Missouri Dept Conservation is looking for feedback on some potential non-resident deer hunting regulations changes

[Hoytvectrix]

I am not sure if the folks on here that hunt and/or own land in MO have seen this survey yet, but you will definitely want to give some feedback if you haven't already. I don't want to bias anyone, but I thought it was very interesting that they deliberately distinguish non-resident landowners in the first two questions but not in the third, which would be the most impactful to that group, in my opinion.

Nonresident Deer Hunting Changes

mdc.mo.gov

 

[Hoytvectrix]

Public comment period ends April 20, 2026.

 

[356]

The MDC wants both resident and non-resident feedback. The wording of the last question is pretty clear "on public land or on public and private land." When filling out the survey, you will be provided opportunity to provide input and feedback after each question, which will help inform the non-resident landowner question.

For 2026​

• Reduce the nonresident antlered buck bag limit from two to one. Nonresident landowners would maintain an antlered buck bag limit of two.

For 2027​

• Require nonresident deer hunters to purchase a Nonresident Public Land Deer Hunting Permit for $165 to pursue, take, possess, and transport deer on public land in Missouri. The permit would be required in addition to the nonresident deer hunting permit(s).

Beyond 2027​

• Establish a draw for nonresidents to be able to hunt deer on public land or on public and private land.

 

[swat1018]

356, being one of the resident MDC fans, how does reducing the buck limit from two to one further their mission of managing the CWD infested herd? So, they want to trash the herd in the name of CWD, yet, it's not all that important to reduce the population when a nonresident wants to shoot two of those horrible CWD spreading bucks? What sound biological principal is at play now?

I've been a nonresident landowner for years. I pay more taxes in MO than probably 80% of the resident population. Now, the government is going to tell me maybe I can't hunt on my property? I can't invite certain people (nonresidents) to hunt on my property but others (residents) they deem ok. That isn't going to sit well with many.

I know one thing, I will be hunting my property.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

356, being one of the resident MDC fans, how does reducing the buck limit from two to one further their mission of managing the CWD infested herd? So, they want to trash the herd in the name of CWD, yet, it's not all that important to reduce the population when a nonresident wants to shoot two of those horrible CWD spreading bucks? What sound biological principal is at play now?

I've been a nonresident landowner for years. I pay more taxes in MO than probably 80% of the resident population. Now, the government is going to tell me maybe I can't hunt on my property? I can't invite certain people (nonresidents) to hunt on my property but others (residents) they deem ok. That isn't going to sit well with many.

I know one thing, I will be hunting my property.

Agree or disagree that’s going to be the crux of all these nonresident landowner restrictions. People will just hunt it anyway. We have like 1 game per 1/4 state it seems like. And even if you do get caught poaching they don’t really do anything. Restrict nonresidents all you want but I’d certainly draw the line at a certain acreage landowner in my opinion.

 

[bwoods11]

Is the MDC thinking about taking away the Nonresident landowner tag ?

 

[Hoytvectrix]

The MDC wants both resident and non-resident feedback. The wording of the last question is pretty clear "on public land or on public and private land." When filling out the survey, you will be provided opportunity to provide input and feedback after each question, which will help inform the non-resident landowner question.

Respectfully, I disagree. Considering the careful wording on the first few questions, this was not "pretty clear". Matter of fact, I personally know three people (two of which are non-resident landowners) that missed this aspect because they were effectively primed on the first two questions that it would not affect non-resident landowners. Considering the question about the lottery would have much more of a dramatic change of who can hunt and when compared to the current regulations and the other questions of this survey, it is hard to interpret this as anything other than intentional. Look at other Missouri hunting forums and there is all kinds of confusion about that third question.

I appreciate that they added some context about why non-resident deer hunting is getting the attention that it is. I think all states need to protect their resources, and as more states become restricted on over the counter tags, it puts more pressure on the states that still allow it. The deliberate carve outs for non-resident landowners for the first couple of questions shows MDC respects the role all landowners play in the resource management. I get why MDC would see it this way. However, I am a little concerned for the opinions I've seen online from apparent MO residents. The optics are that non-residents need to be regulated more and differently than residents. I'm a little worried they are listening more to a vocal majority (for whatever reasons) because it is slightly less unpopular.

The last point that I will make about this has to do with how this survey was advertised or promoted. I have received an email for all past surveys that are sent out around the same time period each year. I did not receive an email about this survey. This survey was also included at an atypical time period just 3 months after the annual survey. As far as I can tell, this survey was only promoted within the state for local or regional news sources. The only reason I know about it is because of the Missouri Whitetails forum and because I have family that live in the state. If at least the same effort was not used for this as they do for their annual firearm survey, they have to know they would not be getting the same representative sampling for the survey. Why not email all previous hunting license holders, regardless of their residency?

I appreciate that they allowed for people to leave comments after each question, and maybe I'm overreacting to all of this.

 

[bwoods11]

Respectfully, I disagree. Considering the careful wording on the first few questions, this was not "pretty clear". Matter of fact, I personally know three people (two of which are non-resident landowners) that missed this aspect because they were effectively primed on the first two questions that it would not affect non-resident landowners. Considering the question about the lottery would have much more of a dramatic change of who can hunt and when compared to the current regulations and the other questions of this survey, it is hard to interpret this as anything other than intentional. Look at other Missouri hunting forums and there is all kinds of confusion about that third question.

I appreciate that they added some context about why non-resident deer hunting is getting the attention that it is. I think all states need to protect their resources, and as more states become restricted on over the counter tags, it puts more pressure on the states that still allow it. The deliberate carve outs for non-resident landowners for the first couple of questions shows MDC respects the role all landowners play in the resource management. I get why MDC would see it this way. However, I am a little concerned for the opinions I've seen online from apparent MO residents. The optics are that non-residents need to be regulated more and differently than residents. I'm a little worried they are listening more to a vocal majority (for whatever reasons) because it is slightly less unpopular.

The last point that I will make about this has to do with how this survey was advertised or promoted. I have received an email for all past surveys that are sent out around the same time period each year. I did not receive an email about this survey. This survey was also included at an atypical time period just 3 months after the annual survey. As far as I can tell, this survey was only promoted within the state for local or regional news sources. The only reason I know about it is because of the Missouri Whitetails forum and because I have family that live in the state. If at least the same effort was not used for this as they do for their annual firearm survey, they have to know they would not be getting the same representative sampling for the survey. Why not email all previous hunting license holders, regardless of their residency?

I appreciate that they allowed for people to leave comments after each question, and maybe I'm overreacting to all of this.

If they were to get rid of the NR landowner tag, I think it would be South Dakota here I come. I’m not waiting for a tag in Missouri?

It’s good hunting, but not pay a premium type or wait in line to get a tag … not that I’m seeing ?

 

[Hoytvectrix]

If they were to get rid of the NR landowner tag, I think it would be South Dakota here I come. I’m not waiting for a tag in Missouri?

It’s good hunting, but not pay a premium type or wait in line to get a tag … not that I’m seeing ?

Maybe I am reading it wrong. To me (and apparently at least three others I personally know), the third question was not clear. I think they are saying this would not go into effect until at least 2027 if at all. I don't know how serious MDC is about this particular policy.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Kentucky will take you. They wouldn’t pass a restrictive law ever.

 

[BenA]

Kentucky will take you. They wouldn’t pass a restrictive law ever.
View attachment 91503

They keep raising their fees on non-resident landowners, and I'll hunt without a license. I'm not owning and keeping land free from development and managed for wildlife only for them to turn around and charge me and my family excessive fees. We'll hunt it without paying the fees or sell it in mobile home sized lots.

 

[bwoods11]

I emailed the MDC Big Game Coordinator… or whatever his title is …

He gave me a very vague answer?

If they “eliminate” tags and raise the fees, it’s not worth my 7 hour drive .

I’ll focus on a short trip to South Dakota .

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

They keep raising their fees on non-resident landowners, and I'll hunt without a license. I'm not owning and keeping land free from development and managed for wildlife only for them to turn around and charge me and my family excessive fees. We'll hunt it without paying the fees or sell it in mobile home sized lots.

I’m ignorant here cause I blindly pay, have they been raising fees?

 

[BenA]

I’m ignorant here cause I blindly pay, have they been raising fees?

A few times now since I've been hunting there. Now, they just voted in an automatic "inflationary" biennial adjustment. Resident landowners continue to hunt on their own land free. Missouri and Kentucky were my two choices when I was looking to buy. It could have easily gone one way or the other.

 

[bwoods11]

They claim they are factoring in that NR spend $$ in the economy… motels, restaurants, bars etc… I know I do ?

I guess we will see if those owners lobby to keep the tag numbers up ? I’m not saying they can’t reduce tags, but eliminating the landowner tag will be a shock to Missouri.

Bunch of guys would sell .

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

No one asked my opinion but I think some states are really misguided in trying to punish or limit nonresident land owners. As some of us have stated before, nonresident land owners have a disproportional amount of skin in the game. Above a certain threshold, I believe they should be treated just like resident land owners. Non resident leasers or outfitter hunters, make it costly, they are takers and give little back to the state. I think Missouri would be foolish to punish non resident landowners

 

[bwoods11]

No one asked my opinion but I think some states are really misguided in trying to punish or limit nonresident land owners. As some of us have stated before, nonresident land owners have a disproportional amount of skin in the game. Above a certain threshold, I believe they should be treated just like resident land owners. Non resident leasers or outfitter hunters, make it costly, they are takers and give little back to the state. I think Missouri would be foolish to punish non resident landowners

I agree, especially when you have the tag in place already. If they pull that tag, that’s a huge decision, & could result in money lost by the landowner.

No offense to the Missouri residents..,but not many locals are paying $5000 an acre for timber?