mathews338
Well-Known Member
I believe that if we would have been under the old 3 buck limit we would have set harvest records this year by a large margin. no acorns meant the deer would have to move around a lot to find food. deer would have to hit the fields and other open areas to feed making them much more visible. I saw more deer this year in fields feeding than I can ever remember. I would bet the majority of hunters hunt around fields therefore more hunters had more opportunities to kill bucks. If the woods are full of acorns most deer might not have to leave the safety of thick cover. I can't explain why we got off to a slow start though unless a lot of hunters hunted the woods early out of habit.
This is just a theory I had that I wanted to share. May be wrong but it is possible I guess. Just to be clear I am neither for or against the 2 buck limit. I liked a 3 buck limit but I don't mind the 2 buck limit. I am a hunter and no matter what the regs are I will continue to hunt and be happy about it.
One thing is for sure though, we will have to give the 2 buck limit a few years before we start comparing data. At this point it is interesting to see but useless imo.
This is just a theory I had that I wanted to share. May be wrong but it is possible I guess. Just to be clear I am neither for or against the 2 buck limit. I liked a 3 buck limit but I don't mind the 2 buck limit. I am a hunter and no matter what the regs are I will continue to hunt and be happy about it.
One thing is for sure though, we will have to give the 2 buck limit a few years before we start comparing data. At this point it is interesting to see but useless imo.