One-Buck Rule

I got this in an e-mail and wondered what you guys think about it.

Not a hunter myself, but aren't deer overpopulated as it is? Someone explain to me the reasoning behind only allowing 1 buck

Maybe trophy hunters?
I don't know, honestly. I would rather have the meat from a young doe any day.*
In before some hunter tells me I can't tell the difference between them

I'm sure that I'll ruffle enormjnson's feathers (), but I'm opposed to the one-buck rule. Years ago (60's or 70's?), you could kill two bucks with a bow, one with a firearm, and one with a muzzleloader. When I started hunting, it was one with a bow and one with a firearm. Around 2002 or so, they reduced it to one buck per year with any legal weapon. In the years before the one-buck rule came into effect, I never killed a buck with both a bow and firearm in the same year, but it would be nice to be allowed to should the situation ever arise.

The DNR estimated that somewhere around 6000 hunters took two bucks a year. The number of bucks being killed today under the one-buck rule is a heck of a lot higher than the number killed before it was implemented.

I predict an internet fight.

I cannot speak for all areas, but there are not nearly as many deer in the areas that I frequent as what there used to be. I would imagine there are still many "pockets" throughout Indiana that are overpopulated but, as a whole, I don't think this is the case.

The reasoning behind the one buck rule was to try and get a better balanced buck to doe ratio and to let bucks grow bigger. The thinking was that more does would be killed and more bucks would survive. More does being killed is what the state wants. Bigger bucks is what the state wants, too.

I am not entirely convinced that the rule has accomplished anything that it set out to accomplish (I am judging by my hunting areas). IMO, it has only hurt the enthusiasm for bow hunting.

I've always thought that this was not an issue for hunters to debate but should be decided by the biologists. I consider general herd health and strength and size to be the goal that the DNR should be shooting for.

My 'evidence' is purely annecdotal and based on personal observation and shouldn't be taken as conclusive, but after implementation of the OBR I've seen many more trophy (8 pt.+) bucks than before. I've seen more big racks on live and dead bucks in Indiana post-OBR than I ever did in all my years of hunting in Michigan and Iowa. IMHO, it's made a positive difference for the trophy hunter given all other variables remaining unchanged.

From what I understand, the OBR is for the trophy hunters.

We are still killing the same amount of bucks that we were before the rule change.

The typical mindset of hunters has changed in the last 10 years. No one wants to kill dinks anymore.

As a whole the herd is still growing.

We are killing thousands more bucks a year in Indiana today than before the one-buck rule.

See page 11 of the 2011 harvest report to view the deer harvest numbers from 1987-2011:

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2011_Deer_Season_Summary.pdf

Ok, then theres another reason the rule is dumb.

I have checked in deer for 19 years. The number of deer killed has not decreased since the inception of the one buck rule. The quality of bucks has gone up by leaps and bounds. There are more deer hunters now than ever before. You guys that don't support the one buck rule are going to be crying if the OBR goes away. Think about it. Crossbows are now legal in the early bow season for antlered deer. That alone is going to be like another gun season in itself. Your chances at a decent buck are going to decrease sharply without the OBR. Here in Scott County we are allowed to kill 8 bonus antlerless deer. Let's say a hunter kills 2 does in bow season, and a buck in gun season. If that same hunter kills his 8 bonus deer he would have killed 11 deer! Who in the hell has the freezer space for that many deer? I truly think the OBR is a positive thing. That is coming from someone that is not often in agreement with DNR policies. If you want more deer in you area you are going to have to manage your property with food plots. That thought is twofold.....attract deer with food, and the nurishment will provide your bucks with better racks.

And quit shooting does.

Jeff, I agree that the quality of bucks may be better than before, but disagree with the belief that the one-buck rule is the reason. I attribute it mainly to the influx of deer hunting shows on television which influence hunters by showing huge mature bucks being killed. That, in essence, makes the average hunter feel self conscious about taking smaller-racked bucks. The "bigger buck situation" we are experiencing is due more to hunters' mindset of being selective than the fact that they can only take one buck. More bucks are being killed now than prior to the one-buck rule, so it certainly hasn't saved those few thousand bucks that were previously killed by the "double-dippers" who killed bucks with both a firearm and a bow.

The only thing making it to where I won't be seriously disappointed if the one-buck rule stays is that, as you mentioned, crossbows are now legal for early archery season. Seeing as how those bastardized creations () called crossbows are easier than a vertical bow, I'm sure that more bucks will be killed in early archery season than previously.

I agree with this.

Jeff,

No argument from me on the point that there are bigger bucks killed today than ten years ago. I think this has a lot more to do with hunters being more selective than it does the OBR, but that is just my opinion. In most areas, there are plenty of does for "freezer meat" and I think most are willing to let a little-racked buck walk on past cause they know they can pop a mature doe if they want meat for the freezer.

Your very mention of the term "food plot" I think goes very well with what I am trying to say. How many hunters you think plant food plots and try to manage their whitetail herd as compared to ten years ago? Look at other things in the industry such as trail cams (which let hunters know there IS a big buck on their property whereas before they might have never thought so). There are so many shows, publications, etc. that focus on one thing and one thing only––growing, and killing bigger bucks.

For another look, turn to states like Iowa and Illinois where they are allowed more than one buck per year. I certainly don't think one can argue that allowing the hunter to take two bucks has hindered the ability for their big buck population to grown and flourish. As a matter of fact, look at the Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young record book entries every year; when you do, you will find that most of the entries do not come from states with a OBR.

After saying all of this, I will say this. If, indeed, the OBR is the leading contributor to how big the bucks hunters in IN are killing I am 100% for it. I just don't think I am convinced this is the leading thing behind it.

I like the OBR. I think it makes folks be more conscious hunters, whick is what they want. They want hunters to take 2-3 does rather than 2-3 bucks because that is where the overpopulation comes from.

If there are more bucks being taken now than before the OBR what do you think would happen it they did away with the rule? If they only allowed one buck for every season you have just quadrupled the number of bucks that could be taken. You could theoretically go from 25,000 taken a year to 100,000 bucks a year. Would it happen this way, probably not but how many years of this before we are back to low numbers of quality bucks? We all know hunters who are antler hunters only & shoot at anything with white on top of it's head.

I wouldn't have a problem with them allowing one buck with archery & one buck with firearm though. It allows your die hard hunters that hunt both the chance to get a buck with each.

That's the way it used to be, and the way those who support the two-buck system would like it to be again. I can understand the concern if it were two bucks with a firearm, but having to get one with a bow reduces the number of hunters getting two bucks down to around 6K annually. That's hardly a drop in the bucket when considering Indiana's buck population.

but killing that buck with `bow` will be alot easier with the xbows in archery...

Why? Range on them is the same as a vertical bow and reloading the thing in a tree stand ought to be a real pain. Ony thing I see for the XBow is it will already be drawn which would be an advantage if you ground hunt and don't use a blind.

I am for keeping the OBR, I can't say for certain it has solely increased the "quality" of bucks, but I think it has had an impact, and it sure couldn't hurt.
I also can't see how the OBR could have had an effect on the general low populations reported in some areas.

Call me a fuddy duddy or whatnot, but I like things left the same. Although I was originally for the OBR, I've felt like there has been some lack of foresight on some other rule changes. I'm just Monday morning quarterbacking, I do not claim to have predicted the following, nor am I bashing those that make the decisions. All in all, as a lifelong IN hunter, I'm fairly happy with the way things are.

For one - I like the pistol caliber rifles (I hunt with a lever action 44 mag), but it has now evolved into center fire rifles just barely within the cartridge limitations (358 Grant, Hoosier & WSSM / 458 SOCOM, 450 Bushmaster).

Two - Muzzle loaders, the intent was a primitive weapons season, and that has evolved into inline rifles capable of center fire ballistics.

Now that these two rule changes have gone as far as they have, I can't see a logical reason for excluding center fire rifles - which I don't really want.

I am surprised to see that the buck harvest numbers haven't really changed over the timeline of the these rule changes.


Most states with high record book entries seriously restrict gun seasons, and limit firearms to shotguns. I can't really add them to this comparison. KY however allows center fire rifles and has a fairly liberal gun season and they are near the top of the list of record book entries.

Who knows? I'm still for keeping the OBR - you can take two buck if you are bound and determined, through urban zones and special hunts.

The advantage is in not having to draw the weapon just prior to the shot.
With a vertical bow and a crossbow, that second shot opportunity is not the norm.

I completely disagree with allowing crossbows in early archery season, another rule evolution I find disturbing.

I'm all for it. I have seen more bucks and much bigger bucks since this law was enacted. I honestly think this regulation is the reason for that.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Being hunter, though been on a hiatus for a few years now, I don't have an issue with it. Some of the guys in my old hunting area would take a number of bucks each year and after a number of years of this there were only a bunch of scrub bucks running around.Who the heck wants that?
And even those scrub bucks were fair game and a few years I didn't see anything bigger than a spike during firearms season!

I would agree that for the casual hunter the emphasis will be placed on firearm season where the chances of getting a larger buck are greater.

I have hunted Michigan and Wisconsin that have similar rules and it works in certain areas.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.