Florida makes Buck Changes

[landman]

Florida has made more changes for the up coming year, I DO LIKE the Youth Hunters are exempt from the changes, If and When TN makes changes we can do
the same for our Youth

I don't agree with the way its being done, but AT LEAST FLORIDA IS LISTING TO THE HUNTERS...........
Hey it could be the best way, don't know until you at least try

But I don't know if this will be saving all the 18 month old bucks, but I'm not in the know done there, BSK what you say

http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/artic ... strictions

 

[BigGameGuy]

We challenged our guys to look at similar approach (minus the antler restrictions) so we have more ability to manage localized populations.

 

[redblood]

It wont all protect all 18 month old bucks, but I bet it will save a ton of em

 

[BigGameGuy]

It wont all protect all 18 month old bucks, but I bet it will save a ton of em

Agreed it will protect a bunch. It will make their best yearlings open to harvest and protect all their smallest yearlings. I believe regional antler restrictions are going to bite all these states in the next 10-20 years.

We have been looking and a lot of harvest data from other states lately and even the states with statewide antler restrictions are killing 5 to 15% yearlings. Guess which yearlings those are?

 

[TheLBLman]

It will make their best yearlings open to harvest and protect all their lowest performing yearlings. I believe regional antler restrictions are going to bite all these states in the next 10-20 years.

We have been looking and a lot of harvest data from other states lately and even the states with statewide antler restrictions are killing 5 to 15% yearlings. Guess which yearlings those are?

So true.

Now if we could just get you to see this same phenomena also happens (even without antler restrictions) with higher buck limits, but maybe to a greater extent with the 2 1/2-yr-old cohort rather than the yearlings . . . . . . :stir:

To what extent this antler high-grading is "harmful" to most hunters is debatable.
No question, antler restrictions that protect most yearling bucks will cause an increase in bucks that are 2 1/2 and older.
No question, Tennessee has more mature bucks than many years ago. But exactly "which" bucks have survived to the older age classes?
My opinion is it's mainly those with below average antlers (and in particular those with 8 or fewer mainframe typical points when they were 3 1/2).

Meanwhile, even without antler restrictions, a yearling buck sporting 4 points on a side (whether a 7 or 8-pointer) is much more likely to be selectively killed than a more common yearling buck (spike to 6-pointer, more likely to be selectively passed). Antler restrictions (such as "4 on a side" or "8 points") simply put antler high-grading on steroids.

Way I see it, on a "statewide" basis, the only two practical ways of reducing antler high-grading are
1) Lower buck limits
2) Fewer buck hunting days, particularly gun-hunting days

But if the goal is simply to produce more 2 1/2-yr-old bucks, basic antler restrictions that protect most yearlings can easily accomplish this, and may be the only practical way in those areas with a high hunter density, high buck limits, and a long deer season.

:pop:

 

[landman]

It wont all protect all 18 month old bucks, but I bet it will save a ton of em

Agreed it will protect a bunch. It will make their best yearlings open to harvest and protect all their smallest yearlings. I believe regional antler restrictions are going to bite all these states in the next 10-20 years.

We have been looking and a lot of harvest data from other states lately and even the states with statewide antler restrictions are killing 5 to 15% yearlings. Guess which yearlings those are?

That's what was on my mind, your going to kill
your better 18 month old bucks

 

[landman]

BBG guess I should have been clearer
The Smaller units wouldn't hurt me

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

 

[Os2 Outdoors]

BBG guess I should have been clearer
The Smaller units wouldn't hurt me

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

I would love this test!

But the real test would be to take a down area and implement some different management practice and goals to see if we can make the lower end parts of the state better. Or better yet do both areas and see what kind of negative or positives we come out with.

 

[landman]

BBG guess I should have been clearer
The Smaller units wouldn't hurt me

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

I would love this test!

But the real test would be to take a down area and implement some different management practice and goals to see if we can make the lower end parts of the state better. Or better yet do both areas and see what kind of negative or positives we come out with.

True

But I bet you could get the private landowners
who control 75% of the total privately owned acreage to sign off
on it

 

[BSK]

But I don't know if this will be saving all the 18 month old bucks, but I'm not in the know done there, BSK what you say

I say I am DEEPLY opposed--and would fight tooth and nail against--any regulation that makes yearling bucks illegal for harvest. I don't know how many times I can say it, but IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO KILL SOME YEARLING BUCKS!!!! States that are killing 30-40% yearling bucks are doing FANTASTIC!

And the only thing more damaging than outlawing the killing of some yearling bucks is to set up a system where the largest yearling bucks get killed while the smallest are protected. THAT will be a disaster, as it was in MS, where antler scores of mature bucks dropped DRAMATICALLY after implementation of poorly designed antler restrictions.

 

[Vermin93]

We are planning to recommend a similar approach (minus the antler restrictions) so we have more ability to manage localized populations.

Does this mean that the buck limit will no longer be a statewide limit and will instead be set by unit?

 

[TX300mag]

I hear unit L will go to 4 bucks. :D

 

[AT Hiker]

And the only thing more damaging than outlawing the killing of some yearling bucks is to set up a system where the largest yearling bucks get killed while the smallest are protected. THAT will be a disaster, as it was in MS, where antler scores of mature bucks dropped DRAMATICALLY after implementation of poorly designed antler restrictions.

Without giving it much thought; would the largest yearling bucks get killed no matter what regulations are in place? A one buck limit might help but in reality I would assume most hunters are going to shoot the biggest 1st buck they see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheLBLman]

Without giving it much thought; would the largest yearling bucks get killed no matter what regulations are in place?

Generally speaking, "Yes", the largest yearling bucks get killed at a higher rate than the smaller ones, no matter what regulations are in place.

Antler restrictions such as "3 on a side, 4 on a side, 8 points, etc." will cause the largest antlered yearlings to be killed at a MUCH higher rate than no antler restrictions at all.

SPREAD antler restrictions, such as 15" wide, are less problematic than "point" restrictions, but can still cause more antler high-grading than compared to no antler restrictions.

Should add, the "9-point" restriction may protect most top-end yearling antlers, but then may cause an extra-heavy antler high-grading the next year of the highest-scoring 2 1/2-yr-old bucks. Bottom line, commonly used antler restrictions may do more harm than good, IF the end goal is more above-average antlered mature bucks.

The only practical way to produce more larger-antlered mature bucks (on a statewide basis) is simply to have lower buck limits and a shorter gun season. In that context, the State of Kentucky may be the national model for statewide regulations that produce the least amount of antler high-grading. And again, no, I don't want TN to go to the KY regulatory model, but could appreciate something in between what we currently have and what KY has, i.e. TN going to a simple 2-buck limit, and ending all gun hunting on December 31st of each year.

While such implementation is not practical on a statewide basis, the only way to eliminate most antler high-grading of the largest antlered young bucks is to simply kill no bucks before they reach maturity (at least the age of 4 1/2). Age based criteria can be a workable option on some hunt clubs and some WMA's, and is certainly an option at the individual hunter level, as an individual hunter should never kill either a top-end antlered yearling or 2 1/2-yr-old if his personal criteria is to focus on bucks that appear to be 4 1/2 or older. A "mistake" would be in killing a 3 1/2-yr-old.

 

[TheLBLman]

I don't know how many times I can say it, but IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO KILL SOME YEARLING BUCKS!!!!

And the only thing more damaging than outlawing the killing of some yearling bucks is to set up a system where the largest yearling bucks get killed while the smallest are protected.

I certainly agree with these two statements, particularly the last one.

That said, it may be Florida is simply trying to get significantly more bucks to survive to the age of 2 1/2? If this is a primary goal, their antler restrictions MIGHT do much more good than harm?

 

[AT Hiker]

I guess in my simple mind I cannot comprehend the antler restrictions having a negative effect, Im not doubting they do, I just dont get it.

Lets say Im not a mature deer hunter, im like the majority of everyday hunters and just want to hunt and kill a buck. Im hunting where a 4 on one side rule is implemented. A 4xwhatever walks out, im likely to shoot it no matter his age. Then you have Mr Mature deer hunter in the next woodlot, if a 4x??? yearling walks out he is gonna give it a pass even if he wasnt hunting in a antler restriction area. Point is there are a lot more "everyday" hunters than there are "mr mature buck only" hunters. Unless the 9pt rule, spread, or some other rule that statistically rules out yearlings i just dont see the harm. I could see how a 3 on a side rule would open up the killing of more yearlings but a 8pt is a 8pt to most people, at least from the people i know.

Not that it would ever work or pass but a rule that said, "you must pass up the first buck you see" would allow more hunters to kill older deer than anything imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BSK]

I guess in my simple mind I cannot comprehend the antler restrictions having a negative effect, Im not doubting they do, I just dont get it.

It doesn't harm age structure AT Hiker, it improves it. But the harm is done by high-grading the yearling buck population. It isn't true with absolutely every yearling buck, but ON AVERAGE, the largest antlered yearling bucks end up being the largest antlered mature bucks. If you kill off the largest yearling bucks, in a couple of years you will see the average antler size of older bucks get smaller, because so many of the mature bucks that would have had large antlers at maturity get killed as yearlings--the age when bucks are most susceptible to harvest. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe MS saw a decline of around 18 gross inches on mature bucks in the areas where high-grading took the biggest toll. That's a HUGE decline.

And interestingly, the areas where high-grading takes the biggest toll is in the areas with the best habitat. In high-quality habitat areas, food resources are good enough that "genetic potential" can begin to be displayed even as a yearling, hence the top genetic bucks grow antlers that get them killed as yearlings. In poor habitat areas, antler restrictions actually work much better, because few if any yearlings have the food resources to actually grow antlers large enough to qualify for harvest.

 

[BSK]

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

Why would you experiment with limiting buck harvest--in an attempt to improve harvested buck age structure--on two of the better buck age structure counties in the state? As I keep harping on, if you're going to experiment with something, do it in an area that actually needs the help. If the state were to try such an experiment--and I'm all for experimenting--why not choose counties with long histories of poor harvested buck age structure? They would be the most likely to display improvements due to the changes.

 

[landman]

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

Why would you experiment with limiting buck harvest--in an attempt to improve harvest buck age structure--on two of the better buck age structure counties in the state? As I keep harping on, if you're going to experiment with something, do it in an area that actually needs the help. If the state were to try such an experiment--and I'm all for experimenting--why not choose counties with long histories of poor harvest buck age structure? They would be the most likely to display improvements due to the changes.

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

But I'm ok with trying it in poorer counties, lets do something.......

 

[BSK]

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

Why go to all the trouble of making your best areas even better? To what end? When is "enough" enough?

I have a feeling some hunters would never be satisfied.

 

[landman]

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

Why go to all the trouble of making your best areas even better? To what end? When is "enough" enough?

I have a feeling some hunters would never be satisfied.

I guess its the same reason people hire Biologists to help manage and improve their properties :poke:

 

[Shed Hunter]

I guess in my simple mind I cannot comprehend the antler restrictions having a negative effect, Im not doubting they do, I just dont get it.

It doesn't harm age structure AT Hiker, it improves it. But the harm is done by high-grading the yearling buck population. It isn't true with absolutely every yearling buck, but ON AVERAGE, the largest antlered yearling bucks end up being the largest antlered mature bucks. If you kill off the largest yearling bucks, in a couple of years you will see the average antler size of older bucks get smaller, because so many of the mature bucks that would have had large antlers at maturity get killed as yearlings--the age when bucks are most susceptible to harvest. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe MS saw a decline of around 18 gross inches on mature bucks in the areas where high-grading took the biggest toll. That's a HUGE decline.

And interestingly, the areas where high-grading takes the biggest toll is in the areas with the best habitat. In high-quality habitat areas, food resources are good enough that "genetic potential" can begin to be displayed even as a yearling, hence the top genetic bucks grow antlers that get them killed as yearlings. In poor habitat areas, antler restrictions actually work much better, because few if any yearlings have the food resources to actually grow antlers large enough to qualify for harvest.

So what you are saying is antler restrictions are a good QDM practice, but not trophy deer management? More old bucks-less bigger old bucks.. Makes sense.

I agree, but I always love hearing how we should focus on QDM rather than TDM when in reality we need to just get real and realize most want bigger antlers. I see a few posts about trophyism and how bad it is, but I think a lot of people are lying to themselves when they act like antlers aren't the basis of what they desire in terms of hunting. Admit it or not, most want TDM to be the bigger part of our deer management plan. We all want bigger bucks.. It's just is what it is

 

[Shed Hunter]

Let's make Stewart and Montgomery Counties
a Serperate Unit and take it to 2 Bucks
as a Test got TWRA

Why would you experiment with limiting buck harvest--in an attempt to improve harvested buck age structure--on two of the better buck age structure counties in the state? As I keep harping on, if you're going to experiment with something, do it in an area that actually needs the help. If the state were to try such an experiment--and I'm all for experimenting--why not choose counties with long histories of poor harvested buck age structure? They would be the most likely to display improvements due to the changes.

Or a better idea would be to select two below average counties, two average counties, and two above average counties.

Based on what I've learned from you-the most improvement (maybe not percentage wose, but what will jump out as wow-that is the place to go) would be the area that is already good for the simple reason those areas are most likely good because of their habitat. The actual percentages of mature bucks will not jump out as a signifigant imcrease, BUT there will be many more of them as the habitat can support more deer in those areas. I.e. it goes back to the argument of why is the mid west so much "better". Those river drainage areas you mentioned in Iowa are something TN will never be able to have. I forget what deer density you said they can sustain and I doubt anywhere in TN can pull that of, but we can have the next step down in out better habitat areas. They hold a fair amount of B&C deer in those areas-I bet a few areas of TN could at least have one every year or two rather than once in a blue moon

 

[TheRealSpurhunter]

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

Why go to all the trouble of making your best areas even better? To what end? When is "enough" enough?

I have a feeling some hunters would never be satisfied.

Hence the basis of every single thread when it comes to deer management in TN. The trophy hunters just wont stop until we have restrictions that will cut out many of the weekend warriors. :stir: :bash: :bash:

 

[mike243]

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

Why go to all the trouble of making your best areas even better? To what end? When is "enough" enough?

I have a feeling some hunters would never be satisfied.

Hence the basis of every single thread when it comes to deer management in TN. The trophy hunters just wont stop until we have restrictions that will cut out many of the weekend warriors. :stir: :bash: :bash:

This is pretty much the truth imo. 1 day only the wealthy will be able to hunt like Brittan and other country's

 

[BSK]

So what you are saying is antler restrictions are a good QDM practice, but not trophy deer management?

No. Just opposite. Antler Restrictions are a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE practice for any reason! THEY DO NOT WORK AND DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD! (with a few exceptions, such as areas with very poor habitat quality)

 

[BSK]

Well if those are 2 of the better counties, couldn't they get even Better?

Why go to all the trouble of making your best areas even better? To what end? When is "enough" enough?

I have a feeling some hunters would never be satisfied.

I guess its the same reason people hire Biologists to help manage and improve their properties :poke:

Absolutely true landman. But the STATE is not a private management service, nor should they be! They work for the whole hunting populace.

 

[redblood]

It wont all protect all 18 month old bucks, but I bet it will save a ton of em

Agreed it will protect a bunch. It will make their best yearlings open to harvest and protect all their smallest yearlings. I believe regional antler restrictions are going to bite all these states in the next 10-20 years.

We have been looking and a lot of harvest data from other states lately and even the states with statewide antler restrictions are killing 5 to 15% yearlings. Guess which yearlings those are?

That's what was on my mind, your going to kill
your better 18 month old bucks

hopefully the hunters will realize that and choose to pass on those elite yearlings

 

[TX300mag]

I hope Tennessee doesn't go the route Texas has. The trophy obsession has put hunting regularly out of reach of those not willing to spend THOUSANDS of dollars in lease fees and feed (protein and corn). Good leases are SEVERAL thousand dollars annually with restrictions that keep you from regularly killing a buck, which has given birth to "culling" to make you feel like you're accomplishing something. With public land being very overcrowded, the average guy is driven to spending several hundred dollars or more on day leasing once a year. There are entire forums dedicated to rating day leases-they're THAT common. In general, you can get on a lease for $1500-2000/year, but if it's not a word of mouth find it's because it wasn't worth it to the last guy.

 

[slagtown_dfa]

I hope Tennessee doesn't go the route Texas has. The trophy obsession has put hunting regularly out of reach of those not willing to spend THOUSANDS of dollars in lease fees and feed (protein and corn). Good leases are SEVERAL thousand dollars annually with restrictions that keep you from regularly killing a buck, which has given birth to "culling" to make you feel like you're accomplishing something. With public land being very overcrowded, the average guy is driven to spending several hundred dollars or more on day leasing once a year. There are entire forums dedicated to rating day leases-they're THAT common. In general, you can get on a lease for $1500-2000/year, but if it's not a word of mouth find it's because it wasn't worth it to the last guy.

That's what some on this site would like to happen. They think everyone should follow rules that will help them reach their personal goals not considering the cost increase that will come along with Tennessee becoming a "trophy" state. Sure Tennessee has the potential and great deer are killed every year. Yet some seem to think changing regulations will put a P&Y buck behind every tree. Lease prices are already ridiculous in southern Tennessee because of Alabama hunters leasing up property for $10 + per acre.