Alternatives to the Earn-A-Buck Rule?

Alternatives to the Earn-A-Buck Rule?
Ben Halverson

I decided to do more than just voice my opinion and get other hunters from other states opinions on what they feel about having the earn-a-buck rule be a part of their whitetail hunting season. I posted some questions on hunting forums and other blogs, with the hopes of getting some great feedback. I was pleasantly surprised to see so much discussion, constructive no less, about their feelings with the earn-a-buck rule.

I share with you below the comments and discussions I have become a part of.

My question to other hunters:

I recently attended the Spring DNR Hearings here in Wisconsin and was against a controversial rule called earn-a-buck, basically the rule that says in a designated earn-a-buck zone, you must shoot an "anterless" deer before you can harvest a buck.

I wanted to know if there are any other states that do this, and if not, what does your state use for herd control methods. If so, what are your thoughts to earn-a-buck hunting? I plan to place your thoughts on my blog, again at www.WisconsinWhitetail.blogspot.com and let you have the credit if you want me to use your name otherwise it will be "anonymous."
Please help, what are some other methods used by your county or state for herd control methods of whitetail deer?

Replies:

Duckbuster
Posted: Sunday, April 19, 2009 8:47 PM

I think everyone will agree with me on this. Earn-A-Buck stinks!!! Who wants to be told what you have to shoot? If someone want to harvest an antlerless deer, then let them. But, don't FORCE someone to shoot an antlerless deer if they don't want to. Let people make their own minds up. The DNR is a crock of crap. They don't give a darn about the Wisconsin hunters and what they want. Now, for the 2009 deer season at least, we're not having Earn-A-Buck. The CWD units are, but the other units are not. Maybe the DNR got it through their pea-sized brains that hunters are fed up with this bologna AND that there is hardly any deer because of this. It's about time the DNR wakes up!!!
If you are going to post this on your blog or whatever your going to do, just call me by my forum name--Duckbuster."A duck call, like a shotgun, is only as good as the man behind it."

-Phil Robertson, Duck Commander

marks65
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:51 AM

I don't see a problem with shooting a doe before being able to take a buck, providing for the circumstances. It should be used as a management tool to keep a population in check. From what I've seen here in MI, allowing hunters to decide what they want has caused a decline in bucks and an overabundance in does. To the extent that they held a special week long doe season last year. Now when the population is balance, then let the hunters hunt what they want, but when it's out of balance, then impose the rule. Consider what would happen to the population if all or most of the bucks were taken and all that was left were does. How long would the population be around? May GOD bless your hunting days,

the Thumb MI


Duckbuster
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:23 AM

Marks65, trust me, you would not want to have earn a buck. The DNR took deer management to a whole new level with this. Now, there's hardly any deer across the state due to earn a buck for the past 4 or 5 years. I guess you would have to have in order to understand it. it sucks!!"A duck call, like a shotgun, is only as good as the man behind it."

-Phil Robertson, Duck Commander

marks65
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:46 AM

And if you hunted here, you would better understand my view point. Until recently, you were only able to get buck tags over the counter, doe permits had to be applied for and not everyone would be approved. So you're sitting in the woods waiting for a buck, any buck to come along and all you're seeing are does. As I stated, it should only be used as a management tool to keep the population in balance and I'm not referring to 1 buck for each doe, but would a normal herd would have. When that becomes unbalanced, then impose the rule to bring the herd back into balance. Everything in moderation.May GOD bless your hunting days,

the Thumb MI

Duckbuster
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 6:11 PM

I don't know, all I know is that this earn a buck got totally out of hand here in WI. No one likes it at all. It imposes on hunters rights. And that's not right at all. The DNR does not run like a democracy should. Yes, you need laws and other rules. But their is a fine line between laws/rules and the DNR CONTROLLING you. I'm not saying the DNR is completely bad, but they do need to clean up their act a little bit over here. They should be here to improve our hunting and fishing heritage, not to hurt and diminish it. "A duck call, like a shotgun, is only as good as the man behind it."

-Phil Robertson, Duck Commander


brews4995
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 6:42 PM

The population problem didn't begin until the dnr started handing out more than one tag for a particular season. They should give you one tag for any deer that you wish to shoot, buck or doe. This wouldn't affect the bucks because the hunters that want an older buck will still let the smaller ones go. No more over the counter extra tags for antlerless deer. Is it true the auto insurance companies give the dnr money for every tag they sell so they don't have to pay on insurance claims?


Duckbuster
Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:07 PM

I'll agree with that brew. I do think each person should get one doe and one buck tag however. That wouldn't be a big deal. For bow and gun. 2 tags for each season. I don't know much about the auto insurance. But i would be willing to bet that what you said is true. I know that auto insurance companies have a hard time with auto accidents involving deer though. "A duck call, like a shotgun, is only as good as the man behind it."

-Phil Robertson, Duck Commander

Keep the comments coming, this is leading to great discussion....I will continue to post as I get more of your comments.