I am very concerned about the commissions very short sighted and costly proposal (which would reduce tourism and buck tag sales) to limit rifle and muzzleloader hunters to 1 buck when there is an option already in place in 22 states and by private landowners in every county in Oklahoma that improves the buck age structure, increases bucks available to harvest and would have a huge positive impact the second year after implementation whether statewide or on individual management areas and that is a point limit.

Most proponents cite Kansas when they support a 1 buck limit which is one of the reasons to reject it. Kansas has a total buck harvest less than 2/3 of Oklahoma. Kansas restricts the number of buck tags for residents and non-residents and is expensive and difficult to obtain. Kansas is one of the top 5 crop production states in the US and has huge CRP assets which is why bucks grow big there, Oklahoma pretty much only ranks in wheat production which is not known for producing giant bucks and would not automatically produce giant bucks like Kansas if we went to a 1 buck limit. Oklahoma has very minimal CRP assets.

Kansas harvest a total of 1 buck annually for every 1200 acres which is one of the lowest buck harvests in any whitetail state.

What would benefit Oklahoma and increase buck age structure and buck harvest and buck tag sales in an antler point limit. These are already used in 22 states and is credited with saving Pennsylvania’s deer management program, is responsible for the Missouri , Ohio, Illinois and Texas monster production.

Point limits are in place in 122 counties in Texas. Instead of 1 buck harvested for every 1200 acres like Kansas , Texas harvests 1 buck for every 90 acres. Instead of 50% of bucks being over 3.5 years like Kansas, Texas harvests 60% of bucks harvested over 3.5 years old.
Instead of 50% of 40,000 bucks 3.5 yrs or older like Kansas = 20.000, Texas harves 60% of over 300,000 bucks that are over 3.5 years old or at least 180,000 bucks over 3.5 years old each year.
Texas makes non-resident licenses available to everyone, Kansas has a drawing to limit non-resident hunters (Ask tourism officials how much a non-resident hunter spends in Oklahoma during a trip for a deer hunt.)

Point limits are already being used by a large number of hunting leases, commercial hunting operations and private landowners in oklahoma and have raised the age structure of harvested bucks every year from lands where they are now VOLUNTARILY employed.

Point limits could be applied statewide, area wide, county wide or to WMAs to prove the benefits. Point limits could be applied to Gruber/Cherokee PHA in Eastern Oklahoma and a waiting line would be waiting to gain access to the hunting area by the third year (I have checked soil surveys for Gruber/Cherokee PHA and the area has the habitat and soil chemistry to produce large antlered bucks with little or no additional soil/habitat management and might even have more natural potential than the Army Ammunition Depot at McAlester..
I have documented that even in infertile areas that I can do a soil test and make the minimum soil and nutritional need adjustments and watch yearling spikes grow into 8-9-10 point bucks within a few months of shedding yearling spike antlers.
Almost every private land manager in Oklahoma that is managing for improved age structure is using point limits and nutrition improvement to grow big bucks.

Only 5% of all deer killed in Oklahoma are harvested from ODWC managed lands and 95% are harvested from private land.
The present 35 days of doe harvests in rifle and muzzleloader seasons also kill buck fawns (ODWC has the real numbers) that never even have a chance to grow a yearling set of antlers.

NONE of the private managers that are actually producing bigger bucks on private land are trying to eliminate all the does because once the does are gone, so are the bucks. Not only from a recruitment perspective but when the big bucks they spend all year growing go into rut, they go where the does are.

Stop killing all the buck fawns, stop killing all the yearlings and try some areas with point limits or at least talk to real game managers that use point limits or other states that have implemented point limits .

Not everybody kills 2 bucks in muzzleloader and rifle season and those that don’t are probably the majority. A 1 buck limit would stop most of them from hunting the second season at all if they used up their right to kill a buck in the first season and I’d be one of them.

I used to harvest does and it wiped out the local deer herd, I then started using button bucks to fill my antlerless tags and my neighbors wanted to grow bigger bucks. I am now part of a loosely connected group of private landowners, with total land assets in Muskogee and McIntosh County of close to 15,000 acres. Once we agreed to limit the harvest of yearling bucks, our deer hunting world changed. We can watch bucks chase does and every time a doe gets up to feed at least 1 and sometimes 2 or 3 bucks show up. We have some places that are better than Kansas and if we had the nutrition that kansas we would have bigger bucks too. Right now it’s still just a few years old and we are still harvesting 2.5 year old bucks plus the older ones that escape the previous year.
Gruber Cherokee PHA could be there next year with point limits not buck limits. It would cost NOTHING to try it. The 1 buck limit will cost PLENTY.
.

Ed,

This idea is the best thing ODWC has done in a long time to improve the deer and deer hunting in Oklahoma. I fully support it and all hunters in my part of the state do too. Looking forward to it in 2013 and beyond. Our state is really improving and kudos to ODWC for being progressive and getting with the times. I am so happy about it.

Quail, I AGREE WITH THE 1 and 1 proposal. All the experts, biologists, and natural resource professionals I know agree with it. So unless you are a biologists (obv you are not by some of the things you wrote)you really do not have a leg to stand on against this great idea. I would support APR’s as well, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. This is a step in that direction. Most hunters in Oklahoma want better deer and deer hunting and this idea will provide us with that. That’s a FACT. If ODWC thought they were going to lose revenue, they would not consider this. The buck limit is still 2; in case you missed that part.

I think it shows we are progressing as a state. And if you are against this, you are shooting yourself and all deer hunters in the foot. Arms DONT CHANGE. Season dates DONT CHANGE. Season lengths DONT CHANGE. Doe limits DONT CHANGE. and MOST OF ALL TOTAL BUCK BAG LIMIT IS NOT CHANGING. Still 2. You are not being asked to go to APR’s or EAB’s. You are simply being asked to decide which buck you shoot with your rifle OR muzzleloader with. What is wrong with hunters (your neighbors) being more selective? I know hunters in almost every county and they would like to see their hunters bordering their place become more selective on young bucks and shoot more does instead.

Have you seen Ed’s blog about the 1-Buck Limit article? You realize there are thousands of Oklahoma deer hunters who are pushing for that too; right?! 95% of those comments were for a 1-buck limit — across the board. There were over 125 comments. So this “1 and 1″ is a compromise by the ODWC to meet hunters in the middle. Do you want this where we stay with a 2-buck bag limit total and hunters are going to be more selective on younger bucks in OK, OR do you want to move straight to a 1-buck limit. Be careful what you argue against. You might see an even different outcome. This 1 and 1 idea is a blessing. It caters to hunters who still want 2 buck tags, and will improve our buck age structure immensely. Fact. Why do you think Ohio, Kentucky, Kansas, etc all have great deer hunting. LOTS OF DEER AND BIG BUCKS.? Because of their 1-buck limits. Don’t fall back on the “more cropland” excuse. Cropland might give bucks nutrition, but it does not help them see their 5th and 6th birthdays.? Right.?. Conservation buck limits (i.e. 1) and “gun” season dates away from the RUT do that. All the beans and corn in Iowa cannot put 200″ of antler on yearling bucks. Their yearlings look like our yearlings- While their yearlings are prepping to grow their 2nd set of antlers, our yearling’s are dead and their skull plates our stuffed in some dusty cardboard box in a garage.

Your comments about “crops and CRP” as the reason Kansas has old bucks shows your lack of knowledge about deer management. AGE grows big deer. Not corn, beans, or CRP. What about far western KS where they are killing monster 6 and 7 year old whitetails? All they have are pasture with yucca cactus and native grass. Maybe a wheat field here or there, but in 18″ rainfall, they dont have soybeans and corn in every section. Have you looked at CRP, prime farmland, rainfall, and soils maps of OK and KS? Have you compared the OK and KS B&C density maps. All the E/W counties right down the line, just north into KS are orange and red with tons of old big bucks in the books. The OK counties right across the line south are white and yellow. B&C entries in these counties and every county in KS, are that way due to a Dec gun season and a 1 BUCK LIMIT. Read a book.

No area in OK is “wiping out the local deer herd”. It would take an army to “wipe out a deer herd”. Your people might not be seeing as many deer, but they are there. You all just do not see them like you used to. When you shift harvest pressure from bucks to does, does begin acting like bucks. And the smart ones live and the dumb ones die. Heavily hunted does go underground just like bucks. That’s been proven with radio collars etc. Deer numbers are growing fast. All across the state except the far panhandle due to limited habitat.

I am all for older age bucks, improved rutting behavior, better-balanced buck to doe ratios, and lowering high deer herd numbers. I am also for hunters becoming more selective on younger bucks. This idea will help all hunters across the board whether you hunt on large or small properties. We have as much or more potential as any other state. We just need more progressive and conservative regulations in place to reach that potential. It may not be as conservative as some hunters want (i.e. 1-Buck Limit), but it is a start. And it is very progressive. This idea shows our state is progressing. I agree with the idea and everyone in my area supports it. The vast majority of hunters, support this idea. Oklahoma deer hunters are looking for improved deer and deer hunting. And they like the fact that this idea is a “meet-in-the-middle” kind of idea. It caters to the majority of hunters and will ultimately help all of us in the future. This is why most people in Oklahoma like the idea. Your reasoning for being against a great idea is all about greediness, not being open-minded, unwilling to consider change as being a good thing, and obviously not being educated on the facts. Fact is, this will improve our deer herd a great deal and all deer hunters should support this. This has nothing to do with “trophy” bucks. If ODWC wanted “trophy” bucks they would go to shotguns/ML only, have shotgun/ML season in December, AND move to a straight 1-Buck Limit across the board. But that is not the case. This idea is hardly a “trophy” idea— And if you know anything about deer hunting and deer management, you should know this.

We know this idea is designed to encourage hunters to be more selective on younger bucks as this will improve our herd’s buck age structure. Older-age bucks are very important for the balance, social structure, and dynamics of a deer herd. This is a biological fact. I would like to hear you or anyone give a biological reason why hunters should keep shooting 2 bucks with both rifles and muzzleloaders. No opinions; just facts. That is what the ODWC is looking for. Obviously the ODWC believes this will help our deer herd and they like the idea. They are in the position to know what is best for our deer herd. Nothing is being “taken away”. Buck bag limits, season dates, arms, season lengths, and doe bag limits all stay the same. Just next season, hunters will choose which “gun” they shoot their buck with, rifle OR muzzleloader. Don’t we all want our neighbors to be more selective on young bucks anyway? We all know modern muzzleloaders are like single-shot rifles and there is nothing primitive about them. This idea is designed to help us and the majority of hunters in Oklahoma see that

If you want a second “gun” deer in the freezer, shoot a DOE-

Change is a good thing. This is designed to help deer hunters not hurt them. Progress is taking place whether you like it or not. I support the measure along with everyone I know…

Way to go Mike. All the boys out here in western OK think this idea has been a long time coming. All the experts agree with it. I believe in the ODWC and think they are moving up a notch or two in the books of all the deer hunters who had about given up on their department all these years in the arena of deer management. I support the rule and all my people do too. We think this will really help us have older bucks and better hunting. Mike, You said it best. Hunters who are against this great idea are just plain greedy. Not one of them will be able to give you a “biological” reason why they need to keep shooting 2 bucks with guns. Not possible. So many reasons why going to the “1 and” will help our herd dynamics and give us older bucks and no real reasons why it won’t. Hey quail, we have yearlings with 9 and 10 little points. In your APR world (say 4 on one side), that 18 month old buck is legal. APR’s have a place, but they would be a nightmare for ODWC to police. We are not there as a state.

I’m happy about this. I’ve always wanted to hunt a better quality deer herd and this is just the ticket. I cant wait until 2013! Thanks Ed.

My hunting group and I strongly support the innovate 1 and 1 buck limit idea. It’s a win win scenario for te deer herd, hunters and ODWC. I’m all for it and agree with Jim from Clinton in that I can’t wait for the 1st of many great seasons to come in 2013! Good job ODWC.

I support lowering the buck limit to 1 archery and 1 firearm. If hunters want more meat for the freezer, they have plenty of doe tags. This is an excellent idea by our wildlife department and I applaud their efforts to improve our deer and deer hunting. Thank You ODWC for all you are doing to help us have better deer hunting. This is great! I tend to disagree with quail. How would a proposal that will improve buck age structure and deer hunting in Oklahoma be “costly” to the ODWC? Just the opposite will happen. We will see ODWC revenue improved because more hunters will be enticed to either stay in OK or come here and spend money instead of going to other states to hunt mature bucks. Why would older, better-quality bucks cause revenue to decrease? That statement is “short-sighted” and makes absolutely no sense.

APR’s may help, but we need to focus on one thing at a time. Low buck bag limits work in Kansas and Kentucky to provide hunters with older age bucks. They will work here too.

And I also believe that folks should get off the “magic Boone and Crockett N a Bag” and Iowa-grown soybeans=big bucks bandwagons. No amount of “nutrition” is going to grow a big-bodied and large-racked buck if he dead at 2.5 yrs of age because some hunter had a 2nd “firearm” tag in their pocket and did not want it to go to waste.

Its an ego thing for allot of guys. They want to go back to work on Monday morning and tell their buddies they “got their buck”. If we go to the 1 and 1, these guys can still brag about taking their 2 bucks, just one will have to be with a bow… Simple and effective at improving our deer herd. I like it!

Quail, the buck bag limit is still 2 total. Not “1″. If you harvest a buck during muzzleloader and you had already shot one with your bow, you would be done in that instance. But that’s a personal choice to shoot your 2 bucks early and be done come rifle season. Done with buck hunting I mean.

Ed, I support the idea. It is good for our deer-herd dynamics (older bucks = better deer herd). It will increase our buck age structure by saving many young bucks during the 2 gun seasons. Smoke-poles are lethal and you can kill a buck out to 200+ yards now. 1 buck with those two “rifles” is plenty. The guys that are arguing this and digging up any excuse they can find to stand in the way of progress, just like to kill 2 bucks with their “rifles”. You can still doe hunt after you have shot your bow and 1 “gun” buck. Or if you have not shot a buck with your bow, you can keep bow hunting. No one is stopping you from hunting until January with your bow if you still have your archery buck tag! If you run an arrow through a yearling October 1, and are whining about being down a buck tag, whose fault is that? All these excuses for not passing this idea and improving our deer herd are just that; excuses.

I appreciate the idea and give it two thumbs up. Anyone who loves to deer hunt should be in support of this idea.

Right , as long as “the guys in Western Oklahoma” are happy no big deal.
I knew this thing was a done deal before the comment period opened. There is no such thing as a “proposed” rule.
I suggested a BETTER way, not going backwards. I’ll still manage my land the way that works there.
NO you won’t grow monster bucks without nutrition. Older bucks just die when they get the age that they could grow giant racks and don’t have nutrition because they metabolize skeletal and muscle protein and minerals to grow antlers. If the nutrition isn’t there the racks stay the same or the deer gets sick and dies.
I’m sure you all are the same bunch that thought going from three bucks to two five years ago was going to make where you could make your 1 weekend hunt and kill a wall hanger every year, guess what?
Just go ahead and settle for killing all the does and expecting big bucks to start mating with each other and producing more big bucks, that’s the progressive mindset.
good luck.
Of course when you get less deer, need to kill more does and cut the real managers seasons right?
I’m already doing it for the bucks, nothing was stopping you either. My advice is take notes and kill more does and see what you get. Still going down the toilet. 5 years from now what brilliant plan you have then? My advice is stay in western Ok. Kill all the does you can and see what you have 5 years from now. Good luck. I’ve already seen how it works.

Metabolizing skeletons? What? Last time I checked my people I know who hunt Kansas, (the awesome state with 1 buck limit) they are shooting bucks in the 6 and 7 yr age classes and a few of them took 6 and 7 yr old bucks and their antler mass carried all the way up and had 7″+ bases and 5.5″ beams. Where in the world did you get your information? Obviously those old bucks were not metabolizing their own skeletons. And a few of those bucks were taken in counties bordering Colorado. Very arid and certainly no big soybean and corn fields in every section. Explain how these bucks had such big bodies and large racks if they were living in a dry inhospitable place. During 2012 western Kansas was in a bad drought like us. Yet those old bucks still grew huge racks. Think it had anything to do with the fact they were fully mature 6 and 7 year old bucks? Think their age had anything to do with the 2 buck limit in Kansas. Oh wait, Kansas has a 1-buck limit! That’s why!

I hunt in SE OK, not western OK and all my neighbors and hunting buddies are in strong support of this. Why would you argue against better deer hunting when this rule will benefit you too quail? I know hunters all across the state and they are all ready for this in 2013. NW SW SE and up near Pryor and Claremore. Since we reduced to liberal 3 buck limit to 2 they have all seen noticeable differences in buck age. A few are enrolled in DMAP and their records, down to the excel spreadsheet cell, are seeing bigger bodies, larger antlers and much older bucks. You can’t argue with the spreadsheet and DMAP records.

Kansas has old deer. The reason they have old deer is because they only allow each hunter to harvest 1 buck. With one tag, hunters will always be selective on younger bucks. That’s why in every county, even dry western Kansas counties, they are killing monsters. But we still get 2 tags total. Just like 2 before.

I’m not all about monster bucks but I do support qdm and older age bucks. It’s very important. This rule will help our deer herd and that is a good thing. No hunter can argue with that. I’ll leave my support with the educated experts and tune out all the coffee shop babble that is so rampant in deer hunting today.

Ed, I support the measure. Every biologist I’ve talked to believe this will provide older age bucks and better deer hunting all across the state. This is a great measure and I think it will really help us.

“5 years from now” quail the “brilliant plan” will be to sit back and watch our awesome mature bucks tuning around making scrapes, vocalizing, responding to calls, and rubbing every tree in sight. Just like Kansas bucks do now. Know why they act like that. Because they are fully mature. And they are fully mature as a direct result of their progressive and conservative 1-buck limit-

The Kansas deer herd and their deer hunting is light years ahead of ours. The reason? They’ve had a December rifle season and 1-buck limit in place many years. We have the very same potential in Oklahoma. We just need a 1- buck limit or at the very least the proposal of 1 bow buck and 1 “gun” buck. This will provide better deer hunting for everyone in Oklahoma. I’m for it.

Nice work ODWC… Can’t wait until 2013.

Looks like all the folks across Oklahoma support better deer and deer hunting. This is a no-brainer if you ask me. I fully support the idea. I’d give anything to be able to manage my little farm for better buck age structure and I truly believe this will help me do that. I’d love it if my neighbors only had one “gun” tag. Every forum, blog and other article ive read clearly shows the vast majority of hunters are in full support of this idea. I’m happy people are finally waking up in Oklahoma. I supported the fantastic 3 to 2 buck limit reduction in 2007 and I certainly support going to 1&1. In fact I eventually hope we go to a straight 1 buck limit. That would simplify everything and you can bet hunters would think twice before they harvest that 2.5 year old buck since it would be their only buck tag.

If you know anything; anything at all about deer hunting and management; you will and probably do support this great idea. If you are “just a “meat hunter” and dont care about antlers; shoot a doe!

Very nice work ODWC. You are well on your way to finally managing our deer herd the way it should be. Thanks.

I am happy about ODWC’s idea of going to a 1 bow and 1 gun rule. We all still have all the options as before, now hunters will be more selective on which buck they harvest and with which gun. I agree with the blackpowder statement in which they described them as not being primitive. I could not agree more. I can drive tacks with my scoped blackpowder at 250 yards. I try to keep all my blackpowder shots under 150 yards, but I could easily take a buck or doe at 250 yards or more. This idea will make hunters become more selective on younger bucks and this is a great thing. This has been a long time coming ODWC and I would be all for it. Keep up the good work! My friends and I support your new idea and hope it passes. It is a very exciting time to be deer hunting in Oklahoma!

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

The green soil grows big bucks, you guys in SE Ok just will not be able to grow bucks like Kansas, sorry. Your bucks will never live to 5 years anyway because if one did that didn’t get poached, he’d die before he used all the bone in his body hardening antlers. No it isn’t “just older bucks”.
You guys have more hunting land than any area of the state and still can’t do it? Want more bucks stop shooting buck fawns, want bigger bucks, go west. If anything, your example of how bucks do with all that territory and already have a chance to die of malnutrition, should be an example of why the rest of Eastern Oklahoma shouldn’t do it.

Just a short poll:
How many here manage deer land?

How many manage deer land and want better bucks?

Why don’t you have better bucks? (blaming everyone else not allowed , get a mirror).

While this mostly deals with Tenn. and Ky. the same soils are at work and same principles apply. Hopefully even the hardest headed and least experienced can get something out of it.
It doesn’t mean you can’t grow good bucks anywhere, just means you can’t do it by just cutting limits.

No, change it to 1 buck every 5 years and just have more die of malnutrition, predators, poachers and old age.

http://www.tn.gov/twra/pdfs/deerantlers.pdf

Same thing happens if you feed cattle broomsedge all the time, they will die. Read the pdf.

I would agree with the proposal. I manage a small place in southern Oklahoma and know this will limit the number of young bucks my neighbors harvest. I have sent letters to all of them, and had great luck with educating a few on qdm, but still have a few living in the dark ages. Shooting “funky-racked”, young bucks and calling them “scrubs” to justify killing them. Tragic that with all the information out there today hunters still do silly things like that.

I would be for both measures, 1 bow and 1 gun, or just 1 buck across the board. the 1 and 1 seems to be a much better proposal as it will favor all hunters. Some folks may not like the 1-buck at this point, but from Ed’s other blogs it looks like most are for a 1-buck. I agree with the 1 and 1 idea by ODWC. Thank You Ed.

I think the 1 and 1 rule should have been in place 20 years ago.

I pass all younger bucks on our lease and shoot plenty of does every year. We always see lots of 2.5 and 3.5 year olds running around, but our neighbors use both their gun tags to take 2 little bucks a piece almost every year. So our buck age never really gets past about 2 average.

We only shoot bucks if they are fully mature, but our neighbors don’t. They will pass yearlings, but anything older than that, is fair game to them. I blame 100% of my lack of success in growing older bucks on my ignorant neighbors. We do everything right, and they do everything wrong. So, I support the 1 and 1 with open arms because I only want to give those clowns 1 gun buck per year. Maybe they will pick up a bow if they want another buck.

Its too easy for people in our state to grab a muzzleloader and pop a young buck at 190 yards pre-rut and then 2 weeks later, go back out during rut and pop another young one with a rifle. Its like we have 2 rifle seasons in Oklahoma. This is BS! This rule will save a ton of bucks. It will cut the muzzleloader harvest in half or more and make some guys think before they pop that yearling. Then if they want more meat, they can take a big slickhead. After this goes into effect, hunters will then become selective and we will see some awesome deer in 3 or 4 years because of it. The 3 to 2 was super, but it was only a mindset change still allowing the gun guys to take 2 bucks a year. The 1 and 1 will save a ton of bucks, AND change the mindset of the brown its down hunters. I am in full support of it.

Almost everyone I know is in the same boat. Passing that nice 3 year old that has so much potential only to have your neighbor pop him during peak rut or peak pre-rut because he used the lame “cull-deer” excuse that seems to be the new copout for guys who don’t want to fess up that they made a knee jerk decision/reaction and shot a deer that was too young, and then regret it.

I also think they need to move rifle season to December. That and move to APR’s. I would take it all really. Just to have older bucks to hunt. It is really an eye-opener to bow hunt in Iowa or Kansas. I have once, in both states, and it was unreal what I saw. You get conservative on the number of young bucks (all bucks) harvested, and you get some awesome things happening in a deer herd. Those are two awesome states and they are that way because of their conservative regulations.

quail, i manage my land for better bucks. Older bucks are my goal. But my neighbors who have two buck tags to waste, are killing all my nice young bucks because of it. This idea will change all of that. And if you say, they will just not check them or cut them up in the field due to the horrible idea of “online checking”, well guess what, they are and probably always have been doing that stuff anyway. So what difference does any of this make to them?. If they have never followed the rules up to now, I doubt this will change their way of doing things. They will get caught some day and maybe by then the ODWC will have stiffer penalties and we can bump up some warden’s salaries with the confiscation of some of these poacher’s trucks and guns. Make these guys pay 5 or 10K or spend a month in the county jail and they will stop that illegal activity. You give that 5 or 10K to the warden who caught and arrested them, as a Christmas bonus, and they will slow that poaching down quick.

All in all, I think the 1 and 1 is a brilliant idea and anyone who is against it has fat-cat syndrome and antler greed. Anyone who needs more deer meat to feed the family can pop a handful of does in Oklahoma, so i see no excuse for these guys. If they still want 2 sets of antlers, pick up a bow! Don’t forget the buck limit is not changing, its still 2! I like the idea. It will really help me on my place.

Note for JD: if you got 3 year olds that you pass as cull bucks, you got an entirely different problem that having more bucks is going to make worse. Need to do some checking. Then on the other hand 99% of people age deer wrong anyway including biologists and the only true method is tooth measurements done in a lab. I really doubt that you have nice “little 2.5 and 3.5 year olds running around”. The fact that you blame 100% on your neighbors pretty much says it all. Statistically a 1 buck limit wouldn’t change your place at all. Do a soil test, a 3.5 yr. should be a 10 or 11 point almost anywhere. Something in your post doesn’t add up. Here is what I see almost anywhere nutrition is measured and point limits used:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4438054501_2b193d7d3c.jpg

Maybe you aren’t doing any managing, don’t blame neighbor for that.

I saw one of the posts that included information that a those that harvest more than 1 buck per year including all three seasons (yes bow season also) was a whopping 8%!
We have enough poachers in Eastern Oklahoma to take care of 20% of all bucks that reach 2.5 years. They would be ecstatic over the 1 buck rule because they harvest 5 or 10 or even more.

The one buck limit could help Western Ok. slightly because of the soils and crops, other than that just another smoke and mirrors approach to Ok. deer management.

In Western ok. everything seems ok to grow older bucks, but I don’t know how many 5.5 yr. bucks are harvested W. of US 75/I-44 which is in close to the separation line between the soil orders.

At any rate if any deer reach the 5.5 yr range in those areas, the most increase a 1 buck limit could accomplish would be 1 or 2 % and that isn’t proven, because there will be less buck tags, less hunting , more does, maybe just smaller 5 year olds and less hunters. (according to JD wewoka 3.5 year old bucks are just little runts.. If he will leave an email I’ll send photos of 3.5 year olds confirmed by state Biologists. I agree you can manage a lease so poorly that they never get nutrition to grow antlers but that ain’t the neighbors fault.

In Eastern Ok. a 5 yr. old dear is just as easy to locate as bigfoot and in SE Ok. they have the most deer habitat of any part of Oklahoma and less hunters. Do the math.

Five years ago the total season limit for bucks went from 3 to 2 for all 3 seasons and the total buck harvest immediately jumped by several thousand the first year????
Tell me again how decreasing the limit and killing more bucks increased the age structure?

According to what Oklahoma reported in 2010, 51% of all bucks harvested were 3.5 years and older (source QDMA 2012 Report). Where are your trophies????? That’s just 5% less than KANSAS! BUT Oklahoma harvested 33% more bucks than Kansas so Oklahoma harvested MORE 3.5 yr and older bucks than Kansas!
Maybe you got another deer management problem. Again I say take the Oklahoma deer to Kansas and watch them grow into Kansas deer, bring young kansas deer to Oklahoma and watch the grow into Oklahoma deer.

Top-5 States
With Highest Harvest of
3½-year-old and Older Bucks
State 2010 Percentage
Arkansas 68%
Louisiana (DMAP areas) 65%
Texas 59%
Kansas 56%
Oklahoma 51%

http://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/WR2012.pdf

On the other hand, do some research (Noble foundation is the only deer research going on in Oklahoma)

Bucks need more than age. Without nutrition old bucks just die.
Oklahoma has a much bigger problem with poachers, predators and lack of nutrition than it has with season limits although the same limits for the whole state is just wrong and the same as no management at all.

I know in Muskogee county, any 2.5 year old that shows up on my game cameras will usually disappear before any season opens (often in September). Now that we have hogs, poachers love to claim to be hog hunters and usually clean out anything that has shed velvet.

Due to the soil and crops, I was willing to go along with some possible improvement for WESTERN Oklahoma with a 1 buck limit but the more I research it, the more apparent it becomes that it would make such a tiny difference, and reduce overall deer harvest substantially, less big bucks harvested is a more likely scenario.

The math, the lack of any research or state management that has worked (look at the WMAs), and the success of private land managers compared to public land resource management says Pooh! 1 buck limit is Just more smoke and mirrors. In order to make Ok. appear to have a stable deer herd, each time the harvest falls, they add length to the season, increase doe days, increase doe harvests limits while actual buck harvests are not increasing (haven’t increased in decades) although due to private land managers, age structure is improving.

Most years bowhunters harvest more deer than muzzleloaders, why not just do away with a season? I say bow season would do the most good because it would save more bucks.

Then on the other hand when any way you do the math you still get wrong answers maybe it’s just a pointless and wrong thing to do.

Compared to Point limits, the math isn’t even in the ball park. With point limits, we get a complete generation of bucks that survives to get a year older. Most Oklahoma hunters have never even harvested a 2.5 year old deer (not including the experts on this blog LOL). First year, we get 20,000 bucks that get to age another year. With a 1 buck limit, a few hundred. What a con.

By most on here they are just as happy to kill a doe anyway, do it.

Oh yeah, point limits would eliminate that 27% yearling harvest everyone here complained about but probably was part of.

Oh, yeah, you are right, I tried compromise, logic, reason and statistics and nothing made a dent. That proves something. I tried graphics backed by B&C and QDMA and still this bunch just wants to kill a pile of does and fawns and still see B&C bucks every time you go out. Hasn’t worked that way and not going to.
Keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results has a name no matter how many times you do it.

I strongly disagree with this proposal. Comparing Oklahoma to Kansas is like comparing apples and oranges. The ODWC has no data to support that dropping the limit from 3 to 2 had an effect or if this will. They have little herd data available at all.

Does anyone know how many hunters kill 2 bucks a year? I do, 3 %. Do you really think that taking those 3 % away will alter herd health? If you do, you don’t know biology. This is just a proposal that will make it easier for ranchers to bring in more people because a lessee thats kills in Muzzleloader will lose his spot to someone in Rifle so that’s an extra $2000 in someone’s pocket.

If I have 1000 acres and allow two hunter to kill their limit every year they will kill 4 bucks. If I have the same 1000 acres and allow 20 hunters to kill their limit, they will kill 40 bucks. So saying this will keep your neighbors from shooting your deer is naive.

I’m sick of the Outdoor Channel and all of the arm chair biologists it has created telling me how big of a buck I need to kill and what is best for me and the health of my herd. This is just a movement towards high fences and big money so every one can kill a 170″ buck.

Most biologists I have talked to are against this. But I guess Mike knows them all and is a professional biologist himself. This will make no difference in our herd.

Oklahoma has no age structure data. NONE (unless something taken from one of the controlled hunts which represents nothing compared to the statewide actual)

Oklahoma has no deer population data (except some really bad guesses made from behind a desk).

Oklahoma has no Buck/Doe ratio/ herd balance data.

Mike doesn’t either.

I like all the ideas being discussed. I like the 1&1 and I like APR’s. I even like a 1-buck limit. Anything for mature bucks; I am for.

I have a small hunting place. But it is very special to me. I am not a big, rich, “outfitting”, land baron like you all are making the supporters of this out to be. You say you cannot paint the whole state with a broad mgmt. brush, then why are you all turning around and painting all people who support the 1&1 idea with a broad brush? You guys are lashing out like angry youth. Like “T. Boone the Rich Texan” stole your little deer lease and took your lunch money at recess. I agree with every idea to help our buck age structure in OK. I like it all. I support the rule all the way. I would ALSO support APR’s and even an Earn a Buck. Why would anyone be against this or any other rule designed to increase buck age structure. This is why they are going to put this into effect; to increase buck age in our state. You guys arguing this, are arguing against older-age bucks. YET, you say you want APR’s for older age bucks? So you DO OR DON’T want older-age bucks? I do not give a damn what we implement to improve deer hunting in Oklahoma; just do anything. Do it all. I could care less which route they take, but what we have in place NOT working. Otherwise there would be no comments here, the Commission and all the ODWC biologists would not be trying to become more progressive and pass rules to help our buck age structure, and everyone would be happy.

If you have lower buck limits and less bucks die, then more bucks live another year. If you have a 6 point yearling in a county with 4-point APR’s in place, then he lives to 2.5 probably. Both Win-Win ideas. Why argue with either one? Some of you oppositional guys probably watch Jerry Springer in your spare time, just because you want to argue and fight “the TX Trophy Huntn Lease Bandit”; whoever that is.? Texas hunters have been leasing land in Oklahoma for years now. This is nothing new. Trust me, I can see Texas from my stands.

Why, if you want APR’s (I agree with that too) then you all would argue with older age bucks achieved another way. Both roads help get you there. I guess I do not understand why if you want better deer hunting and older age bucks, you would argue with this? Sounds like you are missing the point here. Quote from online comment section on this very question-“The intent of this proposal is to reduce pressure on the buck segment of the herd in an attempt to improve buck age structure and antler quality across the state” APR’s DO THE SAME THING. Reduce mortality on young bucks.

You want APR’s, to increase buck age, yet you say you do not support another rule that will produce the same outcome; to increase buck age…? Even though I would support APR’s, I hunt near Durant and most yearlings on our place have 7 or 8 point racks all the way down to spikes. This means, one side commonly has 4 points on the 7’s and 8’s. This buck is legal under many apr’s that are 4-point one side rules in the U.S. Right? I agree with all of this, except, that one idea will outdo the other(s). They are all pulling for the same outcome. Older-age bucks. I would support all of it. I think most of you just want to fight and argue. Half of the things you say, do not even make sense and have no merit.

This will decrease buck mortality statewide and increase buck age structure. Kansas has a 1-buck limit and a post-rut, December gun season. Hunters in Kansas are very selective on what bucks they harvest because they only have 1 buck tag. In fact, Kansas led the nation in 2010 in being selective on young bucks. “In 2010, Kansas averaged the fewest yearlings (9 percent of antlered buck harvest)”. Now, why in the world do you think hunters do not shoot yearling bucks in Kansas. Is it because they only have 1 tag? See the other states that saved all those yearling bucks. Guess what, they also have APR’s. See it all works out! 1-buck limits and APR’s together are a great deal.

State 2010 Percentage
#1 Kansas 9
#2 Arkansas 10
#3 Louisiana (DMAP areas) 17
#4 Missouri (APR counties) 17

http://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/WR2012.pdf

Comparing Kansas to Oklahoma being like apples to oranges is partly true. Our state’s rainfall, soils, land use, subspecies, are very similar. But, first, the regs are vastly different. And second, the main difference is; all our ignorant, brown its down, argumentative deer hunters in OK shooting everything antlered that walks and fighting new and progressive ideas because they want their cake and eat it too. Obviously, in 2010 only 9% of Kansas hunters had that mentality. Think that has anything to do with a 1-buck limit?

Matt, The 3 to 2 changed the mentality of the brown-its-down hunters who hunt all three seasons. I agree with you that it did not save many young bucks; you are correct. Because most people Rifle hunt and ML hunt so the number of bucks killed, did not really change. The 3 to 2 was still a huge step in the right direction.

I support any rule that will help us take older bucks:
December Rifle Season
September Muzzleloader Season
1-Buck Limit, Statewide
Antler Point Restrictions, Statewide
Earn-A-Buck, Statewide
Doing away with the online check rule

Think about all the great states like Kansas and think about the only arm you can hunt with during peak rut. A bow-

I will graduate in May with a PhD in wildlife biology, with deer mgmt. at the heart of my studies from Auburn. I have family in Oklahoma and grew up there.

Having grown up in Oklahoma, it’s no question most hunters want larger-racked bucks. Big bucks are less about soils, land use, genetics, nutrition, human population densities, and how a state is divided up land-wise; and more about buck age and hunter density. Because our state is mostly privately-owned, we cannot control hunter densities. However, ODWC has the ability to improve buck age structure statewide simply by reducing pressure on the antlered segment of our herd. Buck age can only be manipulated by two factors; conservative buck regulations (i.e. the 1 archery/1 “gun” buck rule proposed) and better deer management education. When regulations are more conservative, buck mortality decreases. Once buck mortality decreases, buck age structure will increase. Once buck age structure is improved; so will antler quality. Hunters today need incentive to manage wildlife, especially due to the high cost associated with inputs and access. When hunters lack incentive to practice sound deer management, they won’t. And the cycle continues year after year. Hunters take better care of the resource, when they are incentivized to do so. And older, better-quality bucks will provide incentive for hunters to better manage the resource.
A growing number of hunters in Oklahoma want quality regulations. I believe this number is larger than statistics show. This being the case, quality-based regulations should make up 50% or more of the total deer hunting regulations. Our current rules cater largely to hunters who only want maximum opportunity due in large part to our liberal buck bag limit, the liberal arms we are allowed and when we use these arms. While reducing the buck limit from 3 to 2 was a definite step in the right direction, I do not believe it made an impact on decreasing the number of young bucks harvested. The majority of bucks are killed with a rifle and many are also taken with a muzzleloader. This was the case before the 3 to 2 reduction and is still the case today. While I fully agreed with the 3 to 2 reduction, I still believe further changes should be implemented if we are to progress as a state; mainly passing the progressive 1 archery and 1 “gun” rule. With this “best of both worlds” rule, the total buck bag limit does not change. This way, more young bucks are surviving to maturity, yet we are not taking opportunity away from hunters, nor are we decreasing the sale of licenses and tags. First, the “1&1” rule will improve ODWC revenue, 1)by increasing the sale of Non-Residence tags and licenses as our state witnesses an increase in buck age and consequently antler size and 2)by retaining a higher number of resident hunter’s in-state to pursue an older-age class of bucks. In others words, Oklahoma hunters are traveling to states with more conservative deer regulations as they have little incentive to stay and hunt in their home state, if larger-antlered, older age bucks are their goal. Second, a decrease in overall buck harvest should shift hunter focus to the antlerless segment of the herd. This should lead to a higher number of antlerless deer harvested, thereby controlling population growth and improving sex ratios. Once hunters begin harvesting more antlerless deer, high-herd densities should decrease. This will improve the overall habitat in these areas for deer and other game and non-game species. Third, once sex ratios and buck age structure is improved upon, this will promote a shorter, more-formalized rut and fawns will be born in a shorter timeframe. This will improve fawn recruitment as this shorter timeframe saturates the environment and overwhelms predators, thereby decreasing fawn predation. Fourth, a lower-density, balanced herd promotes better timing regarding fawning periods. Late-born fawn’s exhibit lower body weight, decreased survival rates and are more susceptible to disease and predation. Fifth, rural Oklahoma economies, businesses, and landowners are losing thousands of resident and non-resident hunters and millions in revenue to other states with more conservative deer regulations and larger bucks. With conservative deer regulations in place, rural economies will benefit as we see improved deer herd quality. Sixth, when conservative regulations are adopted, the social structure and balance of Oklahoma’s deer herd will improve due to the greater representation of mature bucks, lower herd densities, and improved buck to doe sex ratios. Hunters will see heightened rutting activity, and have the opportunity to pursue older bucks. This will improve the overall interest and incentive to deer hunt in Oklahoma for both residents and non-residents. A heightened interest in hunting and managing Oklahoma’s deer herd will lead to better habitat management. This should also help in the recruitment of young hunters. Seventh, with older, better-quality bucks to hunt, this leads to better herd and habitat management by both lease holders and landowners. This in turn, leads to increased herd quality, improved hunter satisfaction, better opportunities statewide (on both private and public lands) and enhanced recreational value of all wildlife resources in Oklahoma. Eighth, with improved regulations, a second benefit is the opportunity to better manage the density, distribution, and physical characteristics of the herd. With the current regulations, it is more difficult when hunters are not incentivized to manipulate deer densities, sex ratios, or age structure because many do not see the benefits in conducting these activities. This makes it nearly impossible to control deer density and improve buck age structure, and is a leading reason why many deer management programs fail. Ninth, with improved regulations, hunters begin to more-intensely manage deer herds. This may include pooling harvest and observation data with neighboring landowners in a cooperative effort. In most cases, the number of deer harvested on small properties is so small and variable that harvest data is of limited value. This often forces managers to make poor decisions based on limited information. The pooling of harvest and observation data provides a more complete picture of the herd and enables precise management recommendations to be established. With older-age bucks to hunt, hunters have more incentive to manage, help the neighboring properties, and work with ODWC biologists. Tenth, the most obvious benefit is the opportunity to hunt a high-quality deer herd. However, there are many benefits unrelated to harvesting deer. As hunters statewide unite in a common goal, they develop a sense of pride and accomplishment in their collective effort. There becomes a greater sense of pride in Oklahoma’s deer hunting. Progressive regulations will provide hunters greater satisfaction, coupled with better opportunities. Oklahoma is a diverse state with productive wildlife habitat. Oklahoma’s deer herd has the same potential as any other state in the U.S. With this rule, the ODWC and Wildlife Commission have the opportunity to make a dramatic difference in the quality of deer hunting in Oklahoma now and in the future. You will have many greedy, miss-informed, and fanatical deer hunters in our state argue this innovative idea, but it is my hope you take their arguments with a grain of salt and understand that the basis for wanting to continue to kill 2 “gun” bucks per years will be solely based on the unwillingness to embrace change.
There are a number of reasons this rule idea should pass, many of which have sound science and biological merit. However, no hunter in the state has the ability to provide a biological or scientific reason this rule should not pass. I hope you put the deer herd first and realize this idea will dramatically improve deer and deer hunting for generations to come. Oklahoma has been a very liberal deer hunting state for years with no support shown for the modern-day, quality deer hunter. This is why so many Oklahomans’ are leaving our state to pursue larger bucks in other states. When this occurs, they are taking their money and kids with them. It is time for the deer hunting regulations in Oklahoma to provide equality to both sides of the fence.

I support limited buck bag limits, antler point limits, and post-rut rifle seasons to increase buck age and quality in states across the U.S. While the 1 and 1 idea is not as conservative as most would like, it is still a leap forward and will provide huge benefits to deer hunters in Oklahoma for years to come! Good job ODWC.

Mr. PhD sir, Please make a copy of your post and add some references or citations, get a high school teacher to proof read it and post again. I tried but it was just rambling with no reference, relevance or continuity. Try again.

Ok, Westerners, I did some of your research for you. You really should do the rest. Most landowners in Eastern Oklahoma figured it out years ago and I don’t think it’s because we are smarter, we just had the problem first.

If you don’t know most deer in Western Ok. were transplanted from Eastern Ok.

In order to keep harvest numbers up, ODWC constantly raises doe limits and doe days.

In Eastern Oklahoma most landowners figured out too late that they had no deer and began to stop the doe harvests from the depleted areas.

Without does you have no replacement bucks of any age and no bucks during rut on your property.

The fact is that yours is not a “buck” problem (that you are trying to pass literally) but an overharvest problem.

I selected 4 Western Ok. counties at random: Stephens, Caddo, Custer, Garfield.

All 4 counties have showh huge decreases in total harvest the last 3 years and probably again this year which won’t be out until July.

The numbers are as follows and include all deer harvested in the county for each year:

County year / total harvest

Stephens 2009/1198, 2010/1034, 2011/ 983
Caddo 2009/2115, 2010/1885, 2011/1499
Custer 2009/874 , 2010/846, 2011/683
Garfield 2009/1055, 2010/980, 2011/954

I know most landowners are smarter than this, most have livestock. According to these 4 counties, (do your own county from the ODWC website, I’m not going to.) Even with no buck harvest these counties will not have a harvestable population in 5 years. I have seen this repeatedly in E. Ok. counties and WMAs and now it is happening to you. Stop shooting your does or you will have no deer. Your choice. At the rate you are wiping out your deer herds (has nothing to do with buck age structure) your total deer population will be below 1/3 of today in 5 years or less. Shooting does instead of bucks will hasten the decline and then they will want to trap more E. Okla. deer and that isn’t right.
Stop killing off your deer herds or you will be like you were in the 1970s instead of Kansas.

Someone in Western Ok needs to do the rest. It’s your deer and your greed that is wiping them out.
1 buck rule: Roosterpoot, you are killing off your entire population of deer faster than they can reproduce. Each of the counties I checked had lost 15 – 30 % total harvest the last 3 years while Eastern Ok. counties went up.
The doe killers need to look around and see what they are doing to their leases.
I am not against doe harvests and harvested 1 myself (in a location away from my land where there aren’t enough) but the fastest way to have zero deer is to harvest too many does and it looks EXACTLY like what Western Ok. is doing.

Ok doe killers, I checked 4 more Western counties,
from 2009 to 2011 L
Washita total harvest is minus 32%
Dewey county total harvest is minus 30%
Commanche county total harvest is minus 21%
Major county total harvest is minus 18%

Blame it on your neighbor, blame it on anyone you wish, but those smart britches that keep saying kill a doe are wiping you out!

You can figure it out now or wait until you see what we saw a few years ago but YOU are killing off all your deer and THAT won’t grow any trophies.

Yeah, I’m just an old school that hates change, but I hate hunting where there are no deer much worse. You are changing Western oklahoma into a “no deer area”.

Perfectly fine if you want to print this and look at it again in 5 years. I may not be around but at least you will have an idea of what needs done.

The annual harvest reports are here, I’d suggest saving each of them to a drive or disc first because if all the western counties follow the ones I checked, the reports may go away. The reports do separate does and bucks by season which I didn’t even look at although that should mean something to managers in your county.

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/hunting/deerharvesttotals.htm

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.

I would strongly support all the ideas being discussed. Anything for older bucks in Oklahoma, I support. I like the 1 and 1 idea, and I also support aprs. I would also support a 1-buck limit. Thank You Ed

I agree with the comment Jason made. Anything to help us have older, bigger bucks, I support. I will take anything and everything ODWC suggests. Thanks Ed. Looking forward to 2013. Great ideas!

Also, we shoot a few does every year. Some years our DMAP numbers do not call for that, and thus we do not. I would say doe harvest depends on the herd and area you are in. Some areas need to take more than others and this can vary year to year. Not everyone needs to take does. While other folks up in say, Grant County, might need to take a few more does than others. Not every area will “wipe out their whole doe herd” and not every area should shoot many. I know Kroll, Woods, and others do not make absolute statements about any deer herd. Anywhere. Because too many things come into play. Like drought, disease, predators, land use, etc… I agree with many of the points, and disagree with others. But I would support any rule ODWC wants to provide that might help us have older bucks in OK. I am always agreeable to better rules. Sounds great to me. Thanks again Ed.

Nice Frank. Glad to hear someone tell it like it is. Too many armchair deer managers out there. There are no absolutes in wildlife management.

All I will say is that I strongly support the regulation idea to make 1 buck be taken with a bow and the other with a gun. This really is the best compromise ODWC can make to improve our deer and deer hunting. This will help our buck age structure and therefore I support it. Looking forward to it.

In a state where no one keeps any records of population, deer age, buck/doe ratio and checks deer online (one could check a large dog or goat as a deer and it would still count), increases doe harvests and reduced buck limits from 3 to two and then plans to reduce them for one season and not another, sounds like the “armchair management” may be taking place in your DNR. Deer management must include knowing what you have and what your goals are. I don’t think I see any deer management where you are. Just curious Ray, how much land do you manage for deer there in Tulsa? I have been through there and saw some deer spots on the highways, do you manage for high productivity or for trophies???
I’m thinking you’d at least have to have a Home depot and Wal Mart to have enough area to do any REAL (not armchair) management. What are you if someone runs over 2 bucks during rifle season??

Mr. PHD,

You have a long, hard road of hard knocks ahead. Figure politics, social issues, and a decline in hunters in general into your management equation.

I understand the premise of this regualtion. Older bucks, yada yada yada. I pass more deer than most people shoot and would love to see more mature bucks. What I am saying is that ODWC has no DATA to support this measure. NONE. ZERO. In theory it may work but they have no population data, hunter surveys or anything really. It’s a farse.

I know most of them guys don’t like facts, but I checked the Cy Curtis book and most entries are coming from “antlerless zone 10″ where they don’t have a “holiday doe and fawn massacre”.
10 years ago most of the Cy Curtis bucks were coming from the Western counties, especially Woods but that’s in the overkill area now and has very few in the last 10 years.
Out west they shoot everything brown and if a buck fawn shoot it twice to make sure it can’t grow antlers. Definitely a pattern there that no one wants to notice.

Even Woods county is only harvesting 82% as many deer as they did in 2009, same story on bucks, all that with longer seasons more does allowed, sounds like a train wreck soon.

Have a happy holidays and sort of check whats underneath those “antlerless” deer y’all shoot this week. Oh sure just killing 1 lil ol baby buck don’t hurt, right? I’m pretty sure every buck in the B&C book was a baby just like that one once.