Sound off on here if you think going to a 1 buck limit will improve soil quality and make farmers grow more grains than fescue.That's what we actually need.(imo)

The best way to improve soil quality is with composting and manure.

The best way to improve soil quality is with composting and manure.

Please explain your reasoning, I want to know more.......

Please explain your reasoning, I want to know more.......

Soil, crops



soil, crops



soil, crops


soil, crops




soil, crops



soil, crops



soil, crops,





soil, crops



soil, crops



soil, crops





soil, crops






soil, crops



soil, crops









GOOD GOD HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO WE HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT THE SOIL AND CROPS MAKING BIG BUCKS?????

LOOK AROUND, HOLSTON ARMY AMMUNITION HAS THE WORST SOIL IN THE STATE AND NOT ONE SINGLE CROP IN THIS END OF THE STATE, YET PROBABLY HAS MORE 130+ BUCKS PER SQUARE ACRE THAN PIKE COUNTY ILL....

SO GO ON AND ON ABOUT SOIL AND CROPS ALL YOU WANT, I'LL STICK TO THE FACTS

This is the only state I know that spends so much time, money, and resources on biological data to prove it's purpose to it's hunters.

I wish all these armchair biologist who know so much about whtetail deer management would move to Ky. and enjoy those GREAT ky. "trophy" buck
102

What I do see is that they don't have enough money to get the entire job done the way I'd like to see it done. Judging by the number of folks on here that complain about license fees, they aren't likely to see much help anytime soon.

Maybe instead of arbitrarily deciding that we'd kill bigger deer with a lower bag limit we ought to decide to try to get them more money to get the job done right. I'm not sure that a bag limit change would help. I am sure that we're not going to get big improvements (whatever we consider that to be) for free.

Frankly, I think it's a waste of our hard earned license dollars.

Maybe they wish that you armchair spike whackers would move to Florida so they might can have something decent to hunt here at home. They have as much of a right to give their input as you do. You don't just tell someone to move if they don't do it your way. Grow up.

Its not crops, its letting the little guys walk, it wont ever happen unless they change or lower the limit.

I'm guessing that you are unaware that Kentucky manages to do what they are doing with their deer herd on about half the money as TN does. Look up their license fees and compare them to ours. Neither agency gets any money from the state budget either.

...but of course this is where you make your living, so I don't expect you to publicly agree with me.

Kentucky takes half the total number of bucks out of their herd EVERY year with roughly the same number of hunters compared to what we do here in Tennessee. Please tell me you understand the implications of that.

One implication would be that Tennessee hunters are more successful since they consistently, year after year after year, take more older age class bucks than Kentucky hunters. So, if you want a better chance to take an older age class buck, hunt in Tennessee. Is that the implication?

Kentucky doesn't waste their time or their license holders' money collecting all that specific age class information because they don't have to.

...but I think we have a bigger issue with the skill levels of our hunters then the age structure of our bucks.

Kentucky doesn't waste their time or their license holders' money collecting all that specific age class information because they don't have to.

How long have Bowriter, 102 and I been saying that...

Now there ARE areas of TN with no mature bucks at all. That's a guarantee. But those areas are far more limited than hunters want to believe. In most cases, mature bucks exist. But those critters got that way by living through a lot of hunting pressure, and they have learned to be darn sharp animals. They can be exceptionally hard to see and kill.

In other places I have hunted Drives are a common method of getting Mature deer out of thier daytime beds.Seems like this is not a very common practice in Tn.

AlanP, a 2.5 year old buck is not an "old buck", contrary to theory in previous Tennessee hunting guides. Kentucky has a small sample that groups buck ages in 2 groups. One group is yearlings, the other 2.5 and older. That is all the data you guys have from Kentucky to use in such comparison. I never said you weren't telling the truth, but you are picking and choosing which facts to tell. I used to do this when I was young if I thought my father was going to beat my tail when I had misbehaved. It's called "selective truth".

Kentucky doesn't have the age class data that you have so I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Tennessee takes more "older bucks". I too read that hunting guide, but information I found elsewhere, made me believe otherwise.

Oh, one last thing, the book on my desk on "How to Lie with Statistics," that is to help me better understand my enemy... "Mis-information". It's a good read, it'll help you understand some of the basic tricks ordinary folks use such as percentages or poor sampling strategies. It seems there's a lot of it flying around out there lately.

AlanP, a 2.5 year old buck is not an "old buck", contrary to theory in previous Tennessee hunting guides.

Kentucky has a small sample that groups buck ages in 2 groups. One group is yearlings, the other 2.5 and older. That is all the data you guys have from Kentucky to use in such comparison.

I never said you weren't telling the truth, but you are picking and choosing which facts to tell.

I used to do this when I was young if I thought my father was going to beat my tail when I had misbehaved. It's called "selective truth".

Kentucky doesn't have the age class data that you have so I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Tennessee takes more "older bucks".

Perhaps, "more older bucks" depends on how you look at it.

Make sure you paint the whole picture though, because not doing so is very misleading. Maybe you are not doing this intentionally, I have no idea, but it is very misleading.

In your claim, you fail to acknowledge the fact that Tennessee harvests twice the total number of bucks than Kentucky does annually, with a similar sized deer and hunter density.

What's the implication? If you catch 10 fish and your partner catches 5 fish, statistically speaking, you have a better chance of catching more bigger, or "older fish". Don't you? Same principal applies to your buck harvest if you compare it to Kentucky.

Don't be so quick to toot your own horn by saying, come to TN instead of KY for a better chance at an older age buck.

Anyone who hunts both states knows that is a laughable concept.

A more accurate statement when all things are considered would be, "Come to KY for a better chance at an older age buck, because here, twice as many bucks survive the deer season than in TN".

Naturally if twice the bucks return to the herd for the next season in KY, that doubles your chances of harvesting an older buck. I don't need to read Daryl's desk reference on statistics to know this.

Kentucky doesn't waste their time or their license holders' money collecting all that specific age class information because they don't have to.

They don't need it, and that was my main point. It's money that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Their regulations are allowing all hunters a reasonable opportunity to reach their goals.

It's the only fair way to do it.

They don't tell hunters that they can't take a small buck, but they don't allow your 3 neighbors to take 9 of your local herd's 10 bucks with a high powered rifle either. In KY, those 3 neighbors can only take 3 of the 10 bucks, so the QDM hunter also has a realistic chance of achieving his goals.

Oh, one last thing, the book on my desk on "How to Lie with Statistics," that is to help me better understand my enemy... "Mis-information". It's a good read, it'll help you understand some of the basic tricks ordinary folks use such as percentages or poor sampling strategies. It seems there's a lot of it flying around out there lately.

And it is because of this that I have doubts about the accuracy of any data or graph that you guys use.

However, I would consider it to be gross negligence on the part of TWRA biologists if they ignored the scientific data and made season recommendations based on Stump doubts.

Three bucks is fine with me. I see no need in lowering it. I have killed no bucks this year thus leaving three out there for someone else. Actually I have killed no bucks in the years I have been hunting.

Stump. Give it up. I agree that you should pull up stakes and move to Ky since it is Soooooo much better than here. Limit yourself to one buck and leave biology to the biologists. They do know more about it. Three bucks is fine with me. I see no need in lowering it. I have killed no bucks this year thus leaving three out there for someone else. Actually I have killed no bucks in the years I have been hunting. That leaves a bunch of "extra" ones out there.

How long have Bowriter, 102 and I been saying that...

Now there ARE areas of TN with no mature bucks at all. That's a guarantee. But those areas are far more limited than hunters want to believe. In most cases, mature bucks exist. But those critters got that way by living through a lot of hunting pressure, and they have learned to be darn sharp animals. They can be exceptionally hard to see and kill.

I don't care what kind of hard data you have. Data can be used in many different ways to support pretty much any argument, as you no doubt already know. This is evident by BGG's desk reference.

I'll stick to what I've seen with my own 2 eyes. Many of us have seen the results the 1 buck limit produces, and regardless of how you want to spin it, when the two states have similar herd sizes, and one state takes nearly twice the number bucks out of the herd, the other is going to produce a better opportunity to take one of those bucks that survived the previous seasons. There are no absolutes, but when talking "chance", you have higher probability of taking the older buck in the state that allows twice the bucks to mature an extra year. One thing is for certain, if they are dead, you are not going to take them the following year.

AlanP,
I am not for a 1 buck limit, but hypothetically speaking, what
would happen to the health of our deer herd if it was imposed for
let's say 3 years? Just curious.

if we kill twice as many bucks as in kentucky, how is the estimated herd approx. the same size every year? are our does so much more fertile that they make up that much of a difference?

I don't care what kind of hard data you have.

RKenney,

Nothing. There could be some minor effects on social aspects, but a one buck limit would not impact weights per age class, parasite loads, disease rates, antler growth per age class, natality, mortality, or virtually any other "health" parameter.

Nothing?I agree with,disease,average antlers,weight,etc,but nothing?I believe there would be more,older bucks.That being said,Im not calling you names or ranting for a 1 buck limit.Just cannot see how it would not leave us with more bucks.Does not compute?!?

Nothing?I agree with,disease,average antlers,weight,etc,but nothing?I believe there would be more,older bucks.That being said,Im not calling you names or ranting for a 1 buck limit.Just cannot see how it would not leave us with more bucks.Does not compute?!?

The question was: "...what would happen to the health of our deer herd..."

The question was: "...what would happen to the health of our deer herd..."

If you want to affect "health," you do so through doe harvests.

Health parameters are affected by herd densities. Overpopulated, underpopulated, at carrying capacity, below carrying capacity, or whatever, is what impacts density dependent disease transmission, parasite loads, food availability, and all the other things which affect herd health.

The only way to change total herd size is with doe harvests. Don's shoot does...the herd grows. Shoot the heck out of the does...the herd growth declines, stops, or reverses. "Health" is not dependent on buck harvests. Densities determine health, and doe harvests determine densities.

Exactly, so the buck limit would have nothing to do with herd health!!! ...UNLESS???? It changing affected the # of does being killed????? This has all been cussed and discussed many times, and i am one who leans to the side of believing, if you limit the buck harvest too much, when people limit out they will simply quit hunting or hunt less, which in turn gets less does killed.

Winchester,

I agree. Changing any regulation can affect harvests. Sometimes in unanticipated ways.

What would be the harm of lowering buck limits if very few are taking their limit?

...most hunters don't harvest 3 bucks, but want the option.

It seems to me, you answered your own question:

It seems to me, you answered your own question:

If that's the reason, I have lost all faith in the TWRA. Let's just put every regulation on a ballot and let the general population decide. I'm sorry, but i don't pay license fees for you guys to win a popularity contest.

How do overall harvest total look? I have not compared them yet.

How do overall harvest total look? I have not compared them yet

By law, the TWRA "...shall place first and foremost the welfare of the wildlife and its environment... to the benefit of all of the citizens of Tennessee...and to implement and encourage the full utilization of Tennessee's wildlife resources..."

That's in TCA 70-1-301 (b). It is the statement of policy that created TWRA. It means the wildlife comes first, decisions should benefit all the people of Tennessee, and the benefit of the hunters must be considered as well. We should not set seasons for purely biological reasons, without considering what is best for the citizens or the hunters. Nor can we set seasons just to make people happy if it harms wildlife resources. But, all three aspects are to be considered in decisions.

First and foremost is the "welfare of the wildlife." But, citizens and hunters are to be considered too.

So even though few hunters harvest 3 bucks, the perception of being able to harvest 3, makes this regulation justifiable.

But if all hunters did harvest 3 bucks...

Same concept as 3 does a day. If all hunters did harvest 3 per day, every day...

But because hunters want the option, the limit stands to please hunters, not to mention the revenue that comes from the brilliant 094.

I guess hunters, like myself, should start taking advantage of liberal limits in hopes they will be changed.

It seems that's our only option since the majority has spoken. The MAJORITY has put our country in the mess it's in today.

I didn't receive my ballot, by the way.

A democracy, bad as it may be at times, sure beats a dictatorship.

It does not harm the resource, and the age class of harvested bucks continues to improve, so...yes.



But, they won't. We both know that to be a fact, don't we?



But, they won't.

But, they won't. No one has the freezer space for three does a day over a four month season.

Then why set limits?

I don't care what kind of hard data you have. Data can be used in many different ways to support pretty much any argument, as you no doubt already know. This is evident by BGG's desk reference.

I'll stick to what I've seen with my own 2 eyes. Many of us have seen the results the 1 buck limit produces, and regardless of how you want to spin it, when the two states have similar herd sizes, and one state takes nearly twice the number bucks out of the herd, the other is going to produce a better opportunity to take one of those bucks that survived the previous seasons. There are no absolutes, but when talking "chance", you have higher probability of taking the older buck in the state that allows twice the bucks to mature an extra year. One thing is for certain, if they are dead, you are not going to take them the following year.

So these limits are set, knowing they don't affect the majority of hunters.

Then why set limits?

There are limits, and there is reality. The trick is to set the limits to achieve the reality you want.

Do you want the truth?

What is being achieved by setting a 3 buck limit when in reality very few will harvest 3? Wait, I think I know the answer. Because hunters' perception is they can kill 3. Then tell me, what is the benefit of this perception?