I have been reading different threads that seem to show that several people posting on this site want either a 1 or 2 buck limit. My question is “Why”?

Some questions about the intent of this idea should be answered before such a reduction in bag limit is even considered.

1. In areas with a high population of deer, how many does are not bred each year? This can be determined by looking at the does in the spring and summer and counting the ones that have fawns and those that do not. Take into consideration the predator population and that a certain percentage will have still births and others will be killed by vehicles in the area and this will give you a good idea of the percent of does bred in this area.

2. In areas with low populations of deer, how can lowering the limit on bucks increase the total herd? If the bag limit on does is cut or eliminated the herd will grow quicker regardless of the buck limit.

3. If all you are wanting is to be able to take a “Trophy”, they are here now! How many pictures of mature deer have been posted on this site since the last day of the season? These deer have been here all season and were not killed. Many other mature deer were taken this year and many more will be taken next year even without a reduction in the bag limit.

I know a lot of people will not like this post but answer these questions honestly and if you can convince me and others that there is a valid biological reason that will improve the health of the total herd we may get on your side.

Remember that a Bucks primary purpose is to breed does, not to become a decoration in someone’s home.

Is that Jr's fault or yours?

Its all about rack size,they will try to say herd health,but when it comes down to it,they just want bigger antlers.

...
1. In areas with a high population of deer, how many does are not bred each year? ...

if you can convince me and others that there is a valid biological reason that will improve the health of the total herd we may get on your side.

Remember that a Bucks primary purpose is to breed does, not to become a decoration in someone’s home.

3 Buck limit is fine with me since most hunters in TN never tag out their limit... So in the end... it really doesn't matter...

Personally, you TN hunters that want a 1 buck limit, you really don't want this. I've hunted KY all my life, I'm 28 now. I am a trophy hunter. A 1 buck limit has made me one and I love being one.

Some seasons I kill a trophy buck. Others I don't kill a buck. The years that I've killed my 1 buck, I wished that I could kill another one. Knowing that my buck season is over early in the year sucks! Yes, I can shoot does and I do, but when you have another trophy buck under you and you can't shoot, you will be wishing for a higher limit.

I wished I had a place to hunt in TN just so I can have another chance at a trophy. This is the reason I hunt at Fort Campbell. Just remember, a 1 buck limit is not the reason KY has big bucks. Iowa has a 3 buck limit and they have bigger bucks than KY. If you want bigger bucks, pass on the younger ones.

I've had the opportunity to take bucks every year and haven't killed one in 5 years. I'm waiting on the buck I want. I understand that everyone is not like this but it still seems to me that a move to a 2 buck limit is a fair move for all hunters. I think there are enough hunters out there that restrict their kills to older and bigger age class bucks and probably only get a crack at one a season. If they can forfeit taking bucks year in and year out that benefits those that aren't so selective and it has for years now. Turn about is fair play. Those that only want to shoot bucks shoot away. Take one any size. Take two if that's your cup of tea. It usually makes hunters a little more selective on that second buck though. The selective hunter allows more bucks to walk giving those that aren't a better chance to fill their tags. The non-selective hunters reap those benefits but by only being allowed to take 2 bucks they help to keep a few walking that might eventually benefit the more selective hunters. Seems like a fair move.

Your assume that fawn recruitment alone is an indicator of an adequate herd density and herd health, which is just a part of the picture. We could remove EVERY SINGLE buck in the state, and we'd still have does bred (from button bucks). We could remove EVERY BUCK 2.5 yrs old and older, and still run a recruitment rate of above 80%.

For BIOLOGICAL health, however (not just maintaining or increasing the deer population), the bulk of breeding needs to be done by older deer, just the way nature intended. When yearling bucks participate in the rut, many never recover for the rest of thier lives from the undue stresses the rut places on them at such a young age.

If you've ever hunted a property with an excellent age struture, you will notice that the yearling bucks hardly chase does at all. The older bucks (whether it's through phermones, or simply whipping the butts of the younger bucks) become so dominant, that the younger bucks would rather eat than attempt to breed. That extra year of growth gained from not participating in the rut as a 1.5 yr old allows them to be much healthier.

So there you have it... that is the valid biological reason for improving age structure. Now would a 1 or 2 buck limit do that? Absolutely. But it might not be enough to make a real or even statistical difference statewide.

I see this statement alot on here and it doesnt make ANY sense.

Are you trying to say that a 1.5 year old buck has a different genetic structure than he would have at an older age.

Beekeeper- do you shoot immature bucks?? Your answer will help me understand where you are coming from.

It does make sense when you listen to the guys (in the know) that are on here telling us that this will never be KY and that there are more mature bucks being harvest then ever (stats). I guess we could always dream... Kind of like winning the lottery..

Its all about rack size,they will try to say herd health,but when it comes down to it,they just want bigger antlers.

The age structure of the herd is good the way things are now.

Is good compared to what?
Better than it used to be or good as in what a natural herd would be?

Not at all... the difference is not genetic, but rather the overall herd is benefited health-wise by allowing yearling bucks to grow an additional year. It IS a fact, well supported by studies in the whitetail world. When yearling bucks do not participate in the rut (which is what normally happens when there are adequate numbers of mature bucks on a property) they subsequently become healthier in body-weights and antler characteristics than those yearlings who spent the fall chasing does and losing 30% of their body weights.

Most biologist would estimate that a deer herd that was not hunted by man would be about 50/50 does to bucks. Since man prefers to take the biggest and the best instead of how natural predetors work taking the old, infirm,young and easy to catch and kill we have forced our deer herds to become doe heavy. IMO we would not have deer to hunt if the 50/50 balance was the norm for todays deer herd.

Most biologist would estimate that a deer herd that was not hunted by man would be about 50/50 does to bucks. Since man prefers to take the biggest and the best instead of how natural predetors work taking the old, infirm,young and easy to catch and kill we have forced our deer herds to become doe heavy.

What about the age structure? Whats good, what should we compare it to.

I think the lower buck limit is a victory for trophy hunters but not a defeat for hide hunters. Hide hunters can still (at least in most areas) shoot plenty of does. The only people who would not benefit is people who value a 120 lb immature buck more that a 120 lb mature doe. If it doesn't have impressive headgear, isn't a doe just as good?

I see this statement alot on here and it doesnt make ANY sense.

Its all about rack size,they will try to say herd health,but when it comes down to it,they just want bigger antlers.

The definitve answer is actually quite simple. It is because they don't truly understand deer management on a statewide level. They base their opinions on what they see, not what is actualy out there. They base their opinions on what they want instead of hard data. They falsley relay information from other states and transfer data from other states and they fail to believe what the data from their own state indicates.

Pretty simple really.

Now- you want to prove me wrong? Let's stop all buck killing for five years. Let's see if you are happy then.

How many will vote for that? I say let's do it. No bucks for five years state wide. Who's with me?

I think the lower buck limit is a victory for trophy hunters but not a defeat for hide hunters. Hide hunters can still (at least in most areas) shoot plenty of does. The only people who would not benefit is people who value a 120 lb immature buck more that a 120 lb mature doe. If it doesn't have impressive headgear, isn't a doe just as good?

I just read the entire thread and I have a question for you, Bee. Why do you want to kill three 1 1/2 year old bucks? To answer your question, hunters like you are the reason I'm for a 1 or 2 buck limit. Hypothetically, imagine if every hunter in the state killed what you did this year.

People like you are the reason im not for a 1 or 2 buck limit.Why do you think he is wrong if he wants to shoot 3 1.5 year old bucks.Why should he let them walk so someone else could kill those same 3 bucks when they were 4.5?

I just read the entire thread and I have a question for you, Bee. Why do you want to kill three 1 1/2 year old bucks? To answer your question, hunters like you are the reason I'm for a 1 or 2 buck limit. Hypothetically, imagine if every hunter in the state killed what you did this year.

If it were up to me, someone else would kill one of those bucks.

My question to you is "Did you pass on deer or could you just not find any?". If you read my earlier comment you would realise that the areas I hunt can stand to lose young deer and need to have some taken every year. I have pictures taken on the same farm of at least 6 more 1.5 year old bucks thad did walk.

I'm just curious and i'm not trying to start anything. Can you explain what you mean by this statement? Are you saying that your age structure is mostly mature deer? If so, then you are lowering your age structure by taking young deer, right? This doesn't make any sense to me.

Bee, I don't know about Tn, but in Ky you can get damage tags to take out some does. You might want to look into this.

I am a meat hunter PERIOD. I will not make excuses for being one. I will kill mature deer when the opportunity arises. A big rack is just a bonus!!

My question to you is "Did you pass on deer or could you just not find any?". If you read my earlier comment you would realise that the areas I hunt can stand to lose young deer and need to have some taken every year. I have pictures taken on the same farm of at least 6 more 1.5 year old bucks thad did walk.

Trophy hunting will be the demise of our sport. it already is making a negative impact nationwide.

Trophy hunting will be the demise of our sport. it already is making a negative impact nationwide.

I could easily limit out on bucks in bow season if I so desired. I am a horn hunter and have no apologies. Trophy hunting is the future of our sport, whether you like it or not. (yodel dog).

That is pure BS, Trophy hunting will be the demise of our sport. it already is making a negative impact nationwide.

I disagree, trophy hunting will only be the demise of this sport if the trophy hunters try and succeed in implementing their ideals at the state level.

For now that has not happened in many states, and more then likely will not happen.

As long as there is a happy balance at the state level then our sport is fine. Restrictive enough to have a well balanced herd, but not tipping to one side or the other.

I am a meat hunter PERIOD.

i disagree with all yall what people need to do is educate the public by teaching them that trophy hunting is not a bad thing

how could it be when all you are doing is trying to keep the herd balanced and shoot older allowing younger deer a longer life span

i disagree with all yall what people need to do is educate the public by teaching them that trophy hunting is not a bad thing.

I disagree, trophy hunting will only be the demise of this sport if the trophy hunters try and succeed in implementing their ideals at the state level.

For now that has not happened in many states, and more then likely will not happen.

As long as there is a happy balance at the state level then our sport is fine. Restrictive enough to have a well balanced herd, but not tipping to one side or the other.

I believe a simple 2-buck limit is the best solution.
It's better for both the meat hunter, the trophy hunter, and the majority of hunters who are both.


(With a lower buck limit) The irony is that hunters with Beekeepers's mindset would actually have greater opportunities to kill "a" buck than they do under a 3-buck limit ---- as most with Beekeeper's mindset don't kill a buck on an annual basis. (Not specifically talking about Beekeeper, as he may kill 3 bucks every year --- talking about the mindset.)

Along with a 2-buck limit, there could be more antlerless deer hunting opportunity, providing the meat hunter with yet more opportunities to kill one or more deer ---- again, most don't even kill "a" deer annually. I think all deer hunting should be "either-sex" in Tennessee, and that's one of the "healthiest" statements on this thread.

By the way, anyone who kills ANY buck instead of a doe, is in fact a "trophy" hunter who values antlers at least similarly or more than meat. I consider all deer I kill to be trophies, so that makes me, and most of us ---- trophy hunters who also enjoy eating venison.

If we let ANY buck walk, or any legal deer walk, we cannot lay claim to being just a "meat" hunter. Most of us are simply both meat and trophy hunters all wrapped up in one.

Imagine if our basic TN deer hunting license came with the statewide opportunity to tag two "antlered" and two "antleress" deer, with additional "antlerless" deer available by unit and county ---- but every hunter could kill any deer of of his choice, at least until he had killed two deer.

One final thought.
If the average deer hunter doesn't even kill "a" deer annually, what is the harm to them in lowering the buck limit to two, while simulataneoulsy increasing their opportunities for both a doe and a buck?

The problem is, trophy hunting IS a bad thing. Rarely do true trophy hunters manage deer herds wisely. They manage them to produce the largest antlers possible, and often use biologically unsound practices to do so. The non-hunting public HATES trophy hunting and with good reason.

I believe a simple 2-buck limit is the best solution.
It's better for both the meat hunter, the trophy hunter, and the majority of hunters who are both.


(With a lower buck limit) The irony is that hunters with Beekeepers's mindset would actually have greater opportunities to kill "a" buck than they do under a 3-buck limit ---- as most with Beekeeper's mindset don't kill a buck on an annual basis. (Not specifically talking about Beekeeper, as he may kill 3 bucks every year --- talking about the mindset.)

Along with a 2-buck limit, there could be more antlerless deer hunting opportunity, providing the meat hunter with yet more opportunities to kill one or more deer ---- again, most don't even kill "a" deer annually. I think all deer hunting should be "either-sex" in Tennessee, and that's one of the "healthiest" statements on this thread.

By the way, anyone who kills ANY buck instead of a doe, is in fact a "trophy" hunter who values antlers at least similarly or more than meat. I consider all deer I kill to be trophies, so that makes me, and most of us ---- trophy hunters who also enjoy eating venison.

If we let ANY buck walk, or any legal deer walk, we cannot lay claim to being just a "meat" hunter. Most of us are simply both meat and trophy hunters all wrapped up in one.

Imagine if our basic TN deer hunting license came with the statewide opportunity to tag two "antlered" and two "antleress" deer, with additional "antlerless" deer available by unit and county ---- but every hunter could kill any deer of of his choice, at least until he had killed two deer.

One final thought.
If the average deer hunter doesn't even kill "a" deer annually, what is the harm to them in lowering the buck limit to two, while simulataneoulsy increasing their opportunities for both a doe and a buck?

I just don't understand why a tn hunter has to pay for gun doe tags and why they are not included in his gun tag? his archery and muzzleloader tag includes doe tags?

I could easily limit out on bucks in bow season if I so desired. I am a horn hunter and have no apologies. Trophy hunting is the future of our sport, whether you like it or not.

I am not trying to say that you are wrong for being a "Trophy Hunter" just as you shuld not make the assumption that it is wrong to be a "Meat Hunter". The deer I killed this year were the deer I saw. If I had seen three 3.5 year old bucks and had the chance to kill them I would have. Since all I saw was younger deer that is what I took.

Again, hypothetically, imagine if everyone just held out for mature bucks. The effects would be catastrophic, as the population would grow well beyond carrying capacity. B/c anyone knows that everyone cannot, and does not, kill mature bucks, and limits out on them at that...just as not everyone kills their limit of younger bucks either. It all equals out imo. Just my opinion mind you, no scientific facts were harmed in the typing of this post.

Again, hypothetically, imagine if everyone just held out for mature bucks. The effects would be catastrophic, as the population would grow well beyond carrying capacity. B/c anyone knows that everyone cannot, and does not, kill mature bucks, and limits out on them at that...just as not everyone kills their limit of younger bucks either. It all equals out imo. Just my opinion mind you, no scientific facts were harmed in the typing of this post.

I could easily limit out on bucks in bow season if I so desired. I am a horn hunter and have no apologies. Trophy hunting is the future of our sport, whether you like it or not.

Shoot what you want to my friend..but..trophy hunting is the absolute death of our sport.

Again, hypothetically, imagine if everyone just held out for mature bucks. The effects would be catastrophic, as the population would grow well beyond carrying capacity. B/c anyone knows that everyone cannot, and does not, kill mature bucks, and limits out on them at that...just as not everyone kills their limit of younger bucks either. It all equals out imo. Just my opinion mind you, no scientific facts were harmed in the typing of this post.

There won't be a "death of our sport" as long as the mountains still have trees and I have a gun.

I hope it don't come down to that, but I can't do without hunting.

Shoot what you want to my friend..but..trophy hunting is the absolute death of our sport.

Yea, you're right. I guess that's the reason I have as many outdoor hunting channels as I have ESPN's. I guess that's why Bass Pro Shops has 52 stores in 26 states, including Canada. I guess that's the reason hunters pump millions into the US economy every year. Yea, it's going downhill fast.

it's going downhill fast.

No hunter is going to pay $2000.00 to kill a spike!

you just don't get what others are trying to tell you.you would rather agrue and try to prove all those people wrong.

Thats good you form your own opinion yodel.Just wish you would get it right every now and then.lol

Right? According to who? You? If you need to talk further, pm me.

I have a challenge for all "Trophy Hunters". Take 2 cull bucks (older bucks with small racks, crippled Bucks or any buck that seems to be below standard) then use your last tag to hunt for the trophy. This will do more for the genetic make up of the herd than taking just the "Largest Racked Deer in The Woods".

Not just me a lot of people tried explain things to you but you have an agenda to keep forcing down everyones throat.Just lighten up a little and have fun.

that happens more than you think already

You would not know it from the THrs that post.

maybe not but you also don't personally know someone just from a few lines on the computer

I just don't understand why a tn hunter has to pay for gun doe tags and why they are not included in his gun tag? his archery and muzzleloader tag includes doe tags?

The smartest post ever! TWRA agenda=$. Shouldn't be a money making business IMHO.

That is very true!!

The smartest post ever! TWRA agenda=$. Shouldn't be a money making business IMHO.

Since they don't get funds from the General Budget and have to make do with what they collect in permits and license sales most years they just scrape by!!

I can't really speak for the others but assume that there are more on here like me and the only 1.5 old deer that i have killed in last 12 years had a front leg really screwed up, it was locked in an upwards position and he stood at a fence forever going back and forth so i shot him, felt a bit sorry for him

I have a challenge for all "Trophy Hunters". Take 2 cull bucks (older bucks with small racks, crippled Bucks or any buck that seems to be below standard) then use your last tag to hunt for the trophy. This will do more for the genetic make up of the herd than taking just the "Largest Racked Deer in The Woods".

LMAO! I just typed out about 200 words describing what I think about the above 2 posts. Then I deleted them. I want to see where this goes, kinda like a train wreck.... JMHO.

I was gonna stay away from this thread,. but i have to ask,.. was this meant as a joke??

Nope. There are several posts that tell how they see a lot of deer but pass on them because they are not Trophies and do not kill any at all.
I was just wondering if out of all these deer if there were not some that should have been culled.

LMAO! I just typed out about 200 words describing what I think about the above 2 posts. Then I deleted them. I want to see where this goes, kinda like a train wreck.... JMHO.

Nope. There are several posts that tell how they see a lot of deer but pass on them because they are not Trophies and do not kill any at all.
I was just wondering if out of all these deer if there were not some that should have been culled.

OK,.. just to let you know,. culling of bucks is a fundamental concept of trophy deer management,.. not quality deer management. SO,.. your challenging trophy hunters to accept the trophy hunting concept of culling,........corret??

i would hazard a guess that if the buck limit was dropped to 1 TWRA would sell a lot more license & all of the drawn hunts would be full up & the average hunter would start collecting points for a 2nd rate wma he wouldn't have thought twice about until he seen the words BONUS BUCK in the hunt rules,wifes,aunts uncles ect that had not hunted in years or ever might get the urge to hunt,heck my wife might start too ,in all seriousness the affects of a very low limit might draw as many negatives to the wildlife as it does positives to the hunters,i reckon if it comes about i will be small game hunting a lot & hope my rabbit dogs dont bother your hunt,also i love to squirrel hunt from daylite to dark ,mike243

Define cull buck. If you use the word antlers or rack or horns, you just showed your ignorance.

Just my opinion.

Cull buck: term used by meat hunters to explain why their buck doesn't have enough horns to drag it out by.