sorry ya feel that way

Since when has anyone ever said
"Thou shalt not question the TWRA ?"

Dude, you can do better than that if you want to stir the pot.

you ask to many about one subject that rubs the BIG GUY the wrong way you get banned

If Ive seen it once,Ive seen it a thousand times,"Ill just hunt,and let TWRA worry about that."

Not trying to stir any pot...

I don't think they mind being asked questions in a polite manner .It's the bad mouthing and running stuff into the ground that is no longer tolerated.Some people can be buttholes about running things into the ground.
We only have few TWRA officers on the forum.They could very easily be run off if a few posters were allowed to constantly bad mouth them and thier employer.

Please...

I don't see anyone saying "Thou shalt Not Question the TWRA." However, what I do see is the same group of people beating the same dead horse over and over and over again, even when it has been shown over and over again why their ideas don't hold water and why the TWRA does the things they do (seasons, bag limits, etc.).

Wildlife Management is a science, and science is based on data. I see no data from the dead-horse-beaters. All I see is personal opinion-driven dead-horse-beating, and when that doesn't work, silly attacks on the data that generally come down to "But I've never received a survey," or "I've never had a deer checked by a biologist at a check station."

No one is saying not to question the TWRA, but MANY are saying GIVE IT A REST. THE HORSE REALLY IS DEAD.

Please....what is the "science" for extending gun,and all three deer units having the same limit?

Please....what is the "science" for extending gun,and all three deer units having the same limit?

No one ever said these changes were intended to change the deer herd or benefit the deer herd. They were done to please hunters and make regulations more even across the state.

Most importantly, after the first year of these changes, no harm appears to have been done. In fact, harvested buck age structure climbed to an all-time high, and harvest of yearling bucks fell to a decade low. Doe harvests continue to be adequate.

If you can provide more hunting and harvest opportunity without doing harm to the herd, why wouldn't you?

The data that was there suggested that the regulations could be liberalized with no harm to the herd. There had been consistent recommendations from Unit B hunters to expand their season to equal the rest of the state at least in days of hunting. Traditonally TWRA has attempted to provide as much hunter oportunity as the resource will allow. In this regulation change the data from year one shows the agency very likely made the right choice. If the data begins to show otherwise at some point, then changes can be made.

scn,no offense meant,but "hunter reccomendation"?We are constantly told on here to show the data,the science,once again I ask,how can Cocke,and Haywood have the same buck regs?

Im not mad about it,just doesnt make sense to me.

They might have the same buck regs.... but I guarantee both counties don't have the same doe regs..... You need does to have bucks and I don't need data to prove that..... Unit B is still all about protecting the does to help the deer herd.... Sometimes we get to hung up on buck regs.....

Its not hard to understand scn,hunters are happy with the oppurtunity to kill more bucks.

I may be considered a "trophyist " on here,but IM not,just a mature/big buck,enthusiast,but my ? goes beyond that,is it good for the herd?How can Haywood and Cocke having the same buck regs be good,maybe Haywood needs more,and Cocke needs less,BUT THE SAME?

Unit B has alway been about protecting the does and herd population..... You are thinking to much like a "trophyist" and not the population of the deer herd..... Mommas have babies.... this increases the herd..... No one cares how old the buck is or how many points it has on its head..... Climbing mountains and killing bucks isn't that easy.....

I dont care about the Mtns,nice to visit,maybe Im not a good writer,guess Im not,let me try this,if Tn were 2 different states,divided at ,oh lets say ,Cookeville,the regs wouldnt be even close by the 2 different state agencies,but then again,who cares?

But IM not looking at "my situation",Im covered in deer.

95 counties ONE buck reg?Thats what Im saying.

Man TWRA can't win.People in unit b asked to have the same chances as people in unit a and l.now that they got what they wanted people who don't hunt b are saying to change it back.

We already have one buck regs for the state... You can only kill one per day in TN....

You miss my point,if places like Knox and Cocke counties need 3 buck limits,what do places like Haywood county,and other places with FAR FAR more deer need?Your right though,dont hunt,and dont really care what happens in"B" it just seems crazy to me.

i got your point and was just making my own.You already got an explanation from them but keep on and on about it.You might not agree with it but you were told why its in place.

Come on BSK,if me or Wes suggest something,we are asked "Where is your data to support this?"

You just said,"No harm appears to have been done."

I dont have the same education as you,but I do have one,and that seems like a double standard to me.Which might be fair,but where was the data ?

I may be considered a "trophyist " on here,but IM not,just a mature/big buck,enthusiast,

Ummmm, a "mature/big buck enthusiast" IS a trophyist, if the attitude goes along with it.

We seriously question our President about many things,many people think we should get out of Iraq/Afganistan,many think we should stay.Both sides probably have valid points.

We ? our governors about all kinds of things to,our police chiefs,out school board,our senators.Yes these are elected officials,but far and away,most of them are lawyers,our at least very educated,and should know what they are dealing with.

So then why do many say,"Ill just go by what TWRA says,and just hunt."?

Or "Why should we question them at all?"

Any rule change will have pros and cons,depending on your view point,Im sure pure bow hunters werent thrilled by having more gun hunters in the woods starting last year,etc,etc.

I think TWRA does a fine job,just seems Un American to not question authority,or to be told you shouldnt.

JMO

FH

How many times do you want last year's harvest data posted and discussed? I'm sure it's already been 40 or 50 times.

whatever,my points not gonna be seen,so Ill post smileys for a while

Actually BSK, FH is asking "where was the data prior to making those changes?", which is a valid question.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion that differs from the status quo.

The data that was there suggested that the regulations could be liberalized with no harm to the herd. There had been consistent recommendations from Unit B hunters to expand their season to equal the rest of the state at least in days of hunting. Traditonally TWRA has attempted to provide as much hunter oportunity as the resource will allow. In this regulation change the data from year one shows the agency very likely made the right choice. If the data begins to show otherwise at some point, then changes can be made.

Actually BSK, FH is asking "where was the data prior to making those changes?", which is a valid question.

Chris -

It is a fair question but it has been asked and answered a few times on here already (especially last year). It seems as if the question keeps getting asked because they don't like the answer that was given and they are hoping that they eventually get them an answer that they want.

The data that was there suggested that the regulations could be liberalized with no harm to the herd. There had been consistent recommendations from Unit B hunters to expand their season to equal the rest of the state at least in days of hunting. Traditonally TWRA has attempted to provide as much hunter oportunity as the resource will allow. In this regulation change the data from year one shows the agency very likely made the right choice. If the data begins to show otherwise at some point, then changes can be made.

Truth be known, we had over ten years of data suggesting that the vast majority of hunters do not take advantage of a three buck limit.

I have some sharp sticks I can loan out or sell.

So since the majority of hunters don't kill more than 1 buck, as the data shows, it's alright to provide more liberal limits in Unit B without harming the resource? I can live with that.

So the reason that we don't move to a 2 buck limit (even though most hunters don't shoot more than 1 buck), is because most hunters don't want a 2 buck limit?

On a side note, can you increase the antlerless gun opportunities in Grundy County to more than just 2 days in December?

Most importantly, after the first year of these changes, no harm appears to have been done. In fact, harvested buck age structure climbed to an all-time high, and harvest of yearling bucks fell to a decade low. Doe harvests continue to be adequate.

Seems to me comparing harvest age structure from the same year the changes were implemented is a mute point.

The lower yearling harvest does show that more yearling survived which should help next year. The higher number of older bucks killed could mean that more is in the herd or could mean a higher percentage of what was there got killed. If the latter is the case then next year could see a spike in yearlings killed due to less older bucks available. Not saying that is the case just a possibility.

It will take a few years of the same regulations to show what impact it really has on age structure. Not sure how anyone can read much into the data coming from a single year when so much can affect harvest like food supply and weather just to name two.