Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New Trophy's
New trophy room comments
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Classifieds
Trophy Room
New items
New comments
Latest content
Latest updates
Latest reviews
Author list
Series list
Search showcase
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Deer Hunting Forum
2 buck limit question from WV
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TheLBLman" data-source="post: 5618526" data-attributes="member: 1409"><p>Something just doesn't jive with this statement.</p><p>The <u>net result should actually be</u> improvements in herd performance and <em><u>LESS</u></em><u> habitat degradation</u>.</p><p>Of course, this would assume there are ample opportunities allowed to kill female deer.</p><p>If not, the attributed statement reeks of misguided "buck only" deer management.</p><p></p><p>Ongoing deer populations are almost totally controlled by the doe harvest.</p><p>The only way there could be habitat degradation would be via too many deer for the habitat.</p><p>The "professional" prescription for this is to <em>INCREASE the DOE Harvest.</em></p><p></p><p>Ironically, reducing the buck limit is often a "prescription" for increasing the doe harvest.</p><p>Many areas even have "earn-a-buck" criteria <em>FORCING</em> the harvest of a female deer</p><p><em>BEFORE</em> a single buck tag is issued to the hunter.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I suspect close to half all deer hunters today are "one & done" annually,</p><p>in that once they kill "a" deer, they're done deer hunting until the next year.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>IMO, the <em>ONLY</em> 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 <em>UN-SOUND</em> deer management under which there simply is not enough doe-harvest opportunities for the hunters.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The attributed statement makes me a tad worried more about your biologist misguiding you.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>TRENDING </em>of this rather small "carburetor" adjustment are likely to make a <u>noteworthy difference</u> for the better (in terms of herd health) <u>over time</u>, like <u>several years from now</u>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TheLBLman, post: 5618526, member: 1409"] Something just doesn't jive with this statement. The [U]net result should actually be[/U] improvements in herd performance and [I][U]LESS[/U][/I][U] habitat degradation[/U]. 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 [I]INCREASE the DOE Harvest.[/I] Ironically, reducing the buck limit is often a "prescription" for increasing the doe harvest. Many areas even have "earn-a-buck" criteria [I]FORCING[/I] the harvest of a female deer [I]BEFORE[/I] 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 [I]ONLY[/I] 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 [I]UN-SOUND[/I] deer management under which there simply is not enough doe-harvest opportunities for the hunters. 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 [I]TRENDING [/I]of this rather small "carburetor" adjustment are likely to make a [U]noteworthy difference[/U] for the better (in terms of herd health) [U]over time[/U], like [U]several years from now[/U]. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Deer Hunting Forum
2 buck limit question from WV
Top