A proposal to go back to 3 bucks

[Deerbuster1996]

I would like for anyone saying "the two buck limit did nothing" to offer an explanation as to why the number of hunters killing 1 buck jumped by 10,000 from the previous seasons average, and how that has ANYTHING to do with dropping the limit.

It did nothing, you can't say it did anything in 1 year. Idk why you get on show graphs, make tables, etc. when it's only year 1, the rise and fall in numbers happen every year. So every graph you made or found comparing this season to last season doesn't show any data to support or reject the that the 2-buck limit did anything. They made it a 5 season study not a 1 season study.

 

[Vermin93]

Biologically speaking, a buck is a buck. The data indicates that around 5000 fewer bucks were shot this year compared to last year. More importantly, the data indicates that around 7600 fewer antlerless bucks were shot this year than last year. It's seems logical to assume that most of those antlerless bucks are yearlings. So, we can make a logical assumption that a lot fewer yearlings were shot this year than last year.

False.

the data breaks out button bucks (Yearlings). Best I can tell Antlerless bucks are bucks that are broke off and therefore don't count as bucks, but we can't logicaly make the assumption that most antlerless deer are yearlings.

You've try to state more than once that Antlerless deer are relevant, but like the others, i disagree with that. If I see a deer with antlers, I have to decide do I want to burn a buck tag or not. If I see an antlerless deer I don;t have to worry about buck tags. All I have to decide is do I want to put meat in the freezer. If it turns out to be a buck with broken antlers, and I am upset, then so be it, but I don't lose my tag and it never factors into the equation of whether or not to shoot.

That is a very flawed assumption that most antlerless bucks are bucks that are broke off. I believe TheLBLman has it right in his post above. Your classification of button bucks as yearlings is concerning.

darn2ten corroborated my view in the other thread. Unless you are measuring the antlers on small-antlered bucks (which are mostly yearlings) before you shoot them, there are many instances where hunters simply do not know if the buck has an antler 3" or longer, and therefore they do not know if they will burn a buck tag or not by shooting that small-antlered buck. Even if you are hunting with the best scope on the planet, you cannot reliably tell if an antler is 2 3/4" or 3" at any appreciable distance. In my opinion, it is very reasonable to assume this dilemma affects the mindset of some hunters now that they only have 2 bucks tags to burn instead of 3. Of course this assumes the hunter is ethical and hunting legally and that they would actually check in a small buck with a 3" antler as a buck and not an antlerless buck.

Again, I would like to read your plausible explanation for the 71% drop in antlerless buck harvest since it seems that you also believe it was not associated with the 2 buck limit. As someone who works with data, certainly you agree that a 71% drop in this case is statistically significant. So, in your opinion, possible causes are?

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . you can't say it did anything in 1 year.

And by that same token, you also can't say it did nothing in 1 year. :)

As someone who works with data, certainly you agree that a 71% drop in this case is statistically significant. So, in your opinion, possible causes are?

That's a very good question.
As someone who works with much data myself, I would first seek correlating what else (or if anything else) significantly changed. But the bottom line remains, more than 1 year's data is needed to rule out "happenstance". In the meantime, it's just the best theory (other than happenstance) that the change in the buck limit directly correlated to that 71% drop. I can see the logic in theorizing that correlation (as no other factor seems as significant, other than happenstance).

 

[Deerbuster1996]

. . . . you can't say it did anything in 1 year.

And by that same token, you also can't say it did nothing in 1 year. :)

Yep but, im not making 20 post a day arguing which one is right.(not say you are just some on here). They have already made the change to the 2-buck limit. So just gotta live with it. I don't think it will work but, I hope I'm wrong and it puts a 130+ inch buck on the land I hunt almost every year.

 

[blueball]

To set the record straight, I don't have a problem with a 2 buck limit or even a 1 buck limit, if either was needed to benefit our deer hunting here in TN. I didn't say to benefit trophy hunting, although I guess you could classify me as a trophy hunter as I don't shoot young bucks on purpose. I love big racks and pursue them myself, yet I'm honest and know the limit doesn't make me successful, hard work and smart hunting does! My whole point here is to silence all the total BS many have posted here the last several months about all the 2 buck limit was going to accomplish Immediately. Many even made ludicrous posts about how it was already helping LOL. Like one poster already was big enough to admit, they were WRONG. Lowering the antlered buck limit, then seeing antlered buck harvest actually go UP, then jumping on the fact that the antlerLESS buck harvest dropped, and crediting the Antlered reduction for it!!BWAAAAAAAA Come on guys, how many here are Attorneys or Politicians???
Its all about hunter mindset, and when hunters can kill multiple bucks whether it be 2 or even 4 they don't worry what the first one is if they want to kill it, NO risk as they still have a buck tag. Only way to achieve any real gains in this department would be to go to a 1 buck limit! TRUTH IS! Come on guys just look at the facts!

It is simple scott

we can 100% thank the commercialization of hunting on tv. Folk are obsessed with antlers and if they get the mindset this will help they are sold, weather it is code blue doe piss or a 2 buck limit in tn.

tn had a 2 buck limit with only 3% third bucks killed
hunting is about having fun ask your dads or grandads they didnt give a crap about what a rack scored it was a good one or a lil one either way they were happy

every one wants to turn tn into ohio or iowa
the best thing to ever happen to this state was the increase doe harvest that is why folks are killing bigger bucks

dont want to turn tn into ohio or iowa,just want to kill some big deer in tn cause i dont have the money to go to another state deer hunting.So far i have killed some great bucks in the last 6yrs and have had a blast doing it.I hunt every day i can fro the start of bow till the end of gun when im not working or fishing,i put my time in forsure.Usually if i havent shot a big buck by christmas i shoot a couple does and some years i do it with my bow late season just to make it interesting haha :party:

 

[Jon54]

Why not go to 5? Even better, let's have a limit like does, 3/day and the first to 100 gets to be the TWRA potentate for a year.

In reality, sing the Beatles song "Let it be"!

 

[CDUB]

Here's another twist to think about. After I limited on nov 24, I began taking the step kids every time they wanted to go. One killed a 2.5 yr old 8pt and the other limited on 2 yearling bucks. This actually increased the usual number of small bucks taken on my hunting properties. Lol. But the kids had a great season.

 

[TNDeerGuy]

We can just go to our legislators and get the limit changed back how we want through Private Act and just be done with these political hacks on the Commission, that should be removed and replaced with a more fair and balanced method of management anyway while we're talking to our legislators and end this corrupt cycle of usurpations while we're at it? .....and no, I'm not kidding either!

 

[TheLBLman]

We can just go to our legislators and get the limit changed back how we want through Private Act and just be done with these political hacks on the Commission, that should be removed and replaced with a more fair and balanced method of management anyway while we're talking to our legislators and end this corrupt cycle of usurpations while we're at it? .....and no, I'm not kidding either!

Never mind that your suggestions are far more "political" (and possibly corrupt) than anything ever seen per the Commission?

It's easy to criticize anything and everything we don't "like", and demonize people we know little about.
Most of those commissioners are very dedicated sportsmen, avid hunters & fishermen, just like most of those who criticize their motives. By my observations, they are just like most of us in wanting whatever is ultimately best overall. The difference is they are donating considerable time monthly to that task, and most are on the Commission mainly because of their true interests in preserving Tennessee's hunting and fishing heritage.

I am thankful we have this very dedicated Wildlife Commission providing oversight to the TWRA instead of some "congressional" legislative body where those politicians mostly don't hunt and mostly really don't care about any of the issues we've been discussing on TNdeer.com. State politicians answer to their voting constituency, most of whom do not hunt. Their primary goal is to be re-elected. By contrast, our Wildlife Commissioners are donating their time to something they believe important.

I have posted the below or similar about three times in other places. If you truly have interest in the job performance our of Commission, simply "sit thru" a bit of this. As a member of the general public, YOU are invited and welcomed to attend these monthly Wildlife Commission meetings. They are also fully videotaped and archived, usually posted for your review within 24 hours of each meeting.

I challenge anyone who still has their panties in a wad over our buck limit, simply go review Mr. Yoest's presentation and ask yourself how you would have voted had you been one of the Commissioners.
His presentation to the Commission begins at minute 07:40 of TFWC Committee Meeting Part 2 (April 23, 2015) archived here at this link:
http://twraonline.org/TFWC/april-2015.html
By default, this Commission meeting archive will begin playing on Part 1. You will need to "click" on Part 2, run if up to minute 07:40 to just review Mr. Yoest's presentation to the Commission.

 

[TNDeerGuy]

We can just go to our legislators and get the limit changed back how we want through Private Act and just be done with these political hacks on the Commission, that should be removed and replaced with a more fair and balanced method of management anyway while we're talking to our legislators and end this corrupt cycle of usurpations while we're at it? .....and no, I'm not kidding either!

Never mind that your suggestions are far more "political" (and possibly corrupt) than anything ever seen per the Commission?

It's easy to criticize anything and everything we don't "like", and demonize people we know little about.
Most of those commissioners are very dedicated sportsmen, avid hunters & fishermen, just like most of those who criticize their motives. By my observations, they are just like most of us in wanting whatever is ultimately best overall. The difference is they are donating considerable time monthly to that task, and most are on the Commission mainly because of their true interests in preserving Tennessee's hunting and fishing heritage.

I am thankful we have this very dedicated Wildlife Commission providing oversight to the TWRA instead of some "congressional" legislative body where those politicians mostly don't hunt and mostly really don't care about any of the issues we've been discussing on TNdeer.com. State politicians answer to their voting constituency, most of whom do not hunt. Their primary goal is to be re-elected. By contrast, our Wildlife Commissioners are donating their time to something they believe important.

I have posted the below or similar about three times in other places. If you truly have interest in the job performance our of Commission, simply "sit thru" a bit of this. As a member of the general public, YOU are invited and welcomed to attend these monthly Wildlife Commission meetings. They are also fully videotaped and archived, usually posted for your review within 24 hours of each meeting.

I challenge anyone who still has their panties in a wad over our buck limit, simply go review Mr. Yoest's presentation and ask yourself how you would have voted had you been one of the Commissioners.
His presentation to the Commission begins at minute 07:40 of TFWC Committee Meeting Part 2 (April 23, 2015) archived here at this link:
http://twraonline.org/TFWC/april-2015.html
By default, this Commission meeting archive will begin playing on Part 1. You will need to "click" on Part 2, run if up to minute 07:40 to just review Mr. Yoest's presentation to the Commission.

My reasoning behind what I've said, aren't near as "political" as you imply—you just don't like strong-arming someone that uses strong-arm techniques and that is fine! If you have better ideas, we all are listening! How do you correct a corrupt entity when there is not a mechanism in place to hold them accountable? There is an absolute laundry list and history of usurpations by the TFWC against those they are supposed to serve and they have been proven to be corrupt repeatedly. Using Private Act isn't corrupt, it is a mechanism that can be used by the majority of citizens to enact legislation to overturn the corruption caused by another entity that can't be held accountable. The TFWC won't like it either, just like they didn't like it years ago when the TFWC and the coon hunters went head to head and Private Act was used to overturn the usurpation by the TFWC.

I've been to the meetings, and seen them on video and you're right, everyone is invited to attend to see what goes on, but it's plainly obvious to anyone that has the ability to read between political lines that opinions offered are pointless. What we don't see is the dealings and corruption behind closed doors—the 'Coon hunting episode years ago, the closing of Old Hickory Lock 5, the closing of, or parts of, other WMA's, this 2-buck issue and others over the years. If they have nothing to hide, then why not make all votes roll call votes so people can be tied to what they are voting on! That is why I recommend, after talking to some people that are very, very close to the core, that a mechanism of power distribution should be put in place on the Commission—1/3rd TWRA biologists, 1/3rd randomly drawn TN license holders and 1/3rd political appointees(hacks), that way every party has a voice and vote. Given the history of what has gone on, the only legislators that will be against this will be the Governor and the Speaker of the House, as they will lose their ability by 2/3rds to scratch political backs.

 

[WestTn Huntin man]

IMO the reduced buck harvest was due to weather more then a change in the Regs.

 

[Vermin93]

IMO the reduced buck harvest was due to weather more then a change in the Regs.

Help me understand how the weather would make the antlered buck harvest increase by 2.8%, the antlerless buck harvest collapse by 71%, and the button buck harvest increase by 1.5%?

9/1/2014 - 1/12/2015
Antlered bucks: 76,610
"Antlerless" bucks: 10,618
Button bucks: 8,272
Total bucks: 95,500

9/1/2015 - 1/11/016
Antlered bucks: 78,742
"Antlerless" bucks: 3,063
Button bucks: 8,393
Total bucks: 90,198

 

[Snake]

Just my $/02 . First and foremost I am not an advocate for the 2 buck limit , kinda liked what we had . We have those who jumped for joy when the change was announced some were angry but this is going to happen regardless what limit we have . We have those who say they have evidence that the change has already made a difference but when challenged they say well we need a few years data to really tell , blah , blah ,blah . Every few days we have another post revisiting this subject . We are making enemies amongst us without realizing it . We as hunters must remain united because the enemy is trying to stop hunting ... PERIOD. Let's get on with the task at hand , support each other , agree to disagree , support our gun friendly allies and love God , family & our country . Give these changes a few years and then if we don't see the numbers the change was supposed to acquire then go about changing it back with integrity ! What's done is done if we go back and forth we are just going to never understand what way is best ! Hug your child and if you don't have a child pet your dog , give the Lord thanks whatever state you be in for we have more important things to consider . Love you all in the Lord !! Have a very blessed day !!

 

[TX300mag]

IMO the reduced buck harvest was due to weather more then a change in the Regs.

I'm as surprised as anybody, especially considering all the "sky is falling" and "trending" threads about the buck population being destroyed by the 3-buck limit, not to mention the weather-the buck harvest increases!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hunter 257W]

Nobody is asking anybody to hold out for a big buck.....you can shoot the 1st two legal bucks you see.

I'd sure like a guarantee that I'd even SEE two bucks every year. :) The fact that most years I don't and this is in Unit L is why I leaned towards the 2 buck limit. I'm not asking for huge old bucks....just living bucks of any age. :shock:

Not trying to direct this just to you but the 2 buck supporters answer to the 3 buck supporters still wanting to take a 3rd buck is to hunt places to get your bonus buck so we could kill 3. Well to flip the coin instead of the 3 buck supporters loosing their third buck why shouldn't the 2 buck supporters just hunt places where they can kill bigger bucks? Just because your hunting spot doesn't have bucks running everywhere doesn't mean the whole state is that way.

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

Not taking it personal. I'm not one who has ever told East TN hunters to travel all over to get better deer hunting opportunities. I'm not willing to do that myself, so will not suggest somebody else do it. I have spent a considerable amount of money and effort on my land and will hunt what it yields for better or worse. I don't hunt anywhere else at all. In light of this, any "vote" I put for changes to TN deer hunting regulations are obviously going to be based on my own local experience.

 

[Headhunter]

We can just go to our legislators and get the limit changed back how we want through Private Act and just be done with these political hacks on the Commission, that should be removed and replaced with a more fair and balanced method of management anyway while we're talking to our legislators and end this corrupt cycle of usurpations while we're at it? .....and no, I'm not kidding either!

very sad post here. I do not want the legislature touching anything in anyway to do with hunting or fishing.

 

[tn24]

I see the antler less buck kill on the wma's are way down. Do you think there could have been a lot less younger bucks this year?I thought most wma's were bonus bucks.

 

[WG Taxidermist]

We can just go to our legislators and get the limit changed back how we want through Private Act and just be done with these political hacks on the Commission, that should be removed and replaced with a more fair and balanced method of management anyway while we're talking to our legislators and end this corrupt cycle of usurpations while we're at it? .....and no, I'm not kidding either!

very sad post here. I do not want the legislature touching anything in anyway to do with hunting or fishing.

I can see this happening very soon. To many pissed off people.

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

 

[WG Taxidermist]

Nobody is asking anybody to hold out for a big buck.....you can shoot the 1st two legal bucks you see.

I'd sure like a guarantee that I'd even SEE two bucks every year. :) The fact that most years I don't and this is in Unit L is why I leaned towards the 2 buck limit. I'm not asking for huge old bucks....just living bucks of any age. :shock:

Not trying to direct this just to you but the 2 buck supporters answer to the 3 buck supporters still wanting to take a 3rd buck is to hunt places to get your bonus buck so we could kill 3. Well to flip the coin instead of the 3 buck supporters loosing their third buck why shouldn't the 2 buck supporters just hunt places where they can kill bigger bucks? Just because your hunting spot doesn't have bucks running everywhere doesn't mean the whole state is that way.

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

Not taking it personal. I'm not one who has ever told East TN hunters to travel all over to get better deer hunting opportunities. I'm not willing to do that myself, so will not suggest somebody else do it. I have spent a considerable amount of money and effort on my land and will hunt what it yields for better or worse. I don't hunt anywhere else at all. In light of this, any "vote" I put for changes to TN deer hunting regulations are obviously going to be based on my own local experience.

I agree!

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

 

[TheLBLman]

Some of you seem to really seem to believe a politician like Othelia Ford would make better wildlife/hunting reg decisions than a seasoned outdoorsman such as Bill Cox?

Be careful what you wish for.
Most politicians don't hunt, most of their voting constituency doesn't hunt, and most really don't care much about either mine or your preferences. From my observations, the more power granted politicians (regarding hunting), the less hunting there will be.

In fact, politicians seem to be embracing the latest "solution" mantra of using tax-payer money to pay government-employed "sharpshooters" in controlling deer herds, rather than just allowing more hunting. And they're doing this in large part because that's what many people in their constituency are telling them they prefer over "sport" hunting by "outdoorsmen" like YOU and me, as a means of keeping the deer herds in check.

 

[Bone Collector]

. . . . . the loss of a buck tag never played a part in whether I pulled the trigger or not.

Hey, I don't doubt you for a second that it made no difference for YOU. :)
But also I don't doubt for a second that it did make a difference for some hunters, mainly in that some (if not many) were more cautious in carefully observing those deer's heads before deciding on their trigger pulls, and that extra caution may have resulted in fewer being killed than would have been otherwise.

Oh it makes a difference for ME... I was just speaking figuratively and debunking the theory that the buck limit reduction somehow played a part in the # of antlerless deer taken this year, because it didn't....

 

[WG Taxidermist]

Some of you seem to really seem to believe a politician like Othelia Ford would make better wildlife/hunting reg decisions than a seasoned outdoorsman such as Bill Cox?

Be careful what you wish for.
Most politicians don't hunt, most of their voting constituency doesn't hunt, and most really don't care much about either mine or your preferences.

They probably would if decisions are solely being based on growing big antlers.

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

 

[Plain Old Dave]

IMO the reduced buck harvest was due to weather more then a change in the Regs.

THIS.

Couple a poor acorn crop with the bizarre November/December weather and there's your answer. East TN deer won't move to any degree in this time of the year if the ambient temperature's much above about 55 or so, and couple that with rapidly changing wind directions. The Christmas Week Monsoon didn't exactly help, either.

Lunar cycle's another issue, too. They were moving all night because of the clear nights, and bedding during the day.

 

[Mike Belt]

I propose that when making a post that you express it as "in my opinion" rather than stating something as fact because that's the way you feel about it or because that's the way things are in your immediate hunting area. Tn's a big, diverse state.

 

[muddyboots]

I don't know about the rest of the state but on my 2 leases in my small part of the world it made a big difference. Win in my book. JMO for Mike.

 

[Mike Belt]

lol

 

[Bone Collector]

Biologically speaking, a buck is a buck. The data indicates that around 5000 fewer bucks were shot this year compared to last year. More importantly, the data indicates that around 7600 fewer antlerless bucks were shot this year than last year. It's seems logical to assume that most of those antlerless bucks are yearlings. So, we can make a logical assumption that a lot fewer yearlings were shot this year than last year.

False.

the data breaks out button bucks (Yearlings). Best I can tell Antlerless bucks are bucks that are broke off and therefore don't count as bucks, but we can't logicaly make the assumption that most antlerless deer are yearlings.
You've try to state more than once that Antlerless deer are relevant, but like the others, i disagree with that. If I see a deer with antlers, I have to decide do I want to burn a buck tag or not. If I see an antlerless deer I don;t have to worry about buck tags. All I have to decide is do I want to put meat in the freezer. If it turns out to be a buck with broken antlers, and I am upset, then so be it, but I don't lose my tag and it never factors into the equation of whether or not to shoot.

That is a very flawed assumption that most antlerless bucks are bucks that are broke off. I believe TheLBLman has it right in his post above. Your classification of button bucks as yearlings is concerning.
darn2ten corroborated my view in the other thread. Unless you are measuring the antlers on small-antlered bucks (which are mostly yearlings) before you shoot them, there are many instances where hunters simply do not know if the buck has an antler 3" or longer, and therefore they do not know if they will burn a buck tag or not by shooting that small-antlered buck. Even if you are hunting with the best scope on the planet, you cannot reliably tell if an antler is 2 3/4" or 3" at any appreciable distance. In my opinion, it is very reasonable to assume this dilemma affects the mindset of some hunters now that they only have 2 bucks tags to burn instead of 3. Of course this assumes the hunter is ethical and hunting legally and that they would actually check in a small buck with a 3" antler as a buck and not an antlerless buck.
Again, I would like to read your plausible explanation for the 71% drop in antlerless buck harvest since it seems that you also believe it was not associated with the 2 buck limit. As someone who works with data, certainly you agree that a 71% drop in this case is statistically significant. So, in your opinion, possible causes are?

Clearly you misread my response post to LBLMan, because the first sentence says

OK fine we can assume they are yearlings

That being said, I am normally extremely literal. As such, regardless of what the industry standard says, when you say "yearling" to me that is a deer in its first year of life, thus a button buck would be a yearling. When you say Fawn, I think deer with spots still dependent on its mother. I also would NOT consider a 1.5 year old buck a yearling as it is older than 1 years old. I just consider them a young buck.

like wise when they use the term antlerless buck I envision a deer who's horns have been knocked off completely or broken and thus there is no way to know sex or at least it could be a case of mistaken identity.

Now that I have read your post that I have quoted here and am responding to, I admit that I never really thought of the fact that others may see a buck and shoot it with 2" antlers and then luck up and not have to burn a tag, because I won't shoot a spike with 2" antlers or any deer with 2-23/4" antlers, because I could probably see those. This would be true regardless of how many tags I had. with that in mind I now see what you are saying about the antlerless kill rate as it is down 71% YoY. Of course you have to assume that people could see the antlers last year, knew it was a buck and still shot it knowing they had an extra tag, then lucked up and didn't have to burn a tag. I would say that is a fair assumption being the rate is down 71%. Also telling (Now that i have 2014 data. I didn't yesterday) is when you add the antlered and antlerless deer together we are actually down 5,411 or a 6.2% decrease, which you stated above.

The only other plausible explanation I can come up with is doe harvests are up 7,595 vs. last year or 10.9%. Maybe they just didn't need to shoot a small buck for meat. I know I saw more deer this year than any other since I started keeping track and it was an increase in does that got me to my total #. Bucks sightings for me were flat YoY. I can also tell you based on either the age data put forth by the TWRA or using the method of counting every spike, 3-4, and 5-6 pt buck as a "1.5 yr old" the percentage of buck kills that those deer make up is pretty flat YoY and still around 37-40%% of buck kills depending on which method you use. I know there are big 6 pts in those #'s but those are pretty rare, so not enough to skew debunk the theory that most are 1.5 yr old bucks IMO.

 

[deerhunter10]

I never thought in a million years I would see the uproar that a two buck limit has brought. Does that one deer make it break you season? Or are you just pissed off because something was taken away that you thought was yours forever? Imo if Twra thought it was a good idea to drop the limit its probably to help hunters 50 years from now you gotta think long term at some point. I know I want my kids and grandkids to have the opportunities that I have had and I don't personally see a reason to be so butt hurt over something. Now I do see the point of east Tennessee guys but maybe this is exactly what yals herd needs so that maybe in 10 years you can have an open for season all season long or not go a month without seeing a deer. Like I said I'm not for it or against it I am glad it changed but look at the big picture. It's hard to get a good view of it after just one season. Give it at least three to five then you can start crying again.

 

[deerkiller300wsm]

Im going to start a new thread...."A proposal to go to a 1 buck limit"

 

[Hunter 257W]

Im going to start a new thread...."A proposal to go to a 1 buck limit"

That should get some "spirited" responses. :tu: :tu: :tu: