Harvest Report

[landman]

From the TN Hunters Toolbox

Harvest Report

For Hunters killing only 1 Buck

This Year 54,334

Last Year 44,679

For Hunters killing only 2 Bucks

This Year 11,612

Last Year 12,410

For Hunters killing only 3 Bucks

This Year 192

Last Year 2,135

 

[mathews338]

so one could say going to a 2 buck limit helped 9655 hunters kill a buck that didn't last year

 

[AXL78]

One could say a percentage of the 9,655 might be attributable to the limit change. What percent would take a lot of analysis. What is the yearly fluctuation in one buck kills.

 

[JKC]

Looks like 192 people killed 3 bucks with a two buck limit. lol

 

[WRbowhunter]

Looks like 192 people killed 3 bucks with a two buck limit. lol

Bonus deer I would assume

 

[Vermin93]

Interesting redistribution of the buck harvest. Someone could write a nice "feel good" story using that data.

Possible headlines...

"New buck limit creates opportunity for more Tennessee deer hunters"

"Fewer Tennessee deer hunters get skunked as hunters let more bucks walk"

"Freezer sales on the rise in Tennessee as new buck limit kicks in"

"Bernie Sanders loves new Tennessee buck limit"

"Trophy hunters organize for 1-buck limit as 2-buck limit backfires"

:tu:

 

[JKC]

Looks like 192 people killed 3 bucks with a two buck limit. lol

Bonus deer I would assume

Your right I was just trying to be funny.

 

[TNDeerGuy]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . . as predicted by absolutely no one.

 

[Deer Assassin]

Looks like 192 people killed 3 bucks with a two buck limit. lol

yep i was one

should of killed 4 but missed one

 

[Headhunter]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

 

[AXL78]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

I don't know a lot of people that feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Most are indifferent, to be honest. Say you know a 1,000 people who strongly support it. That's a lot. That sample size is a drop in the bucket of licensed hunters, and humans tend to associate with like minded people.

 

[Deer Assassin]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

I don't know a lot of people that feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Most are indifferent, to be honest. Say you know a 1,000 people who strongly support it. That's a lot. That sample size is a drop in the bucket of licensed hunters, and humans tend to associate with like minded people.

great post

 

[Headhunter]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

I don't know a lot of people that feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Most are indifferent, to be honest. Say you know a 1,000 people who strongly support it. That's a lot. That sample size is a drop in the bucket of licensed hunters, and humans tend to associate with like minded people.

Really, I hunt and talk with people who are only after the biggest buck they can kill, people who could give a care what size a buck is, people who prefer to shoot only does, and those that hunt more to get away than anything else.

I hunt to enjoy being outdoors and I kill what is legal and makes me happy.

I do post on here what I prefer and IMO is the best for the deer, not the hunter, but I could care less, I am going to hunt some portion of every single day of every single season as I have for many years.

I just have not heard one person say the 2 buck limit is going to create "booners" behind every tree (I have heard only 3 buck supporters say that though), and if you know anyone who knows me, I talk ... alot to any and everyone, and this is not totally serious, but if you can't talk about hunting or fishing, then we won't have much to talk about. IMO, life is all about catching and killing and when I am not taking care of or spending time with my daughter and/or family or that four letter word, WORK, that is where I can be found, in the woods or on the water or working on getting ready for either one.

 

[Outdoor Enthusiast]

. . . . . . as predicted by absolutely no one.

I thought there was one of them graph thingies that uses numbers and colors and such that predicted more older bucks. If it weren't for antler high grading, booners would be everywhere.... :poke:

Sorry - I couldn't help myself. :D

 

[AXL78]

Headhunter, I hope I didn't offend you. I apologize if I did. I just wanted to show a different perspective.

I do think a lot of the supporters of a 2 buck limit are hiding behind herd health, or some ulterior motive for the switch, and the real desired outcome is more opportunity for an older age buck, which in turn creates more opportunity for a trophy. It certainly comes off that way IMO. What good does it do to get more older age bucks in the herd. I honestly don't think many people statewide care one bit about herd health, deer hunters included. And why should they? What was so wrong with our herd to cause concern-people weren't killing enough older bucks. Who cares if a buck is bred to death (I wouldn't complain-lol). The herd was sustainable anyway. Without a long drawn out post, our deer numbers were not in any jeopardy, we weren't on the brink of a collapse. It is just to try to get a bigger deer/better hunting experience (and what constitutes a better hunting experience is subjective). Most don't hunt enough to capitalize on that anyway.

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . . as predicted by absolutely no one.

I thought there was one of them graph thingies that uses numbers and colors and such that predicted more older bucks. If it weren't for antler high grading, booners would be everywhere.... :poke:

Sorry - I couldn't help myself. :D

Ha! :mrgreen:

Yes, there have been predictions of a "slight" increase in buck age structure to be attributed to the 2-buck limit.
(That's far different from some erroneously claiming anyone ever predicted a "Booner behind every tree".)
Yes, there have also been predictions of a slight increase in hunter success, to be attributed to the 2-buck limit.

None of the "predictions" I've heard have predicted anything beyond small changes (but small changes generally positive to the majority of hunters and improved deer herd health). And, yes, :mrgreen: It's my prediction that the 2-buck limit will slightly reduce antler high-grading. Adding all the "slight" but positive changes together, then cumulating them over a 3 to 5-year period, they "may" become a bit more significant. But I'm aware of no advocate of the 2-buck limit ever predicting anything other than this: "Slight, but cumulating, positive changes for both herd health and hunter success."

 

[AXL78]

Antler high-grading is a prime example. Why should antler high-grading be brought into the discussion of herd health or limits. That is worrying about antlers, which shouldn't be a concern in managing the deer herd.

 

[TheLBLman]

Why should antler high-grading be brought into the discussion of herd health or limits. That is worrying about antlers, which shouldn't be a concern in managing the deer herd.

Your point is valid and well taken.

However, antler growth (size) remains somewhat a function of herd health. That's why biologists measure every buck's antlers when they record a buck at a check station.

But you are correct about hunter-induced antler high-grading, since this is caused by hunters, and is not a function of herd health. That said, less antler high-grading results in more of the older bucks having larger antlers. Is that not seen as a positive by most deer hunters?

Put another way, when you have two bucks standing in front of you, do you normally prefer to shoot the one with larger or smaller antlers?
:)
Maybe this is more about "preference" than "worrying"?

 

[JeepKuntry]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

I think we can all agree that statistics can be analyzed in many different ways. It will take a couple seasons to see a trend. That being said, I was not in favor of the 2 buck limit. I have never killed more than 1 buck in a season. But there are still some people that hunt to put meat on the table. If he chimes in, I know knightrider was also opposed to the change. I'm willing to wager more in Unit B were upset.

 

[AXL78]

Why should antler high-grading be brought into the discussion of herd health or limits. That is worrying about antlers, which shouldn't be a concern in managing the deer herd.

Your point is valid and well taken.

However, antler growth (size) remains somewhat a function of herd health. That's why biologists measure every buck's antlers when they record a buck at a check station.

But you are correct about hunter-induced antler high-grading, since this is caused by hunters, and is not a function of herd health. That said, less antler high-grading results in more of the older bucks having larger antlers. Is that not seen as a positive by most deer hunters?

Put another way, when you have two bucks standing in front of you, do you normally prefer to shoot the one with larger or smaller antlers?
:)
Maybe this is more about "preference" than "worrying"?

LBLman, you are correct in assuming I shoot the largest antlered buck, regardless of age. Ha

I do not know the role that antler growth per age class plays in the management of herd health. I just don't know how much weight antler growth per age class would carry, honestly, when assessing herd health or management strategies, there are too many variables that can affect that. It may be more important than I think though, I don't know.

 

[AXL78]

On the same token as mentioned above, would shooting 3 bucks not be seen as a positive by a hunter. In your analogy, hunters give up a buck in order to hopefully achieve a slightly better chance at a larger racked buck. In my analogy, a hunter gives up a chance at a larger racked buck in hopes of shooting a 3rd buck. I think both ways are fine.

 

[AXL78]

LBLman, in reference to antler growth and herd health, off the top of my head, the only situation I can think of where antler growth would be a concern in overall herd health would be in an overpopulated herd, but I may be wrong.

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . would shooting 3 bucks not be seen as a positive by a hunter. In your analogy, hunters give up a buck in order to hopefully achieve a slightly better chance at a larger racked buck. In my analogy, a hunter gives up a chance at a larger racked buck in hopes of shooting a 3rd buck. I think both ways are fine.

I agree, "both ways are fine".
:)
So we're back to "preference".
And what are the "preferences" of the majority of hunters?

The waters are muddied in part because multiple aspects of "pros" & "cons" come with all choices. It's not as simple as left vs. right.

Yes, generally speaking, wouldn't many hunters prefer to kill 3 bucks rather than 2 bucks?

But what if we change the question to would you prefer to kill 2 larger antlered bucks or 3 smaller antlered bucks?

But those are only a couple of the dynamics.

When we put the questions in the context that our average TN deer hunter is currently averaging less than "a" deer annually, to him, a more appropriate question might become, would you rather have better or lower odds at killing "a" deer? His odds are slightly better for "a" deer annually with a 2-buck limit. It is not so much an issue of him "giving up" anything, as it's more a total (albeit slight) gain in opportunity.

Then there is the context of some more avid, regularly successful deer hunters (who do generally kill one or more deer annually). Among this group, many have a preference of only killing 1 or 2 deer annually, no matter what the limit, simply because that's all the deer they want to process annually. But among all groups, whether novice, avid, or highly-accomplished go every day of the season, there seems to be very few hunters who don't prefer larger over small antlers on the bucks they kill.

Taken to an extreme, any thing can be "bad". Some "trophy" hunting is definitely that. But I don't see the fact that most of us "prefer" larger over smaller antlers as being anything necessarily "bad". It's in our DNA. Even cave men were fascinated by large antlers.

 

[knightrider]

spikes or twelve points it does NOT matter, I still lost a deer to the freezer! no one hunts for just meat anymore? ive heard this statement many times on here, yes I do hunt for meat and yes I lost one of the oppurtunities I previously had to put meat in the freezer by a change that was not needed or " proved by biological evidence it was needed "

 

[TheLBLman]

LBLman, in reference to antler growth and herd health, off the top of my head, the only situation I can think of where antler growth would be a concern in overall herd health would be in an overpopulated herd, but I may be wrong.

You're not "wrong", but it's not as "cut & dry" as you might be thinking.
It's not like we suddenly flip a switch in going from good to poor. Herd health changes are generally more subtle, year to year, "trending" either better or worse.

Generally speaking, the more deer living in a square mile, the smaller the deer, the smaller the antlers on the bucks. We can choose any criteria at a focal point of "acceptable" herd health, but the issue is usually not suddenly "healthy" vs. "unhealthy".

If a deer herd is "managed" for 25 deer per square mile, those deer are not going to be "as" healthy as a deer herd managed for 15 deer per square mile (assuming all other factors are the same).

We often hear comparison being made between the KY statewide deer herd vs. the TN statewide deer herd, and very often "better" KY soils are listed as the primary reason the average KY buck has larger antlers than the average TN buck. However, for many years, the KDWFR has "managed" the KY deer herd to have a lower deer density per square mile than has TN. No one would say TN's deer herd (overall) isn't "healthy". But, overall, KY has had an even "healthier" deer herd, in part due to lower deer densities.

The more we delve into it, the more complicated it gets, such as many West TN counties can have a "healthier" deer herd with 35 deer per square mile than many East TN counties could have with only 10 deer per square mile. Everything is a factor, and everything effects everything.

 

[TNDeerGuy]

spikes or twelve points it does NOT matter, I still lost a deer to the freezer! no one hunts for just meat anymore? ive heard this statement many times on here, yes I do hunt for meat and yes I lost one of the oppurtunities I previously had to put meat in the freezer by a change that was not needed or " proved by biological evidence it was needed "

Ding, ding...... We have a winner!!!!!
Stop making sense Knightrider--it gets in the way of ego driven biological needs. :)

 

[AXL78]

In the context of managing the herd health and limits, I just can't bite on spreading the deer out among hunters as being taken into consideration. It may have happened some, I think it probably did, but is not something I would hang my hat on to sell a point, nor are some of my analogies, etc. I still stand by my comment that a lot of supporters of a 2 buck limit use reasoning that is really a diversion from the real goal, which can be measured by your local scorer.

 

[Headhunter]

Yeah, take those figures and consider the age class of buck harvests and I would say that the limit change by the political hacks is gonna be a raving success with all of the younger class bucks that were saved and all the Booners that are gonna be behind every tree in the coming years--as predicted by most. :roll: :pop:

absolutely no one I know thinks this. Every single person I personally know and hunt with supports the 2 buck limit. You must be in the minority.

I think we can all agree that statistics can be analyzed in many different ways. It will take a couple seasons to see a trend. That being said, I was not in favor of the 2 buck limit. I have never killed more than 1 buck in a season. But there are still some people that hunt to put meat on the table. If he chimes in, I know knightrider was also opposed to the change. I'm willing to wager more in Unit B were upset.

From what i have seen written about unit B, absolutely nothing to do with horns, but the limit there needs to be 1, all I have read is how they don't have enough deer, when the population is down, the limit goes down, makes complete sense, even biologically.

 

[TNGunsmoke]

My answer to that is I shoot the one with the bigger body. But then, I am a meat hunter predominantly.