Micro-managing buck limits

[BSK]

I realize the TWRA does not have the resources necessary to micro-manage buck limits at the county level. But IF THEY DID, here's my system for how to set those limits:

Buck harvests and survivability (which play a major role in future buck age structure) are heavily influenced by four primary factors: 1) buck fawn recruitment into the adult population; 2) pre-hunt adult buck population; 3) hunter density; and 4) huntability of the landscape (terrain and habitat; i.e. visibility).

For each county in TN, factors #1 and 2 would be determined through thermal imaging census. Hunter density (#3) would be determined through sampling of licensed hunters, asking those involved in the survey to keep track of how many hunter-days they spent in each county they hunted. From that data, hunting pressure (hunter-days/square mile/year) could be determined for each county. The percent of deer checked in for each county under land-owner tags could be used to adjust the hunting pressure data to account for the added hunting pressure of non-licensed, hence non-surveyed hunters. Geographic Information System (GIS) software could be used to produce a "huntability" factor for each county, based on the percent of the county that is forested, modified by a factor for terrain. Most hunters don't realize how important visual distances are in influencing deer/buck harvestability. Doubling the distance a hunter can see/shoot quadruples the area he or she can kill from.

Once that data is collected, a mathematical calculation is used to produce a buck harvest limit.

This calculation will produce a very low buck limit for counties with multiple "negative" buck survivability factors, such as low buck density, high hunting pressure, poor buck recruitment, or high harvestability. On the other hand, higher buck limits will be allowed for counties with combinations of "positive" buck survivability factors, such as low hunting pressure, high buck population, or low harvestability (lots of hilly forested [low visibility] habitat).

Discuss amongst yourselves... ;)

 

[TheLBLman]

The idea is very good.
Only due to budget constraints (or monetary issues) is it probably not practical for our TWRA to do something like this, although I would be delighted if someone could "find a way".

In the meantime, the next best plan may be for many liked-minded hunters to form hunting clubs that micro-manage. Unfortunately, even with over a thousand acres in a club, most of the bucks being hunted may spend more of their time beyond the boundaries of that micro-managed hunting club. So the surrounding state deer regs can end up having an enormous impact on what results are obtained when a small group with a few acres attempts micro-managing their hunting ground.

 

[Os2 Outdoors]

Are your 4 primary factors listed from most to least important?

 

[megalomaniac]

Great idea, but the problem would then be dealing with us, the public. TWRA couldn't handle all the complaints of 'why isn't my limit higher' or 'why isn't my limit lower'. I suspect they would hear even more complaining than we already do currently discussing generalized statewide regs :)

But I am VERY grateful for all of TWRA's staff in humoring us during these discussions (complaints ;) )!

 

[Mike Belt]

Not that this idea doesn't have merit but I'd like to hit the lottery also. That and micro management in Tn have about the same odds.

 

[BSK]

Are your 4 primary factors listed from most to least important?

No. I would probably place huntability of the landscape first, followed by buck population, and hunting pressure as #1, 2 and 3 respectively in importance.

 

[TheLBLman]

Are your 4 primary factors listed from most to least important?

No. I would probably place huntability of the landscape first, followed by buck population, and hunting pressure as #1, 2 and 3 respectively in importance.

You should also add #5, weapon season segment days, although you may be including that under "hunting pressure"?

At least in terms of the deer "harvest", multiple "archery only" days don't provide as much "pressure" as a single "gun" hunting day.

 

[BSK]

Are your 4 primary factors listed from most to least important?

No. I would probably place huntability of the landscape first, followed by buck population, and hunting pressure as #1, 2 and 3 respectively in importance.

You should also add #5, weapon season segment days, although you may be including that under "hunting pressure"?

At least in terms of the deer "harvest", multiple "archery only" days don't provide as much "pressure" as a single "gun" hunting day.

True Wes. There would have to be some "effectiveness ratio" to differentiate bow hunting hunter-days from MZ and gun hunting hunter-days.

 

[TheLBLman]

True Wes. There would have to be some "effectiveness ratio" to differentiate bow hunting hunter-days from MZ and gun hunting hunter-days.

Actually, with today's "modern" muzzleloaders, not sure I'd even separate out MZ and gun hunter-day "effectiveness" ratio. Mainly because of "timing", it may now be that a day of muzzleloader hunting has a higher "effectiveness ratio" than a day gun hunting.

My primary muzzleloader is a solid 200-yard weapon, and will shoot sub MOA groups. I have very little advantage if hunting with a centerfire instead. And at shorter ranges, today's modern bows and crossbows can have very little disadvantage over a muzzleloader.

Might make more sense to define an "effectiveness ratio" more by dates relative to the rut than by weapons being used, and/or some combination of dates & weapons.

 

[BSK]

True Wes. There would have to be some "effectiveness ratio" to differentiate bow hunting hunter-days from MZ and gun hunting hunter-days.

Actually, with today's "modern" muzzleloaders, not sure I'd even separate out MZ and gun hunter-day "effectiveness" ratio.

I'm not. I would look at bow-hunting hunter-days versus MZ/gun hunter-days. Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

 

[TheLBLman]

Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

I take it that wasn't the case back in the day when some were intimidated to pull the trigger on "Thor's Hammers"? :mrgreen:

Wasn't that many years ago, I was hunting with a muzzleloader that often failed to shoot when hunting on a rainy day. I lost several deer over the years to the gun being much less reliable than a centerfire, and because I often chose to hunt with a bow on rainy days during muzzleloader.

 

[BSK]

Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

I take it that wasn't the case back in the day when some were intimidated to pull the trigger on "Thor's Hammers"? :mrgreen:

Wasn't that many years ago, I was hunting with a muzzleloader that often failed to shoot when hunting on a rainy day. I lost several deer over the years to the gun being much less reliable than a centerfire, and because I often chose to hunt with a bow on rainy days during muzzleloader.

Inlines have COMPLETELY changed the world of MZ hunting. I remember the "bad old days" of side-hammers all too well... :x

 

[TheLBLman]

Inlines have COMPLETELY changed the world of MZ hunting. I remember the "bad old days" of side-hammers all too well... :x

And we've moved beyond just "inlines" to long-range performing rifles that happen to be loaded via the muzzle.

Yet we do have some true muzzleloading purists who may be more into their weapons than the hunting. A few are carrying antiquated flintlocks, wearing buckskin clothing & coonskin caps, their experience being more about nostalgia and which weapon is in hand, rather than hunting with their most effective weapon. Others will claim you must use a longbow, and using a flintlock is cheating. Have been there, and done that.

But, today, I'm more about the hunting than the weapon, and I'm no longer using a longbow during archery season, much less any gun season. And I'm fine with anyone and everyone being able to use whichever weapon they feel handicaps their hunting the most. If someone wants to use a prehistoric spear during our modern rifle season, why not? I'd only have an issue if they started asking for special privilege because they believe they're extra special people for choosing a spear instead of gun, therefore the month of August should be exclusively theirs before anyone else has any opportunity.

Guess hunting is much like fishing, in that some believe the only way is with a fly rod, while others just want to go catch some fish, however they can. All I can say is I'm actually glad we don't have "special" tackle season segments with our TN fishing like we do with the "special" weapons seasons of deer hunting. But I bet some would prefer all TN fishing be "fly tackle only". :stir: Wouldn't that make as much sense as having a "muzzleloader only" deer season?

 

[scn]

True Wes. There would have to be some "effectiveness ratio" to differentiate bow hunting hunter-days from MZ and gun hunting hunter-days.

Actually, with today's "modern" muzzleloaders, not sure I'd even separate out MZ and gun hunter-day "effectiveness" ratio.

I'm not. I would look at bow-hunting hunter-days versus MZ/gun hunter-days. Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

I'll disagree with that statement. Ballistically, today's ML's are very close to a lot of centerfire weapons. The BIG difference comes in that they are almost totally a one shot deal. If you miss with a muzzleloader, it is VERY unlikely that you will be able to reload and get another shot off at that deer. Followup shots with cartridge rifles, even single shots, are a totally different story.

Cartridge guns are a much more effective weapon, and need to be in a separate catagory of weapons from muzzleloaders.

 

[weatherby man]

We have a tremendous poaching problem in 2 parts: (1) those overkilling and those with zero license and road hunting. How will that be accounted for an is it necessary?

 

[BSK]

We have a tremendous poaching problem in 2 parts: (1) those overkilling and those with zero license and road hunting. How will that be accounted for an is it necessary?

That is something that would have to be seriously considered weatherby man. In fact, if the buck population and annual recruitment are known (at least well enough), if adding back in the reported harvest numbers "doesn't add up," then either the area has some unusually high natural mortality factor in play, or the big gap is a sign of excessive illegal kill (both unreported kills and poaching kills). And if it were found that some areas truly did have a significant illegal kill percentage, I would bet good money it would be in the counties with the highest huntability. It's darn hard to poach in areas without visibility from the road. But if it were found that a high huntability factor also increase a county's poaching loss, that too would have to be factored into the equation.

 

[BSK]

Actually, with today's "modern" muzzleloaders, not sure I'd even separate out MZ and gun hunter-day "effectiveness" ratio.

I'm not. I would look at bow-hunting hunter-days versus MZ/gun hunter-days. Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

I'll disagree with that statement. Ballistically, today's ML's are very close to a lot of centerfire weapons. The BIG difference comes in that they are almost totally a one shot deal. If you miss with a muzzleloader, it is VERY unlikely that you will be able to reload and get another shot off at that deer.

So don't miss. :super: Sorry man, just HAD to say that!

But you're right, perhaps MZs would need to have a different "effectiveness ratio" than multi-shot centerfire weapons.

 

[MUP]

I missed and got a 2nd shot off! DANG fortunate is all I can say! ;)

 

[Hunter 257W]

What about counties such as Franklin where half the county is mountains with nothing but cover and very difficult to hunt, and the other half is agricultural and highly populated? The results of this calculation would be a combination of the two extremes and wouldn't fit either.

 

[BSK]

What about counties such as Franklin where half the county is mountains with nothing but cover and very difficult to hunt, and the other half is agricultural and highly populated? The results of this calculation would be a combination of the two extremes and wouldn't fit either.

Good question, and something that would need serious consideration.

I would hate to see it, but "to get it right" might require the type of complexity you can see in some states' regulations. Up in Michigan, harvest units--and separate harvest rules--are in parcels so small that several can exist within a single county. They are so small that they are defined by road boundaries, such as "east of Highway 341, and south of Beech Road, and west of..." etc.

 

[MUP]

I for sure wouldn't want to see it go that direction.

 

[TheLBLman]

Todays MZs are just as effective as most rifles in the average shooters hands.

I'll disagree with that statement. Ballistically, today's ML's are very close to a lot of centerfire weapons. The BIG difference comes in that they are almost totally a one shot deal. If you miss with a muzzleloader, it is VERY unlikely that you will be able to reload and get another shot off at that deer.

So don't miss. :super: Sorry man, just HAD to say that!

But you're right, perhaps MZs would need to have a different "effectiveness ratio" than multi-shot centerfire weapons.

I'll disagree with that statement. :mrgreen: Although I do agree with the "So don't miss!" :mrgreen:
I believe, today, the "effectiveness ratio" between modern MZs and multi-shot centerfire weapons is negligible, at least so long as we're only talking about shooting one buck in a day (the current daily buck limit).

About the only time it's of any consideration to me is if I were trying to kill multiple deer inside a few seconds. When my county first went to Unit L, one evening I dropped 3 big does from a single group of deer. That probably wouldn't have happened had I been using a muzzleloader. I'd have just taken one, and been done. I've since had no desire to try that again, as I prefer to only deal with no more than one deer during any 24-hr period.

Going back over a decade, I have killed every buck I've shot at with either a muzzleloader or a centerfire, and can honestly say having a 2nd round quickly available made no difference in the outcome. And since most deer are killed at a range of under 100 yards in TN, there is typically no range advantage for a centerfire over a muzzleloader. However, no doubt a centerfire "cartridge gun" can be an advantage where shots over 200 yards are probable, but more because of superior long-range ballistics than the ability to get off a 2nd shot more quickly.

But I do agree, if you miss with a muzzleloader, it is VERY unlikely that you will be able to reload and get another shot off at that deer.

So don't miss. :smash:

 

[megalomaniac]

I suspect their is no difference in the effectiveness in killing deer between ML and rifle. I DO suspect there is a measurable difference between deer shot and recovered between ML and rifle, however. Not quite as dramatic as between a bow and rifle, but present nevertheless.

 

[Boone 58]

I have always agreed with you BSK, you are the voice of reason in a room full of insanity amongst those who are paranoid and over focus on these things. I like the limits as they are , and for the sake of the 1% who actually kill 3 bucks per season I will say this. If they reduced it to 2 form 3, I have no problem..........but any lower and I get really stubborn!!! this aint iowa, Kentucky, and lord knows if we continue to over focus on "trophy bucks' to the point only big money can hunt, or afford it, this sport will die!!! We depend on the masses for strength in numbers. keep it a fun and a family sport and let the individual hunter deem what is a "trophy"................greed is already a cancer in this sport. Just look at the huge expense by these companies to make it so! Thanks Bsk, I really do appreciate you.