New Deer Units

Tennessee Deer Sporting & Deer Hunting Community Forum

Help Support TNDeer | Tennessee Deer:

P

Pilchard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
3,840
I just looked at the TN Wildlife magazine that came in the mail.

In the new units, Rutherford and Wilson counties are in the same unit as White, Overton and Putnam Counties. Wilson's annual deer harvest more than doubles each of the three Counties I listed on the Eastern side of unit 3.

Question for the group...

Does it make sense for these counties to all share the same limits on antlerless deer?

It really won't make a difference to me as I have only killed two does in the last 3 years off my lease in Wilson County, one of which my son shot. I have to imagine deer densities are wildly different in the areas I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
I just looked at the TN Wildlife magazine that came in the mail.

In the new units, Rutherford and Wilson counties are in the same unit as White, Overton and Putnam Counties. Wilson's annual deer harvest more than doubles each of the three Counties I listed on the Eastern side of unit 3.

Question for the group...

Does it make sense foe these counties to all share the same limits on antlerless deer?

It really won't make a difference to me as I have only killed two does in the last 3 years off my lease in Wilson County, one of which my son shot. I have to imagine deer densities are wildly different in the areas I mentioned.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to me.
 
Same here , it makes no sense to group counties together that have huge differences in population and harvest number! I mean my county killed 1300 why next county over killed 400 , another with 300 etc, yet were gonna be grouped together? According ti twra they based the new units on harvest trends and atler circumference 😂 Another epic fail by idiots
 
Let me preface this by saying, for the moment, I'm "neutral" as to TWRA's decision, simply because I don't know all the criteria considered for such a decision.

knightrider said:
Same here , it makes no sense to group counties together that have huge differences in population and harvest number!
Click to expand...

On the surface, seems to make no sense whatsoever.

However, there are other factors besides huge deer population differences.

Just a few among them:

1) Hunter densities;
2) Hunter compliance with hunting regulations
3) Enforcement abilities one county vs. another, etc.

Carry on.
 
TheLBLman said:
Let me preface this by saying, for the moment, I'm "neutral" as to TWRA's decision, simply because I don't know all the criteria considered for such a decision.



On the surface, seems to make no sense whatsoever.

However, there are other factors besides huge deer population differences.

Just a few among them:

1) Hunter densities;
2) Hunter compliance with hunting regulations
3) Enforcement abilities one county vs. another, etc.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Deer harvest numbers are only one piece of the puzzle. Many many other variables in making these decisions
 
TheLBLman said:
Let me preface this by saying, for the moment, I'm "neutral" as to TWRA's decision, simply because I don't know all the criteria considered for such a decision.



On the surface, seems to make no sense whatsoever.

However, there are other factors besides huge deer population differences.

Just a few among them:

1) Hunter densities;
2) Hunter compliance with hunting regulations
3) Enforcement abilities one county vs. another, etc.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, hunter compliance with regulations should never be a consideration in wildlife management or in passing any law or regulation. If that is the case, why have a speed limit when most people are not obeying it? Just an example.
 
Last edited:
Hillbilly Hunter said:
Absolutely! Deer harvest numbers are only one piece of the puzzle. Many many other variables in making these decisions
Click to expand...
But they are the one piece that can decimate a small herd when taken from a unit with very strict limits and then putting it in a unit with liberal limits! Unless they change limits drastically its gonna be dumber than it ever has!
 
tnanh said:
In my opinion, hunter compliance with regulations should never be a consideration in wildlife management or in passing any law or regulation.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, where everyone obeys all the rules, I would agree with you.

But that's not reality.
Many laws are ultimately only as good as their enforcements. If there is broad non-compliance with a law (people breaking that law), with impunity for those not following the rules, the end result is that honest sportsmen are in effect punished, while dishonest poacher are rewarded.

In reality, enforcement and the amount of non-compliance become big issues.
We want to reward good behavior, not punish it.

tnanh said:
If that is the case, why have a sped limit when most people are not obeying it? Just an example.
Click to expand...
Have to consider the degree of violation.
If you habitually speed over 20 mph over the speed limit, you'll likely loose your driver's license or die young.

Allowing people to drive a few mph over the speed limit with impunity is similar to someone shooting a duck 30 seconds before legal shooting time. Sure, technically illegally, but the degree of violation is minor, and maybe not an intentional violation.
 
This concerns me if they go to unit L antlerless regulations in the Eastern section of this unit where I hunt. These counties have been in unit B the past few years where in gun season the limit is 1 antlerless per season while the Western counties have been in unit L with antlerless limits if 3 per day.
 
CrossVolle said:
The way I see it, it looks like "Unit L" might actually shrink here. Only logical hypothesis from very little information.
Click to expand...
I hope so. Although Wilson county doesn't have the deer numbers of counties to our west, it seems as though we're one of the first stops for folks from the east wanting to tag some does.
 
Hillbilly Hunter said:
Absolutely! Deer harvest numbers are only one piece of the puzzle. Many many other variables in making these decisions
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I can see how rutherford and wilson would need lower harvest per hunter since those counties have so many people and rapidly decreasing acres of huntable land
 
redblood said:
I can see how rutherford and wilson would need lower harvest per hunter since those counties have so many people and rapidly decreasing acres of huntable land
Click to expand...
You and I see this from an avid deer hunter's perspective.
Problem is, most people don't deer hunt.
And many non-hunters in Rutherford & Wilson Counties are complaining about there being too many deer.

There's lots of conflicting factions at play here.
 
Split Brow said:
Where is this map located, can't seem to find anything on it?
Click to expand...
Screenshot (17).png
 
It will be the same way as it has always been: shoot it in Wilson and check it in for Davidson.

Montgomery Co harvest dropped significantly when Stewart Co finally went to Unit L.

With the online check in crap, there is no way to enforce individual county limits to any degree.

More biological theory that isn't based in reality.
 
I was hoping this is not really the actual plan, and is only an example- put together to give us an idea of something they're going to propose.
I could be mistaken, but I agree with the OP.
 
Buzzard Breath said:
Current map
. . . .
. . ..
Proposed map
Click to expand...
Still 6 units, no more, no less.
So seems more similar than different?

More or less just assigning them a number instead of a letter?

But have to wonder . . . . . . .

Will the entire new Unit 1 be more like the old CWD Zone,
or more like the old Unit L?

And will the new Unit 2 simply replace what was Unit L?
 
Buzzard Breath said:
This would be my assumption after watch the proposals video.
Click to expand...
If the CWD rules remain, can't transport a field-dressed deer from the west side of TN River to the east side of TN River? Many area hunters live on either side of the river (KY Lake), and hunt both sides, such as hunting in both Stewart & Henry Counties. This has been a headache for me personally, and sounds like may be getting worse.

I may just have to follow the lead of my elders and begin replacing deer hunting with deep south fishing. SCN spends more time tarpon fishing in November than deer hunting now, and he used to be an avid deer hunter, too.
 
TheLBLman said:
If the CWD rules remain, can't transport a field-dressed deer from the west side of TN River to the east side of TN River? Many area hunters live on either side of the river (KY Lake), and hunt both sides, such as hunting in both Stewart & Henry Counties. This has been a headache for me personally, and sounds like may be getting worse.
Click to expand...
Yes the way I understand it..
I live in Humphreys but hunt Benton and other areas West of the river..
It is a pita…
 
TheLBLman said:
If the CWD rules remain, can't transport a field-dressed deer from the west side of TN River to the east side of TN River? Many area hunters live on either side of the river (KY Lake), and hunt both sides, such as hunting in both Stewart & Henry Counties. This has been a headache for me personally, and sounds like may be getting worse.

I may just have to follow the lead of my elders and begin replacing deer hunting with deep south fishing. SCN spends more time tarpon fishing in November than deer hunting now, and he used to be an avid deer hunter, too.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced the transportation rules have as much to do with disengaging people as the disease itself.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top