All of us would rifle hunt if we didn't get a buck with the bow/crossbow.
Yes captain obvious.
Show of hands...how many bowhunters would kill a forkhorn during archery season if that meant they couldn't gun hunt for a buck?
Hand. Other than spending time with family I almost rather despise gun season. If I can get a deer with my bow gun season becomes far less important. If I get a buck with my bow I’m certainly not spending money on a gun license (or anything else related to the gun hunting trip) in a buck only zone with a one buck rule. I’d rather take a week bow hunting in my gun area where I’m not competing with ATVs and bait piles.
Do you think by chance there may end up being more bucks available during rifle season?
Probably not. See above.
Fact is many bucks would not be killed during bow season and would be available to other hunters. Rifle season success would theoretically improve. Success rate is a large factor inhunter recruitment.
I think you have this backwards. The trend is more hunters abandoning gun hunting for stringed weapons. Tell me why this is bad. Why does gun hunting have to be the be all end all?
So, since you don't agree with having more bucks available and want to protect the ability to shoot two bucks,
Because the five ish percent of hunters who do is not a problem in any way shape or form.
what other suggestions would you have?
End party hunting, make the buck tag public/private for each weapon, ineligible to purchase public doe tag if selected private buck tag unless they are available during the leftover sale or have the doe tag mirror the land type if private bow and public gun buck are chosen (still where zones dictate doe harvest), zones based on habitat rather than counties and consolidate CDACs to about 20 (72 now, many less volunteers required) responsible for several zones of similar habitat (snow belt, drift less, etc), have the quota meetings on a Saturday in early June or late may and livestream.
You are of the mindset of DNR where shooting bucks makes no difference in deer populations - which is correct.
Agree. Female mortality rates dictate population growth or decline.
But why then do other states limit buck harvest to 1 per hunter per year? Easy: it spreads out success rate, and it slightly improves quality.
Quality by whose measure? What does quality even mean? Very subjective if you ask me. I’m sure your definition of quality will differ from mine. My whole overall point is I don’t want someone else dictating to me what a quality hunt is. If you are managing purely to "control deer numbers" ala DNR's vision, then no wonder why you don't care about limiting buck harvest. Why then should we not allow for 3-4 bucks per year for every hunter?
Excellent use of sensationalism. 95 ish percent of hunters would still shoot only one if it were 10.