill lots of bucks and wihs it was back at 3 limit

I agree with Max. ODWC has been behind the curve for years. We should have gone to a 1-buck 20 years ago. My club members (all 21 of them) are for a 1-buck.

I have heard the Noble Foundation agrees with the 1-Buck Limit. Too bad they are not in charge of our regulations. I am on a lease near Enid, and my friends and family in Grant, Kay, and Garfield are FOR a 1-buck. Just like Kansas. If you have never hunted in Kansas, you would not know. We are getting the shaft in Oklahoma people. 1-Buck for us.

I am for a 1-buck like everyone else! I get a kick out of some of the emails Ed received above. Like, “It frankly makes me MAD I have to let a deer walk” & “I get “no” satisfaction from shooting a doe” & “my reasons for “getting up early” are “over”. Kind of a fair-weather deer hunter if you ask me. Guys like this are the only people the ODWC apparently listens to otherwise they would have changed things for the better already. If people quit deer hunting because of a beneficial rule change, they were planning to quit anyway and just needed some excuse. And why do they care so much, if they really don’t like to deer hunt anyway? Sounds like some people are looking for something to complain about.

I am glad to see people are for a 1-buck limit. I hunt with my elderly father on our small farm just outside of Clinton. He and I firmly support the 1-Buck Limit. I am also a lady bowhunter and have taken 3 does with my bow. I have passed all young bucks hoping they would age. I believe a 1-Buck limit would help all hunters on land big or small in our state. I applaud the hunters who have spoken up for such a worthy idea that will benefit our deer herd. Thank You Ed for a great topic.

All the people I know are for a 1-Buck Limit, and it appears 99% of these comments and emails to Ed seem to favor this idea, yet the ODWC says “MOST” people are against improving our deer herd with a 1-buck?. I think someone needs to figure out where this info is coming from? Fishy.

I support a 1-Buck and so does my entire family and all my hunting buddies.

Jackson, the questions they ask people are loaded. They start them out with “seeing few deer” or “seeing EVEN fewer deer” “then would you support” this or that??… That is why they always get negative survey responses to every question. Why would a 1-Buck Limit cause people to see “LESS” deer??? A 1-Buck Limit would allow hunters to see more bucks for sure. Hunters in KS, OH, IA see LOTS AND LOTS of deer. And big bucks. These “surveys” they send to a few hundred random hunters per year are loaded. They ask the question in a way to get whatever response they are looking for. What kind of response Yes or No do they expect people to provide when they tell them they are not going to see ANY deer? This doesn’t even make any sense.

I have never seen a survey and do not know anyone who has. They need to poll the entire state sounds like Blake. I am pro-1-buck and I also hunt a small farm with family.

I hunt public land and would be in favor of a 1-buck limit Ed.

I hunt in far eastern Oklahoma and we need the wildlife department to reduce the buck limit to 1 statewide. It is very difficult to achieve successful results in a deer mgmt plan when your state has outdated buck bag limits and rut rifle hunting. We have 7 members in our lease and we support the 1-buck limit idea Ed.

We also have trouble getting bucks to an older age class on our farms. We have 11 people who lease with us and nobody is allowed to shoot more than 1 buck per year. But the state wildlife dept allows out neighbors to shoot 2 bucks per year. The ODWC does not help is achieve our goals but they help our brown it’s down neighbors with their rut rifle season and 2 buck limit. What a joke. There are 12 of us here that support your 1-buck limit. We are all in!

I am so glad so many deer hunters commenting here are for a 1-buck limit. Should have happened a long time ago. Nice piece Ed.

Call your local wildlife commisioner and tell them you want a 1-buck limit for Oklahoma.

I think we are missing out on some great deer hunting here in OK. I have hunted and worked in Kansas for over 25 years. The hunting is much better there because they have a 1-Buck limit per hunter. Everyone in OK should get on board with this great idea Ed wrote about.

I hunt in an area where many nice bucks are possible. I try and try to manage for better quality older bucks but I come up short almost every year. I’m no eligible for DMAP (the copout excuse ODWC uses to tell people if they want better deer in OK they can signup for that but they are NOT going support anything new or better in our state). Basically the ODWC seems to be telling all the hunters who are not eligible for DMAP that we are “out of luck and up a creek” in Oklahoma if we want better deer. I guess I will start hunting with all my friends and family that now hunt exclusively in KANSAS! I am for a 1-buck lmit near Hobart. Yes!

The sooner we adopt a 1-buck limit, the better! I’m all-in for this measure! It’s time that we get aggressive about the future of deer hunting in Oklahoma.

I am also for ODWC moving to a 1-buck limit. I hunt near Walters with my sons. We all agree that OK is way behind when it comes to managing for quality. Seems as though hunters like us who want quality are not considered in the ODWC plans. Time they start equally catering to us just like the brown and down hunters of years ago. The department needs to realize more people than they let on to want a 1-buck limit. I work in Lawton with about 30 deer hunters in my department. They all want better quality bucks to hunt and agree a 1-buck limit will provide this. I hope Jerry Shaw reads everyone of these comments because it looks like we are all proving their “most hunters are opposed to a 1-buck limit” WRONG!

I hope 50,000 deer hunters who are sick of our outdated regs and our complacent “stuck in 1970″ wildlife dept write in to Ed or make a comment here in favor of a 1-buck limit. Maybe then they will see MOST hunter want quality in OK. Put me down for 34 votes for a 1-buck limit.

I agree with all of these comments except the greedy few who still think they need to be “men” and shoot more than 1 buck per year. Few properties can sustain the harvest of more than 1 mature buck per year anyway. So i know these guys are shooting young bucks. I am for a 1-buck limit. The sooner the better. Thanks Ed. Everyone I know disagrees with how our deer herd is managed in OKlahoma. They want a 1- buck limit too. There are about roughly 25 Hunters I am in close contact with and they all hate our old school regs. So put me down for 26 votes for a 1-buck limit.

I’m a wildlife major and about to graduate. I agree with all the posts here and will never work for ODWC. I agree they don’t have the best interests of the deer hunter who is interested in better quality bucks in mind. They only care about money and not about what is best for the deer herd. Every hunter I know (and I know hundreds) in Oklahoma is in favor of better regulations like a 1-buck limit. They say people aren’t in favor of this; but they are wrong. Deer hunters in OK; you are being fleeced into thinking “most” deer hunters do not support this but that is simply not true. How many hunters would rather shoot a young small racked buck over a mature age large buck do any of you know? Think about it. Everyone should rock this boat and support the idea Ed wrote about. A 1-buck limit. I support it and I will graduate with a degree in wildlife biology in May.

Put me down for 1 buck only. I’m tired of passing up 4-6 pt deer, only to have them jump the fence and the neighbors whack em because they have a bunch of tags.

Also, you’ve got TONS of Texans who come up here to hunt because it’s cheaper for them than to find a lease in Texas. And they kill EVERYTHING that walks because they don’t have OK interests at heart.

I’d gladly settle on a really nice old buck and a couple does instead of a bunch of dinks.

Do it ODWC,..and do it NOW.!

I hunt a large family property in SE OK. My family and friends support a 1-buck limit in Oklahoma. It would help us have better quality older bucks and much better deer hunting in Oklahoma. Every deer hunter,especially those with kids and grandkids should write in to support this idea.

I support reducing the buck limit to 1 and so do all my friends. Hey Ed looks your article title was wrong “Limited Support”. Maybe that is what ODWC to,d you but it appears everyone here thinks otherwise. I’m sick of the canned answers I get from ODWC on this topic. They don’t care about the hunters like me who are actually trying to manage the resource and giving something back. I manage habitat shoot tons of does every year and pass every immature buck I see. Yet the ODWC cares nothing about the guys who are doing what is best for the deer herd. They favor the loud-mouth brown it’s down imbeciles who don’t have no idea what it means to put back and manage the resource. ODWC it’s time for a big change in Oklahoma. Obviously you see your so called “surveys” are wrong and you need to get with the times! I’d love to hear a biologically sound reason a hunter still thinks they need to shoot 2 bucks other than the fact they are whiny ego maniacs who are greedy. I favor 1-buck in our state.

Why does Jerry Shaw say most hunters are against this when everyone I know support seeing better bigger bucks in Oklahoma? Maybe this is what HE wants but he needs to do what is best for the deer herd and future of deer hunting in Oklahoma. You would hope they would do what is best for the deer herd and hunters and not for their “interests”. I think there is something being covered up. I strongly support a 1-buck limit per hunter per year. It would help everyone and everything when it comes to deer hunting. Bigger older bucks are the result of a 1- buck limit. It’s a no brainer. If you want better deer hunting and bigger bucks you should write a letter to your Wildlife Commissioner ASAP. 1-buck limit for OK!!!

I hate that guys like me, my family, and all my friends, who support more progressive regulations like the one buck idea are ignored and overlooked each year. We do everything right for the benefit of the future of deer hunting and our deer resource yet ODWC only caters to the old deer slayers out there who want to shoot as many bucks as possible to trip their ego switch and most of them are not shooting does either. It’s troubling that the ODWC caters to the old school hunters who don’t care about actually managing our deer herd. They are only consumers not managers. I wish we would ge some new blood in the ODWC and improve our deer regulation for those of who actually care about the resource. I disagree with the rut rifle hunting and the 2-buck limit. My surrounding hunters and landowners here in western Oklahoma firmly support Ed’s article idea; the one buck limit. Should have happened 25 years ago!!!! No hunter can argue the benefits of a one buck limit. Time for some changes ODWC. The natives are getting restless.

And I AGREE with Cody from Stillwater. I want to ask the few people who argued against a one. Buck limit in Oklahoma…

Do you want to see, hunt, and shoot a yearling forkie or a 5.5 yr old 10 that scores 145″? What do you think the majority of hunters in oklahoma want??? When you answer the question, honestly, you then know a 1-buck limit is the way to get all hunters what they really want. That’s a fact that no one can argue with. Hunters want bigger older bucks to hunt and harvest and a one buck limit will provide that. Write it down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let’s do it ODWC. Time for a big change in the way our deer herd is managed. You are ignoring allot of good deer managers out there and hurting the entire deer herd as a whole with your antiquated deer regs-

If you actually want to manage for better deer and better deer hunting in Oklahoma, you are all out of luck. ODWC doesn’t believe in better deer and deer mgmt. like better state DNR’s like Kentucky etc. If you want better deer or better deer hunting you have 2 options; high fence your hunting spot or simply stop hunting in Oklahoma and start hunting in Kansas. I know several people who don’t hunt here anymore because they were tired of beating their heads against the wall trying to manage for any kind of quality in Oklahoma. They now hunt in southwestern Kansas. They kill big mature bucks almost ever year. I support a 1-buck limit or simply boycotting Oklahoma and moving your hunting lease or land to Kansas where they actually give thought the the quality manager. Unlike ODWC.

All you emailers who wrote in against the one buck idea, need to use those itchy trigger fingers to open a book on QDM, read up on the topic and learn a thing or two. Unreal that you all are shooting yourselves and all of us in the foot by arguing against this one buck idea. Pitiful. With all the information out there today available you all still disagree on this topic. You have allot to learn. It’s because of you that the deer hunting is subpar in our state. You are keeping us from reaching our true deer herd potential.

Looks like all the hunters here support a one-buck limit. ED, I HOPE YOU ARE PASSING THESE ON TO JERRY SHAW. The ODWC “survey” results stating hunters will not or do not support this idea, ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG. This comments section proves it. Your next survey needs to ask 1 question. “Do you want to hunt bigger, better bucks in Oklahoma? Yes or No. And when 100% of your polled crowd gives you a YES, then you can reduce our buck limit 1… I agree with several of the people on this list of comments; should have happened 20 years ago. Time to get real ODWC. You know hunters today want better deer and deer hunting. And you know we have too many does and not enough mature bucks. And you know a one-buck limit would fix this- If you will not even TRY IT, that is saying something about your agency as a whole. When its working in tons of other states why would you deprive your hunters and not even give it a try???

I am glad we are finally looking at this idea. I have said for years we needed to reduce the loss of our younger bucks to improve our age and quality. This one-buck idea is a great plan of action. This will help all hunters across the state. you can “self-regulate” yourself all you want, like Jerry Shaw pointed out, but if your neighbors have 2 tags to burn on young bucks, it is very hard to reach your goals. I see here that most people are in favor of better ideas like the one-buck limit. Glad to see it. 1-buck for me and my family!

I am for a 1-buck limit. I hunt near Ada. This will help us all see bigger, better bucks in Oklahoma. Thank You Ed.

Ed
I support the one buck limit for multiple reasons. I believe as the quality improves so will the economic impact for the state. The argument for more people not checking their buck in happens now with our current limit. i also wish we would continue to strengthen our truss-passing poaching and put in steeper penalties for poaching. As hunters we need to take responsibility to keep our herd healthy by taking more does. The main reason i get up is to enjoy what the Lord has provided us in the great outdoors.

I am so happy to see so many hunters agree that a 1-buck limit is the best thing the ODWC can do for our deer herd. ODWC, are you seeing this? I hope so. All my friends and family complain about the ODWC. Now is their chance to revolutionize the deer hunting in this state and go down as the Dept that “made the impact” for the betterment of our deer and deer hunting. ODWC, you know what hunters today want. Lets reduce the buck limit and give hunters what they want. I agree with Greg, people are already shooting deer and not checking them in because we jumped the gun and made the online check station when we were not ready for it in OK. So that is no excuse not to go to this measure as its already happening now. Last time i checked it was 2012 ODWC. Time to step on over to the new era! Hunters know states like Kansas have big bucks because of their 1-buck limit and your dept. is losing mega bucks in the loss of revenue through tags and license sales to our neighbor to the north Kansas. If you want to keep hunters in Oklahoma, give them what they are leaving the state to find; mature bucks. If not, you will continue to see more and more hunters leave for better states like Kansas. No more excuses ODWC. Time to make the change.

Ed, I agree with the one buck idea in Oklahoma. I know many hunters who are leaving our state (even though they live and work here) to hunt larger bucks in Kansas. The money leaving our state is not good for rural economies, and cannot be a good thing for ODWC revenue. So rather than make a positive change for the betterment of our deer herd and hunting, and reduce the liberal buck limit to 1, they just sit back and watch all the hunters who want to shoot older bucks drive across that state line and spend their gas, motel, food, outfitter, tag, license, lease, property tax, ammo & camo etc money IN KANSAS. Surely the ODWC sees this happening. I cannot imagine anyone on the Wildlife Commission agrees with all its state hunters going across state lines to spend money in other states like Iowa and Kansas and taking their kids with them. These kids are not going to come back to OK once they have seen what kind of quality these other states have. So you are losing both current and future hunters ODWC by being stuck in your “maximum-opportunity” 1990 rut. I agree with a one buck limit and want to see it implemented next year.

My husband and I support the one buck limit Ed. We self-regulate on our place because we cannot get any help from ODWC in the way of better rules. We want better deer hunting but don’t have much luck in Oklahoma. Maybe we will do what seems to be a growing trend and sell our farm near Kingfisher and buy a place in Kansas.

I’m a big supporter of quality deer management, and have seen the results of it. I’ll put my place against Kansas any day, but I don’t support a mandatory one buck limit. Age structure is really the key to increasing the odds of killing a mature buck. During the course of the season we shoot only bucks that are 4 and half years of age or older, and we shoot does. There have been years that we have shot multiple bucks, and years that we have not, we take thousands of photos to help make an assement on what bucks to shoot and how many to shoot, and how many does to shoot. Why should I have to be limited even more than we allready are because of someone elses lack of management? I was on board with decreasing the aggregate buck limit from three to two, but am not on board with further reduction. At this point in the game the department of wildlife has done all that is needed on there part to improve the heard, it is up to individuals and landowners to fine tune the project. Trust me it works, while I’m not as concerned about the score as I used to be, we have taken and currently take typicals and nontypicals from the 160′s to 190′s. My neighbors are a great help they practice the same thing. If you want to make a difference don’t limit…. educate.

Greg above is correct. ODWC is not looking at all the economic gain they will continue to miss out on by not progressing with the times and reducing the buck limit to 1. I live near the border of Kansas and the hunting, just across the stateline, is much better. Everything is the same, even many of the landowners, but the 1-buck limit and December rifle season make all the difference. ODWC and rural OK will continue to lose revenue as hunters are leaving Oklahoma to pursue larger bucks in states with more progressive regulations. They are making all the money leaving ODWC, rural Oklahoma, and Oklahoma as a whole, empty -handed. We are missing the boat here ODWC. Ed I support the 1-buck limit and I have 4 hunters on my land with me. We are all in favor of this idea. Ed, please pass this along to the wildlife dept. Anyone who knows anything will be in favor of this if they want better deer hunting in our state.

Michael Moon, you are right; the key is AGE, AGE, AGE. The problem is, we have this trend of morons out there in OK who are trying to shoot “cull” bucks like some south texas pen-hunt where the bucks have ear tag holes. We both know this is not possible, but these guys want an excuse to be manly and shoot the first antlers they see, and call it a “scrub”. Glad to hear you have neighbors who also practice QDM all around you, but that is not the case across much of OK. If you know Deer mgt. you know Kansas has big bucks because of their hunter densities and December gun/1-buck limit. A 1-Buck limit is Win Win. Look at it this way, if you shoot that 190″ you mentioned October 1 and pass that 160″ because you are out of tags, he might be a 190″ the next year. It will benefit you too; even though it sounds like you do things right. Glad to hear you are one of the deer managers on the right track. Good luck this season. I still sit on the side of the fence for reducing the buck limit to 1 buck.

Ed, Love the comments here. I guess I get to finally say my piece when it comes to this state and the way they manage deer. And the way they have ignored the quality deer hunter all these years. I have disagreed with the way ODWC has managed the deer herd for 40 years. They have always put the brown its down guys first and never care much for the guy trying to pass younger bucks, manage for better buck age classes, and shooting does/planting plots and completing habitat work etc. The guys trying to be stewards of our resource. I agree with the 1-Buck Limit. I wish it had been in place a long time before now. But I will take it in 2013 or anytime soon. It is the best thing for our herd and not one person can argue with this. No science behind anyone’s reasoning to “need” to shoot more than 1 buck. None.

One more point, Michael Moon above, while i agree with much of your comment, esp about educating people and buck age being important, I do not agree with your thoughts about the dept of wildlife. They have not done a good job managing our deer herd and certainly not our buck age structure. They could care less about deer management, esp any kind of quality guidelines. Like I said, your thoughts on Age being the key are spot-on, but your assessment of the ODWC is way off. They could care less about guys like you trying to manage for better quality bucks. That is a fact. So in my mind, they have not done “all that is needed on their part” to be fair and give equal attention to the quality deer manager in our state. Not at all-

Ed,

I favor the one-buck limit. My best bucks are from Kansas, but I live and work in Oklahoma. My kids all prefer hunting in Kansas because they see big bucks. And I prefer to own land, lease land, and spend my money in Kansas because what I am looking for cannot be found in our state. Not hard to figure out why.

1)Sept Primitive
2)Dec Rifle
3)1-Buck Limit

Lets do it ODWC. Pick one of the three Kansas regs and change ours to match. Or simply do what every other hunter here is saying and reduce that buck limit to 1.

Count my vote for a 1 BUCK LIMIT! I love the comments here Ed. Nice article. Way to wake the state up. Glad to see ODWC is finally considering better deer management ideas. Bout Time!

Kelly,
Thank you. I deffinitley hear you and know where you are coming from. i would like to point out that my neighbors weren’t always so obliging. In fact it took alot of effort and time for us to get on the same page.

Jay,
Good points. Your frustration is valid. I want to point out one problem that we have here….You can have too many bucks in that older class. Let me explain. We have a buck to doe ratio that favors the bucks…I can hear the shock, but it is true. Our 4 and a half year old buck segment is larger than most, and as a result competition for breeding is extremly competitive and intense. As a result we have a lot of fighting. It starts early and ends when the antlers have dropped. Just in the last week, 3 bucks have lost complete sides, one buck has lost an eye. As high as 80 percent of our mature bucks have allready busted a point or a part of their rack. I understand that my situation is not a problem that is evident in most of the places I have hunted in this state. It’s not a problem that most of the people in this forum have, but it is an issue that I am facing. My point is Oklahoma’s deer herd is evolving. It’s not a cookie cutter situation where every area or region has the same challenges. We are not all identical. What my needs are with “my” herd (if I can call it that)are not the same as yours. My objective may not be the same as someone in eastern Oklahoma. What I would like to see where I am at is a decrease in the herd(on my place)across the board. The only way to achieve that is to harvest. What you or someone else may need is less pressure on your buck population in general. This can’t be achieved by a “cookie cutter” regulation of one buck throughout the state. Individual management plans working in the frame work that the ODWC have provided is probably best. What do I know about your herd? What does someone else know about mine? Do they sit with me and comb through thousands of pictures every week? Let me manage it myself.

I support a two buck limit. I have passed on many buck and only killed two 150 class bucks over the past few years. I think the one-buck limit would higher dollar leases with more out of state hunters gobbling up our properties and decreasing the current opportunities we enjoy. Maybe rich guys like Ed can afford to hunt Oklahoma in the future.

I was able to “hunt Kansas” once, I couldn’t afford to go back. Let’s all get together and create a state where we have to pay $5,000 or more a year just to hunt. I see just as many big bucks where I hunt.

I agree with all the comments here except for the hunters who still think they need to kill two buck on an annual basis. I am glad to hear all the QDM talk and that guys are managing properly where they hunt. We all know buck age is the key to great deer and deer hunting. As I said, I do not agree with hunters still thinking they need to shoot 2 bucks per year. With all the doe tags you have, you have plenty of tags for meat. I stand on the side on reducing the buck limit to 1 Ed. This is what is best for our hunting in OK. Leases are already going up in price. That is just a sign of the times and the breaks of having DFW so close to our border. They are coming for our water and for our hunting leases, and that is just the way it is; even though nobody likes it; including me. 1 buck or 5 bucks, Texans are coming to OK for recreation and this is just the trend. It has been taking place long before now. So lets do what is best for the buck age structure, something we lack in OK, and reduce the buck limit to 1.

Ed,

I support the great idea of a one-buck limit in Oklahoma. This will help me meet my mgmt. goals on my small deer hunting spot. This will help with the age of our bucks statewide and everyone will reap the benefits. I agree with the 1 buck!

Ed I agree with hunters only having one buck tag. This will no doubt improve the age of our bucks and our hunting opportunities. This will be the best thing we can do for our deer hunting in Oklahoma. I only hunt a small property, but this will help my management very much. I agree that we all have plenty of doe tags for meat. If you want meat, shoot a doe! We badly need to give our young to mid-age bucks a rest from now on. This rule will help our deer herd. I like it!

I have a comment about what “Dave Cameron of OKC” emailed to you Ed. He said a one buck limit would keep “honest” hunters out of the woods if they “couldn’t” shoot another buck all season. I think what he meant was, it would keep “greedy” hunters out of the woods. Also what Dave should know is that the premature online check station rule that went into effect will cause more and more deer to go unchecked. So that is and was happening long before now. People need to get their facts straight before they dish on something they obviously know nothing about. We need a 1-buck limit in Oklahoma; for the guys trying to better manage their deer herd like me. All my friends and family, plus my neighbors all like the one buck idea. Lets do it Ed. Thank You

Seems funny to me that some of the hunters who still want to shoot 2 bucks are also talking about some of the big “150 class bucks” they have taken. When a one buck limit improves buck age which improves rack size for all hunters, why would ANY hunter in our state be against this? Talk about an oxymoron.

Ed, I hunt all across our state and have for many years. My kids and grandkids hunt with me now and we enjoy the sport. My kids and grandkids are also hunting in Kansas and I believe this year, they only plan to hunt in Kansas. They are also looking at property to lease or buy in southern Kansas due to their regulations being better than ours.

I would like to see Oklahoma go to a one buck limit, because I know we can grow great deer, just like other states with better regulations. I will always hunt in our great state, but managing for any kind of buck age or quality is impossible unless you own 8K acres or high fence your hunting property. I refuse to do that, but what I do support is for our wildlife dept to finally realize they are being left behind by other states in the U.S. when it comes to great deer and deer hunting. This is not good for rural Oklahoma and our economy as a whole. We need this one buck limit in Oklahoma and I strongly support it. I agree with the brunt of these comments from concerned Oklahoma deer hunters who feel that we can accomplish so much more in our state. ODWC; its certainly time for you to open your eyes and make the change. You have allot of young people coming up through the ranks and no longer agree with your management style and so some are leaving Oklahoma.

We all know this will help our buck age and quality. So lets do it. Sooner rather than later. Oklahoma is ready for a change. J.R. Purcell, Oklahoma

I believe a one-buck limit would be great for our deer hunting in Oklahoma. I am in strong support of this idea Ed. Please pass along my thoughts to our department of wildlife. This is something I feel will benefit my hunting in every season. I would like to see our state consider this idea. Thank You Ed, for the chance to support the one buck idea.

I am thankful we are finally looking at the one buck limit. I’ve said for year this would improve or hunting. I’ve worked with several ODWC biologists on my place and they agree this will reduce our young buck loss and improve our buck age and size. I appreciate Ed writing such an informative article about a great idea. I support this measure. Thank you for working to make our deer hunting my better in Oklahoma Ed. Brent

I hunt in Caddo County and I would encourage ODWC to reduce the buck limit to only one buck per hunter per year. I have never seen a mature buck where I hunt yet I pass young ones for them to grow up and age. I have only shot does for 6 years for the freezer. I always think about what it would be like to take a nice bucks but all I see in my area are young bucks. If everyone around me only had one buck tag they would be selective and patient like me and we would all benefit in a few short years and see larger, older bucks. I really like this idea and am glad to see so many hunters support this idea. Gives me hope about the sport of deer hunting in Oklahoma in the future. I’m glad you wrote this article Mr. Godfrey. I appreciate it. I like the idea of a one buck limit

I would enjoy seeing and hunting bigger older bucks in my areas of south-central Oklahoma. I really like all the comments favoring this one buck idea. I surely agree and would love to see ODWC finally do something in favor of better quality deer hunting. Ed I support the one buck not only for me but for my children and grandchildren. A one buck limit is a great idea. Thanks for allowing me to comment.

I like a 1-buck limit Ed. This is a long overdue measure that will help all hunters have the chance at some great older bucks.

I love it…80% of the forum has come down to….. Let’s go with a one buck limit. Let’s get the state more involved because we don’t want to try to manage our own trigger finger….If we don’t have a one buck limit Oklahoma can’t compete with Kansas…I would be much more inclined to talk about antler restrictions for all seasons within particular zones that use that type of management with the exception of the youth. Though that is not a sure thing. Let the young guys and girls get their first buck without restrictions.

I hunt near Apache and would support the state of OK going to a one buck per year limit. This will help our entire state have older bucks. We should have already had this in place long ago. Glad to see it being considered again. Thanks Ed.

There is no way anyone in our state can give any educated or science-based reason why they need to shoot more than one buck per year. A one buck limit is the right thing for the entire state. If any hunter who argues with this great idea, wants to hunt and see bigger, older bucks, they are a hypocrite. You CANNOT have your cake and eat it to, in life or in wildlife mgmt. You have to give to get people. I only see maybe 5 guys on here who are against this great idea anyway, so looks like majority rules. MOST hunters, Ed, and Jerry Shaw, DO SUPPORT a ONE BUCK. We know what makes bigger better deer and its simple rules among us to keep those guys from shooting more young bucks that should be removed yearly from a given deer herd. We need more older bucks in Oklahoma and that is something everyone knows and cannot argue with. It is a fact. A 1-buck limit will get us there. It will provide older age bucks for all hunters. Everyone should support this. I do!

Someone wrote in above saying they did not know where this “most hunter do not support better regs and better deer” information came from. It came from thin air I guess, because all the hunters I have ever know want bigger better bucks in Ok and would be willing to reduce their buck harvest to only one buck per year if this is what we need to do.

Looks like all the people in the know, on this comments section, believe in the one buck limit because they know what benefits we will see in just a few years. Thanks Ed

TIME FOR A CHANGE ODWC. YOU KNOW ITS TIME TO GO TO A ONE BUCK LIMIT.

IT IS 2012, LAST TIME I CHECKED.

Ive been saying for years we needed to go to a one buck in Oklahoma to help us all see and harvest bigger older bucks. Everyone wins when you hunt in a state where hunters are selective in what bucks they shoot de to a one buck limit. I think this is a long time coming. Glad to here ODWC is funnily stepped into the next generation and know what is best for the deer herd. Glad to see all the positive responses and I hope Ed is sending these to the wildlife department. They need to hear some of this because it’s time for a change. One buck limit for me!

I would support a one buck in Oklahoma. I hunt near Vinita and believe this will help our deer herd in Oklahoma. This is the best thing ODWC can do for the hunting in our state. I too have many friends, coworkers and family members who now hunt almost totally in SE Kansas due to their more modern regulations producing better quality deer. This is what people want and this is why people are leaving to find it! I approve of this measure Ed. Please pass this along to ODWC and the Wildlife Commission

Ed, I would firmly suggest we put the one buck limit in place next year. We have been long overdue! I think I speak for all the hunters in my area, when I say, we are ready for the state to pick up the slack they have caused by poor deer herd management (via old-fashioned regulations) in OK. I want to see bigger, older, larger bucks. Doesn’t everyone? Well, if you or anyone you know is tired of seeing nothing but 1 and 2 year old bucks in our state when you hunt, you should call your local biologist or Commissioner and tell them you support a one buck limit. Why do you think Kansas has so many big bucks. Because they are OLD. And they get that way from a December gun season and a one buck per hunter per year. Hunters pass young deer in Kansas. Small landowners and even public land hunters have much greater success than we do in OK because of their one buck limit. People are more selective when they only have one tag in their pocket. When they want “meat” in Kansas, they shoot a doe. Like any good deer hunter would do. They do not shoot a 2 year old buck for meat like some “hunters” in our state do. In just a few years the one buck limit would benefit all hunters, rural landowners, rural businesses, small towns, AND THE ODWC! ODWC, why do you not see that you will make more money in the form of licenses and tags when you have better quality? People want quality (i.e. big bucks) today. That is a fact.

Bottom Line: ODWC revenue increases ten-fold in 5 years after a one buck limit is implemented. Lets do it. Today.

You are hurting Oklahoma and your own revenue, ODWC, by not going ahead and pulling the trigger on the one buck limit and making it happen! I am ready for it and so are all the people I know in my area. One buck limit in 2013. Win Win

Glad to see all these people know something about proper deer management and want better hunting like me; as most all the posts I have read here are for a one buck. Great!!!

Lastly,

Richard Hatcher, you have the chance to go down as the ODWC Director who changed deer hunting for the better in Oklahoma. And not the one who kept it stuck in its rut. Your department will make more money and every deer hunter big or small, lease or own, private or public land, will win. Please consider this. Allot of people here support this idea. I know we all do.

Thanks Ed!

Ed,

I strongly encourage ODWC to read some of these posts. There are some very well-written comments here supporting the one buck limit.

With the online check now in place, many dishonest hunters are shooting and not checking bucks anyway, so that is not even an excuse for the dept of wildlife to consider this one buck change.

This change will help the guys trying to manage their place for bigger, better bucks (most people in Oklahoma want bigger better bucks). The guys who have neighbors, honest neighbors, that are burning 2 buck tags on immature bucks year after year and decreasing the number of bucks in the area and certainly the buck age structure.

It will not affect the brown its down guys because most of them are not following the current rules anyway.

The honest guys need help with our management ODWC. A one buck is the simple fix. Everyone will benefit. Even the guys who have said “they are already managing properly”; this will help you all too. Because your neighbors (everyone has neighbors unless you are high-fenced and then in that case, why would you care about improving our regulations) will shoot one less buck, per year, a piece. If you have 6 hunters around you that is 6 more bucks that may live another year and be bigger and better.

I do not understand the mentality of the overly-sensitive guys who have posted against this saying ODWC would be taking something away. People; A one buck limit is intended to improve all of our hunting a few years down the road. When we implement the one buck, and 4 years later everyone is shooting big, mature deer like Kansas, you all will be glad they went to a one buck limit. Mark it down!

Don’t fight change; esp good changes designed to provide great deer and deer hunting. Embrace change.

Ed, In our area we have tried the “self-regulating” thing Jerry Shaw mentions in the article, but we have no luck with that. We believe we hunt enough acres to have success, but with 2 buck tags and prerut and rut muzzle and rifle, most of our bucks never make it past 2.5 yrs. A one buck would save half of the young bucks taken around us and would help us achieve our goals. We think the one buck limit is a great idea and our club hopes the dept puts it in place for the 2013 season. It cant happen quick enough for our area. I agree with your article Ed and we support the one buck rule. Please pass this along to ODWC. Thank You, Blaine

Our neighbors around us shoot anything and everything that walks out, no matter the age, because with 2 tags, they don’t have to be picky. And with them all hunting with blackpowder and then rifles at peak rut and pre-rut, these bucks do not have a chance. We continue to pass them, because we know it is best for the deer herd, and they continue to shoot them and reap what we sow. We would not have this problem if we would go hunt in Kansas. Our friends who make annual trips to Kansas have much greater success than we do. They kill monsters. They are monsters because they are 5.5, 6.5 yrs old and up. Its no wonder so many hunters are leaving Oklahoma to hunt a better state like Kansas.

All that money, and recruitment (kids hunting with their parents in Kansas) leaving our state is terrible for Oklahoma. Why cant the dept of wildlife see this as being something that can be fixed with a simple one buck limit.?

I agree with the one buck limit in OK.

Jerry Shaw says, “If they want to be more restrictive, that’s well within their power to do so,” Sure, Jerry, its within our power to pass young bucks, but when they jump our fence and our neighbors all have 2 buck tags per hunter, they are killing all the young bucks we are “being more restrictive within our power” to protect.

How can you say that to guys with only a few hundred acres. We are not big enough for your DMAP, and we want to pass young bucks and shoot does like the dept says to do, and we are restrictive on ourselves like you say to do, yet we cannot and will not achieve success in OK. What about that?

With OK regulations currently in place, there is no way we can “self-regulate” with a bunch of neighbors toting 2 buck tags a piece that care nothing about buck age or any kind of deer mgmt at all. They don’t care about buck age because they do not think we can grow big bucks in OK, because they never see any. Because they shoot all of them when they are 1 and 2. Because they have 2 buck tags.

Vicious cycle that can only be broken with improved regs like the one buck limit.

Why would any hunter want to hold out for a big buck and pass young ones when they never see any and don’t think we can grow them in Oklahoma? We don’t have any because of our regulations. Because we are killing too many young bucks with lethal arms during rut and pre-rut. Funny how I am not the only one that has pointed that out here. Seems as though I see a trend in reading through all these posts.

All people see are 1 yr old bucks, so all they shoot is 1 yr old bucks, because that is all they think they have. How do we ever expect to evolve as a state, like other better states, when we still have such old-school regulations in place and have not looked at doing anything new to benefit the deer herd or the quality manager in years.? Stagnant situation if you ask me. We either need some new, younger, higher-ups, new deer biologists, or new commissioners. Do not quite understand how we can stand idle for years and look at nothing new to improve our deer herd and hunting in OK-

AND; Most of my friends and family are now hunting exclusively in Kansas as well. BAD BAD BAD for Oklahoma.

Id certainly agree with moving to a one buck limit in our state. It is the best thing we can do for the deer and deer hunting in Oklahoma. Time for some improvement. Thanks Ed

Ed I’d agree with the one buck idea. All the hunters I know want to see bigger bucks and this rule will provide them with this chance. Thanks.

I support 2 buck limit. We can do earn a buck and or antler point restrictions. 1 buck limit will not stop the people who shoot young bucks from shooting them. It is not all about you (the people who want to kill a a huge buck).Some of us don’t have to kill a enormous buck to have a triophy. Is it not also about the experience and time in the woods?

If it’s just about the experience, then why do you still think you need 2 buck tags with ALL the doe tags we have?? If you want to kill 2 buck tags it’s about wanting to be greedy and kill 2 bucks. It’s not about te experience or trying to better our herd… I am for the one buck in Oklahoma Ed!

I’m for the one buck limit also like all these other posts. I also think ODWC has done a very poor job managing for any kind of quality in our deer herd. And I also agree that anyone in 2012 and in a state like Oklahoma where we have so many doe tags available is just plain greedy if they think the “need” or “want” to shoot more than one buck per year. Ed is support the one buck limit and know its what is best for our entire state. I want to see better deer and experience better hunting and anyone who loves deer hunting would support that! One buck for me

I agree with all this and I hope Jerry Shaw reads every post. Better yet I hope te entire Wildlife Commission will see these posts and know hunters in Oklahoma are tired of hunting a poorly managed deer herd. A one buck limit will help bucks reach an older age. That is proven in states with better buck age structure than we have in Oklahoma. So we know it will work. It’s just a matter of getting some younger and more progressive employees in the ODWC to get them out of this outdated mindset. We should have gone to a rule like this many years ago. I’m ready for a change in our area and agree with this idea. It is best for deer hunters all across our state. I am glad this idea is on the table and I hope it passes. I have about 10 people who are great deer managers and we are all sick of hunting a poorly managed deer herd in Oklahoma. We do our part every year to pass young bucks and shoot does. ODWC, now it’s time you did yours. Do your job and manage the resource like you are supposed to. And let’s make the herd better and look and innovative ideas like the one buck limit. It works in Kansas, it will work here in Oklahoma. And anyone who argues against a one buck limit is way out of touch and obviously not too savvy about proper deer management. If they knew anything about deer management and the many positives that come from a one buck limit they will bend over backwards to support the idea.

Thousands of good deer managers who know proper deer management and want to see our herd and hunting improve support this idea.

If done all, it should be done on a regional basis. We should take in account the quality of animals that have been harvested as of late. Trophy deer in this state are getting better and better every year even with the two buck limit in place. I’m a bowhunter first and have already took what I call a management buck, a 4.5 yr old 6 point. If you limit hunters to one buck per year, then you take away the incentive for hunters to participate in this type of management. With one buck per year, hunters will only look to harvest trophy deer and not take lower class genetics out of the herd. I believe this could halt the improvements of the state’s genetics.

They have done studies at the Noble Foundation and proven you cannot improve genetics in free range deer. Unless you hunt a high fence you are doing absolutely no good by removing what you or anyone else deem “inferior” antlered bucks. What about that bucks female family members I.e his sister mother aunt etc. You cannot remove them based on good or bad antlers. Seems as though too many high fence south Texas tv shows have mistakenly led people to believe they can somehow influence “genetics” in wild deer herds when science and biologists have proven this IS NOT possible. Google Culling bucks by Mike Porter from the Noble Foundation.

People who “cull” deer are just looking for an excuse to shoot the first small buck they see. Read an article sometime or about some f the studies they have done in Texas.

We hunt near Jay and never “cull” anything because biologists everywhere have proven it does absolutely no good-

Ed, my hunting lease members and I support the one buck limit for all the scientific reasons why it is best for our deer herd.

I would love to see a one buck limit, corn and soybeans aren’t what grow em big. Check out the McAlester army ammunition plant. Land of giants. All that place is a big thicket. Deer get big in there cause they get old. No soybeans,or corn. The soil is terrible. But they get old cause a limited number of people get in with stickbows

I don’t think the limit is what needs changing it’s the legal size! If they would change from 3 inches above the hair line to at least 3 points on one side that would have a bigger impact. It’s ridiculous when you go to the check station and see bucks being checked in that don’t even dress out at 100lbs. I know people say “I just hunt for the meat” then shoot a doe!

Many years ago, I took my kids to a Noble Deer workshop where Ken Gee was talking about “genetics”. They ear tagged bucks and tracked them for many years and they found rack size and shape can change dramatically in just one year. A small deer can jump to a larger-sized rack and even grow 2 or even 4+ typical or atypical points. From a 6 to a 10 etc. They do not recommend “culling” deer that are wild and not under a high fence. We can never know the potential of any buck unless he has reg. papers, an ear tag, and lives in a pen.

We do not shoot deer based on rack size because biologists tell us not to. We only shoot bucks based on what we estimate their age to be, no matter their rack shape or size. I agree with the gentleman above; sounds like excuses to me when people shoot “cull” bucks.

We also would hope ODWC has gotten the message by now and decided to go to a one buck limit. We have 6 people on our lease and we support it. Our neighbors do too!

Thank You Ed,

Harold from Stillwater, OK

The vast majority on this forum support a one-buck limit. But there are countless people who support a two-buck limit. The average number of deer killed per year in Oklahoma is around let’s say 110,000 (over the past 10 years) 65,000 a year have been bucks and 45,000 are “antlerless” deer. If it were possible to narrow the gap say to 55,000/55,0000 that would be great. You decrease the amount of bucks being killed a year, therefore, decreasing the amount of “young” bucks being killed. So my thinking is earn both buck tags. After killing a doe, “average joe” hunters may not be interested in gutting another deer. This gives hunters who enjoy the opportunity to hunt 2 bucks a year the opportunity to do so but this would also benefit our herd. Don’t limit our opportunities, rather tweak them to the avantage of our herd and management philosophy. You would all agree that more doe need to be taken out of the herd. The state is not going to give out more than 4 doe tags (who would shoot that many anyway). So here we have a chance to level the ratio. People who want to kill 2 bucks a year are no more greedy than those who want to kill a giant every year. This has become a sport instead of a way of life. Self sufficiency;living off the land, but also preserving the land. It has never been about who has the most inches hanging on the wall. For me, to outwit a mature buck is the ultimate prize, no matter what he adds up to. A 6 year old 6 pt is a booner in my book.. Some comments about nutrition and comparing our state to others in the Midwest quite frankly baffle me. Let’s all stick together, agree to disagree. Who knows the “solution/fix-all”. God created animals for us to enjoy and EAT. Now let’s do so with responsibility. I think He is probably shaking His head about all this drama right now. God Bless you all and thank you service men and women for fighting for our freedom that we may sit here and bicker about how many deer we should/should not be able to kill a year.

I would strongly encourage ODWC to take a look at the number of people for and against improving our deer herd quality on this blog of Ed’s. I knew everyone I was involved with agreed with ideas like the one buck, but I had no idea it was to this extent. Looks like hunters really are ready for a change and a one buck seems to be just the ticket.

This will improve our buck age and with older age bucks we all know hunting is much better. Older bucks=bigger bucks and there is not one hunter i know that does not want to shoot or at least see a big buck someday.

We have the chance; right now, for the ODWC to get their act together and improve the deer herd for not only the traditional guys intent on shooting a truckload of bucks (like they have catered to for years), but for guys like me and my family who want to manage for better quality.

Unless you have 5 thousand acres or a high fence, it is impossible to manage for any kind of quality deer in Oklahoma. You can in Kansas. Not Oklahoma. Not with 2 buck tags and a rifle season during the main rut.

With more and more hunters (I firmly believe we are now in the vast majority) interested in better deer and better hunting, I would think the ODWC has reached a point when they can no longer be complacent and ignore us. Time to actually manage FOR the deer herd and not just FOR the hunters who want to be greedy and shoot a bunch of small bucks. ODWC, its time for a better deer herd and the one buck limit will fix most of what is lacking in it. Our buck age.

We have genetics. We have great habitat, and we have excellent nutrition. All we need is age.

Its funny everyone goes back to this old “beans and corn” myth when it comes to big deer. I challenge any of you magic buck bean n a bag guys to go to McAlester (AAP) or the Wichita Mtns and look at all those 200″ 7.5 year old deer with “average to below average” nutrition. Then you tell me whether age or beans/corn are what grow big deer.

One buck limit will give our bucks the chance to reach an older age and express their genetic potential… I think its great. Can’t happen fast enough for me and my friends and family. Thanks Ed.

A one buck limit is the easiest solution to give us older bucks. If guys want max opportunity, they can shoot a doe. If they want to kill more deer than one, they can shoot more than one doe.

If they want to fill their freezers up, they can shoot many does.

We have too many hunters in OK that are stuck in the shoot a dink at 200 yards with my scoped in-line blackpowder and they shoot a 2 year old with my rifle during rut. And they just do not want to change. Guys think they cannot grow big deer past 1 or 2, yet these same guys shoot bucks that are 1 and 2. And these people cannot figure out why they never see big deer. They say OK can’t grow big bucks “cause we don’t have farmland like Iowa”.

People shoot all the young bucks they have in or around their hunting spots and then wonder why all they have are young bucks… And then blame it on road hunters, bad genetics, no crops, poaching etc. and all the other excuses.

When all our state would need to do it reduce the buck limit to one and then all these guys could only shoot 1 young bucks per year. Then 50% of the bucks in these areas would possibly get one year older. Then some of these smart guys would start seeing not only yearlings and 2 year olds, but then they might see a 3, and then maybe a 4 the next year. And before you know, they are on the “man wish we would have gone to the one buck limit 10 years ago; this is great!” bandwagon.

Yet some of those same guys out there say “well we DO want bigger deer”, but then whine/argue about wanting to still shoot 2 bucks a year. You cannot have your cake and eat it too people. And these people vote? Jeez.

Ed, I support the one buck limit for all the benefits it provides a deer herd. And I have yet to hear anyone give a reason why we need to kill 2 bucks (that is science-based or has any kind of biological merit). Other than the merit of redundancy, greed and the fact that these guys will not embrace change and progress…

You might as well accept change. This change will be for the better… Lets do it Ed. Thank You

Ed I speak on behalf of 7 lease hunters on our lands in western Oklahoma. We would support the 1 buck per hunter limit.

This will really benefit our younger bucks and give them the chance to mature like they so desperately need. We are for it.

Thanks for letting me comment. Rick

I also agree with a few of the posts that the ODWC could care less about managing our deer herd properly.

Need some new higherups at the ODWC or new deer biologists. I’ve said for years we had the very same potential as any state. But our deer herd will continue to be neglected if we don’t at least consider a great idea like the one buck limit.

Ed I support this idea. I agree with the folks here who are supportive of the one buck limit measure. I know it will help our deer hunting. Looking forward to seeing it implemented soon. Thank You.

Ed I hunt a small property like many other deer hunters in our state. I would really like the see the potential of our bucks in 3 or 4 years after a one buck limit is in place.

I think this is a great idea and my grandfather and I support the one buck per hunter change. We feel it would be beneficial to our management goals of older age bucks. Thank you.

Ed,

I would like to write in for support of the 1-buck limit. I think this is a great idea.

I hunt near Wilson and we have a tough time moving many bucks to an older age class. Reducing the 2-tags per hunter to 1 would certainly help our management efforts. We would like the ODWC to give consideration to our efforts as well as the guys who just want to kill a bunch of deer. Most of those guys are not improving habitat and planting food plots etc. like us. Also, many of them are not willing to shoot a doe even though they shoot 2 (or more) bucks. I think the quality managers deserves some attention in our state.

I would say the general consensus down here in southern OK is that we are ready for ODWC to make some changes like this to improve our deer hunting. I agree with the one buck idea.

Thank You

I’d love to see ODWC do something to benefit the quality deer hunter in Oklahoma. I work very hard to manage the herd on my small place, and the habitat.

I think guys like me, my family and friends are getting the shaft from our wildlife dept. I can go to Kansas and have much better hunting on much smaller acres. Because their state DNR actually cares about managing for better quality in our state.

Their gun season in December and their one buck limit allows many bucks to get the age they need to express their genetic potential. Not all bucks in Kansas grow monster racks, but they are all OLD. So more of them are bigger, because most people in Oklahoma cannot sit more than 1 hour before shooting a young buck. Usually the first buck they see. In Kansas, when folks have one tag in their pocket, and they have to be picky, they pass allot of younger bucks to wait on that bigger buck to appear. Their patience rewards many hunters who are lucky enough to hunt in Kansas.

A one buck limit would at least give more hunters the incentive to wait on a truly mature buck to walk out. And if they do not see one, some would simply shoot a doe.

I like the one buck idea, or any idea that will help our bucks reach an older age class in Oklahoma. Thanks Ed for a great article. I hope my comments can be sent on the the ODWC. I am just a small land hunter with dreams to one day see a nice, old buck to get a crack at. I work hard every year to manage the best I know how, and I always shoot several does. I have not shot a buck in 6 years because I am holding out for a nice one! My neighbors, with their 2 buck tags during rifle and primitive, all kill two young bucks a piece every season. Many of these are bucks I have passed in previous years. Its sad that our wildlife department has catered to only the maximum opportunity hunter who just wants to kill lots of bucks and cares nothing about the resource.

And all these people making comments wonder why their family and friends are leaving Oklahoma and traveling to Kansas. Because they want to have deer management success and that is impossible here in our state with the current regulations in place that hurt our quality.

So glad the ODWC is looking at limiting the number of young bucks being harvested in our state.

The one buck limit or moving the rifle season away from peak rut would increase the number of older, bigger bucks for everyone in Oklahoma to hunt.

Unlike many people who have commented here, I only hunt public land but dream of someday seeing a big-racked, old buck. To date, with a 2-buck limit and gun season during rut, I have not seen.

After we go to a one-buck limit, just 3 to 5 years, we would all start seeing some awesome bucks in Oklahoma. Thank You Ed. I support this idea. Hope ODWC sets this in motion asap. Hope the rule is in place for the 2013 season! Jerry Woodward, OK

I love the email to Ed from the guy above who said…

“frankly it makes me MAD I have to let deer walk”, only not to get a second chance.” I get NO satisfaction shooting a doe.” “With a one buck limit, if I harvest a buck then my reasons for getting up early and going deer hunting are OVER” What a joke. Smart guys like this are what is wrong with our state. Well I am glad to see all the good deer managers across the state piled-on and squashed comments like this. These guys probably do not even follow the rules anyway, so I am not sure why they even care to write in.

I hope the one buck limit change, or something like a later rifle season (away from prime rut) is put into effect in 2013. Oklahoma, we need a big change in the way our wildlife department manages our deer herd. This rule change will provide all of you with bigger, older, bucks and better hunting. I wish this had been pushed years before now. I want my grandkids to grow up hunting a well-balanced, quality deer herd and have the chance to see some mature bucks when they hunt. That is something I have never had, even though the only deer I shoot many years in a row are does. I never shoot a buck unless he is fully mature (5.5-yrs+) With a 2 buck limit, everyone around me burns those 2 tags in their pocket on young bucks. So no matter how many young bucks I pass, they just shoot them.

I would like to see the gun season be pushed forward to the first week in December and away from prime rut. Like Kansas. Why do you all think Kansas has so many big, mature bucks. Because these bucks are not running around with their tongues hanging out while all the does are in heat.

I would also like to save 50% of our young bucks, by reducing the buck limit to 1 per hunter, per year. Or make one of the bucks, of the 2, be taken with a bow. Muzzleloaders are NOT primitive. They are single shot rifles capable of killing at 200+ yards. So its basically like we have 2 rifle seasons. I would like all this to be changed as well.

Whatever ODWC decides, I am ready for it to happen right now. And be implemented in 2013. Thanks Ed.

Ed,

I am happy to see the ODWC looking at reducing the buck limit. I have known for many years our state was lagging behind when it came to quality deer hunting.

The one buck limit is a simple way to help all hunters have higher-quality, more-rewarding deer hunting experiences. I agree with this rule and hope ODWC agrees. Thank You

Id have to agree with the 1 buck idea Ed. Sure will make the deer hunting better in our state! Thank You.

After a couple hours of conversation with a game warden a couple hours on saturday.. (trying to catch poachers on our property).. Sure, a one buck limit would naturally increase the age of bucks seen across the state.. No doubt about it. But not because of the reasons you are stating.. (i.e. people being more selective etc.) Every Tom, Dick and Harry is still going to shoot anything that walks by with antlers, whether you limit the buck # to 1 or not. You are not going to change that fact…ever.. Most folks in rural Oklahoma live by the policy of, if it’s brown it’s down. Just this last saturday a 70 year old man shot a 200″ deer, took it to the processor and gave him the rack!!! Said and I quote, “you can have this, I can’t eat antlers.” Do the math.. Cut the number of bucks killed in oklahoma by 1/2 or 1/4. What happens to the hear with you take the number of bucks taken approximately 40,000 a year and make that number 20,000 or even 30,000… You’ve got 20 – 30,000 more deer roaming around… People won’t shoot 4 doe a year and the number of doe harvested will always be around 65,000 a year… Research that. What would be the effects of this change? I agree with all of you that we have to do our part as conservationists and I would challenge everyone to only shoot mature bucks, with exception to your kids or introducing your wife or someone to the way of life. I’m speaking to those who lust after blood. “Save a dink, shoot a doe.” The one-buck limit is not a “fix-all” if you limit the buck tags, you then have to re-evaluate the price of tags and how buck tags are given to out of staters.. We make it extremely affordable for out of staters to come in and shoot 2 bucks and 4 doe. Not to mention they jack our lease prices through the roof.. All i’m saying is there is a plethora of issues out there, 1-tag does not make the difference you all speak of…..

Adam, I do not agree.

The guys that are so used to shooting that yearling opening day of muzzleloader will suddenly realize they are only holding 1 buck tag in their pocket and start passing that young one. Most guys live for rifle season anyway so if they do hunt with muzzleloaders, it is likely they will hold out for an older buck if we go to the one buck limit.

I love the idea. I think it’s the BEST and simplest rule change to help all hunters in Oklahoma lease or own big or small have better hunting. I think it’s a great idea

Lee I agree! A one buck limit makes a huge difference. Just look at Kentucky and Kansas. Enough said!!

I hope ODWC gets up to speed and goes to a one buck in 2013. We are ready for better deer hunting in OK,

Absolutely guys will be more selective when they only have one buck tag. Why would thy shoot a dink if they only have one tag? Of course they are going to pass younger bucks. This is why States with conservative buck limits have big deer people. It has nothing to do with their farmland or corn. Jeez people read a book once in a while. All those 18 month old bucks in Iowa have forked antlers like ours do in Oklahoma. They all start out the same. The difference is that the Oklahoma yearlings bucks are dead in some smart hunters pickup because he said he was a “scrub” buck that needed to be shot. What a joke.

Bucks in Iowa and Kansas and all year awesome deer hunting states where everyone wants to go hunt all have conservative arms, no “gun” hunting during rut and because of this has caused hunters there to have high standards about what thy shoot and what they pass.

Big bucks are available in these states because of their age. And they get old because people are selective because they only have one tag or know there are bigger bucks available.

Oklahoma is a joke. And until we go to a post run gun season or a one buck limit we will remain a joke.

I’d love to see a December gun season or a one buck limit. This will really amaze hunters across Oklahoma once people begin seeing big mature bucks.

Glad to see all the posts. Looks like we are well on the way to better deer hunting in Oklahoma. nice!

Thanks for a great article Ed. I-Buck limit for me and my family!

Well well well. ODWC and the state of Oklahoma finally decided to wake up and smell the coffee. I’m very happy to see all this support for the 1 buck. Should have happened 25 years ago.

I hope they go to the 1 buck next year or implement something similar to help our bucks get some age on them. We have great genetics and great habitat. We just need the age!!!

Thanks Ed this is great!

Ed

I have always felt ODWC could and should do better for the quality deer managers in our state. ODWC is one of the most outdated DNR’s in the country when it comes to deer regs.

I firmly and whole-heartedly would argue with any person who is still for people killing 2 bucks per season especially with 2 rifles (I agree with the man above who said muzzleloaders are no longer “primitive”!)

We are killing to many young bucks in our state. And not enough does. Period.

The only way to change this is the change the rules.

The ignorant illegals are going to be illegal no matter the buck limit. But they are the ones shooting tens of thousands of young bucks. Those bucks are dropping to the legals guys who don’t have the patience or restraint to wait one extra minute after seeing that first forked horn set of antlers. It’s just antlers and BOOM!

You think hunters in Kansas do that! NO- With one tag they wait. And when they wait they are often rewarded with big mature bucks on the wall and all those young bucks they pass are then getting one year older because the neighbors neighbors neighbors neighbor also only has ONE BUCK TAG and he is 4 miles away managing buck age structure the exact same way.

Cmon people open your eyes. This is a great idea and I challenge the ODWC to get it implemented in 2013. Win win for everyone involved including the deer herd.

Thanks Ed

I agree with most all the comments on your blog Ed. I am disappointing the ODWC hasn’t progressed anymore than it has.

While reducing the liberal 3-buck limit to 2 was a great start, it really did not “fix” the problem of hunters shooting too many young bucks and not enough does. With guys still using a muzzleloader and rifle, and those methods being the main lethal means to take the majority of young bucks in OK, that is the problem.

We need to either go to a December rifle season (away from rut) or simply reduce the number of bucks a hunter can take with a gun or muzzleloader to 1 per season.

We are killing to too many bucks in OK, and too many of them are far too young. And so many guys are still not willing to shoot does. with all the information out there today on deer management, you would think guys would learn by now.

Thanks Ed. I do support the 1 buck limit in our area.

Looks like the new proposal “1 and 1″ is going to pass this winter. I like this rule idea better than a straight one-buck limit.

I noticed there were a few old-school hunters who wrote in against the proposal. I guess these folks need their head examined. Why would anyone go against the ODWC Biologists who are educated in game and fish mgmt. I am shocked anyone would write in oppositional to such great ideas.

I am OK with the 1-buck limit idea, but I like the 1 and 1 better. I think this caters to the most hunters in our state. Those who still want 2 bucks, and those who want bigger bucks.

I hunt all three seasons, and I enjoy the thrill of archery most of all. So I glad this rule will not affect archery hunters. Bow hunters can still take 2 bucks with their bows like always! Glad to hear it.

Good move ODWC. Glad you are on track to better deer management in Oklahoma. I support both ideas and look forward to one of them being in place in 2013.

Old-school hunters are old-school hunters and they are just looking for something to complain about it seems. I am sor anything ODWC proposes, because they are the ones with degrees in Wildlife Biology; not us.

Thanks Ed.

I am in favor of the 1-buck limit. I would also agree with the 1 and 1 rule and feel this will benefit the broad range of hunters who still want 2 buck tags, but also those who want better bucks. I am glad the archery hunters will not be affected and can still take both their bucks with a bow if they choose.

ED, I hope you have sent many of these comments to the ODWC as I believe they should see what some of these people had to say. Esp. the parts about them being stagnated as a department when it comes to deer management and not looking and more modern rules to be more progressive. I tend to agree with most of those comments as well. Maybe we need some new staff at ODWC to get better results when it comes to better deer regulations.

I think ODWC needs to see these comments. There will be allot of clowns show up at the public hearings whining and barking about these great rules changes as there always are. So they should see that many people across the state like the ideas. And they should take what those folks say with a grain of salt. I am glad there are so many people who want better deer hunting now in our state. This set of comments prove the majority of hunters want to hunt better quality bucks.

I’m supportive of both a 1 buck limit or the 1 and 1 rule. Both will help us have better deer hunting and older age bucks. I am happy they are looking at these changes.

All the “wanna be like kansas” ignorance is certainly no surprise when you get in the field and run into the doe shooters that have used half a box of shells, gut shot the biggest buch they ever saw and are dragging out a button buck on one of many antlerless tags (yes, ODWC doesn’t publish how many buck fawns are harvested on antlerless tags now, for good reason).
True Kansas harvests around 50% bucks over 3 years but only 2/3 as many as Ok.
On the other hand, Texas harvests 60% 3 year old bucks and harvests 7 times as many as Kansas. Texas is bigger you say????? KANSAS HARVESTS 1 BUCK EVERY 2 SQ. MILES WHILE TEXAS HARVESTS OVER 5 BUCKS PER SQ. MILE.

TEXAS LEANS TOWARD QDM TYPE MANAGEMENT, KANSAS LEANS TOWARD WHAT OK IS PROPOSING (MINIMAL DEER POPULATION) EXCEPT OK. DOESN’T HAVE HIGHE PROETIN CROPS LIKE KANSAS.

There are only 2 things you can do to grow bigger free ranging bucks; improve nutrition and allow them to get older.
For 25 years they said killing all the does would grow bigger bucks…well guess what, I was there and it just grows less deer and antlerless harvests are about 20% baby bucks that never even develop antlers.
95% of ALL deer harvested in Oklahoma are taken from private land. Only 6000 out of 111,000 are harvested on Department managed lands and over 40,000 are already antlerless.
Many private land managers are growing bigger bucks using methods that provide better nutrition and self imposed point limits that do not harvest yearlings
Many soils in Oklahoma will not produce a trophy buck even if no buck harvest is allowed (low fertility).
I can test the soil, make amendments and watch a group of yearling spikes become 8-9-10 point bucks the next year,
Some areas (like gruber/Cherokee have adequate nutrition to produce trophy bucks at 3.5 yrs. old- all they need are point limits to allow the bucks to mature
My comment; leave it alone, stop killing BABY BUCKS WITH 35 ANTLERLESS DAYS for rifle / primitive, stop doe harvests in areas with no does.
Stop catering to the 1 weekend/year deer hunter and thank God 95% of all deer habitat in Oklahoma is privately managed.
Oklahoma has a resource, you can’t get a permit in Kansas (most cant afford it)many manage their own land to grow big bucks already. I know of none of them that shoot all does and expect more bucks. Oklahoma geography is closer to Texas than Kansas. Texas produces 10 times more trophies than Kansas.
You guys that wanna be like kansas, try to get a permit there. good luck.
Don’t rob us of hunting another season.

PS the answer to the “old school” comment is some of us actually manage land with deer populations and make them better. We spend the entire year growing deer. Progressives spend one weekend shooting anything and then gripe because it wasn’ a 20 point buck.

Just a final note; I only harvested 1 buck this year between the two seasons which was a very nice 8 point. I passed at least a dozen times on smaller bucks, wonder how many know it alls pushing this thing on here passed anything? You are free to only shoot 1 buck, dp it without a stinkong law.

I agree with quall on this.I work part time at a deer processing facility west of my home and we do about 700 a year and have to say that the majority of so called does that are brought to be processed are little bucks that was born in the spring!!!! I hunted 9 days during muzzleloader season on a 2 section piece of land and counted 42 different bucks. I took a nice 145 9 point on the last sunday of season and the only reason i killed him was that he was carrying what to me looked like a broken rear leg.. I hunted the majority of rifle season also and passed several shooter bucks that i beleive will be sure enough big boys next year. so hunters take it on yourself not to shoot bucks and lets keep it the way it is.If this law does pass i am strongly for earn a buck tag back by killing a MATURE doe or maybe even 2 it depends on the number of does in your county. We the hunters can do this without imposing new laws….

Thanks for the confirmation Gibby. We have been hunting a section managed for 8 point for several years. With no doe harvest except the lands around us which is pretty severe, the section (640 acres) has been producing 10 eight point or better for the past 6 0r 7 years. Since most deer were killed opening morning this year in the area I was in, I haven’t caught up with total for the 640 acres except that I know of 5 very nice 8 points harvested from 100 acres of the property. Part of this could be due to the presence of does which always seem to draw in a second round of bucks by Rifle season. We left more bucks than we killed and normally someone will harvest a trophy class beyond eight points and one of the land owners went beyond the eight point minimum this year and left the 2.5 year eight points.
I know about the little antlerless bucks being harvested because I used to be one of them doing it. I like tender venison but have learned that proper handling (and making clean kills) can provide venison just as tender from the 140 lb. eight points as from the fawns or yearlings.
In my case where I process them myself, it involves several days of hanging to cool out, sometimes followed by refrigeration depending on weather. As a processor you know that a clean kill prevents stressed meat as well and most of our kills the last several years are neck or head shots (I can’t eat the horns either) but with a fine tuned rifle, you can do an instant kill, and usually not hurt the horns or the meat. I use 130 gr. hp varmint loads that I hand load to get the accuracy with the 30-06 and TC Cheap shots with the inline to pin point the muzzloader.
My neighbors are the ones that wanted big antlers and I agreed to wait for big bucks if they would leave some does to draw the bucks in.
Neighbor coalitions have transformed 15000 acres in my area although we still have poachers, trespassers and those that shoot everything across some of the fence lines, we are beginning to outnumber them now.

I SUPPORT THE 1 AND 1 IDEA. I THINK ITS GREAT. I also like a 1-buck limit.

You think Kansas has big deer because of corn and beans? Come on. 1-buck limit and December gun season provide that.

All the biologists and experts tell me they are for this idea. Anyone against this, is against better deer and deer hunting in OK. I support the idea. Any idea that helps our bucks reach maturity, I am all for. Lets do it. Looks like over 100 posts support the idea, so you old-school hunters who are missing the forest for the trees are out of luck I guess… You are biting off your noses to feed your faces and you do not even realize it. Don’t argue with excellent ideas aimed at helping all deer hunters see older age bucks. This is a good thing. Obv most of the smart hunters and managers who posted about the 1-buck agree with this. I love it!!!

I have two degrees in Agronomy. One from Kansas State and the other from Oklahoma State. BS and MS. I am a crop consultant and have been for 20 years. I have worked with some of the largest farmers in Colorado, Oklahoma, West Texas and Kansas.

Western Kansas has everything Western Oklahoma has. And its not “more high-protein crops”. Its dryland wheat, milo, some irrigation, native grass, sagebrush and yuccas. You boys need to go to school before you begin spouting off miss-guided comments about an area (Production Agriculture) you obviously know nothing about.

I agree with many of the posts about Kansas. I lived there 18 years as my family farms and ranched in SW KS. I was born there. Kansas has much older age bucks due to a December rifle season (post rut) and a 1-Buck limit. Bucks reach an older age and can grow large racks because they are mature. These are all facts no hunter can argue. You all have been poisoned by the “magic shiny buck beans in a bag” marketing fleece of American deer hunters. Why do you think they want you to believe “nutrition” grows huge deer? They are selling you a shiny bag and advertising by bleach-blonde celebrities.

My co-workers in Iowa and Illinois consistently harvest monster, 6 and 7+ year old bucks. But they all start out small just like Oklahoma bucks. Just small yearlings. But they live an extra 5 or 6 years while our deer are dead because Oklahoma hunters have had 2 and 3 buck tags over the years and shoot the first young bucks they see. You reduce the tags, and you increase buck age and size. Facts.

Please excuse that I made an earlier comment that after much research and consioderation I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE. I did not consider the vast difference in dynamics of deer management in Western Oklahoma compared to Eastern Oklahoma.
There appears to be considerable support for the one buck rule in WESTERN OKLAHOMA. I was puzzled AND CONFUSED but after more investigation must agree BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED FOR WESTERN OKLAHOMA. I have talked to landowners in Caddo county that have had deer eradicated from their property under present rules. I talked to Deertime Ranch in Noble County that reported many distorted racks due to the drought. West of I -35. The dynamics of the habitat/herd/rainfall/crops are very much like Kansas and the should receive the same benefits.
Eastern Oklahoma has dynamics including herd capacity/rainfall/more natural habitat and is about as similar to Kansas as Florida is to Alaska.
I am in favor of the rule for Western Oklahoma and even agree with the hunter’s comments from that area.
Eastern Ok. has a growing number of volunteer point limits which works wonders here.
I spoke with Brent Morgan at Gruber Cherokee and with Craig Endicott and they support the commission decisions fully.
In addition Brent and I discussed pros and cons of a point limit using Gruber /Cherokee as a demonstration area for Eastern Oklahoma and agree that there are pros and cons.
I have been involved with voluntary implementation of point limits on private lands to about 15,000 acres in Eastern Oklahoma and the improvements have been tremendous.
My position is to favor the 1 buck limit for rifle / muzzleloader for WESTERN Oklahoma as they will receive great benefi there. I do not believe Eastern Oklahoma would receive the same benefit.
I would work with anyone to help develop and establish point limits anywhere in Eastern Oklahoma.
Point limits could be established by area, county, WMA or portions of WMAs as demonstration projects.
I do not favor the 1 buck limit for Eastern Oklahoma but of course everyone must live by the final decision.

Quail, I would like to see point limits in eastern Oklahoma. I also agree with the proposed 1 and 1 limit. Heck I would even like to see both in place. I even support going to a 1-buck statewide.

Older bucks are so important, and no matter what the state decides, we simply need rules in place that make hunters think before they just smoke the first buck with antlers they see walk out. Things are getting better in OK and these rules would help. I would like to see our entire state simply go to a 1-buck limit, really. Or that, plus point restrictions. Anything to help the small lease holder or landowner have a few older bucks. I am against Oklahoma turning into South Texas where deer are penned and ear-tagged, but I do see the importance of a lower buck bag limit or apr’s in our state. Because the less bucks hunters take, the more make it another year older. Then, they really can show us out true potential. I have seen photos from MCAAP and there are some awesome bucks there. That is a great example of what we can achieve in Oklahoma.

Everyone is different and we all have different goals. I want all hunters to have success and pull together through this. The guys who are fighting this, probably do not understand how much it will benefit our herd; we all win when we have older bucks. Who doesn’t want to see an old buck standing out there with a big rack? At least once in their life. I know I would. And I am not an antler fanatic. But i love the thought of one day seeing a big old buck cruising on my farm. It would just be awesome. I am one of the hunters, who only hunts a small family property, but its special to me. I have renegades all around me that burn through their 2 bucks tags every season and most of the bucks are very young. If they had less tags, or had to choose which buck they shot with either their ML or gun, this would cut the number of younger bucks around my place in half or more. We need better regs in Oklahoma and I would support the 1 and 1, apr’s and/or a clean 1-Buck Limit. The clean 1-buck rule would simplify everything. But I would not mind the apr’s as well. Lots of states around us have them…

I wish bigger bucks were as simple as your post and I’d agree with you as well. Your area does have some potential for gaining from the 1 buck limit but the soils in the E 1/4 of Oklahoma do not support survival of bucks past the 2.5- 3.5 year range. You are not in a bad area for bucks to grow althoug rack size will always be smaller than those in the calcium carbonate soils.
Even if no hunting were allowed, the chance of you ever meeting a 5.5 year old with a trophy rack are very small although better than mine in Muskogee County.
If allowed I’ll post a link that will show you why. If the link won’t post, the basic problem is the soil. The western 3/4 of Ok. has soils like Kansas, W. Texas, part of Mo. Part of Ohio etc. E. Ok. , Arkansas, and most of the SE has very infertile soils with low calcium although there are local variations everywhere. I have seen 2.5 year old deer with 4 point racks and Yearlings that were 8 points. Those that don’t know details, blame it on genetics but fertility (nutrition) is the limiting factor in E ok.

I have close to 100,000 photos of bucks from their fawn year to the time they return after deer season at 2.5 yr. olds only never to be seen again.

http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/soilorders/i/USsoilorders.jpg

At Vinita you are on a line. Want bigger bucks go west or north even with a limit. S or E back where you are now.

It looks like most people support going to a one buck limit in Oklahoma on Ed’s blog. I too agree with this. All this talk of point limits, doe before a buck, soils, genetics, etc. Wow.

All I can say is my sister married a guy from Kansas. He has some of the biggest bucks I have ever seen. This is all really due to a 1-Buck Limit in that state. That is the simple way to look at all this. You reduce the number of young bucks being killed, take out a few for natural mortality, and leave the rest of the rest. You are saving a ton of young bucks. If some of that remaining balance of bucks were 2, then in 2013, they are 3 years old. If they were 3, they would be 4 next year etc. You start getting some of those 2 and 3 year olds to 3 and 4 or 5 and everything changes for the better. The 1 and 1 idea will really help, but if you want to save a ton of bucks, use the KISS method and go right to a 1-Buck Limit… Clean, simple, and effective. Guys want more meat, they will then shoot more does. ODWC is happy, and so are hunters across the state. I am all for keeping things simple, and the 1-buck idea is the easiest and best thing I can think of.

Want to know why Ohio and Kentucky have awesome deer hunting? Because hunters only have 1 buck tag. They are passing more bucks now than ever because of only having 1 tag, and killing less bucks now more than ever, because of only having 1 tag; which leads to more bucks living another year. Its all so simple to me. I support the 1 and 1 Ed, but I really prefer a clean 1-buck limit for all arms and all seasons per hunter/per year.

Make it 1 tag for all seasons or it won’t make a fly speck of difference either way.

As far as my land, make it 10 bucks per year, I’ll still only harvest the right amount. Most landowners would. Those that lease and have no other investment have no incentive to not abuse the harvest. I say outlaw hunting leases. Landowner only! That would make a big difference.

Wonder why all these rules never apply to the Management areas? If they are so good, have 35 doe days in rifle and muzzleloader on all public land too!
Eliminate leases, make all blogsperts hunt public land, definitely help the Oklahoma deer herd.
Then the hunters that actually have an investment in the land would be the ones to benefit!.
If you don’t own it stay off of it and certainly don’t steal the deer. For every lease there is a neighbor that actually owns the land next door.
I take care of mine. Don’t need further instruction.

I’ll try one more time, this time, it’s just plain black and white.
I haven’t disagreed that W. Oklahoma has a problem since early in the postings (at first I didn’t know anything was wrong out there but the crazy posts just kept popping and I agreed that if they want 1 buck harvest , fine but unless you just do 1 buck across the board, no effect. Then I went to the trouble to check deer harvest totals from 2009-2011 and then the light begins to shine in the darkness.

I picked 8 random Western counties (Just printed a map and picked 8 different locations not bordering each other.

I checked ODWC Deer harvest totals from 2009-2011 and EVERY one of the Eight counties were DOWN from 15-32% total harvest.

We had that in E. Ok. and lots of landowners figured it out and some stopped killing does and reversed the trend. Eastern counties are going up again in spite of some having all deer wiped out in spots for a few years.

By the comments here, most commenters in W. Ok. hunt leases, All believe killing does is some magic deer management trick that makes something out of nothing.

What is happening is that in Western Ok. , doe killers are killing your herd faster than it can reproduce and in 5 years at the present rate most counties will not have a huntable population in the areas where you can hunt. Naturally you won’t kill all deer in Oklahoma county or counties with no leases but for The harvest in Western counties to be dropping this fast, likely reflects the fact that most hunters are leases and don’t care if they leave anything or not.

Here is what I saw by picking 8 random spots from 2009-2011 (only 3 years):

Washita county total harvest dropped 32%
Dewey county total harvest dropped 30%
Commanche county total harvest dropped 21%
Major county total harvest dropped 18%
Stephens county total harvest dropped 18%
Caddo county total (big county big drop) dropped 29.2%
Custer County total harvest dropped 22%
Garfield County total harvest dropped 10%

In every case above, the same drop the next 3 years eliminates the huntable population of deer.
Now maybe someone can come along and spin a yarn and say it’s just because all y’all don’t shoot nuthin but giant bucks now but I’d call that a tall tale.
Based on the comments I’m seeing from the Western Ok. hunters some even commented that they wish they could kill all does in the holiday hunt.
I knew there was a problem after the first few posts, with all the stories about all the does out there, (the ability to see several does has no connection to how many there are). The W. Ok. Hunters are just wiping out their own herd and probably planning on getting more from E. Ok like before but they don’t deserve it if they don’t take care of what we gave them.

There may be a buck problem too but that happens when you don’t have enough deer left to replenish the harvest each year.
It happened in East Okla. and lots of us decided to bite the bullet and save some does even though it makes some folks mad.

Nope, you don’t have magic deer and you need to stop worrying about Kansas bucks and start worrying about having any deer in 5 years which won’t happen with the “harvest another doe” instead of a buck ideas I’m hearing on the blog.
Y’all need to start taking care of the deer you got and do some of your own research.

I’ve seen enough to know what you’re dealing with because I’ve been there and depending on coyotes and greedy doe killers and such , it may not fix itself very fast.

You guys check your own counties and figure it out. It has nothing to do with a 1 buck harvest but a lot to do with a 4 antlerless harvest.

PS Yes I am glad I was able to help those that want to be helped, for those that don’t , guess you will reap what you sow. We still have guys here that kill every deer every year and wonder where the “thundering herd” went. No help for them.

First of all I don’t know where you are hunting that the peak of the rut falls during rifle season. I spend a lot of time out in the woods each year (more than anyone that I personally know) and it has always been my observation that the most intense phase of the rut occurs that magical week (or so) between powder season and rifle season. Let me then say that I believe in QDM and practice this year to year. I usually try to kill a decent buck and then I hold out for an even bigger one. Sometimes it pans out and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes I have to eat a buck tag as will probably be the case this year.This is why I support a 2 buck season: I love to hunt big bucks and if I kill one early, then that takes away from my time in the woods. To me that what it is all about, going out and witnessing the whitetail world, passing up small bucks and knowing that any minute a monster could walk within range, that is what I live for! In my opinion there is not a more majestic, smarter animal in the woods than a mature buck. That is why I love to hunt them. I’m tired of hearing how those who oppose the 1 buck state limit are greedy! That is far from the truth! I’ve tried to get some of my neighbors to practice QDM but some people just aren’t going to comply. Making Oklahoma a 1 buck state is not going to solve the problem because those people are still going to pull the trigger on the first spike/forked horn that walks by. And before those of you start harping about hunting for does, I generally fill all of my doe tags! I love to kill deer (that’s were the does come in) and I love to pursue big bucks! I don’t want to be sitting in my stand thinking that I killed the biggest buck on the property, when all of a sudden a mature giant walks out and leaves me thinking, “I didn’t see him on camera or I would have held out to shoot him!” If you tell me that wouldn’t make your stomach turn, then you are a liar! Also, I haven’t heard it mentioned once about expanding the doe hunting opportunities in my area! Its easy for you that have a doe day every day during powder and rifle season to sit on your soap box and preach that there are plenty of days to hunt does! Wrong! Not here where I live in Southeastern Oklahoma! We have only three days to hunt them during the two week rifle season and that is it! So if I have already killed a buck, then I only have three days that I can carry a rifle in the woods. Also, my wife only gets a limited time in the woods during rifle season only. Having only three doe days takes away from her being able to harvest one! Believe me, there are plenty where we hunt! Therefore, I am open to antler restrictions and maybe the “earn a buck program” because I don’t mind killing does, because that is part of the management process. So, If you still believe that I am greedy (and I’m sure some of you do) then you can go sit on the devil’s doorstep for all your opinion is worth. Taking and/or having the opportunity to take big bucks, especially a couple that you been seeing on camera, is a gratifying challenge that can either leave you on high on a mountain or down in a low valley. I live for the moment that a big one walks out! That is why I love to pursue big whitetails!

I support reducing the buck limit to 1 archery and 1 gun. Hunters still have the option to kill 2 bucks and archery hunters can still take 2. And if they truly want to hold out for a bigger rifle buck, they will pass with a muzzleloader. And shoot a doe for meat. I like the idea and all the hunters in my area are ready for Oklahoma to get things going in the right direction. I have always been under QDM and so I agree with the posts about; “you do your thing, I’ll do mine”. All the guys that feel that way are right. I agree with that. I do things right, at least right by allowing bucks to walk until they are mature. I mean really mature, and not “oh I thought he was…” or “he looked bigger before I walked up to him and saw all the ground shrinkage and realized he was only 2.5 and scored 110″ etc. I mean fully mature regardless of rack size. I do all that. And I thump a bunch of does. Because in my area, we have plenty. You don’t have many does, don’t shoot them then. I need to, so I do. I have 9 years of DMAP to tell me so. So again, I will do my thing and you all do yours.

The reason I support this; I cannot stand to walk up to a truck at the check station like I did in Oct and see some 60 year old hunter who I know; and know he has killed 100+ bucks (mainly young) in his lifetime, and he is looking at a 4X2 he called a “cull” buck. The deer was 2.5; not a “cull”! And the reason he did it (other than to be a “real” man); he had a 2nd rifle tag to take a “good” buck so he went ahead and shot him with his muzzleloader at 200 yards to keep him from “breedin”. There are countless hunters like that all across OK. They are ignorant to the fact that you cannot, in any way, improve the “genetics” of a deer herd that is wild, free-range. Point it- he would not have done that, if it was his last buck “gun” tag, because he does not and will not ever bow hunt. And that little 6-point might have lived to 5 or 6 and been a 14X12 and scored 190″.

Almost all hunters across the state would not/will not burn that muzzleloader tag on a young buck, if its their last “gun” tag. Then they start passing those bucks, every time, like they always should have before, and that is how the positive cycle begins.

The rule is great. I fully support it. It will save a ton of bucks in our state. Its been proven in so many other states and will be proven here too. All these stats, all this arm-chair “bone-collector” bologna, dreaming up any and every excuse not to reduce the buck harvest. Come on people. Really? You want to still be hunting during rifle season, do what every hunter in Kansas does and don’t shoot a “decent” buck and prematurely end your season. Wait. Pass. Be patient. If you go home without a buck, big deal.

1 gun tag makes hunters pass bucks. And less bucks die. Then years later, they have more big bucks to hunt, and so do the rest of us. Ohio. Kentucky. Kansas. Yea; 1-buck.

I applaud these hunters who want aprs, eab’s and all the other ideas. I like that too. I think you are great hunters and really trying to do things right. Every hunter in Oklahoma should support this idea. If they don’t they are missing the forest for the trees. You have to give a little to take. You really want big bucks. Reduce it all the way to 1. Talk about unlocking the potential of our state.

Looks like there are over 100 something hunters already having posted on this blog alone that agree-

Im not saying the few who are against this are wrong in a few of the facts and figures bc some of that is prob right, but I think you are dead wrong for wanting better deer hunting, yet not supporting such a great idea. Obv you care about deer hunting or you would not have posted comments here. Your passion is cool, but your arguments contradict what we all really want. Better bucks and better deer hunting in OK. You want better deer hunting? Support the 1 and 1 rule. Do not fight something designed to help us. embrace it.

Do Not Forget: The buck limit is still 2 folks- Just now hunters will be much more selective, more young bucks will reach maturity, and I that is a great thing; no matter how you slice it.

Brian,
I agree with most of your comments and your reasons for sticking with the present 2 buck limit. On well managed land, you can grow as good a buck as the land allows. Since you do practice some QDM you also know that by rifle season, the bucks you see are often not the bucks that you managed the previous 11 months but the mature bucks travel considerable distances during rut and by Rifle season may be many miles from where they began their rut.
This works both ways , especially in drought years. Last year I managed, photographed and babied a group of 8-9-10 points for 11 months and by the very beginning of Muzzleloader season they left in search of does (which do not exist in sustainable numbers on this land which borders “brown is down” and probably even night with light hunters but during the rut, I photographed 24 bucks (2 does) that used a 12 acre area where I have some cameras and do not allow access by livestock. Naturally many of these were “drought bucks” that didn’t have high nutrition food plots all summer like my bachelor groups had but stunted “basket” racks from spending all summer in cattle range that is grazed to the bone during droughts. I ended up sticking with my self imposed point limit on a 155# eight point but he had a small rack compared to the deer that had been on clover , cowpeas and minerals all winter, spring and summer.
Since you mentioned you do some QDM (I don’t know where your land is) you may be interested in the “soil test” that if you don’t already do, will help grow bigger bucks. Once the rut starts, only having does will keep them around but determining what the deficiencies and managing the soil nutrition and vegetative nutrition accordingly will grow bigger bucks and bigger racks (as you know the nutrition is used to grow the body first and then the rack).
My land is severely deficient in Calcium Carbonate (lime) that is necessary to harden antlers. Antlers in velvet are nearly 100% protein and require calcium and phos at approx. 2:1 ratio to complete growth. This Calcium and Phosphorus cannot be supplied by food because antlers grow so fast bucks cannot eat enough to fully meet the needs to grow large antlers and once the body has stored and completed growth (and conditioning) calcium and phosphorus are absorbed from skeletal and muscle to complete the antler growth process. This can and does often create osteoporosis in bucks at late summer and often leaves them weak and susceptible to predators. They will recover quickly if nutrition is available but if not some will die or be more susceptible to disease or predation.
In order to grow antlers to their genetic potential this means that the nutritional needs for prime body conditioning and growth must be met during spring and early summer before the extreme stress of growing large antlers gets in the fast growth stage.
Most natural vegetation can be fertilized to increase protein and phosphorus levels to that necessary to grow big bucks although depending on location crops like beans and cowpeas can also be supplemented.
In areas like mine, the calcium must either be placed in the soil in adequate amounts or supplemental minerals made available at antler drop.
In areas where minerals are not needed they will not be used.
Areas West of I-35 have calcium based soils so mineral supplements with calcium would be of little value and the most benefit would be from Nitrogen and phosphorus which may be present if crops are present.
At any rate, you sound like someone that would understand the antler growth process well enough understand the huge difference this can make.
As far as the does, If I had even a 1-1 ratio I’d be fine with harvest of does (I went to public land to shoot a doe this year because I don’t have them and the “brown is downers” keep them thinned to the bone.
Does to not travel like the bucks so any that I can attract during the year, usually leave the buck fawns behind and likely gunned down before the 35 rifle and muzzloader doe days are done.
I gladly adopt the button bucks and yearlings and will have nice (on most folks wall) 8-9-10 points on the 2.5 yr. olds this fall.
I only occasionally hear of or see a 3.5 yr. old and suspect poachers or the final stages of the larger antlers weakens them to disease or predators.
The 1- 3.5 Eleven point that I had game cams of disappeared in Sept. after shedding velvet and neighbors became silent and no longer mentioned him so I expect they did not wait for a season.
I have heard it said that if you manage an area, you nearly always end up harvesting someone else’s buck and that is certainly the case even during the season in my area. Last year I grew nice bucks and harvested drought bucks. This year I and several I hunted with harvested bucks that we did not grow but were very nice.
The best that can happen is to have enough in an area that have the same goals to grow the deer you want.
It took several years and proof each year to convince a few in my area that if you shoot the does before or during rut they will become nocturnal and you will not see as many bucks because they will bed down when the does bed down. Bucks are naturally nocturnal and keeping the does will draw many bucks from surrounding areas.
In all my areas we have bordering lands that slaughter does and we do not. This draws bucks from those areas.

I like the idea. I could care less about data. If the biologists suggest it I support it. If it will provide additional mature bucks in our deer herd (which it will) I support the measure.

Pretty sure you can’t be a biologist without data.

Statistical Data suggests that if the measure causes more hunters to bow hunt instead of rifle hunt, more big bucks will be lost and never checked in and could result in fewer big bucks. I think someone called the measure a “no brainer” , that I agree with, no brain power used on this one.
Forcing more people to bow hunt that aren’t archery proficient, big mistake. Of course you wouldn’t care about that either.
A study in New Jersey in the 1980s determined that 57% of all deer shot with a bow are never recovered or found.
The percentage may be a little better with crossbows and experienced hunters but those being forced to bow hunt because they can’t hunt rifle season aren’t going to be the experts. Crossbows are no more accurate (some are less accurate) than the bows in the NJ study. All except the very top of the line crossbows (very expensive) have a significant drop caused by the bolt not aligning with the direction of string travel.
A study by QDMA with modern compound bows and crossbows in Maryland indicated that only 20% of deer shot with a bow were never recovered and there was not a statistically significant difference in crossbows and compound bows.
What wasn’t included in the study is the increased stamina of large bucks compared to does and fawns and for those that have never shot a big buck , they are harder to kill, especially during rut.
So With the QDMA study I say at least 20% minimum of all deer wounded with a bow are lost and never counted. Based on what I know about big bucks, the number would be more like 50%.
So, NO the measure will not necessarily provide additional big bucks in “our” herd and could provide less.
I’d say forcing rifle hunters to hunt bow season instead is a BAD idea for our deer herd.

Just an FYI for Hal-Tulsa, I have seen nothing that said any biologists suggested the proposal for the buck limit be shifted to bowhunters from rifle hunters. All I have seen is that it has been proposed by the “Wildlife commission” which is a group of businessmen appointed by the Governor. In this case mostly bankers and insurance executives. I’m pretty sure they are not game biologists although a couple may be hunters (not sure).

1- Lawyer
1- Banker
1- Independent Insurance Executive
1- Lawyer, Pre-paid legal services
1- Lawyer
1- trial lawyer
1- farmer rancher/sportsman
1- Transportation company CEO

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/aboutodwc/district.htm

The commission is not required to have a comment period on rule changes and not required to have meetings to discuss rule changes so at least some are interested in hearing different views prior to decision making. Sometimes the commission acts on comments from the public , sometimes they act on comments from employees of the department but are not required to act based on popularity or biologist recommendations or input from any other source so we are fortunate to have a chance to discuss this issue before it becomes law.