buck limits
- Thread starter deadeye 77
- Start date
Vermin93
Well-Known Member
I think Wes' analysis makes pretty good sense.
landman
Well-Known Member
And if you Really Look at TN REG's
There are MANY BONUS BUCK TAGS
You could kill 4
Or if it was 2 buck limit you still could kill 3
TWRA stated in 2012 53% DIDN"T KILL A BUCK....
I actually tired to kill a 3rd one this year
Buck that I found on a landowners tract that I have for sell
last 10 days of the season 160" deer.....
didn't happened, but if the limit had been 2 if would have been
fine too, was 2013 Was a Great Year anyway
There are MANY BONUS BUCK TAGS
You could kill 4
Or if it was 2 buck limit you still could kill 3
TWRA stated in 2012 53% DIDN"T KILL A BUCK....
I actually tired to kill a 3rd one this year
Buck that I found on a landowners tract that I have for sell
last 10 days of the season 160" deer.....
didn't happened, but if the limit had been 2 if would have been
fine too, was 2013 Was a Great Year anyway
tasaman
Well-Known Member
ONE BUCK!
diamond hunter
Well-Known Member
one buck statewide,2 does a day
One buck every other year 
BSK
Well-Known Member
Wes Parrish said:
I agree with this Wes. I fully believe that the majority of bucks killed in TN each year are killed by the same minority of hunters year after year--basically, the highly motivated, "serious" deer hunters (which are probably only 30-odd percent of all TN deer hunters). A 2 buck limit primarily effects this group, and MIGHT impose more self-regulation on what they shoot (i.e. influence them to shoot less middle-aged bucks).
My major concern is simply "Would this produce a noticeable, biological effect?" In my opinion, it would not. I'm a big proponent of allowing the maximum hunting/harvest opportunity that does no harm to the resource. In my opinion, currently, the 3 buck limit is not harming the resource. However, that doesn't mean a 2 buck limit wouldn't help the resource. It certainly might. I just don't think it would produce a noticeable enough difference to offset the loss of hunter opportunity.
But again, that's just my opinion...
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
I would like to see it dropped to two but I doesn't matter to me that much
I do not deer hunt in TN....but the only way I can figure someone would think that reducing the buck limit would not help the quality of bucks, that person must believe that TN is incapable of producing big bucks...
stik
Well-Known Member
Roost 1 said:
tennessee is already producing good bucks without further restrictions on the hunters
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
stik said:
Very true the question is could it get better? And do the hunters want it better? Or would it really matter that much dropping it down to two rather then three? I know my opinion on it but I'm a trophy hunter and my opinions are generally not what the normal hunter wants. Just playing a little devils advocate.
stik
Well-Known Member
deerhunter10 said:
i don't believe it would make a noticeable difference.
I really don't have a problem with the 3 buck limit. I didn't like it much to start with though. I do see better bucks every year because the limit was cut back. I used to see a good buck(3 year old or better)about once every other season. Not too good. But, its good now. I don't have any complaints.
Brisco Darlin
Well-Known Member
good night talk about beating a dead horse
Nealmeally
Well-Known Member
Brisco Darlin said:good night talk about beating a dead horse
Ain't much left to beat...
3++++
BSK
Well-Known Member
Roost 1 said:
Not really. But when you do know what TN produces, and how many mature bucks are already out there in the woods, and how few bucks would be saved by a 2 buck limit, one could easily believe that the quality of bucks would not be NOTICABLY improved.
BSK
Well-Known Member
deerhunter10 said:
Playing Devil's Advocate is a good thing deerhunter10. And you absolutely hit on the key questions: 1) Could it get better?; 2) How much better?; and 3) What are hunters willing to give up to get that level of better? In essence, would the improvements be worth what the hunters would have to give up?
I would love to know the answers to all those questions.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Guess we should just go to a 2-buck limit, then you'll have our answers.BSK said:
If I remember correctly, seems we were told that reducing the 11-buck limit really wouldn't make much difference, and after all, it was not "harming" the resource?BSK said:
Not many hunters actually killed 11 bucks in a year, so the "do not harm" logic could be applied to justify increasing the buck limit back to eleven, since it would "do no harm" to the herd?
Depends on to whom you speak, depends on how you define "harm".
Kentucky's 1-buck limit is benefiting their resource (according to them, and many hunters), and they believe increasing it to a 2-buck limit would cause harm.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Wes Parrish said:Guess we should just go to a 2-buck limit, then you'll have our answers.BSK said:
If I remember correctly, seems we were told that reducing the 11-buck limit really wouldn't make much difference?
And from a harvest standpoint, it didn't. None at all. It produced no immediate, direct benefit to hunters.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Rome wasn't built in a day.
I'm sure if KY raised their 1-buck limit to 11, the detriments to the resource would be hardly noticeable, immediately. Very, a few years down the road.
How many "older" or "nice" bucks did the average TN hunter see back in the mid-1990's (when we had an 11-buck limit) compared to now?
Yes, BSK, there are many other factors, but the major buck limit reduction was the horse pulling the cart.
I'm sure if KY raised their 1-buck limit to 11, the detriments to the resource would be hardly noticeable, immediately. Very, a few years down the road.
How many "older" or "nice" bucks did the average TN hunter see back in the mid-1990's (when we had an 11-buck limit) compared to now?
Yes, BSK, there are many other factors, but the major buck limit reduction was the horse pulling the cart.
Seems to me if only very few hunters actually kill 3 bucks, then the limit is set to please those few....They must have some serious connections...It only stands to reason if you reduce the limit, then the quantity and quality are going to improve. From what I am reading, this has already been seen with the reduction from 11 to 3......but like Wes said, "Rone wasn't built in a day." I have several friends who live and hunt in TN and every one of then thinks the limit is too high. This is the reason they go out of state each yr to hunt somewhere they have a chance to kill a nice buck...
I'd reason that it's also set to please the hunters who kill 2, and might possibly get a chance at a 3rd as well. That ups the percentile significantly.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Wes Parrish said:
I'm not so sure about that Wes. I think hunter education had far more to do with the major improvements we've seen over the last 15 years. Now I will quickly admit the drop to a 2 buck limit greatly increased the number of older bucks in the population, but hunters sure couldn't take advantage of that. In fact, in my opinion, they never "took advantage" of what was produced. They simply learned to kill what was there, and this process was a very long, slow affair--something that continues to this day.
And from a purely scientific perspective, I see nothing in KY that convinces me their deer herds are structurally different from the ones I see on the Western Highland Rim of TN. There certainly isn't a difference in sex ratio or buck age structure. The only difference is antler development per age-class, and that's all habitat related, not management related.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Roost 1 said:
And there's the fatal flaw--the belief by so many hunters that reducing the buck limit will increase the quality and quantity of bucks in TN. That is not necessarily true.
What you are reading is misinforming you. The drop in the buck limit in 1998 had far less to do with "where we are" in TN now than other more important factors.
I'll give you credit you never sway from you opinions, but I don't buy it....I know how the reduction in KY from 2 to 1 has greatly improved our trophy potential, although it didn't happen oven night, it did take 10-15yrs to see the changes. If nothing else it reduces the number of "untagged" or "poached" bucks by half....The guys that used to kill 4, when the limit was 2, only kill 2 now....... I am not sure I understand their logic but that's how it is. Its this same logic that I think is hurting TN's gobbler population now. Guys are killing twice their limits...but that's a different topic.
Let me clarify, I am not saying TN could produce the quality of bucks that KY does, I am just saying I think it could be better.....I see several nice bucks from TN each yr so that tells me the state is capable of growing trophy deer.
Let me clarify, I am not saying TN could produce the quality of bucks that KY does, I am just saying I think it could be better.....I see several nice bucks from TN each yr so that tells me the state is capable of growing trophy deer.
Winchester
Well-Known Member
I too think the buck limit is just fine where it is, NO need to limit the few who actually utilize the limit being 3 when lowering it would have very LITTLE noticeable affect,if any. No doubt a huge decrease like the 11 down to eventually 3 that we saw several yrs ago had a positive affect, but Hunter education and self control is why the hunting in TN and many other states has improved as much it has in recent years. TN will never have the inches of antler per age class like so many of the Midwestern states do, and buck limit isn't the reason for or against. Iowa, ILL, and many other so called Trophy states don't have a 1 buck limit and haven't for a long time now.
Here's an article I came across from Sept 1998 from F&S Magazine, thought it was interesting. Excerpt under Tennessee, from our own Ben Layton's commentary.
http://books.google.com/books?id=era1X2 ... 97&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=era1X2 ... 97&f=false
@fulldraw
Well-Known Member
Here's a question: if Tn doesn't have the habitat to produce bigger racks per age class then how do states like Ga or Al produce them with less hardwoods and more sandy soils?
BSK
Well-Known Member
Roost 1 said:
You won't be the only one disagreeing with me, and that's fine. I'm just giving my scientific opinion from data I've seen. Doesn't mean I'm right.
I grew up hunting KY in the 70s and 80s. I know what was there then and now. All I see in KY is the same thing I see in many states--a maturation of the hunters and the deer populations. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s we had much smaller but rapidly expanding deer herds, and about the same number of hunters as today, and that large hunter population but lower deer population (especially males) led to overexploitation of the adult male segment. Now we have much larger deer populations, including a male segment so large that it cannot be overexploited, AND a much more educated hunting population, all of which lead to more total bucks and a more advanced buck age structure across the whitetails range (at least those parts I've worked in). Honestly, I don't see much difference in buck age structure no matter where the data comes from: AL, TN, AR, KY, IL, etc. All I DO see is differences in average animal performance per age-class, and that's directly linked to local habitat quality.
I don't think I know anyone who would completely disagree with that. The question is, at what cost? Again, personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. I've never in my hunting career killed more than 2 bucks in a single year (recreationally hunting that is). My argument is simply that switching from a 3 buck limit to a 2 buck limit probably would not produce NOTICABLE improvements. But I would certainly agree it would most likely produce SOME improvements, albeit very small ones.
