Question of the day

[Ranger J]

Talking to a friend that hunted muzzle loading season this year and tracked a buck in the snow.  While tracking this buck he and his grandson found both of a set of antlers that the buck had shed.  My question is this if these were indeed the antlers of that buck and this buck did indeed shed his antlers that early would it be legal for a hunter who has only an 'antler less' deer permit to shoot him? 

RJ

[Graybeard]

Generally speaking yes but why would you knowingly shoot an antlerless buck as opposed to a doe?

[Ranger J]

Answer to above question, Because it was there, big, in the brush, it was cold and the only deer seen for a week.    Reason for original question, season is over, it is cold, I have been moving into a new house for a month and was looking to stir things up a bit   First thing moved was guns and hunting equipment.  Anyone else have an opinion or even real information on this subject?

RJ   

[dukkillr]

Check the regs... I think in Missouri it takes a 3" antler to qualify as a buck.  So, yes.  But I'm with GB... I wouldn't shoot it.

[Ranger J]

Another question is if it is 100 yards off and has lost its antlers how do you know it is a buck?  Don't tell me the obvious way as my old eyes and cheap scope can't see those at that distance.  The original question does not involve whether someone would  or would not shoot a buck that has dropped its antlers during muzzle rifle season but if it was legal or not to shoot this animal while having only a antler less permit.  Does a buck automatically become an antler less deer and thus become legal game for an antler less permit the minute it drops its second antler?  Do we have any conservation officers out there that can give us the legal answer?

Rj

[SHOOTALL]

For ref. In Va. it is either antlered or anterless . I have heard of one nice 8 point doe being killed here (MY second cousin got it ) . This year our club killed 6 bucks that had lost one or both . One deer had them fall off when it hit the ground after being shot .
 Must be something to do with food or early cold temp. this year.

[dukkillr]

Another question is if it is 100 yards off and has lost its antlers how do you know it is a buck?  Don't tell me the obvious way as my old eyes and cheap scope can't see those at that distance.  The original question does not involve whether someone would  or would not shoot a buck that has dropped its antlers during muzzle rifle season but if it was legal or not to shoot this animal while having only a antler less permit.  Does a buck automatically become an antler less deer and thus become legal game for an antler less permit the minute it drops its second antler?  Do we have any conservation officers out there that can give us the legal answer?

Rj

I tried to nicely tell you the right answer without sounding like a know-it-all.  Apparently that didn't work.  I gave you the right answer already.  If you had gotten to page 5 of the regs it would have been obvious to you but here:
http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/13924.pdf

If the actual rule book doesnt provide you with an answer you find satisactory let me know and I'll give you the number of one of my best friends who happens to be an MDC agent.

As to your second question: 
a) At 100 yards you should be able to tell a buck from a doe by body size, and frame shape
b) Get a better scope
c) Carry some good binos
d) Even a very cheap spotting scope could get the job done
e) If you're not sure and you have some problem with shooting the animal, don't shoot

[rocko]

Keep it nice boys. Nothing wrong with good conversation but this thread looks like a pot stirrer from the get go. Play nice, and it will stay.


And Ranger, Pretty thin line from my standpoint. If a deer has antlers, it is antlered, if it doesent it is antlerless.   

[Ranger J]

I have killed does that were larger in body size than small to medium size bucks so in my opinion body size would not always be a decider.  Hunting in the Ozarks you usually don't  have time to glass your deer as we usually are hunting thick cover.  While I hunt with a 3X to 9X scope (more likely to be on 3 than 9) I don't usually have a spotting scope in the stand with me.  I can't afford an expensive scope nor do I believe the majority of the other hunters in my area can.  This is beside the point.  This question started out to be a theoretical one that was posed to me by a friend several days ago.  I don't know how the ethics of shooting this problematical animal ever got started.  The question of my friend who had already taken an antlered deer and had only an antler less permit left was that if he shot this buck that had already dropped both its antlers could he be cited for basically taking a second buck that until a short time before was an 11 pointer.  In my personal opinion I would go with the description in the rule book that this buck no longer matched the definition of an antlered buck.  I am sure this has come up in real life before and was hoping to an informed answer from someone or at least get a civil discussion going on calling this type of buck an antlered or non antlered deer or at least how the local conservation officer would consider it..  Under that description if an antlered doe is shot it counts as a buck or should I say an antlered deer.  I guess that is why the legal description is either antlered or antler less.  I can live with that.  Did not mean to get you boys hackles up as I said it is cold and we are getting snowed in and I was looking for some entertainment.

RJ

[jenkst]

Ranger; I didn't read everything as I should have including the replies, but I think you are correct. I think that the rule books have become so complecated that you might have to hire a lawyer to understand them. Ha Ha. I also believe the next rule will be to roll the deer on its back and check its bottom side, if you know what I mean. What will the horn hunters think of next?   Jenkst

[nodlenor]

Answer to original question, YES.

[Ranger J]

A number of years ago a friend fronm Arkansas told me this deer hunting story.  Evidently at that time a buck was described in the rule book as one that the hunter could see obvious signs that it was male.  At that time the custom was to shoot one deer each.  I think it may have even been a bucks only season as this was about 40 years ago.  Anyhow they were doing a drive when they ran pair of 'this year hatch' deer into a small box canyon with no way out and suspossedly one of the men was able to get close enough to the deer to actually reach out and feel to determine if one of them was a buck.

RJ

[dukkillr]

Ranger; I didn't read everything as I should have including the replies, but I think you are correct. I think that the rule books have become so complecated that you might have to hire a lawyer to understand them. Ha Ha. I also believe the next rule will be to roll the deer on its back and check its bottom side, if you know what I mean. What will the horn hunters think of next?   Jenkst

You probably should have read the thread.  I gave you a link to the rule book.  It has a simple explanation that requires only 3rd grade literacy, not an attorney.  Assuming that still can't get the job done it HAS A PICTURE.  So if 3rd grade literacy stress you out, maybe preschool coloring book difficulty could be managable?

And as to what the, "horn hunters" will think of next?  Please tell us exactly how this is new or related to an attempt by the MDC to change the pathologically ignorant deer hunting culture or Missouri.  Since guys like you generally love the way things were, "back in the day" I'll assume that you would support the old Any Buck tag?  Remember the rule on that tag?  think about it...  Seriously...  Nothing?  Ok, go back and refer to the picture thing... 

Thats right... This rule has been around forever.  Since before Missouri even attempted to herd the ignorant dirtball "hunters" that infest the state into the modern era.

[rocko]

Ranger; I didn't read everything as I should have including the replies, but I think you are correct. I think that the rule books have become so complecated that you might have to hire a lawyer to understand them. Ha Ha. I also believe the next rule will be to roll the deer on its back and check its bottom side, if you know what I mean. What will the horn hunters think of next?   Jenkst

You probably should have read the thread.  I gave you a link to the rule book.  It has a simple explanation that requires only 3rd grade literacy, not an attorney.  Assuming that still can't get the job done it HAS A PICTURE.  So if 3rd grade literacy stress you out, maybe preschool coloring book difficulty could be managable?

And as to what the, "horn hunters" will think of next?  Please tell us exactly how this is new or related to an attempt by the MDC to change the pathologically ignorant deer hunting culture or Missouri.  Since guys like you generally love the way things were, "back in the day" I'll assume that you would support the old Any Buck tag?  Remember the rule on that tag?  think about it...  Seriously...  Nothing?  Ok, go back and refer to the picture thing... 

Thats right... This rule has been around forever.  Since before Missouri even attempted to herd the ignorant dirtball "hunters" that infest the state into the modern era.

Now duk, your a mod and have enough sense to know this is over the line. you not only insulted the intelligence of these two fellas for no reason, you as well insulted the majority of hunters in a state you CHOOSE to hunt. Me and you butt heads, and thats fine. But im pretty sure your attack on these folks would be frowned upon by Greybeard especially considering your a mod. Im not gonna edit it, but i will ask you to treat members and a whole state of hunters a little better in the future. And if it is not possible for you to treat other members respectfully, and without calling them names, then please dont participate in this little section with us "ignorant dirtball hunters"..


Thanks
Chad

[dukkillr]

Ranger; I didn't read everything as I should have including the replies, but I think you are correct. I think that the rule books have become so complecated that you might have to hire a lawyer to understand them. Ha Ha. I also believe the next rule will be to roll the deer on its back and check its bottom side, if you know what I mean. What will the horn hunters think of next?   Jenkst

You probably should have read the thread.  I gave you a link to the rule book.  It has a simple explanation that requires only 3rd grade literacy, not an attorney.  Assuming that still can't get the job done it HAS A PICTURE.  So if 3rd grade literacy stress you out, maybe preschool coloring book difficulty could be managable?

And as to what the, "horn hunters" will think of next?  Please tell us exactly how this is new or related to an attempt by the MDC to change the pathologically ignorant deer hunting culture or Missouri.  Since guys like you generally love the way things were, "back in the day" I'll assume that you would support the old Any Buck tag?  Remember the rule on that tag?  think about it...  Seriously...  Nothing?  Ok, go back and refer to the picture thing... 

Thats right... This rule has been around forever.  Since before Missouri even attempted to herd the ignorant dirtball "hunters" that infest the state into the modern era.

Now duk, your a mod and have enough sense to know this is over the line. you not only insulted the intelligence of these two fellas for no reason, you as well insulted the majority of hunters in a state you CHOOSE to hunt. Me and you butt heads, and thats fine. But im pretty sure your attack on these folks would be frowned upon by Greybeard especially considering your a mod. Im not gonna edit it, but i will ask you to treat members and a whole state of hunters a little better in the future. And if it is not possible for you to treat other members respectfully, and without calling them names, then please dont participate in this little section with us "ignorant dirtball hunters"..


Thanks
Chad

yeah, I knew what I was saying when I wrote it.  I actually don't think I wrote anything that was factually wrong but I obviously see where it may have crossed the line.  I was frustrated over a handful of things, most notably:
1) the absurd notion that this is some type of tough issue to comprehend.  On this point I am right.  Check the link.  If someone can't understand the rule they must function at a pre-Kindergarten level.  Perhaps it seems like I was directing that claim at someone specifically, but I wasn't.  The truth is a defense.
2) the ridiculous idea that "horn hunters" were somehow the problem.  This is really the core of my frustration with all Missouri deer hunting threads around here.  There aren't many posters and the few there are tend to be of a mindset I find frustrating and ignorant.  I am incredibly fortunate to be able to hunt in other states and experience the type of quality hunting that can be had when a state manages their herd and their hunters well.  I do believe that a significant part of the problem is, as I said before, "ignorant dirtball 'hunters' that infest the state" and their inability to move into a modern era.  That was not directed at anyone in particular, but a generalization of the people I run into deer hunting in Missouri.  While I am no longer a Missouri resident, I was.  I learned to deer hunt in the Ozarks south of Springfield.  I have a lifetime license.  I was a resident for several years.  I was a resident when fear and ignorance killed the elk reintroduction.  In fact I was a budding field biologist in the area where they were going to be re-introduced.  It's not like I'm some random non-resident passing judgment, I've experienced Missouri as it is, and I have seen what it could be.  I've seen how "Tradition" is touted as an excuse but in reality is covering up for fear and ignorance.  The comment about "horn hunters" touched a nerve in part because it's incredibly stupid, and in part because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It was news to me that we have a past history.  I suppose I could go back and figure out what happened before, but I hold no ill will towards you or anyone else.  This certainly isn't personal, at least on my account.  To the extent that I directed or could be interpreted to have directed some insulting lines towards an individual, I'm sorry.  To the degree that more should be accepted of a moderator, I agree.

[rocko]

Thanks for manning up bud.  And no ill will from here either. What i meant was we had had few heated discussions and tend to disagree, nothing more.

And like i have said before i am a bit of a horn hunter myself. but i grew up with few dear around, and was truly proud killing slickheads, or whatever gave the chance. There are still alot of folks who enjoy deer hunting, and not trophy hunting. I realize you prolly arent in a situation where you have lost permission to hunt a farm cause some rich city guy wanted to lease it cause it had become known as a trophy area. In poorer areas of the state folks cant compete with the out of town money and just loose there spots they have hunted since childhood. I myself am against the idea of forced trophy hunting disguised as herd management in the form of ARs. You yourself surely know it is a tool to TRY to grow older bucks, not increase doe harvest. Like i said, an individual deciding to trophy hunt is fine, but when folks have to start counting points because trophy hunters are pressuring the MDC, and the MDC itself is wanting to draw out of state trophy money, it just aint right. Antler restrictions that should be implemented by the landowner or individual hunter, the government entity tasked with managind the health of the herd, not the trophy potential.


Now that was opinion, and opinions are fine as long as they pertain to the issue at hand, and not someones intelligence or reading level. Place nice and it will stay, or ill axe it.

[dukkillr]

Yeah, antler point restrictions are a topic we will never agree on, but that's not the topic here... as I tried to point out.  That 3" rule has been in place to determine a buck from a doe forever.  If a buck has lost his antlers he must have less than 3" of antler and thus would be counted as "antlerless" or as it might be incorrectly called, "a doe".  How many points those sheds have would have absolutely no legal impact.

[Graybeard]

I don't think he was necessarily trying to stir the pot but response to the first two proper answers to the question does make one wonder.

I don't know the rules in your state but in Bama yes once the antlers drop even if you saw him drop them he becomes a legal antlerles deer so as I said generally yes. As to how you'd know if you picked up the antlers as you said and kept following the same track in the snow unless you believe in magic then that would be a pretty good indication he was the same one.

Still if legal where you hunt I have no problem with you shooting him. I wouldn't but that's me and I dont try to impose my standards on others so long as it's legal where you hunt and as I said here in Bama it would be legal.