They wouldn't count towards antlered deer harvest, no. I'm guessing a large percentage of those were accidents/byproduct of antlerless season. Luckily they don't cost you a buck tag. The information is obviously relevant though, otherwise they wouldn't record it. To what capacity, I don''t know.
Tennesse Buck Totals for 2015 exceed 2014
- Thread starter Boone 58
- Start date
I generally refer to an antlered deer as "buck." When setting seasons and bag limits for antlered deer (bucks), antlerless (does, buttons, antlerless bucks) deer harvest would not be relevant. Buttons and antlerless bucks would be managed under antlerless season I think.
LanceS4803
Well-Known Member
I find it amazing that TN keeps such detailed records on deer harvests. It has to be a great resource for the biologists.
When I lived in UT, there was no check system or recording of harvests. They only conduct a post hunt random sampling call to hunters. They want to manage mule deer and elk for trophy destination hunts, but don't seem to want to know what is really going on.
When I lived in UT, there was no check system or recording of harvests. They only conduct a post hunt random sampling call to hunters. They want to manage mule deer and elk for trophy destination hunts, but don't seem to want to know what is really going on.
garnermtn
Well-Known Member
So I guess the 3 buck crowd will shut the hell up now?
Hunter 257W
Well-Known Member
All these discussions about how well the buck limit change is or is -not working is like somebody who is on a diet and insists on weighing themselves twice a day. Normal variation of the numbers are such that it is worthless to try to measure effectiveness so soon after a change.
ImThere
Well-Known Member
Or maybe you will. I guess we will seegarnermtn":156cghrr said:
the one and only "ImThere"
I think the argument is that if the limit were not going to affect antlered deer kill numbers, then why reduce the limit. It takes away an opportunity to kill a 3rd buck without saving a statistically significant amount of deer, or in this case any, but that number will fluctuate. The deer population was healthy enough to support a 3 buck limit, and there were plenty of older age bucks to kill. The complaining is that by lowering the limit to 2 you will not get a larger amount of deer in the upper age classes than we already had with the 3 buck limit, so why lower it. I'm sure someone will put together a spreadsheet with minute percentages favoring one way or the other, and some speculation will be done, but on a statewide level the benefit is very minimal, if at all. If you broke things down property by property I'm sure there are areas that will benefit, but that's not the role the twra should play. Not many will see a significant benefit is my speculation, but will lead you to believe their world has changed. I didn't ever kill 3 bucks, but the opportunity was nice.
i like the two buck limit,lol.i killed two good bucks and saw more good bucks this year than i have in years past.In my opinion the does are over populated where i hunt ,but the landowner doesnt want you to shoot a bunch of deer each year.He wants you to shoot big bucks only or a doe or two ,no more.You can ride around and look at 4 fields we hunt any given day and see 60 plus doe any day of the week,where blessed when it comes to deer hunting no matter what the buck limit is ,haha
TN24081
Well-Known Member
Me and the majority of the hunters in my area have been practicing QDM since the mid 90's and to be honest, I haven't seen a big difference in the quality/age of bucks now versus what we had back then. I've always supported lowering the buck limit but honestly I don't know that we are seeing any more bigger bucks than we did back when the limit was so liberal. And I hunt in one of the best counties in the state on an exceptional family farm of several hundred acres. Trying to make sense of all of this has left me with more questions that answers ! I love it though, nonetheless.
Buzzard Breath
Well-Known Member
^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^Hunter 257W":3d9mseuw said:
Winner of the most intelligent post in this thread. I even like the health reference with it being New Years and all.
Outdoor Enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Agreed.Buzzard Breath":3o35ecnm said:
We needed this comment on the multiple previous threads heralding the vast improvement the limit was already making.
Plain Old Dave
Well-Known Member
Given the ... odd nature of this year (poor acorn harvest and the warm spells during gun season), I am also wondering if this is just a statistical outlier. That, and I would like to see a unit-by-unit or county-by county breakdown. When people start trying to use statistics to prove a point, I get suspicious VERY quickly.
AXL78":16pb6zp6 said:
3 years from now the 8000+ plus killed button heads would have been your nice 8 pt and better bucks..........so having said that, the relevancy is you now have 8000+ less bucks that will hit that age from this year........................so very relevant in terms of what "could have been". No one thinks of that today, but if that should be a poor year of 3.5 year olds they will "wonder why". It is the tragedy of the harvest, and I for one do my best Not to kill a buttonhead.....................but it happens.
Boone 58":3auzyku7 said:
I agree it is relevant information, but my guess is not to antlered harvest (buck). I also try to avoid that happening, and everyone I know does as well. In terms of managing antlered deer, my guess is it is irrelevant. You can't control antlerless harvest by antlered season dates or bag limits, and that is a byproduct of antlerless season. You can, however, avoid those deer being killed all together, shut antlerless season down. I would imagine there is an acceptable percentage of the overall antlerless harvest that is going to be "swingin," and if it were to exceed that range, something would have to be done.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
As do a few of you, I, too, believe it is too soon to draw any major conclusions regarding the effect on the deer harvest just from going from a 3 to a 2-buck limit.
But I'll share with you a couple "trends" I believe were magnified a bit because of the 2-buck limit. Now just what effect these have on the composition of the deer harvest ongoing, yet to be seen.
1) Less bowhunting prior to the November muzzleloader season.
Ever heard "too much of a good thing"?
Many hunters had already been discovering that doing a little LESS bowhunting immediately prior to muzzleloader season contributed to greater hunting success once afield with a more effective weapon. So this trend didn't begin with the 2-buck limit, but I do believe the lower buck limit magnified and accelerated this trend. Among TN's hunters, I observed the least amount of archery deer hunting I've seen in over 30 years; but possibly the most November muzzleloader season hunting ever.
2) Increasing, but self-imposed and purely voluntary, criteria
regarding what constitutes a "shooter" buck by a growing number of hunters.
So how could THIS increase the buck harvest?
Perhaps in ways some haven't considered.
Many hunters doing this last year (yes, even when we had a 3-buck limit) helped to create more 2 1/2 & 3 1/2-yr-old bucks in this year's deer herd. Never mind that many of this year's 2 1/2's & 3 1/2's were "below average" antlered (as the larger antlered were mostly killed in the prior year), even a below average 2 1/2 can still be larger than a "large" antlered 1 1/2. And a below average 3 1/2 can still be a good bit larger than an average 2 1/2.
No doubt in my mind, the Tennessee deer herd had more 2 1/2 & 3 1/2-yr-old bucks within it at the beginning of the 2015 deer season than it had at the beginning of the 2014 deer season. There would likely be more bucks killed in 2015 than 2014, even if we had had a 1-buck limit in 2015. But also, if we had retained the 3-buck limit, our 2015 buck harvest would have been about 5% higher than wherever it ends up under a 2-buck limit. That 5% may not sound like much, just keep in mind it equates to more like 10% after 2 years, or 15% after 3 years.
Keep in mind there is still a bit of shift in "who" is taking these bucks. Hunter success (measured in the number of hunters taking at least 1 buck annually) appears to be increasing under a 2-buck limit. Might have anyway, but it had not over the past several years. Bottom line is that with fewer hunters killing 2 or 3, more hunters are killing at least 1.
But I'll share with you a couple "trends" I believe were magnified a bit because of the 2-buck limit. Now just what effect these have on the composition of the deer harvest ongoing, yet to be seen.
1) Less bowhunting prior to the November muzzleloader season.
Ever heard "too much of a good thing"?
Many hunters had already been discovering that doing a little LESS bowhunting immediately prior to muzzleloader season contributed to greater hunting success once afield with a more effective weapon. So this trend didn't begin with the 2-buck limit, but I do believe the lower buck limit magnified and accelerated this trend. Among TN's hunters, I observed the least amount of archery deer hunting I've seen in over 30 years; but possibly the most November muzzleloader season hunting ever.
2) Increasing, but self-imposed and purely voluntary, criteria
regarding what constitutes a "shooter" buck by a growing number of hunters.
So how could THIS increase the buck harvest?
Perhaps in ways some haven't considered.
Many hunters doing this last year (yes, even when we had a 3-buck limit) helped to create more 2 1/2 & 3 1/2-yr-old bucks in this year's deer herd. Never mind that many of this year's 2 1/2's & 3 1/2's were "below average" antlered (as the larger antlered were mostly killed in the prior year), even a below average 2 1/2 can still be larger than a "large" antlered 1 1/2. And a below average 3 1/2 can still be a good bit larger than an average 2 1/2.
No doubt in my mind, the Tennessee deer herd had more 2 1/2 & 3 1/2-yr-old bucks within it at the beginning of the 2015 deer season than it had at the beginning of the 2014 deer season. There would likely be more bucks killed in 2015 than 2014, even if we had had a 1-buck limit in 2015. But also, if we had retained the 3-buck limit, our 2015 buck harvest would have been about 5% higher than wherever it ends up under a 2-buck limit. That 5% may not sound like much, just keep in mind it equates to more like 10% after 2 years, or 15% after 3 years.
Keep in mind there is still a bit of shift in "who" is taking these bucks. Hunter success (measured in the number of hunters taking at least 1 buck annually) appears to be increasing under a 2-buck limit. Might have anyway, but it had not over the past several years. Bottom line is that with fewer hunters killing 2 or 3, more hunters are killing at least 1.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
The 2-buck limit was never intentioned to greatly reduce the buck harvest. That mantra has mainly been falsely stated and pushed by a small number of hunters opposed to the 2-buck limit. Most of those preferring the 2-buck limit never expected it to greatly reduce the buck harvest.
The real benefits are more subtle and much broader. They included increasing hunter success from the get-go. At the same time, there was an expectation of a slight reduction of the total buck harvest. But the great expected benefit was and is a more balanced sex annual deer harvest ongoing, whether or not we see that in this first year.
The case for a 2-buck limit was more about overall herd health and increasing hunter success than it was ever about "saving" a bunch of bucks from harvest. Among these benefits was an anticipated (small, but positive) reduction in antler high-grading, improved buck:doe ratios, and improved buck age structure. Only time will tell, maybe 3 to 5 years of time, to just what extend this has been realized.
The real benefits are more subtle and much broader. They included increasing hunter success from the get-go. At the same time, there was an expectation of a slight reduction of the total buck harvest. But the great expected benefit was and is a more balanced sex annual deer harvest ongoing, whether or not we see that in this first year.
The case for a 2-buck limit was more about overall herd health and increasing hunter success than it was ever about "saving" a bunch of bucks from harvest. Among these benefits was an anticipated (small, but positive) reduction in antler high-grading, improved buck:doe ratios, and improved buck age structure. Only time will tell, maybe 3 to 5 years of time, to just what extend this has been realized.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Was kinda thinking the same thing.WRbowhunter":2504kfbl said:
LBL, I think attributing less bow hunting to the limit change is unrealistic. Weather-yes. Also, less hunting is a bad thing. Avoiding the woods so as to not spook up the deer, hunt with a more effective weapon, etc., are all attributes of a trophy hunter, not a typical Tennessee deer hunter. They would rather get to the woods whenever they can. The 5% that you assumed we saved is not directly linear. It does not correlate to 10%, 15%, etc. It tops out I think, I may be wrong though, but I think it had topped out under the 3 buck limit. And I also question how you assess the antler characteristics of the bucks that survived the 2014 season. I think a 2 buck limit promotes antler high grading, not the opposite. I am not attacking you, but I just don't take all these assumptions at face value. I feel differently, obviously. I am not saying the 2 buck limit is the end of the world, but I don't think some of these assumptions are fair to promote it.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
I did not attribute less bow hunting to the limit change; I stated the limit change magnified and accelerated the trend of less bowhunting. That trend was also magnified and accelerated when the number of November muzzleloader days recently doubled.AXL78":si067smg said:
Of course, weather is always a factor, a very unpredictable factor, year to year, every year.
Considering all the annual variables on the deer harvest, weather being a big one, that's part of why several years of data are needed to evaluate trends, causes, and effects.
In the context I believe you meant it, yes, less hunting is a bad thing.
While I do believe Tennessee's hunters are hunting less (and do see that as a negative), I do not believe they're hunting less because they're doing less bowhunting. It's more a shift of archery days being replaced with their choosing to hunt more days during the November muzzleloader season segment (and gun season). Heck, we have twice as many November muzzleloader hunting days as we had just what, 4 years ago? We also have more December gun hunting days (which replaced December "archery-only" days).
Most of Tennessee's deer hunters only have a limited number of days annually they can justify (or be able, or choose) to deer hunt. How does their choosing to hunt more of those days with a gun instead of a bow make them more of a "trophy" hunter? They may or may not be hunting any less, but they are hunting more effectively.
Unlike me, and I suspect you, the "average" TN deer hunter actually only hunts parts of 2 or 3 weekends annually.
We ain't "average" nor is anyone else regularly reading and posting in this forum. :mrgreen:
TNDeerGuy
Well-Known Member
TheLBLman":2oh49qqo said:
Wrong
Wrong
and very Wrong
Yes it was intended to decrease the buck harvest—as admitted by numerous TFWC commissioners—including the very vocal Trey Teague (that doesn't even hunt the State he is charged with overseeing), Jeff McMillin and Jim Ripley, all whom I personally hold responsible for getting it ramrodded thru!
It has never been about hunter success, it has been about hunter success grown in inches of an antlered bucks rack—they weren't bashful in admitting that either in the public forum.
Most importantly, and the biggest smoke within the post, is your statement about herd health! Herd health was never, never, never even close to being part of conversation when the TFWC did the public discussions—it was all about growing inches of antlers, I was shocked they were so bold about it, which actually says a lot about the dealing and goings on within that corrupt political bunch of hacks anyway—that discussion for an upcoming day, once things get organized! Jeff McMillin was brash enough to say that he believes that small bucks should never be shot, if you want meat—shoot a doe and Trey Teague was right there bobbing his head like a bobblehead doll going down an old dirt road—is that the kind of decision process our deer herd deserves.
There is no documentation anywhere that says anything about our herd being unbalanced, unhealthy and in the need of some type of correction to guard the health of our deer herd, and when you look at our data objectively, we actually are better than most states around us and the majority was never in support of the change anyway.
As it stands right now, the harvest data isn't looking too good for the plans the trophyists on TFWC had envisioned. Granted it's just the first year, but many predictably wrongly envisioned this massive amount of younger bucks being saved, and the data supports the opposite. I am excited about one thing in the early data, that may likely change this week, is the amount of 1.5 year old does that may make it through!
