Proliferation of older bucks

[TX300mag]

I'm glad squirrels don't have antlers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[megalomaniac]

Fairchaser, I really only see 2 options for your situation to maximize fairness between members.... Jawbone aging doesn't discriminate, it's just as likely to be wrong for the next guy as you. But gross antler scores are certainly objective and reproducible.

continue with your 2 buck limit, but adjust minimum gross scores depending on mainframe points... ie, a mainframe 4 that scores 100" would be legal; A mainframe 6 that scores 115"; a mainframe 8 that scores 125", a mainframe 10 that scores 135"... OR 4.5 by jawbone wear. A rule like this would protect your top end 2.5 y/o 10ptrs that are currently being killed, while still allowing those mature deer with subpar racks (the 4's and 6's) to still be killed without fear of consequences. A couple caveats- you don't count any extra kickers/ stickers in the score, just the mainframe. And broken main points or missing main points must meet the score had they been there (ie, a mainframe 7 ptr with either a missing g3 or broken g3 would still have to meet the 125" score to be a 'shooter')

The second option is much simpler and although seems less palatable, I have found works incredibly well in producing a wonderful overall hunting experience. Convince the managmenet and members to try it for a couple or 3 years, and I guarantee everyone will be much happier. Simply go to a 1 buck limit per member, no restrictions on age or score. The only second rule is 'don't shoot something on the last day of the hunt that you would not have shot on the first day of the hunt'... if you are thrilled with that particular buck, shoot away. Assuming you have 1 member per 200ac or so, you will not negatively affect your age structure one bit. Noone gets their feelings hurt with bucks going on the wall of shame, and all hunters will be naturally selective regarding killing what is a trophy in their eyes. Members hunting for 150" deer will be glad someone tagged out in November with a smaller buck- they won't be in the woods competing for the remaining bucks. This is the method I chose to use for my farms, and it has completely eliminated any jealousy between those that hunt. In fact, once I kill my buck for the year, I keep hunting (really just scouting), to pinpoint locations of other good bucks for my friends to kill. Kids are forced to pick the buck they want to 'tag out' on, so it starts them out thinking about management from an early age. And there are enough bucks to go around where every single person has a decent chance of killing something they would be proud of.

 

[fairchaser]

I like where you are going with that Megla. The first option has merit if it can be simplified enough to be practical for old and new members to understand. I'm afraid the one buck option would result in too many bucks killed. Right now we kill about 30 bucks, good or bad, out of 85 hunters. Under the one buck of choice, hunters would kill 70-85 bucks. I also like what you do on your property, one trophy buck and one management buck. Our members rarely kill two bucks anyway. But some version of this policy might encourage the taking of a management buck while letting a young up and comer walk even though he makes minimum score. I think some rule changes are coming because management believes we are killing too many young bucks and robbing our future. Some of that is true but we don't kill that many bucks total for that size property.

 

[megalomaniac]

If your hunters are similar to the crew that hunts my farms, you would probably only kill 40-45 bucks annually... not enough to dent the average number of mature bucks available for the following year on 18,000 acres.

We have 9 hunters on my farms. Typically, those 9 hunters only kill 3-4 bucks. Last year was an anomaly, when we killed 5 bucks (but one was a guest of a guest, so we really should have only taken 4). Point is, with a 1 buck limit, most adult hunters are very, very choosy about what buck they pick to end their hunting for the year on. But those that still haven't killed yet stand a very good chance of encountering whatever type of buck they want to shoot late in the season. I'm probably the least picky of the adult hunters, as I'm no longer hunting for the biggest buck in the woods. I'm happy just taking an average mature buck each year. Maybe if I ever get a 170"er on trail cam, I'll hold out for him, but I'm not holding my breath

 

[fairchaser]

If your hunters are similar to the crew that hunts my farms, you would probably only kill 40-45 bucks annually... not enough to dent the average number of mature bucks available for the following year on 18,000 acres.

We have 9 hunters on my farms. Typically, those 9 hunters only kill 3-4 bucks. Last year was an anomaly, when we killed 5 bucks (but one was a guest of a guest, so we really should have only taken 4). Point is, with a 1 buck limit, most adult hunters are very, very choosy about what buck they pick to end their hunting for the year on. But those that still haven't killed yet stand a very good chance of encountering whatever type of buck they want to shoot late in the season. I'm probably the least picky of the adult hunters, as I'm no longer hunting for the biggest buck in the woods. I'm happy just taking an average mature buck each year. Maybe if I ever get a 170"er on trail cam, I'll hold out for him, but I'm not holding my breath

You could be right Megla and hunters would be picky enough with their one tag to hold out. If that would work, it would take a lot of check station pressure off, aging and scoring, for the hunter and staff. It would make for a much more enjoyable hunting experience as well. I've known hunters who have gotten physically ill, after shooting a buck, worrying about a mistake. We've got some wonderfully educated PHD's who will figure out what's best. They don't make many changes or react to one or two seasons results so I don't expect any wholesale changes to take place. But, you've given some good ideas.

 

[Mike Belt]

fc... How many acres do you think we have that are huntable out of our 18,600 acres excluding safety zones and inaccessible areas?

This year I think management may be looking at the borderline and under bucks being taken. I've heard mention of stiffer fines but I don't really think that will make much of a difference in the outcome. It's hard to get tougher without really upsetting those that are fairly consistent at making mistakes but if the shoe fits...? I hate to see "over ruling" but maybe if something like those that have 2 consistent years of mistakes are limited to only 1 buck going into the next season??? That may give them worry about pulling the trigger or it might even be enough to push them out of the club. If that was to happen their replacements might be prone to not follow suit.

 

[fairchaser]

fc... How many acres do you think we have that are huntable out of our 18,600 acres excluding safety zones and inaccessible areas?

This year I think management may be looking at the borderline and under bucks being taken. I've heard mention of stiffer fines but I don't really think that will make much of a difference in the outcome. It's hard to get tougher without really upsetting those that are fairly consistent at making mistakes but if the shoe fits...? I hate to see "over ruling" but maybe if something like those that have 2 consistent years of mistakes are limited to only 1 buck going into the next season??? That may give them worry about pulling the trigger or it might even be enough to push them out of the club. If that was to happen their replacements might be prone to not follow suit.

I've never tried to figure it but considerably less land. If you just eliminate safety zones, it could be 15,000 huntable acres. Much less if you remove swamps, cutovers, dense pine forests, and open crop land. But most hunting property has those elements.

If you have a rule on minimum 125 inch buck, then you shouldn't be penalized for shooting one. You should be congratulated IMO. The rule was to protect most 2.5 yo bucks and it does. IMO we underage many of the bucks killed using TWR as an exact age rather than a minimum age. If we actually knew the age of those bucks on the bad board, how many would be moved to the good board? Wouldn't that change everything management is upset about? Now if you want to harvest larger bucks, simply move the minimum higher. You kill fewer bucks but the average would increase and likely the average age. I like it where it is because I'm not happy killing something every 5-10 years as some are. Hunters are simply getting better at their scoring skills and that's why they are better at killing marginal bucks but if that's what makes them happy so be it. I don't know why there would be a fine imposed for a 128 inch buck even a small fine!

 

[Stykbow]

So in all reality Ames is making it hard to kill any buck. Seems that a minimum score and minimum age is severely restricting the bucks you can kill. Wouldn't you be better off with one or the other? If I had to choose I'd go with a minimum score because a "real" age is hard to determine unless you have camera history of a particular buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Talome13]

Jeez, is there no other places for you guys to hunt? Some of my best times in life, other than being with my family, have been in the woods. I would hate to have to worry about being penalized, or put on some "bad board". Sounds reminiscent of my earlier days............ like when I was 8!!!!! Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS guys. I hope you and your families have a blessed one.

 

[fairchaser]

So in all reality Ames is making it hard to kill any buck. Seems that a minimum score and minimum age is severely restricting the bucks you can kill. Wouldn't you be better off with one or the other? If I had to choose I'd go with a minimum score because a "real" age is hard to determine unless you have camera history of a particular buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's either minimum score OR minimum age Stykbow. So it's certainly not as hard as both would be. In spite of all the rules, and there are a lot of rules, it's a truly, truly a wonderful place to hunt. There is nothing like it! When you have 85 guys and a common set of goals to provide a unique hunting experience, you must have rules. IMO, the management has largely accomplished what they set out to do. They are certainly a model to be considered. People change, conditions change and one season is not always better than the last. When this happens people start pointing fingers and coming up with ideas to fix it. But, sometimes we just need more patience.

 

[Stykbow]

So in all reality Ames is making it hard to kill any buck. Seems that a minimum score and minimum age is severely restricting the bucks you can kill. Wouldn't you be better off with one or the other? If I had to choose I'd go with a minimum score because a "real" age is hard to determine unless you have camera history of a particular buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's either minimum score OR minimum age Stykbow.

Gotcha, I must have misread something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk