Wow , the doe harvest really dropped , while more hunters apparently chose to shoot a buck instead .

Wow , the doe harvest really dropped , while more hunters apparently chose to shoot a buck instead .

wow humphreys county down in all.

I believe it is the result of the EHD outbreak. Simply less deer available for harvest.

Great compilation, BSK!
Thanks for posting this!


Could this be in large part due to a significant increase in the early November muzzleloader buck limit, going from 1 to 3 in Unit A, and from 2 to 3 in Unit L?

Could it be many hunters decided to kill a buck INSTEAD of a doe, since killing the 1st buck to come along (in Unit A) would not end their muzzleloader "buck" hunting?

I agree with you BSK.

BSK
It looks like a lot of the counties, hit hard by EHD, had the buck harvest go up and the doe harvest go down.
BSK what do you think caused it.

I know several hunters that did not shoot does this year that usually shoot 4-6. All the talk about EHD scared them.

I know several hunters that did not shoot does this year that usually shoot 4-6. All the talk about EHD scared them.

BSK,
What do you think the issue is in Jefferson County? Both the buck and doe harvest were down. This is after a 20% drop in the 07-08 harvest also. Most of the adjoining counties showed increases or not much change. The total harvest is down about 30% from two years ago with seasons that have been more liberalized (more doe days). I know that I have seen fewer deer and heard fewer shots over the last two years. What could be the cause?

BSK what kind of regulation changes do you think TWRA would have to make, to get a 50%-50% buck to doe harvest ratio?

Great compilation, BSK!
Thanks for posting this!


Could this be in large part due to a significant increase in the early November muzzleloader buck limit, going from 1 to 3 in Unit A, and from 2 to 3 in Unit L?

Could it be many hunters decided to kill a buck INSTEAD of a doe, since killing the 1st buck to come along (in Unit A) would not end their muzzleloader "buck" hunting?

Also, if in fact these are the reasons for lower doe/higher buck kills, how many years would you think it would take to recover from this?

We definitely cut back on our doe harvests the last two years, but primarily because our data indicated we really did have less does in the local population. In addition, fawn production has been terrible the last two years in my local area.

Could this be in large part due to a significant increase in the buck harvest capabilities of hunters because of the extra weekend of muzzleloader hunting during the prime of the rut? Afterall 5,000+ extra bucks fell that weekend compared to the year before. Right there is your difference.

Think about it.

Our area in Hickman County was hit hard with EHD. The deer sightings were down this year dramatically. I saw deer up until around mid-november, then they just disappeared.

Hickman was tough hunting for us too this year. Usual slam dunk stands produced a sighting or two. Late in the year some deer were seen bunched up as usual, but up until then they were tough to find!

My observations dropped way off during the two weeks of bow season , compared to the peak in Mz. season .

In the Hickman, Humphreys, Dickson, Houston, Perry and Stewart Counties area, the most common pattern I'm hearing was of the rut kicking in hard about mid-way through the 1st MZ season, running through most of the two weeks of bow season following 1st MZ, but being completely over and dead by the opening of 1st gun season. Deer sightings were then few and far between until early January, when doe groups were bunched up again.

OR...

Could this be in large part due to a significant increase in the buck harvest capabilities of hunters because of the extra weekend of muzzleloader hunting during the prime of the rut? Afterall 5,000+ extra bucks fell that weekend compared to the year before. Right there is your difference.

Think about it.

Just like Bryan said, we're concerned about it, especially in Unit L where we can't afford to see significant drops in doe harvest, but reacting to ONE data point is not usually a wise idea. Also, when trends change, try to think of all potential causes of the change and don't try to pigeon-hole one of the changes that you disagreed with. If I was to make an educated guess, I'd say it was easliy a combination of the two changes that resulted in a drop of doe harvest. Whether or not the drop in doe harvest will be prolonged will only be known after at least another year or two of data is collected. Keep in mind, most regulation changes involve a "novelty" effect where you see a spike in harvest because something is new, then things settle back down. Wouldn't it be great if we gave all Tennessee hunters extra harvest capability without having the least bit of impact on the herd? That's the justification for many of our changes.

Again, it's my supposition that most hunters have freezer space and desire to clean (or pay for processing) only 2 or 3 deer at the most. Since they can now fill their freezer with 2 bucks and still save the last tag for a trophy, that's what happening. Which is fine, there are plenty of bucks out there. BUT, from a herd manager's prospective, the reduction in does harvested that comes with that harvest philosophy ends up being more detrimental to the herd in the long run.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next year...but I strongly suspect the harvest percentages won't be very different.

It is probably a fact that the only way to achieve a true 50:50 kill ratio is to make it does only. I think that might come close.

It is probably a fact that the only way to achieve a true 50:50 kill ratio is to make it does only. I think that might come close.

Several counties have had greater than 50% female harvest for several years in a row. It can be done without extra measures. It's all up to the hunters.

What do you do if the hunters can't do it.

Just think if the reg would have been changed to 2 bucks total rather than 3. We would have saved the extra 5000 bucks killed because of the liberalization and likely saved another 5000 bucks and replaced them with 5000+ does. Hey that might make it 50/50?

Oh they can do it, easily. The question is, do they want to?

BSK
It looks like a lot of the counties, hit hard by EHD, had the buck harvest go up and the doe harvest go down.
BSK what do you think caused it.

. . . . there was a liberization in the buck limits.

Yep, that's what did it.
Raise the buck limit, and the doe harvest will go down.

Does the question of what's best for the deer herd ever come into play here?

BSK,
Like we have talked this before but again East Tn, down it seem the last 3 years. Based on the graphs, were we down on the number of hunters as well?

Thanks for the info.

BSK, can't answer a question.

And don't ever ask me questions about art, literature, music or poetry either. I don't get any of those. They are simply outside the realm of my analytical mind.

But thats the whole point Bryan!,..there really is nothing to get with those things!...there in lies the beauty of them...

Not true.............Look at KY. They have done it for over five years.

Yes...but they have telecheck.

I'd be very careful about assuming the extra two days of ML accounts for the increase in deer harvest. If anything, ML season this year showed the potential for negative effects of a buck limit increase from 2 to 3 on the doe harvest. As you already know, here's the numbers from 2007 to 2008...

2007 ML harvest statewide... 13,941 bucks 13,738 does
2008 ML harvest statewide... 21,570 bucks 13,779 does

Which is around a 40% increase in buck harvest, yet only a 1-2% increase in doe harvest.

If the 2 to 3 buck limit increase had no effect on the sex ratios of what hunters killed, one would have expected the doe harvest to have increased by another 40% this year over last.

Again, it's my supposition that most hunters have freezer space and desire to clean (or pay for processing) only 2 or 3 deer at the most. Since they can now fill their freezer with 2 bucks and still save the last tag for a trophy, that's what happening. Which is fine, there are plenty of bucks out there. BUT, from a herd manager's prospective, the reduction in does harvested that comes with that harvest philosophy ends up being more detrimental to the herd in the long run.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next year...but I strongly suspect the harvest percentages won't be very different.

Heck ya Wal- Mart want be able to keep the 209's or powder in stock. If you want meat shoot a mature doe.

It will be very interesting to see what the changes in seasons/bag-limits do to the harvest numbers.

We know that only time will tell but I know you have to feel like how can these changes have any positive outcome especially in the antlerless harvest?

I don't expect a "positive" outcome at all. They were not designed to produce a positive outcome. They were designed to produce maximum hunting opportunity and freedom of harvest without producing significant negative impact. But we will see.

What would be considered "significant negative impact".

Something outside the statistical range of normal annual fluctuations in harvest numbers. In essence, up or down a couple thousand is no big deal. More than that might be a big deal. What I'm watching far more closely than just buck harvest numbers is the doe kills in comparison to buck kills.

2007 ML harvest statewide... 13,941 bucks 13,738 does
2008 ML harvest statewide... 21,570 bucks 13,779 does

Pretty much this!!!!!

Maybe. But you have to remember that since the buck limits were changed dramatically (1998), annual buck harvest numbers have fluctuated by 12,000. In fact, our buck population/age structure--which is at its best point ever--got there even though hunters killed over 87,000+ bucks in 2004 and 06. That's 5 to 6,000 more than we killed last year.

Far too much is often made of a single year's--or in this case--a single weapon season's numbers. Maybe last year's 1st MZ numbers are a bad sign and maybe they aren't. We will have to wait and see.

For our herd's sake I hope you are right!

Oh I'm not saying the new limits won't do harm, I'm just saying let's let science and the numbers tell is in due time. I fear the new limits will cause harm, but only time will tell. Conjecture can be an inflamatory game...

As a whole state, we've come so far in our deer herd and the health of it. I would hate for us to do harm to it for no reason at all!

Let's just keep our fingers crossed.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed.

And rub a rabbits foot,I still can envision Thanksgiving only hunters wiping out a lot of young bucks

Because you can kill all 3 with one weapon now right?Maybe it won't happen like I think.......

Because you can kill all 3 with one weapon now right?Maybe it won't happen like I think.......

You were able to kill three with one weapon last year as well.

But a lot of people had to travel west to do it.

Don't know if that was sound deer management or not...

I can explain my part of the reduction in doe harvest. I hunt in an area that was hit hard by EHD in '07. I saw plenty of does but decided to let them walk in order to help build the population back up. Don't know if that was sound deer management or not...

We did the same thing in Overton co,we saw a huge drop off in sightings and trail cam pics,we sot one doe,Jr sportsman and no bucks,didnt see anything on the bucks anyway except for some yearlings.

wow humphreys thats not encouraging at all

Great summary RecurveShooter.

Perry County is a mystery to me as well. I have quite a few clients in northern Perry County and the area has loads of deer--equal to or exceeding Humphreys County. Yet the harvest totals are low every year. I don't get it.

Interesting, because Perry has a great deal of public property providing good hunter opportunity doesnt it?

Great summary RecurveShooter.

Perry County is a mystery to me as well. I have quite a few clients in northern Perry County and the area has loads of deer--equal to or exceeding Humphreys County. Yet the harvest totals are low every year. I don't get it.

My place is about 5 miles east of "Downtown"Lobellville.From the trail cam pics and observations in the stand,I seem to be loaded.Taken 2 does so far and there are plenty left.

Yep HUMPHREYS Co. has dropped maybe they will take us out of unit"L" next year...

Let's hope not!

Unit L is the greatest development since sliced bread.