Master Chief":11zaicsn said:
Like I said earlier, I don't care what the limit is. I agree with BSK-it is area specific and TWRA can't define those areas.
Anyways, 44% of bucks harvested would have survived another year if a one buck limit were in place. Any way you look at it, that means thousands of bucks living another year so YES the age structure would obviously increase-OF DEER IN EXISTANCE. This is obvious. Will the harvest data look any better? Maybe a little, but harvest data doesn't mean much to what is out there. Right now, even with a three buck limit, I think the age structure is great in TN-mostly because any deer surving past 2.5 has a high chance of never being harvested. Mature bucks just aren't going to be killed as often as yearlisngs due to the signifigant difference in difficulty so no matter the age structure you will see many more on the 3.5 or less category vs 4.5+
Master Chief,
Simply looking at the number of bucks saved statewide doesn't address the issue of localized problems, which you agree is the primary problem. What if the majority of those ~40,000 bucks "saved" by a 1 buck limit would be in counties that don't need protection from buck harvest? What if the majority come from areas with either higher deer/buck densities, or lower hunter densities, or both? Those areas can easily withstand the current harvest and still maintain good buck age structures. Saving those extra bucks would end up being very detrimental to those areas, as with each passing year deer densities would noticeably increase--due to all those "extra" bucks remaining in the herd each year--until problems result. And all the while, the areas which need help are not being helped.
What I'm getting at is, first it would need to be determined how many of those "extra" bucks are being killed in areas that need help with buck age structure. If many 2nd and 3rd bucks are coming from counties with low buck age structures, then it's time to start talking about specialized buck limits
just for those areas, WITHOUT enforcing unnecessary limits on areas that are working fine with the current buck limits. In essence, if we're going to micro-manage, let's micro-manage correctly. Again, managing for the lowest common denominator (setting low buck bag limits
everywhere in an attempt to fix only the worst
localized situations) could end up causing major problems in areas where those restrictions are not needed.
When I figure out how it all works, someday I'll spend time discussing what I'm finding out about buck age structure. But in very simplified terms, what I'm finding--no matter the management strategy--is that you can only push buck age structure so far. In essence, there is a natural balance point that will occur no matter how much younger bucks are protected. This is true even in the most controlled environments, such as inside a high-fence where no bucks are killed until maturity. But the math gets very complicated when trying to describe what is happening, and to be honest, I still don't understand exactly what causes the increased natural mortality of bucks once all non-mature bucks are protected. But it happens, and the result is a much lower percentage of the buck population being mature than hunters would ever believe. The take home message is that you cannot stockpile mature bucks for long. Nature intervenes and balances things back out.
