Higher doe harvests?

[Doskil]

Are biologists expecting a higher doe harvests under a 2 buck limit?

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Yes, much higher, in Unit L.

I don't hVe the numbers in front of me (at my son's horse show) but the yeR we went from 11 to 2 bucks the doe harvest spiked dramatically in many unit L counties. When we went to 3 the next year the dropped back down.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Sorry for the typos, I can't type on this phone.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

That's part of the reason I couldn't understand the fight for the 2 buck limit, Biologically anyway. In Unit L I just don't see a net gain in bucks on the hoof, and depending on doe harvest a possible net loss. Wont matter much in Unit B, the doe harvest should be static.

 

[TheLBLman]

Are biologists expecting a higher doe harvests under a 2 buck limit?

I believe they are only expecting a very slight increase in the doe harvest to be attributed to going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit. In fact, almost every aspect about going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit was seen as a very minor "carburetor adjustment" (at least in terms of deer management), overall making only a small difference, but overall more positive than negative. These small annual improvements to both herd health and hunter success are "cumulative", and won't be more fully realized until after a 3 to 5-year timeframe.

I wish we could get Chuck Yoest posting on TNdeer.com, as I believe he could add much needed insight to our statewide deer management.

. . . . . . the yeR we went from 11 to 2 bucks the doe harvest spiked dramatically in many unit L counties. When we went to 3 the next year the dropped back down.

That was a TOTALLY DIFFERENT DYNAMIC, and was also about 18 years ago (1998 when we went from an 11 to a 2-buck limit). Prior to 1998, almost all TN deer hunting had been in a "buck only" environment. Hunters were just beginning to "warm up" to the idea of shooting a doe, having been instructed for decades it was "taboo". And at about this time, deer regs were liberalizing the "antlerless" hunting opportunities. All the stars aligned just right to cause many hunters for the first time ever, to believe it was ok to kill a doe in 1998. But a year later in 1999, the doe were much more hunter-wary, seeming to realize they could no longer walk around hunters all day with impunity.

 

[Bone Collector]

Are biologists expecting a higher doe harvests under a 2 buck limit?

I believe they are only expecting a very slight increase in the doe harvest to be attributed to going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit. In fact, almost every aspect about going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit was seen a very minor "carburetor adjustment" (at least in terms of deer management), overall making only a small difference, but overall more positive than negative.

I wish we could get Chuck Yoest posting on TNdeer.com, as I believe he could add much needed insight to our statewide deer management.

. . . . . . the yeR we went from 11 to 2 bucks the doe harvest spiked dramatically in many unit L counties. When we went to 3 the next year the dropped back down.

That was a TOTALLY DIFFERENT DYNAMIC, and was also about 18 years ago (1998 when we went from an 11 to a 2-buck limit). Prior to 1998, almost all TN deer hunting had been in a "buck only" environment. Hunters were just beginning to "warm up" to the idea of shooting a doe, having been instructed for decades it was "taboo". And at about this time, deer regs were liberalizing the "antlerless" hunting opportunities. All the stars aligned just right to cause many hunters for the first time ever, to believe it was ok to kill a doe in 1998. But a year later in 1999, the doe were much more hunter-wary, seeming to realize they could no longer walk around hunters all day with impunity.

Yeah i don't believe we will see a huge difference in doe harvests.

Also in 1999 the weather was horrible for deer hunting.... I remember it seemed like it was 50-65 degrees every day from the opener of gun till the week before it closed. I think I saw one deer total that season and she was on property I couldn't hunt.

 

[ImThere]

I absolutely think we will see a significant spike in unit L doe harvest numbers. I wish I hunted where all you think there are deer hiding behind every tree in unit L

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Everybody has their opinions and that's fine. Let's not argue, but just look at the harvest numbers next year.

It's not as different as you might think Wes.

I know several officers (Unit L) who believe the Doe harvest will see a dramatic spike and they are overjoyed (tired of writing a bazillion depredation permits). I wasn't just pulling it out of thin air.

But once again, I don't have a crystal ball we'll just have to look at the numbers next year.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

I personally think (no science involved, just my gut) that dynamic will change again in Unit L with the new buck limit.

I think Does will be the first thing "blasted" by hunters who usually TRY to fill their freezers with the 3 bucks (not many succeeded). I think it will change the mindset of waiting for a buck to come through because "I only have 2 buck tags to fill" so "let's go ahead and get some freezer meat", then I'll concentrate on my buck tags.

Only time and harvest data will tell though.

 

[Headhunter]

I hope this is the last reason for someone to question the 2 buck limit.

 

[callemquacktn]

That's part of the reason I couldn't understand the fight for the 2 buck limit, Biologically anyway. In Unit L I just don't see a net gain in bucks on the hoof, and depending on doe harvest a possible net loss. Wont matter much in Unit B, the doe harvest should be static.

Unit b had a couple counties last yr with higher doe harvest than bucks. Roane county almost had more doe killed than my unit L county had total deer taken. It will be interesting to see what the numbers will be for this next season.

 

[AT Hiker]

Unit b had a couple counties last yr with higher doe harvest than bucks. Roane county almost had more doe killed than my unit L county had total deer taken. It will be interesting to see what the numbers will be for this next season.

Thats interesting, never thought about looking for counties with higher doe kills than bucks. Is that even biologically sound? Assuming the does werent over abundant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bone Collector]

I personally think (no science involved, just my gut) that dynamic will change again in Unit L with the new buck limit.

I think Does will be the first thing "blasted" by hunters who usually TRY to fill their freezers with the 3 bucks (not many succeeded). I think it will change the mindset of waiting for a buck to come through because "I only have 2 buck tags to fill" so "let's go ahead and get some freezer meat", then I'll concentrate on my buck tags.

Only time and harvest data will tell though.

yeah but if only 3% were filling all 3 buck tags, then I can't see how taking one of those bucks away would make them shoot 3-4 extra does.

I hope it does increase doe harvests in some areas and is some areas the herd can use some thinning, but I don't think doe harvests are gonna spike, unless people shoot them out of spite, because they are mad about the buck limit decrease....

I shoot 3-5 does a year if possible to fill the freezer. I don't plan on shooting extra this year due to the buck limit being decreased.

I guess others may see it different, so I guess we'll just have to see how the #'s come in.

 

[Mike Belt]

It's possible there may be a slight increase in doe kills but I'm thinking those numbers have stabilized after all the years we've been allowed to shoot them. It's also possible that they may not be as high because we have hammered them and they aren't the same old does walking around with impunity before this process began. Just based on my observations last year and those of several of my fellow hunters, if their numbers were still high, they weren't making themselves very visible. As with anything, time will tell.

 

[Boll Weevil]

I agree with Mr. Belt that doe harvest appears to have stabilized in our area. I do think the percentage of bucks to does will shift a bit and we could actually see more instances of does harvested constituting a majority.

 

[TboneD]

I absolutely think we will see a significant spike in unit L doe harvest numbers. I wish I hunted where all you think there are deer hiding behind every tree in unit L

Our Unit L public land does have been hammered for years now. Right? What I mean is that I'm still not gonna shoot a doe in the rut, because she might have a decent buck following her. And late season it'll be the same for me. I'll hunt hard to get lucky and have one of the doe groups to come by. So what I'm saying is that maybe any significant increase in doe kills will mainly represent private land harvests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

That's part of the reason I couldn't understand the fight for the 2 buck limit, Biologically anyway. In Unit L I just don't see a net gain in bucks on the hoof, and depending on doe harvest a possible net loss. Wont matter much in Unit B, the doe harvest should be static.

Unit b had a couple counties last yr with higher doe harvest than bucks. Roane county almost had more doe killed than my unit L county had total deer taken. It will be interesting to see what the numbers will be for this next season.

Ah, Roane county.

The thing with Roane over the last many years is the harvest data is extremely flawed. You get a ton on surrounding Unit B hunters saying they shot their does in Roane. Very inflated numbers in my opinion.

 

[darn2ten]

I believe in certain areas there will be a slight increase in doe the first year, maybe 2. However I don't think it will be a big increase and will peak in the first few years then fall off. I don't think it will have any bearing on my area. I know most of the continuous land owners in my general area and their philosophy and practices.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

I believe in certain areas there will be a slight increase in doe the first year, maybe 2. However I don't think it will be a big increase and will peak in the first few years then fall off. I don't think it will have any bearing on my area. I know most of the continuous land owners in my general area and their philosophy and practices.

Your last sentence is always a good omen. Like minded people in control of large chunks of land helps tremendously when trying to manage. Small parcels with people not like minded and public land is where I think the impact will be felt. Of coarse it has always been that way no matter what the limit was/is.

 

[darn2ten]

I believe in certain areas there will be a slight increase in doe the first year, maybe 2. However I don't think it will be a big increase and will peak in the first few years then fall off. I don't think it will have any bearing on my area. I know most of the continuous land owners in my general area and their philosophy and practices.

Your last sentence is always a good omen. Like minded people in control of large chunks of land helps tremendously when trying to manage. Small parcels with people not like minded and public land is where I think the impact will be felt. Of coarse it has always been that way no matter what the limit was/is.

I definitely agree with you there. However I still don't think it will have a lasting effect in most places, with the acception possibly being public land.