Antler restriction

[Artemas]

Obviously unit L has a lot of deer and of those I'm guessing more does than bucks. Do you think putting an antler restriction on unit L would result in more does being taken or do you think people will still pass on does in search of big bucks. Within my 2 leases I hear people talk about how many does they see yet don't shoot but then at the end of season they start talking about how their freezer isn't full... Got me thinking.

 

[Artemas]

Curious also as to why antler restrictions were put into place at some wma's like Anderson Tully

 

[7wsm]

antler restriction will only result in deer being left in the woods because he was to small imo and yes you will still have people that will not shoot does . i know several people that refuses to shoot does one of them has not killed a doe in 14 years i hunt in unit L and depends on where yor at as to how many does are in one area so my vote is no it would not increase the doe harvest here ,

 

[bowriter]

Antler restrictions very seldom do much of anything in terms of achieving any goal. They can work on private property where a serious monetary fine is imposed but in term of a state regulation, about all they do increase game left in the field.

 

[Artemas]

Yea I knew Tully was unit A. I use to hunt there before the restriction. Didn't know what the purpose for the restriction was. I personally don't care what one shoots or doesn't shoot. To each his own. I guess the only if a doe harvest needed to be done to decrease numbers the only way to help that would be to require a doe rage be filled before a buck tag. Like I said just wondering how you could solve that problem if the problem really did exist

 

[BSK]

Obviously unit L has a lot of deer and of those I'm guessing more does than bucks. Do you think putting an antler restriction on unit L would result in more does being taken or do you think people will still pass on does in search of big bucks. Within my 2 leases I hear people talk about how many does they see yet don't shoot but then at the end of season they start talking about how their freezer isn't full... Got me thinking.

I believe it would be incorrect to assume that all parts of Unit L are over-run with does. Hunters have been doing a good job killing does in most Unit L areas for a number of years. Although buck harvests still outnumber doe kills by a small margin, most of Unit L sees a near 50-50 antlered buck vs doe harvest.


Although I haven't updated my data in a couple of years, here is an analysis of the percent of the total deer harvest that was female from 2007 to 2009. Notice how high that percentage was in the Unit L area during those three years. Most of it ran 40-45% or more, with some counties exceeding 50% females in the harvest. This a perfectly acceptable and healthy doe harvest, which WILL produce a balanced sex ratio fairly quickly.

 

[BSK]

I guess the only if a doe harvest needed to be done to decrease numbers the only way to help that would be to require a doe rage be filled before a buck tag. Like I said just wondering how you could solve that problem if the problem really did exist

And that's the real question isn't it? Does the problem really exist? In localized areas, probably. Over much of Unit L, no.

I have watched several locations practice "Earn-A-Buck," where a doe must be killed before a hunter is issued a buck tag. In some ultra-high-density deer population areas, it has worked fairly well over the short-term. But I would not recommend that policy over the long-term. I've seen it knock a deer herd down fast in some situations.

 

[BSK]

Artemas,

Obviously, the purpose of antler restrictions is to restrict the harvest of young bucks. In a few areas, especially in the northern states that have incredibly high hunter densities, antler restrictions may be the best way to allow enough bucks to make it into the older age-classes. However, most of the Southeast doesn't have that problem, and over time, hunters have been learning to practice restraint in their buck harvests. All of the Southeastern states are displaying improved buck age structures over time, without the need for highly restrictive buck harvest rules.

 

[Mike Belt]

My beliefs are probably contrary to the majoritys' but I like restrictions. My hunt goals remain the same whether I hunt property with or without restrictions. I like the antler restrictions as long as they're realistic to the property because they offer the buck segment of the herd an opportunity to express some or most of their potential before they can be killed. I also like the idea of an earn a buck in areas where doe numbers have to be kept in check. Kill your first buck but your second can only be taken after you have checked in a doe.
I realize this opens the door for dishonesty but if you're that type of person you probably are with no regulations as well.

 

[Artemas]

Awesome info bsk! Just what I was looking for

 

[Bone Collector]

Curious also as to why antler restrictions were put into place at some wma's like Anderson Tully

In all seriousness, though, Anderson Tully is not a Unit L county. It is Unit A. That and PI are the only 2 TN WMAs I can think of with antler restrictions in place.

No there are a few. Laurel Hill has a 5 on one side or 15" outside spread I think.

 

[Mike Belt]

Which is harder to determine on a moving buck....B & C score or how many total points he has or has on one side? If you're going to have antler restrictions I much prefer antler score. At least I can see an advantage to that. I don't see where how many points a buck has on a particular side has any advantage in any way.

 

[feathersandfur2214]

Originally Posted By: Poser
Originally Posted By: Artemas
Curious also as to why antler restrictions were put into place at some wma's like Anderson Tully


In all seriousness, though, Anderson Tully is not a Unit L county. It is Unit A. That and PI are the only 2 TN WMAs I can think of with antler restrictions in place.


No there are a few. Laurel Hill has a 5 on one side or 15" outside spread I think.
_________________________
You can also add Bridgestone/Firestone and Catoosa . Both have a 4 on one side antler restriction I believe.

 

[deerhunter10]

I would love to see antler restrictions! For west and middle tn i know east tn has some tough hunting so maybe not there.

 

[BigSatt]

Shoot any buck you want to put on the wall, but if you kill a buck you have to pay to shoulder mount it....nobody has to let a trophy to them walk away.

I like this concept.

 

[tn droptine]

Shoot any buck you want to put on the wall, but if you kill a buck you have to pay to shoulder mount it....nobody has to let a trophy to them walk away.

I like this concept.

Sounds like a great way to prevent the lower class from shooting our bucks....

In all seriousness, I would never hope for a restriction like this - as long as a person is happy with a deer they shoot, then its not my place to judge them. Would I like to see more bucks make it to maturity, sure - but that is why I choose to pass up on deer that I do not feel the desire to shoot. But if my son (or wife, she still needs her first deer) are along for the hunt and a yearling buck steps out, then I am going to be happy for them if they decide to pull the trigger.

 

[deerhunter10]

The lower class??? That's a big stereo type and i would love to see antler restrictions.

 

[tn droptine]

I am opposed to any form of antler restrictions - yeah, it may work on PI or other areas where a hunt is more controlled and a management plan is in place, but the problem that I see with it is you will have hunters quick to pull the trigger on the first "legal" buck that they see. To me this means the youngest deer with the best potential for future growth would be the "easiest" bucks to kill.


What about having a mandatory class you have to get certified on judging a bucks age on the hoof, and making it so you have to shoot bucks 3.5 years or older? We could make it so you have to carry that card like you do with your hunter safety course, lol.

 

[tn droptine]

The lower class??? That's a big stereo type and i would love to see antler restrictions.

I made that comment in regards to what was said about requiring people to pay to mount every buck they shot - how many people could actually afford to do that?

 

[deerhunter10]

Oh ok my bad miss understood you. I'm not for mounting every buck but i would very much like to see some type of restrictions.

 

[KPH]

I like things the way they are leave well enough alone.

 

[tnbowhunter3]

I would like to see an antler restriction but let try it in one or two counties and see how things work out. Let the hunters of the county vote on it. TWRA can make a list of counties that this could b done and not hurt the overall herd...just a thought.

 

[tickweed]

Curious also as to why antler restrictions were put into place at some wma's like Anderson Tully

In all seriousness, though, Anderson Tully is not a Unit L county. It is Unit A. That and PI are the only 2 TN WMAs I can think of with antler restrictions in place.

how about Moss island and Earnest Rice, do they have restrictions?

 

[redblood]

Curious also as to why antler restrictions were put into place at some wma's like Anderson Tully

In all seriousness, though, Anderson Tully is not a Unit L county. It is Unit A. That and PI are the only 2 TN WMAs I can think of with antler restrictions in place.

laurel hill i believe

 

[Artemas]

This went in the opposite direction I was inquiring about. I was merely asking what thoughts were if you hypothetically had to many does and management needed to be done to equal things out. Would putting an antler restriction sway some to shoot more does because the chances of meeting such restriction would make it harder to fill the freezer or would another action work better. I think the best answer I've seen so far is earn a buck or filling a doe tag before a buck tag.

 

[knightrider]

I am opposed to any form of antler restrictions - yeah, it may work on PI or other areas where a hunt is more controlled and a management plan is in place, but the problem that I see with it is you will have hunters quick to pull the trigger on the first "legal" buck that they see. To me this means the youngest deer with the best potential for future growth would be the "easiest" bucks to kill.


What about having a mandatory class you have to get certified on judging a bucks age on the hoof, and making it so you have to shoot bucks 3.5 years or older? We could make it so you have to carry that card like you do with your hunter safety course, lol.

the only person on here to understand what antler restriction is congrats, you will kill all the good deer way young and have a bunch of older class less quality bucks because the young good deer got killed.

 

[Mike Belt]

Placing an antler restriction on "legal" bucks is a dicey move. First of all every hunter has to buy into it. As mentioned, there could possibly be high grading. On the other hand, once restrictions were in place people might be surprised at how they jump on board and actively participate in passing up the younger borderline "legal" bucks once they see what can happen when some of the older bucks are able to express more of their potential. I'm not saying that age always equates to more impressive antler growth but it definately is a factor.

Another consideration might be would hunters continue hunting if they weren't allowed to shoot any buck that came by them. If placing antler restrictions was done to force hunters to shoot does and enough hunters didn't hunt because of it the end result might be that there still weren't enough does (and bucks) taken thus defeating the purpose of restrictions to begin with.

Also, and previously mentioned as well, restrictions on bucks would probably lead to quite a few bucks left lying in the field.

I'd venture to guess that most hunters probably have limited hunting time or interest in hunting and buck size restrictions (as much as I do like them) would drive them away from the woods. In areas that do need a push towards removing more does and it was decided that buck restrictions were the way to go to achieve that I favor the earn a second buck idea. Shoot your first buck (any buck you choose-no size restriction) but you must take a doe before you can take your second buck. This might also contribute to some bucks left lying but not like size restrictions would. I can see mistakes in judging size but not in knowing on the front end you weren't allowed that second buck until you had killed a doe first.

 

[BSK]

This went in the opposite direction I was inquiring about. I was merely asking what thoughts were if you hypothetically had to many does and management needed to be done to equal things out. Would putting an antler restriction sway some to shoot more does because the chances of meeting such restriction would make it harder to fill the freezer or would another action work better. I think the best answer I've seen so far is earn a buck or filling a doe tag before a buck tag.

Having watched many clubs and states try different regulations, if you really do have too many does, Earn-A-Buck appears to be the fastest way to knock that doe population down.

 

[BSK]

I'm opposed to antler restrictions unless they are absolutely biologically necessary. I prefer to see education and allowing hunters to voluntarily impose age restrictions on their buck harvests. This is working across the country (and across TN), albeit more slowly than some hunters would like to see, and not as well in some counties as in others.

 

[cfmartin1833]

For those areas in unit L that do have a surplus of does, the doe harvest in very high. This indicates that hunters are doing a good job Ito keep the does in check in those areas. We have enough regulation as it is folks. We have a pretty good deer herd here in Tennessee and until we see that our deer herd is declining, no more regulation is needed. Lets just be glad are still able to own guns and hunt! Everyone has a different idea of a trophy and so far in most areas, those differences in opinion aren't harming the dynamics of Tennessees deer herd.