Florida makes Buck Changes

[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 oke:

 

[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 oke:

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.

 

[Shed Hunter]

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.

You have nothing to worry about. TN will never be considered a trophy state no matter the regulations.

 

[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.

You have nothing to worry about. TN will never be considered a trophy state no matter the regulations.

But that's what the change the regulations so I can shoot bigger deer crowd thinks. I've heard so many times look at what Kentucky has done. They think putting Kentucky's regulations in Tennessee will render the same results.

 

[landman]

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.

Don't blame just AL hunters
TN hunters drive the prices up, E TN to middle and west
looking for Better Deer, guess you can say their
Trophy Hunters if you drive half way across the
state for a Better Buck

 

[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.

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.

You have nothing to worry about. TN will never be considered a trophy state no matter the regulations.

It's all about the attitude.

I know of more good bucks killed each year in Tennessee than I know of in Texas (personally). I know a LOT of people that pay a LOT of money to hunt down here but because they're too embarrassed to shoot a 3.5 or 4.5 year old buck, they shoot a couple of "culls." A 5.5 year old buck in Texas is tough to kill just like it is in Tennessee. I don't know what happens to these bucks, but hunters aren't killing them. I know guys that let DOZENS of 130"+ bucks feed at their feeders and then scratch their heads when they never see a mature buck. But the trophy obsession culture won't let them shoot a 135" or 140" buck and be happy about it if it's not 5.5.

 

[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.

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

THAT is a GREAT idea, and I would support such an experiment.

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

I think that's an over simplistic view of what grows monster bucks (and I don't mean that derogatorily, just factually). Part of what makes habitat great is the soil, as well as what grows in that soil. We will never match the soils of the Midwest, not even in our river bottoms. I can show you areas of the Southeastern Coastal regions where bucks are dying of old age on a regular basis. Yet those areas never have and never will produce a B&C buck. Why? Poor soils. No matter what we or the TWRA does, TN will never produce more than a handful of B&C bucks per year. Now I've changed my mind about bucks in the 150-170 range. I now believe TN can grow a large number of that quality of buck, and we are. I'm seeing more of them alive and in hunters' hands than I ever dreamed possible. But unfortunately, those 170+ bucks are still rare and I believe they always will be in TN.

 

[Shed Hunter]

[quoef"]

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.

You have nothing to worry about. TN will never be considered a trophy state no matter the regulations.

It's all about the attitude.

I know of more good bucks killed each year in Tennessee than I know of in Texas (personally). I know a LOT of people that pay a LOT of money to hunt down here but because they're too embarrassed to shoot a 3.5 or 4.5 year old buck, they shoot a couple of "culls." A 5.5 year old buck in Texas is tough to kill just like it is in Tennessee. I don't know what happens to these bucks, but hunters aren't killing them. I know guys that let DOZENS of 130"+ bucks feed at their feeders and then scratch their heads when they never see a mature buck. But the trophy obsession culture won't let them shoot a 135" or 140" buck and be happy about it if it's not 5.5.[/quote]

I was kinda getting at what BSK was implying in the post above this one.. TN does not have the ability to produce booners like any of the trophy states do. We don't have the soil.

BSK-thinking a little deeper, my idea of a B&C every couple of years in some places of TN is almost definitely exaggerated, but it goes without saying that if we took out best areas for hunting and regulated them better, we would over time see more of these 170+ deer.

 

[MUP]

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.

Makes sense to me. So, why would trophy hunters be on board for this type strategy then is my question?

 

[BSK]

BSK-thinking a little deeper, my idea of a B&C every couple of years in some places of TN is almost definitely exaggerated, but it goes without saying that if we took out best areas for hunting and regulated them better, we would over time see more of these 170+ deer.

I don't disagree with that Master Chief. But again, at what cost to all hunters? The state should NEVER be in the business creating restrictions for everyone so that one or two lucky hunters get to kill a booner each year. I honestly believe 95% of hunters couldn't give a rip about how many booner bucks come from their area. The "true booner" crowd is a tiny minority of the hunting public.

 

[chris1976]

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.

I believe we are Headed that way already.

 

[Mike Belt]

I can't think of anyone that wouldn't be happy to kill a Booner but I don't know of any Tn hunters that go out to kill one in Tn. It would be a lost cause to try to manage for them ...it's not creditably environmentally possible in Tn and it would upset most of our hunters to even attempt it. I see nothing wrong with trying to better what's possible but only if, percentage wise, those possibilities are across the board. Like my grandma used to say, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". Tn may or may not be as good as it's
going to get but it will never be known as a trophy destination for B&C bucks.

It's debatable as to whether to try to improve an area that is already lacking versus an area that is already above par. It would seem that if an area is on the lower end any improvements would be more noticeable quicker but it would also seem that if they are already at the lower end there is a reason. If that is environmental I don't see how you could improve upon that on a large scale. If it's a hunter oriented cause it may could be regulated for some improvement. On the other end of the spectrum, if an area is towards the upper end then there is also a reason. The environment is already probably more conducive to growth. Tweaking hunter regulations may show more of a noticeable improvement where those possibilities already exist than otherwise.

I really don't think the lure of potential B&C (trophy) bucks is driving lease prices in Tn. I think it has to do more with hunters wanting some kind of control over their hunting areas with like minded hunters. In most cases that probably does involve improving sex/age structure which equates to larger bucks but by no means B&C's. Granted, this is a swing from simply hunting to kill any deer but isn't the magic formula for producing trophy bucks.