2 buck limit question from WV

[jaydell]

I am from WV and our commissioners just voted to lower our limit to 2 from 3 like what was done in TN several years ago. It was done even though our biologist did not recommend it. Our biologist said that it could actually have some negative effect and actually result in bucks with smaller racks because of habitat degradation.

It makes me wonder about this because I see in your TN deer registry that the number of entrees has decline since your limit was lowered. Jut wondered what you all are actually experiencing now with the 2 buck limit . In WV we actually have a little bit higher qualifications for our big buck registry and we actually have had a higher number of entrees each year into our registry than what TN has had. Just make me a tad worried that a mistake has been made not listening to our professional biologist.

thanks for the responses......

 

[MickThompson]

Nothing to worry about. Our age structure has steadily improved. The registry is voluntary. There's a truckload of big deer that will never see any sort of record boom.

 

[Levee Jumper]

Sounds like near the bottom of the list of first world problems. A couple bucks is plenty to brag about. Shoots some does if your hungry, and kill a cow if you really want some meat.

 

[jaydell]

LOL too funny Levee - our biologist are suggesting this is going to lead to habitat degradation which in turn is going to hurt the deer population. Which will lead to deer not being as healthy - which it just seems strange to me after TN lowering the limit - and since then your deer registry has seen a decrease in entrees. Just seems to be an indicator to me.

 

[Hduke86]

I doubt that many folks in WV tag out on 3 bucks that it really makes a difference. If they are worried about habitat going down then they should make a more liberal doe limit. Just like here in Tennessee the amount of hunters tagging out on 3 bucks was a VERY small percentage of it. I felt like the age structure suffered with 3 bucks cause at least one of the bucks could been used as a "junk" buck just to kill something with horns. As mentioned the registry is voluntary and I say most folks don't but their bucks in there.

 

[Popcorn]

Like @MickThompson said; registry is voluntary and not any kind of indication of harvest numbers or quality.
Imho reducing the buck limit is intended to increase the age structure of bucks and there can be little other reason. Harvesting bucks affects populations and or health little to none. Either the articulation of the change is wrong or the biologists are motivated by other means, ie; the insurance industry?!

 

[RobbyW]

In my opinion, it made zero difference. So few people killed their 3 bucks that changing it pleased the trophy hunters and it really did nothing.

 

[mike243]

Dropping it here has made 0 difference as far as I have seen, no giant bucks behind every tree, it has cut hunting opportunity down and cost the state $, some folks won't be happy till all deer hunting is a draw every year for everybody, trophy hunting is slowly ruining the sport

 

[BSK]

Our 2 buck limit did nothing. It did not improve our herd; it did not harm our herd.

I seriously doubt WV has so many bucks that dropping the limit to 2 is going to cause overpopulation problems. If they are worried about overpopulation, kill more does.

 

[knightrider]

I am from WV and our commissioners just voted to lower our limit to 2 from 3 like what was done in TN several years ago. It was done even though our biologist did not recommend it. Our biologist said that it could actually have some negative effect and actually result in bucks with smaller racks because of habitat degradation.

It makes me wonder about this because I see in your TN deer registry that the number of entrees has decline since your limit was lowered. Jut wondered what you all are actually experiencing now with the 2 buck limit . In WV we actually have a little bit higher qualifications for our big buck registry and we actually have had a higher number of entrees each year into our registry than what TN has had. Just make me a tad worried that a mistake has been made not listening to our professional biologist.

thanks for the

Zero difference other than pleasing trophyist and taking away opportunity from hunters that dont live in liberal doe areas

 

[BSK]

Zero difference other than pleasing trophyist and taking away opportunity from hunters that dont live in liberal doe areas

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

 

[deerdills]

I have seen a little change since 2 buck limit. Seems that fewer 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks at the processors. Also, those younger bucks that love to walk around all during the day, more of them seem to make it through the season. I don't have any hard numbers, just limited observations in my area. This goes in line with what Hduke86 was pointing out. Some hunters are likely to be a little more selective with that 2nd tag, than they were with 3 limit.

 

[Planking]

Seems like the bucks are a little older and larger than they used to be in my area. Not sure if it was the limit that did it but something sure did.

 

[Dennis]

I have seen a little change since 2 buck limit. Seems that fewer 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks at the processors. Also, those younger bucks that love to walk around all during the day, more of them seem to make it through the season. I don't have any hard numbers, just limited observations in my area. This goes in line with what Hduke86 was pointing out. Some hunters are likely to be a little more selective with that 2nd tag, than they were with 3 limit.

Could be it. Or could be that hunter attitudes have changed a bit over time. I know lot of guys who were happy shooting yearlings at one time, but now pass the young bucks.

 

[TNGunsmoke]

Having CWD in West TN plays into the decline in numbers in TN's registry as well. They upped those of us in CWD Zone from 2 back to 3, with lots of opportunity for bonus bucks/replacement bucks. Heck, I ended this past season with more antlered tags than I started with.

 

[redblood]

The 2 buck limit will help by saving quite a few deer and by increasing age structure by making people more selective on the which deer they kill with the tag used the most---------the 1st one!

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . to lower our limit to 2 from 3 like what was done in TN several years ago. . . . . Our biologist said that it could actually have some negative effect and actually result in bucks with smaller racks because of habitat degradation.

Something just doesn't jive with this statement.
The net result should actually be improvements in herd performance and LESS habitat degradation.
Of course, this would assume there are ample opportunities allowed to kill female deer.
If not, the attributed statement reeks of misguided "buck only" deer management.

Ongoing deer populations are almost totally controlled by the doe harvest.
The only way there could be habitat degradation would be via too many deer for the habitat.
The "professional" prescription for this is to INCREASE the DOE Harvest.

Ironically, reducing the buck limit is often a "prescription" for increasing the doe harvest.
Many areas even have "earn-a-buck" criteria FORCING the harvest of a female deer
BEFORE a single buck tag is issued to the hunter.

Most hunters today have a "practical" limit of "harvesting" somewhere between 1 and 4 deer annually. They simply do not have the time, willingness, nor the resources to "mess" with the dragging out & processing of any more deer than that in any one year.

I suspect close to half all deer hunters today are "one & done" annually,
in that once they kill "a" deer, they're done deer hunting until the next year.

At this same time, most hunters prefer to kill bucks over does, and so long as the buck limit is the same as their "practical" limit, many hunters will simply shoot a buck, any buck, every time instead of shooting a doe. This is perhaps the main reason "earn-a-buck" can so very quickly & dramatically reduce deer populations (even though fewer bucks get killed, more doe get killed).

IMO, the ONLY way in which there should be concern of habitat degradation (after reducing a buck limit from 3 to 2) would be more due to biologically UN-SOUND deer management under which there simply is not enough doe-harvest opportunities for the hunters.

Just make me a tad worried that a mistake has been made not listening to our professional biologist.

The attributed statement makes me a tad worried more about your biologist misguiding you.

Assuming reasonably ok deer management, going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit should not make any huge difference. It's just that those differences should be in the opposite direction from what you were told. The long-term TRENDING of this rather small "carburetor" adjustment are likely to make a noteworthy difference for the better (in terms of herd health) over time, like several years from now.

 

[deerhunter10]

Haven't seen any difference (not a biologists but hunt and out there a ton) we have been trophy hunters for many years early 2000s. Hasn't changed anything from us. Only thing that sucks for me i love to hunt many time in the last several years I wish I had another tag in my pocket. Tagging out early. I would like for tennessee to maybe adopt a management tag. Go get the deer aged and if he is over 6.5 and older it doesn't go against your 2 state wide. We have had a few not a ton but a few that we would love to kill but arent using a tag on a 100 inch deer when we are hunting 140s and 50s. Kind of an extra buck tag. Don't expect it but just an idea. I want another tag lol. We have never registered a deer in tn. So not a good thing to look at imo. In the long run it may save a few young bucks lives but by and large those people that are shooting them are going to continue. Probably the only deer that I don't see as much here and on Facebook are those "management " deer that term people use just to pull the trigger maybe I haven't notice it but it doesn't seem that I've seen as many. But that's not many deer at all honestly.

 

[knightrider]

Haven't seen any difference (not a biologists but hunt and out there a ton) we have been trophy hunters for many years early 2000s. Hasn't changed anything from us. Only thing that sucks for me i love to hunt many time in the last several years I wish I had another tag in my pocket. Tagging out early. I would like for tennessee to maybe adopt a management tag. Go get the deer aged and if he is over 6.5 and older it doesn't go against your 2 state wide. We have had a few not a ton but a few that we would love to kill but arent using a tag on a 100 inch deer when we are hunting 140s and 50s. Kind of an extra buck tag. Don't expect it but just an idea. I want another tag lol. We have never registered a deer in tn. So not a good thing to look at imo. In the long run it may save a few young bucks lives but by and large those people that are shooting them are going to continue. Probably the only deer that I don't see as much here and on Facebook are those "management " deer that term people use just to pull the trigger maybe I haven't notice it but it doesn't seem that I've seen as many. But that's not many deer at all honestly.

You already have two management tags!

 

[deerhunter10]

You already have two management tags!

No I have 2 buck tags.