Season Recommendations

[bigfoot318]

What are some of the suggestions floating around for the upcoming season? I am would really like to see more anterless opportunities for Unit A during the rifle season. Any other suggestions?

 

[CopperHead77]

One buck per weapon.

 

[bigfoot318]

How would you handle the doe harvest? It seems that everytime I go I see does but it is always closed here in Cumberland county for does during rifle season.

 

[BSK]

I don't know of any serious recommendations floating around except for perhaps a 2 buck limit statewide.

 

[Trapper John]

I honestly wouldn't mind a 2 buck limit. I try to get my fill with does anyway. Once Unit L came to our county I was officially satisfied.

I've got no real recommendation this time around unless there's a chance they will fix the whole muzzleloader/gun season gap.

 

[BSK]

I've got no real recommendation this time around unless there's a chance they will fix the whole muzzleloader/gun season gap.

I'm the same. No serious proposals for bag limit changes, just season date changes to do something about the 2 out of every 7 years when a two week gap in firearms hunting exists between the end of 1st MZ and beginning of 1st gun. For some areas, this constitutes the bulk of the peak of the rut.

 

[muddyboots]

If I had my choices of changes it would be:
1. 2 buck limit - anytime
2. 6 doe limit - anytime
3. 1 Muzzleloader season - dont care when it is - I dont like cleaning it twice a year LOL
4. Button bucks count as a buck

 

[bigfoot318]

BSK, How could the TWRA allow more flexibility for hunters to harvest anterless deer without putting too much pressure on the resource? I agree that the TWRA doesn't need to revamp their bag limits much except for a 2 buck limit statewide.

I think the TWRA really needs to look at antlerless seasons during the rifle season. Hunters that don't hunt archery or MZ seasons don't have the opportunity to harvest a doe during rifle season for most of Units A and B.

You and I both know that hunter recruitment is headed in the wrong direction. I think that new hunter recruitment would be enhanced with some type of doe season. I personally know people that want to go hunting but won't do it because they don't want to (or don't have the time) to sit in the stand for 3 days waiting on a buck. They would be perfectly content to kill anything. If they are successful on their first hunt or two we have a whole lot better chance keeping them in the hunting lifestyle.

Is there a way to allow more doe harvest without negatively impacting the population?

bigfoot318

 

[Winchester]

Unit B's closed days between the gun and mz seasons needs to be opened for archery hunting!

 

[Quailman]

I don't know of any serious recommendations floating around except for perhaps a 2 buck limit statewide.

BSK, have you heard that this may be a possible recommendation this year? As you know, it is something I would definitely support.

 

[Football Hunter]

I don't know of any serious recommendations floating around except for perhaps a 2 buck limit statewide.

Really,I thought that was just talk between us yahoos on here!

 

[BSK]

I don't know of any serious recommendations floating around except for perhaps a 2 buck limit statewide.

BSK, have you heard that this may be a possible recommendation this year? As you know, it is something I would definitely support.

The Commission will listen to anyone who wants to speak at the meetings. If enough hunters support the idea, they will also support it. I think the TWRA biologist would have to admit a 2 buck limit would do no harm to the resource, and if something hunters want does no harm, why not give it to them?

 

[PickettSFHunter]

2 buck limit statewide.

 

[TheLBLman]

Let me preface by saying I have "generally" been pleased with the direction of Tennessee's statewide deer management beginning with the 1998 season. Been going in the right direction, for the most part. So the below should be taken by TWRA more as a "wish" than a criticism, as all of the TWRA folks I know are overworked, underpaid, and working hard to do a great job.

That said, I would like to see TWRA being more proactive in promoting better herd health (including improving buck:doe ratios, improving buck age structure) in TWRA "selling" TWRA's "season recommendations" to the hunters. It almost seems like it's been more the hunters telling the TWRA what's wrong and what the hunters think needs to be done to fix it. For sure, there needs to be input from hunters, just would like to see more emphasis on improving herd health coming from TWRA, rather than blanket statements such as "we are not yet overpopulated" or "we are still below carrying capacity" or "80% of the hunters are happy with the status quo" or "we're going to raise the buck limit to simplify the regs".

Part of my "wish" seems to be coming true, as we do see much more "proactivity" in basic deer management information coming from TWRA's website and the 2008 Hunting Guide booklet, with much thanks for that going to BigGameGuy and his staff. Best of all, we have developed this "exchange of ideas" forum called www.TNdeer.com in which TWRA folks actively participate with many of Tennessee's most avid deer hunters on a regular basis.

So what changes would I like to see in the 2009 deer regs?
------- in order of preference --------

1) Elimination of "buck-only" regs, i.e. all hunting is "either-sex" until at least one deer has been harvested by a hunter. Yes, statewide, even in Unit B. You want to "simplify" the regs? This is it.

2) Statewide Simple 2-Buck Limit

3) Have the Nov. Muzzleloader season always open 2 weeks prior to centerfire "Rifle" season, and run for 9 consecutive days. This would provide a consistent 5-day break every year between the end of muzzleloader and the beginning of centerfire rifle. This would help insure that no matter what type "weapon" a hunter prefers, he will have greater opportunity to hunt during the rut's peak.

4) End deer season statewide on December 31st.

5) Open statewide archery season on the first Saturday in September.

 

[BSK]

So what changes would I like to see in the 2009 deer regs?
------- in order of preference --------

1) Elimination of "buck-only" regs, i.e. all hunting is "either-sex" until at least one deer has been harvested by a hunter. Yes, statewide, even in Unit B. You want to "simplify" the regs? This is it.

I agree in Units L and A. But I do have a concern with everyone being able to take does in low-density Unit B counties. Hunter densities are so high and deer densities so low in some of these areas that I worry that everyone being able to take a doe could dramatically slow down herd growth.

2) Statewide Simple 2-Buck Limit

Agree.

3) Have the Nov. Muzzleloader season always open 2 weeks prior to centerfire "Rifle" season, and run for 10 consecutive days. This would provide a consistent 5-day break every year between the end of muzzleloader and the beginning of centerfire rifle. This would help insure that no matter what type "weapon" a hunter prefers, he will have greater opportunity to hunt during the rut's peak.

Agree (except it would be a 9-day MZ season--Saturday to Sunday of the following week).

4) End deer season statewide on December 31st.

I have no problem with that.

5) Open statewide archery season on the first Saturday in September.

I have no problem with that.

 

[TheLBLman]

Have the Nov. Muzzleloader season always open 2 weeks prior to centerfire "Rifle" season, and run for 10 consecutive days.

Agree (except it would be a 9-day MZ season--Saturday to Sunday of the following week).

My bad --- just changed that to 9 days in the original post.

 

[TheLBLman]

1) Elimination of "buck-only" regs, i.e. all hunting is "either-sex" until at least one deer has been harvested by a hunter. Yes, statewide, even in Unit B. You want to "simplify" the regs? This is it.

I agree in Units L and A. But I do have a concern with everyone being able to take does in low-density Unit B counties. Hunter densities are so high and deer densities so low in some of these areas that I worry that everyone being able to take a doe could dramatically slow down herd growth.

I believe this would "work out" just fine, especially with the following thoughts/changes:

a) The "antlerless" limit in Unit B would simply be one (1) annually. This would require an elimination of some of the current late-season quota and non-quota "antlerless" hunts in Unit B. There could still be some county-specific additional "antlerless" opportunities, just that eliminating some (or all) alleviates some of the concern for harvesting too many does.

b) To some extent, we would simply be changing the dates that Unit B hunters were killing their antlerless deer. Many would kill a doe in November instead of December. Many would kill their doe with a centerfire rifle instead of a muzzleloader.

c) It appears than even in Unit B, hunter hours afield are slowing decreasing, year by year. At the same time, the deer herd has greatly expanded across Unit B ---- just look at Knox County at a prime example. Instead of worrying about killing too many deer, we may need to get ahead of this curve and start worrying more about killing enough. Seems to me the #1 mistake that has been made time and time again by state game agencies has been in letting deer herds get too dense before taking measures to reduce them. And the damage caused by too many deer goes far beyond anything previously discussed on this thread --- it may very well be a much more legitimate concern than "we might slow herd growth in some areas".

d) Most of Unit B cannot healthily support the deer densities of most of Middle & West TN.

e) Today's hunters are much more "self-regulating" in that they are not so likely to decimate a localized deer population, as the hunters of the past.

f) Herd health in Unit B would be greatly improved with either-sex regs, resulting in a more natural rut, providing Unit B hunters with yet greater opportunity to harvest larger and older bucks.

 

[BSK]

Perhaps you're right Wes, and my fears about doe over-harvest are unfounded. But in a situation where deer densities are 5-7 deer per square mile and there are triple that number of hunters per square, allowing each of those hunters a doe tag sounds a tad scary.

 

[TheLBLman]

But in a situation where deer densities are 5-7 deer per square mile and there are triple that number of hunters per square, allowing each of those hunters a doe tag sounds a tad scary.

I'd be more concerned about the deer killed by poachers and people's dogs. There are many reasons why deer densities are low in parts of Unit B ---- and many of them have little to do with legal hunter harvests. If we totally eliminated legal deer hunting in some of these areas, the deer herd would still never get much higher. So why not have a more healthy herd and give the ultimate in (legal) hunter choice with either-sex regs?

Remember, regarding Unit B, I'm talking "a" doe tag, which to a large degree is simply changing "when" the hunter could kill "a" doe, and without having to pay extra $ to do it.

 

[BSK]

Good points.

 

[WestTn Huntin man]

One buck per weapon.

Not fair to the guys with only one weapon,or just alittle time off to hunt.

 

[TheLBLman]

A couple final thoughts.

First, historically, many concerns about overharvest of does now appear to have been unwarranted, while "too many does" has become, not just a concern, but a serious problem. Especially when looking beyond just producing targets for hunters, the problem of too few deer is easier to remedy than the greater problems of too many deer.

In times past it had been assumed that a decrease in doe sightings (in the year following an increase in doe harvests) was closely correlated to the reduced doe population. But the recent invent of camera censusing has proven that it is usually more a matter of greatly decreased daytime doe movement due to survivor adaptation, rather than a decreased doe population.

For example, if we increased the doe harvest by 25% this year, we might only be decreasing the doe population by 12%, while the next year's daytime doe observations (by hunters hunting) might decrease 50% compared to the prior year. It might "appear" the population had been shot down by 50%, when in actuality the doe population might be down only 12%, while the buck population might even be up 6%.

Remember, regarding Unit B, I'm talking "a" doe tag, which to a large degree is simply changing "when" the hunter could kill "a" doe, and without having to pay extra $ to do it.

Another point about this:

Many hunters are spending as little money as possible, just to go "deer" hunting. Many, particularly some of the 17 to 22-yr-old young hunters we need to recruit or retain most, have a hard time justifying or affording any extra cost to go hunting. Would many of these hunters kill a doe INSTEAD of a buck, if they didn't have to pay extra for a doe tag? I say we would save the lives of many young bucks in Unit B if every hunter afield had the legal option of killing "a" doe, without having to pay extra $ for that privilege AND increase hunter success at the same time.

Regarding any lost revenue to TWRA (from Type 94 "antlerless" permits), just add 50 cents to the cost of the Archery & Muzzleloader licenses.

OK --- I'm done.

 

[Radar]

Archery only , all season .

 

[bigfoot318]

Wes, I really like the idea of letting hunters kill a doe instead of a buck. Hunter recruitment is going down each year and we have to do something to get more people into the sport. I think some type of bag limit for A & L that allows at least 1 doe during the rifle season per hunter without having to buy all the extra licenses. If the hunter wants to buy more antlerless tags then let them buy extra but at least 1 doe tag should come with the standard license.

bigfoot318

 

[BSK]

I agree Wes and bigfoot318 concerning not having to buy an extra tag for doe shooting. However, I also understand the realities of the budget crisis looming for the TWRA. I think many of us hunters have been jaded by budget discussions of the past and don't realize just how muich trouble the TWRA is in money-wise this time around. From the numbers I have seen, the agency will be bankrupt in just a couple of years.

 

[TheLBLman]

I think many of us hunters don't realize just how muich trouble the TWRA is in money-wise this time around. From the numbers I have seen, the agency will be bankrupt in just a couple of years.

I do understand, and do want the TWRA to have all the money it needs. But at this point, I don't think they're getting much from Type 94 sales for the main reason of harvesting an antlerless deer. More of those Type 94 sales may be sold to allow the purchaser to hunt on a WMA.

But imagine how much more favorable it might be to TWRA's cash flow if the basic hunting license allowed for 1 buck & 1 doe, but the 2nd ANTLERED tag was by the purchase of a Type 94 permit? At this point in time, the "premium" should be placed on the buck tag, not the doe tag. Of course, lifetime and sportsman license holders wouldn't have to buy anything else for their 2nd (and/or 3rd) buck tag ---- thus, the agency might see a large increase in sportsman license sales, thus a large increase in money into their budget.

 

[BSK]

That is an idea Wes.

I don't remember how much they made off of Type 94 licenses.

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

I've also wondered if the TWRA would not be better off selling individual tags, a lot of the other states are doing it. A lot of states are making their hunters buy doe tags for each individual one. I know one club in another state that has extra doe tags just for their guest.

 

[Radar]

Telecheck