Change buck limit? Wrong question.

[Jugfish]

A discussion has started again on here about folks' opinion on changing the number of bucks one can kill in TN. I think that is the wrong question. Setting a buck limit or a doe limit is a management tactic or tool to achieve an objective. So, the question asks about the tactic and not the overall OBJECTIVE. The question should refer to the management OBJECTIVE.

What do you want the TN deer herd to be in 10 years? If you get a majority opinion on this, things like setting buck limits and doe harvest become more black and white. Setting the objective is the hardest part.

[size]So, what is your desired future condition for deer hunting in Tennessee?[/size]

 

[hunterncoach]

To have a more balanced age structure and fewer does. I believe you would see a more pronounced rut and, in my part of TN, older bucks equal larger bucks. I understand in East TN they may not have the nutrition to have this as a reality, but in middle TN it is.

 

[TheRealSpurhunter]

To have a more balanced age structure and fewer does. I believe you would see a more pronounced rut and, in my part of TN, older bucks equal larger bucks. I understand in East TN they may not have the nutrition to have this as a reality, but in middle TN it is.

Ditto. This should be a good thread unless the haters start fighting amongst themselves again.

 

[Hunter 257W]

As stated already, a balanced sex ratio so we get a more intense rut.

Also balanced age structure of bucks so a good hunter can get several chances at a 3 1/2 + yr old buck each year.

I'm not a died-in-the-wool trophy hunter by any means but on the other hand, I've gotten tired of shooting forkhorns and small bucks just to say I've killed a buck. I'd like to see bucks with 100 - 120 inches often enough to have a reasonably opportunity at one every year. I don't think that is unrealistic at all. Heck, a lot of guys act like 130+ inch bucks are lurking behind every tree.

 

[Jugfish]

OK. Good start. What about hunting opportunity? What about access issues? Public land issues?

 

[AndyW]

I wish I could hunt does with a rifle in Fentress.

 

[Bobs8pt]

I agree with those above about a balanced heard. This does not have to start with the twra, If you are hunting private land then just manage it your self. Put a 3pt per side rule into effect and stick with it. maybe even as wide as the ears rule as well. it will only take two or three years and you will be surprised at the difference in the bucks. If you are a meat hunter then shoot a doe to put in the freezer. hunt public land for a year and give your own property a 1 year break. so Many people want to shoot bigger bucks but they are also the ones shooting the 1.5 yr old 4 or 6pt. As for me I would love to see the state put antler restrictions in place and increase the doe take. get the buck, doe ratio to a 2:1

 

[WRbowhunter]

I would like to see more public land available but with limited to no gun use. I think the deer herd is going in the right direction and over time it will continue to get better. I don't like restrictions and believe the "market" takes care of itself.

 

[Diehard Hunter]

What would I desire?

1) more public land.
2) a private land access system like they have in some western states.
3) more draw hunt opportunities with fewer people drawn on each hunt.
4) harsher penalties for breaking our wildlife laws


What will we get?

1) less public land as development encroaches on what we have now.
2) a department of agriculture and land owners who have been burned so many times by slobs that it would never fly.
3) this one is doable, but hunters would scream like they were dying thinking they have lost opportunity. It would be a hard sale to get them to do the math.
4) doubt this will happen, most legislators, lawyers, and judges don't see our wildlife as a priority. I actually think there are some that get perturbed when they have a case brought before them.

We already kill more (larger percentage of total harvest) 3.5+ year old deer than the "Trophy" states, so I don't see how we can do much better there. We kill fewer 1.5 year old deer too. Self regulation is working, and that is better than legislation.

 

[DirtyBear0311]

I like the direction the herd is going and would only like to see more public land access.

 

[Solo Hunter]

I think the herds headed in the right direction as far as size goes with the limited buck tags. I only hunt big deer and know that its not for everyone. I have small parcels that I hunt on so it's not like I'm trying to manage a 1000 acres or so. But in my case I would like to see the buck limit dropped to no more then 2 bucks but I would be fine with one. I'd also like to see the gun season shortened to 2 weeks. I see a lot of bucks get killed the last week of season that a hunter has passed on throughout the season already. Maybe shorten the gun season and add more archery time. I would like to see more public land with antler restrictions. Like I said this is just my opinion and truthfully I don't think it'll ever change to something like this.

 

[Pinwheeled]

I just want more public land access.



Coming from Illinois, things seem to be going pretty well here in Tennessee. Folks back home are arguing that 3 weekends of shotgun/muzzleloader hunting are too much, the IL DNR is handing out too many tags, and that hunters should only be allowed one buck instead of two. Trust me, things could be much worse. And like someone else mentioned, self regulation will always be more effective than government regulation. We're already noticing that on the property I hunt.

As far as gun season goes, I really don't mind the way it is set up now. I choose to bowhunt 99% of the time but that's just my preference. If a man enjoys rifle hunting, I think he should have ample opportunity to do so.

 

[bowriter]

A discussion has started again on here about folks' opinion on changing the number of bucks one can kill in TN. I think that is the wrong question. Setting a buck limit or a doe limit is a management tactic or tool to achieve an objective. So, the question asks about the tactic and not the overall OBJECTIVE. The question should refer to the management OBJECTIVE.

What do you want the TN deer herd to be in 10 years? If you get a majority opinion on this, things like setting buck limits and doe harvest become more black and white. Setting the objective is the hardest part.

[size]So, what is your desired future condition for deer hunting in Tennessee?[/size]

Here is the problem with that approach. If you manage a population based on hunter desires, you do not take the biological and ecological objectives into account. That can lead to a poorly managed resource.

A deer herd should be managed with three factors in mind: 1-ecological 2-biological and then 3-hunter desires.

Hunter desires come into play only when it does not effect the other two negatively.

 

[Jugfish]

[

Here is the problem with that approach. If you manage a population based on hunter desires, you do not take the biological and ecological objectives into account. That can lead to a poorly managed resource.

A deer herd should be managed with three factors in mind: 1-ecological 2-biological and then 3-hunter desires.

Hunter desires come into play only when it does not effect the other two negatively.

I absolutely, yet respectfully, disagree with you. Hunters are the major stakeholder group. They pay the bills and state agencies manage game for them. The biology is the easy part. Developing an Objective that has support from a majority of your stakeholders is the hard part and where so many natural resource agencies fail miserably, and that includes state wildlife agencies, US Forest service, US FWS, etc etc.

 

[bowriter]

So you are saying that even though it may be biologicaly or ecolocigaly detrimental, we should adopt a management program that hunters want? In other words, if hunter want an unlimited bag limit, say one like we had on buffalo, we should do that?

I have truoble with that thinking.

 

[Beekeeper]

When you are sick you go to a doctor.

When you need your car worked on you go to a mechanic.

When you want your deer herd managed to provide the most benefit to the most people you go to a wildlife professional.

We as hunters should hire, thru the TWRA, the best wildlife managers that we can afford and follow their recommendations so that we can have a sustainable harvest for many years to come. JMHO.

 

[Jugfish]

Bekeeper and Bowriter. I agree with you. However, you guys are jumping to the management prescription before nailing down the Objective. Of course we can't allow something that will do real harm to the species. Before we get to that point we have to get an answer to what hunters want. Its a stepwise process.

1. What is our desired future condition for deer and deer hunting?
2. What management actions will it take to achieve that? This is where the agency biologists make recommendations.
3. Are those actions feasible?
4. If not, then how do we adjust the desired future condition to something that is feasible?

Step 1 is always the hardest part and usually the part that gets the least attention or a really analytical analysis. I also don't think that "hunters" in general would ever advocate for something ridiculous, although there are some real idiots out there that do all the time.

So again, What do we want?

 

[BSK]

So again, What do we want?

I want a long-term sustainable number of deer that are healthy and reproductively successful. I would like to see that herd be socially healthy as well as physically healthy. And by that I mean a relatively balanced adult sex ratio (which I believe we have in most of the state), and an advanced buck age structure with approximately 50% of the pre-hunt antlered population being 1 1/2, 25% being 2 1/2, 15% being 3 1/2, and 10% being mature (4 1/2+). Thankfully, we already have that in some parts of the state. I would love to see that in every part of the state, although I realize that probably isn't realistic in some situations (especially in areas with the naturally lowest deer densities and highest hunter densities).

 

[jlmustain]

I echo the ratio statements. I'd also like to add some thoughts I've had about the limits and restrictions:

I don't know about more public land, but I'd certainly like to see improvement on the land that's available, even to the point of allowing licensed hunters to participate in and donate time and materials to cultivating the existing public land.

I'd like to see the Annual Sportsman's License holders be subject to a one buck per weapon limit and "Earn a Buck."

I'd like to see the non-ASL holders subject to "Earn a Buck," along with these antler restrictions: A spike, 3 per side, or 14" outside spread (restrictions lifted during youth hunts).

 

[jlmustain]

I'd like to see a discussion like this about turkey season, for sure.

 

[TheRealSpurhunter]

For BSK:

It sounds like we as a state, we have that balance your talking about. My question is, which unit is the balanced herd? I always assumed Unit L, which compromises a HUGE portion of the state now, was the unbalanced section?

 

[Winchester]

I honestly think we are on the right track right now. Things have improved drastically over the last 10 yrs and are continuing to improve, mostly because of hunter mindset. I don't think TN needs any major changes in terms of seasons or limits, as we are improving with what we have now. I hunt both Mid/west TN some and quite a bit all over East TN and I think things are really good right now as far as the deer herd goes. All that said, Im a realist and don't expect TN to grow the size of deer in great #'s that some of the Midwestern rich soiled crop filled states do. I think we are doing pretty good with what we have to work with overall.

 

[KPH]

Popcorn time.

 

[BSK]

For BSK:

It sounds like we as a state, we have that balance your talking about. My question in, which unit is the balanced herd? I always assumed Unit L, which compromises a HUGE portion of the state now, was the unbalanced section?

Unfortunately, herd conditions can vary dramatically across very short geographic distances. You can't really say that all of the deer populations in any one region of the state are "fine" or in good shape. Within that region, there will be counties, portions of counties, and even individual properties where the numbers are great and where the numbers are poor. Deer don't "spread themselves out" equally across the landscape. Adjoining properties can see VERY different herd conditions, and there's nothing that can be done about that.

From what the TWRA found in their thermal imaging data from a few years back, I don't think any particular region of TN has a problem with adult sex ratio. The vast majority of the data indicated ratios of 1.3 to 1.8 does per buck, which are just fine.

As for buck age structure, that appears to mirror hunter density. Those areas with the highest hunter densities have the poorer buck age structures. Those areas with the lowest hunter densities OR the most difficult to hunt terrain/habitat have the best buck age structures. Counties with excellent harvested buck age structures are scattered all over the state, including in East TN. At the same time, counties with poor harvested buck age structures are also scattered all over the state. Why some counties with great harvested buck age structures are often right next to counties with poor harvested buck age structures is somewhat of a mystery, but I strong suspect the answer involves habitat type and hunter density differences between the counties.

 

[BSK]

the data that I've seen anywhere shows that a large majority of hunters number one goal is to kill a trophy buck.

The last scientifically designed and implemented hunter desire survey I saw placed "killing a trophy buck" dead last in hunter desires for their hunting experience.

 

[BSK]

to me I think he's got a great point. he saying to determine what the most satisfying experience is for the majority of hunters in Tennessee, and then come up with healthy ways to bring that to fruition.

But isn't that exactly what the TWRA does? They have a "hunter opinion" survey conducted every few years, and have for some time. In this survey they ask for hunters opinions on all sorts of hunting related topics. I think those surveys produce a pretty good representation of what hunters want.

 

[TheLBLman]

Many of the ideas COULD be beneficial on a very localized level, but actually harmful in most areas. A good example would be antler restrictions, such as 3 or 4 on a side. While these would protect a majority of the 1.5-yr-old bucks, they would also cause a counter-productive higher harvest of those 1.5-yr-old bucks with the largest antlers.

The higher harvest (antler high-grading) of the largest antlered young bucks has the very negative effect of most mature bucks simply being the genetically smallest antlered bucks --- end result ---- fewer "large" antlered older bucks, although "large" is a relative term, and a "small" antlered 3 1/2 is typically larger antlered than a "large" antlered 1 1/2 (and there would be more 3 1/2's, albeit small-antlered ones).

IMO, any changes would need to be applicable "statewide" and very simple. Rules are only as good as their enforcement and compliance ---- and there is no funding, no manpower available to enforce a more complicated system than we already have. I'd rather see our wildlife officers responding to poaching issues than measuring whether a point is over an inch long on an otherwise legally harvested buck.

That said, I think a time will come when a simple 2-buck statewide limit will become more appealing. I know of nothing else (so simple) that would have so much potential for augmenting buck age structure and improving buck:doe ratios, and this can be done "statewide" by simply going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit. Unlike some other ideas, there are no negatives with this one (unless you make the personal case that you should be entitled to kill 3 bucks a year).

Beyond a simple 2-buck limit, the best thing that would help us produce and harvest more larger antlered older bucks would be more of the accomplished hunters voluntarily focusing on simply not harvesting any bucks younger than 4 1/2. I'm become convinced that the number one obstacle to TN producing more 140-plus-class 4 1/2 & older bucks is the fact that the largest antlered 1 1/2, 2 1/2, and 3 1/2's get essentially wiped out, leaving mainly the smallest antlered bucks living to 4 1/2 and older.

What's the best way of reducing this antler high-grading, which has not previously even been mentioned?

 

[-DRM-]

That said, I think a time will come when a simple 2-buck statewide limit will become more appealing.

Why? The last stats I saw showed few hunters are actually taking 3 bucks per season anyway.

I've been hunting for 6 years, and taken 3 antlered bucks in that entire time - the rest (4-7 per year) are all does.

I've already let over 20 antlered bucks walk this year - from spikes to 6pts.

 

[TheLBLman]

Another issue that's not been mentioned:

Non-Hunters

While we may think their opinions don't matter, truth is, they outnumber us hunters, and their opinions do matter. One of their legitimate concerns is too many deer. While hunters tend to want "more" deer, many non-hunters are wanting "fewer" deer.

 

[FLIPPER]

What I want the future herd to be in 10 years?

All I want/need is the opportunity (like now) to fill ALL my tags as I choose.