buck limits

[Boone 58]

:D :D :D

 

[deadeye 77]

well I said I would not bring this up again it seems to get a lot of people chating and a bunch of replies.i asked for some opinions and I got them.from 11 to 3 is a big drop in buck limits.what do you think on having some counties in the state agree on putting restrictions on the quality of the bucks-say 1 county per region to be put on a trial for a while to see what happens or is that crazy?

 

[Nealmeally]

For the last time, buck limits ain't the problem. Until everyone manages properties to grow and kill mature bucks, you will never have a huge number of better quality bucks being taken.. Of course buck limits will play some sort of factor down the road but a management plan is a lot more important IMO.. It's really simple..

Of course I know all parts of the state are different and all hunters are different. But if you want to kill mature bucks every year or at least have a chance to, you have to do a little managing... And when you see the results of this you won't worry about buck limits, because you'll learn that the chance of killing 3 mature bucks a year is really slim..

I know everyone can't manage because of neighbors. But the time wasted arguing buck limits could be spent arguing with neighbors or fixing some sort of plan on managing the property you have be it big or small...

 

[Matador]

Trolling :D

 

[TheLBLman]

what do you think on having some counties in the state agree on putting restrictions on the quality of the bucks-say 1 county per region to be put on a trial for a while to see what happens or is that crazy?

I think would be a bad idea.

First, it would be unfair to many hunters in those counties who don't want such restrictions. Those restrictions could cause more hunting in those counties, somewhat countering the idea behind such restrictions.

Second, enforcement (and the potential for claiming a kill is from another county) would be difficult.

Third, unnecessarily complicated when most hunters are demanding simpler regs.

In short, there are easier and simpler ways of improving buck quality, such as lowering the buck limit (something that should precede anything more complex).

 

[deadeye 77]

I agree with what you say wes parrish when it comes down to it it is up to the people who want to manage their properties for that reason.georgia where I am originally from have some restrictions in some of the counties,who says everyone follows the restrictions to the letter.

 

[BSK]

well I said I would not bring this up again it seems to get a lot of people chating and a bunch of replies.i asked for some opinions and I got them.from 11 to 3 is a big drop in buck limits.what do you think on having some counties in the state agree on putting restrictions on the quality of the bucks-say 1 county per region to be put on a trial for a while to see what happens or is that crazy?

deadeye 77,

I have no problem at all with experimentation. We can't learn without trying. However, I would want the majority of hunters who hunt in those counties to support the experimental measures.

 

[BSK]

For the last time, buck limits ain't the problem. Until everyone manages properties to grow and kill mature bucks, you will never have a huge number of better quality bucks being taken..

I tend to disagree with the way that second sentence is worded Nealmeally, although I agree with the gist of what you are saying. If you want better quality hunting on your property, then manage for that. However, I can promise you we don't need EVERYONE managing for mature bucks to see dramatic improvements. I've seen major improvements--including the production of mature bucks--on managed 80-200 acre properties even when no surrounding properties are being managed. Now it certainly makes things much easier when more land is under mature buck management, but it isn't essential. Besides, we could NEVER properly manage the buck population if everyone was managing for JUST mature bucks. The buck population would rapidly overpopulate.

Of course I know all parts of the state are different and all hunters are different. But if you want to kill mature bucks every year or at least have a chance to, you have to do a little managing...

Agreed, and well said.

 

[DaveB]

Just wondering if the EHD problems in many states and the Mule Deer population declines are going to result in some different rules. Meaning, maybe the F&G folks will try to manage herd-regrowth and Buck maturity with one swoop.

For example, One year you have point maximums, kinda like slot limits. I mean, people hated them and look at how the fisheries have rebounded and now slot limits are at least understood.

 

[Football Hunter]

I'll give you credit you never sway from you opinions, but I don't buy it...

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 know how the reduction in KY from 2 to 1 has greatly improved our trophy potential

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.

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 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.

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

 

[Winchester]

I'll give you credit you never sway from you opinions, but I don't buy it...

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 know how the reduction in KY from 2 to 1 has greatly improved our trophy potential

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.

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 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.

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

You summed it up FH, the gain would likely be so small, over such a huge area, (statewide) that it would likely not even be noticeable, while you had made a fair size group of hunters unhappy with the changes that really show no improvement!
It would be like lowering the speed limit by 2 mph for safety and popping everyone that broke it. Not really any safer but lots of mad people!

 

[tasaman]

They say you can't kill big bucks on over hunted public land but I've seen some real nice deer killed on land that has been beaten to death by hunters all season and then out of no where here comes swamp donky that don't know this is public land and he gets wacked! My point being he got big because nobody shot him when he was little ol basket rack.

I can't swear to the state that reported this but I believe it to PA. They said for the first time ever in the history of them recording hunter success that two years ago the age class of deer killed was less than 50% less than 1.5 years. In the past it was as high as 80% 1.5 years or younger. They also said that there were many more larger racked bucks than they have ever seen before. Just sayin. If I can find the reference I will post it.

 

[Nealmeally]

Besides, we could NEVER properly manage the buck population if everyone was managing for JUST mature bucks. The buck population would rapidly overpopulate.

This I also understand.

And I feel I have seen this happen on a property I've hunted for 20+ years in AL and only shot mature bucks on for 10+ years.. About 3 years ago I had too many bucks on the place and most weren't mature bucks.. And sightings of mature bucks quickly declined.. It's almost like the property turned into a younger buck hangout.. Which I do realize habitat changes over the years probably accounts for some of it but I also think not killing but just a small number of bucks over those years also plays a big factor in it overpopulating..

It's something that don't happen over night.. But when you look back and combine all the years, you realize the changes in properties and how much small things make a big difference later down the road... And some of those things takes just as long if not longer to recover from than the amount of time it took to cause them..

The majority of my mature bucks I've killed came from this property, but I rarley hunt it now....

 

[Boone 58]

I agree, good post. I kill what I consider a trophy for "me".......I have no intention of killing another buck unless it is better than the first one......and three never crosses my mind but on rare occasions such as 2008 when I took 3 very respectable bucks that were trophies that I was proud to take........... I have and continue to pass as many as 50 bucks per season. Let them grow.

 

[MUP]

What part of West Tn are you from Boone? Bc I know you can't be from the East side, passing, or even seeing 50 bucks a season! :D

 

[Hunter 257W]

What part of West Tn are you from Boone? Bc I know you can't be from the East side, passing, or even seeing 50 bucks a season! :D

I doubt I've had an opportunity to shoot 50 bucks in all my 25 or so years of hunting! :(

 

[BSK]

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

Spread between how many hunters? All 200,000? Absolutely it would NOT be worth it to limit 200,000 so 10 to 15 could benefit.

 

[WRbowhunter]

Yes its easy to pass on bucks if your seeing 50 or more a season. Not everyone has or can pay for the opportunity to have sweet spot like that. The question is what is a trophy. Lets say we all buy into reducing the buck limit so they can grow bigger. Does a "trophy" increase from a 120 class buck to a 130 or 140 class and anyone shooting a 120 class buck is frowned upon because you are not letting them "grow". The same guys killing the 130 or 140 class bucks now are the same ones that are going to kill them if the buck limit was reduced. Yes there may be a little more of this class but that does not mean they are any easier to kill.

 

[BSK]

Yes its easy to pass on bucks if your seeing 50 or more a season. Not everyone has or can pay for the opportunity to have sweet spot like that. The question is what is a trophy. Lets say we all buy into reducing the buck limit so they can grow bigger. Does a "trophy" increase from a 120 class buck to a 130 or 140 class and anyone shooting a 120 class buck is frowned upon because you are not letting them "grow". The same guys killing the 130 or 140 class bucks now are the same ones that are going to kill them if the buck limit was reduced. Yes there may be a little more of this class but that does not mean they are any easier to kill.

You make some very important points WRbowhunter. An old argument that has been bounced around for years--that I at first rejected but now accept--is that a "trophy" is a trophy because it is rare. When something no longer becomes rare, it will no longer be seen as a trophy. Back when I rejected that argument where it concerned bucks, I simply didn't believe the level of trophyism we see today would ever be possible in TN. However, I've watched as a 2 1/2 year-old 90-class buck would really draw a crowd at the check stations back in the 80s, to today as many self-proclaimed trophy hunters in TN look down their noses at a mature 120-class buck (a buck that would have been unthinkable in the 80s). The point being, make bigger bucks more common, and the definition of "trophy" will simply climb back above what is common. If TN produced a lot more 140-class bucks than it does today, and I promise you the the trophy set of hunters would be howling about how bad the state's management is because we aren't killing enough 170s.

 

[Football Hunter]

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

Spread between how many hunters? All 200,000? Absolutely it would NOT be worth it to limit 200,000 so 10 to 15 could benefit.

What about 1 more buck of a lifetime per co each year? So 93? I think per year??? :)

 

[knightrider]

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

Spread between how many hunters? All 200,000? Absolutely it would NOT be worth it to limit 200,000 so 10 to 15 could benefit.

What about 1 more buck of a lifetime per co each year? So 93? I think per year??? :)

buck of a life time lol smh

 

[Mike Belt]

You also have to factor in that just because a buck gains a year...or two...or three doesn't mean he'll ever get to be more than a 120" buck or even score that high. Based on a perception that "trophy" means better than that the odds that large numbers of bucks would skyrocket in size because of a reduced buck limit just doesn't hold water. Not against a 2 buck limit but just saying...

 

[burninpowder]

Know a guy that has Mississippi F&G doing a study in his county. They have tagged a bunch of bucks in the county with different color ear tags. The participants are not supposed to shoot the tagged deer until that color tag year. They are wanting the bucks to mature and see what they look like at age 6. They have over 20,000 acres or more in this program. IMHO I think proper nutrition and age are the biggest factors to growing big bucks. On my own farm we have let the smaller bucks go for years, now when I see a 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 buck I don't even reach for my bow or gun because I know there are better deer out there.

 

[Hunter 257W]

Know a guy that has Mississippi F&G doing a study in his county. They have tagged a bunch of bucks in the county with different color ear tags. The participants are not supposed to shoot the tagged deer until that color tag year. They are wanting the bucks to mature and see what they look like at age 6. They have over 20,000 acres or more in this program. IMHO I think proper nutrition and age are the biggest factors to growing big bucks. On my own farm we have let the smaller bucks go for years, now when I see a 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 buck I don't even reach for my bow or gun because I know there are better deer out there.

That will be an interesting and meaningful study to see the results from in a few years.

 

[gobblegrunt]

If you don't wanna shoot 3 then don't.

 

[Football Hunter]

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

Spread between how many hunters? All 200,000? Absolutely it would NOT be worth it to limit 200,000 so 10 to 15 could benefit.

What about 1 more buck of a lifetime per co each year? So 93? I think per year??? :)

buck of a life time lol smh

smh?

 

[TheLBLman]

As some of you ponder the odds of "taking the buck of a lifetime", apparently many people believe lower odds in winning the state lottery justify having a state lottery.

What are the odds of winning big when so many forfeit so much of their weekly paychecks to buy lottery tickets? I can't go into any convenient store for a cup of coffee without standing in a line of people buying lottery tickets.

While this thread seems to be much less about the idea of a "buck of a lifetime" (it's more about just better quality hunting and better quality over more quantity), there's really not that many "bucks of a lifetime" taken annually in the State of Kentucky either. But many people are certainly very happy with the quality of the KY deer hunt experience.

 

[BSK]

But if it produced 10 to 15 more "bucks of a lifetime" per year ,would it be worth it? To me yes,but I wont lose sleep over it,but would vote for a 2 buck limit.

Spread between how many hunters? All 200,000? Absolutely it would NOT be worth it to limit 200,000 so 10 to 15 could benefit.

What about 1 more buck of a lifetime per co each year? So 93? I think per year??? :)

One for an entire county? Heck no it wouldn't be worth it.