You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics!

[SelphLogging]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

I would love to think that the 1/3 limit reduction would translate into a 1/3 buck kill reduction, but the truth is a LOT of hunters were already passing up bucks before the government forced them to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

amen


3% of total bucks killed is nothing

the 2 buck rule will not have no more of an affect in increasing antler size that what was trending in that direction due to increase doe kill in unit L

it screws the east tn guys big time

1/3 reduction is not 3%, it's 33% and that's significant.

 

[SelphLogging]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

Also, heres a really interesting breakdown of size/weight/age.

3,068 bucks examined by TWRA;

By far most bucks were 1.5 or 2.5. Over 80% of bucks harvested are 1.5 or 2.5 in this sample size.

What is surprising is that more 2.5 yo's were seen than 1.5s. It makes sense though, as a 2.5 yo is much easier to kill than a mature buck, but often has appealing antlers.

434 were 3.5 (this is good, as it represents over 10% of harvest and its also where the biggest jump in meaningful antler gains were made from 2.5 to 3.5)

123 were 4.5 or older. This represents less than 1% of buck harvests. This is a number that could stand to improve imo.[/quote]

To start with, I've been around when TWRA has been collecting age data, and it's a little comical sometimes. I'm sure not at all places, but the ones I've been observing, interns/college students were doing the aging, and sometimes weren't even opening the jaw of the deer. So, I take those stats with a grain of salt. There are some very reputable guys doing it in TWRA, so some are done properly.

Your math is off in regards to the percentage of 4.5s and older in relation to the aged deer. 123 is not less than 1% of 3,068. It's 4.01%.

 

[TX300mag]

The government is not forcing anyone to pass up any legal deer. They limit how many you can kill but not what you pass up. Just as the limit last year was three, you could only kill three but "pass" whatever/how-many you wanted.

I sorta see the logic you use but can we also say that the government is not dictating which deer we shoot, only how many? Its been asked many times already and some say the new limit has affected what they shoot and some say it hasnt, for me, and a lot others, it hasnt.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just going by all of the "Look at how many bucks the limit saved this year" threads that began just after season started.

I can relate. When I first started hunting the Texas hill country in 1992 it felt great to pass up legal bucks-some of them nice-sort of a rite of passage. I wanted to tell people about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diamond hunter]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

I say unit L goes to a 1 buck as well as bait and get it over with.I don't care what happens in the other units.

 

[tree_ghost]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

Interesting! I am hearing a lot of talk about folks just not reporting bucks so as to kill what they want, when they want. I honestly believe in Wayne county that many are not turned in at all. I am even finding bucks with antlers left on them but the meat taken...............really?..............who in the crap kills a young buck just for meat in unit L when you can kill 3 does per day! I shake my head that that ridiculous mentality.

Yup, I can say with a 90% certainty that I could kill a doe at least one sit out of three on any piece of land in unit L... They are everywhere!!! And that's with archery gear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tree_ghost]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

^^^good point doc!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

I'm just going by all of the "Look at how many bucks the limit saved this year" threads that began just after season started.

I can relate. When I first started hunting the Texas hill country in 1992 it felt great to pass up legal bucks-some of them nice-sort of a rite of passage. I wanted to tell people about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha. I often wonder if these threads are legit or created to ruffle feathers or a little bit of both.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deer Assassin]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

bingo

 

[TboneD]

Docpoco,

Its obvious a few of us didnt read the original thread fully or skipped over the part where you mentioned the date and explained the 3 buck representation in harvest data.

Anyways, I suggest a nice pretty little graph with all the bells and whistles. No reason other than they are nice to look at[emoji14]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I don't like about social media. Folks are too slow to READ and too fast to POST in response to a thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[farmin68]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

I would love to think that the 1/3 limit reduction would translate into a 1/3 buck kill reduction, but the truth is a LOT of hunters were already passing up bucks before the government forced them to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

amen


3% of total bucks killed is nothing

the 2 buck rule will not have no more of an affect in increasing antler size that what was trending in that direction due to increase doe kill in unit L

it screws the east tn guys big time

1/3 reduction is not 3%, it's 33% and that's significant.

.
Selphi, I think you Might have missed part of the discussion. The total number of bucks killed by hunters who bagged more than two bucks only amounted to 3% of the total buck harvest. That is insignificant.
.
The limit was reduced by 1/3 (33%). That is significant in many ways, but not a significant factor in the total number of bucks killed.

 

[WG Taxidermist]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

I say unit L goes to a 1 buck as well as bait and get it over with.I don't care what happens in the other units.

Give it a few year and you'll probably get your wish. I'm to the point I could care less anymore. People in my area are going to kill what they want and ever how many they want anyway so it don't matter. I know the first thing that's going to be said is why not turn them in,well they've been turned in for years and nothing ever happens. Had a guy tell me a story about his buck the other day. He said it was almost dark when the buck walked out and he really couldn't tell where to shoot because it was so dark. He said he waited a few more minutes and the deer finally walked out into the 200lb of corn he put out the day before and he could se his sillouett just fine so he shot and killed it. I don't know where this particular guy hunts but I know he has done it for years.

Sent from somewhere in the sticks using Tapatalk

 

[mathews338]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

to grow a population, you protect the does and shoot the bucks. shooting bucks does little to nothing to affect the population.

[/quote]very true and I knew that already. if I lived and hunted in the east I would want lower limits on all deer, especially does. In a few years maybe they wouldn't complain so much about not having many deer and by reducing the buck limit maybe they will have more bucks in future populations to hunt. If someone told me it was worth a shot I would take it but all I see is complaining about reducing the limits which makes no sense to me when 1/3rd of the state badly needs it.

 

[farmin68]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

to grow a population, you protect the does and shoot the bucks. shooting bucks does little to nothing to affect the population.

very true and I knew that already. if I lived and hunted in the east I would want lower limits on all deer, especially does. In a few years maybe they wouldn't complain so much about not having many deer and by reducing the buck limit maybe they will have more bucks in future populations to hunt. If someone told me it was worth a shot I would take it but all I see is complaining about reducing the limits which makes no sense to me when 1/3rd of the state badly needs it.[/quote]

What 1/3 of the state badly needs a reduced limit, and why is it needed?

 

[stik]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

to grow a population, you protect the does and shoot the bucks. shooting bucks does little to nothing to affect the population.

very true and I knew that already. if I lived and hunted in the east I would want lower limits on all deer, especially does. In a few years maybe they wouldn't complain so much about not having many deer and by reducing the buck limit maybe they will have more bucks in future populations to hunt. If someone told me it was worth a shot I would take it but all I see is complaining about reducing the limits which makes no sense to me when 1/3rd of the state badly needs it.[/quote]

reducing or raising the buck limit does nothing to affect overall population numbers. many places in units A & B cannot support an increased doe kill and many others can. we don't have as many deer because the habitat can't support the numbers that middle and west tennessee can. no limit reduction was needed.

 

[Vermin93]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

East TN....the only place in the country where a lower deer population justifies a higher buck limit. :lol:

This could be a groundbreaking new game management strategy - a higher buck limit in areas with a lower population and a lower buck limit in areas with a higher population. Maybe this would catch on with game management organizations across the country since I'm not aware of any of them that have implemented such a back-arsewards management strategy.

Seriously, though, it was great to see Tennessee finally join North Carolina, Virgina and Georgia with a 2-buck limit in the East TN geographic region. :tu:

 

[Vermin93]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

reducing or raising the buck limit does nothing to affect overall population numbers

Yes it does.

 

[jaybird62]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

These "statistics" from last season are worth little more than the stick that stirs the pot... again and again and again. From a statistical standpoint, 2015 is the new base line to form a new data set that will reveal multi-year trends. Then, you will have something to compare that's worth more than opinion.

The most troubling thing about this whole 2-buck, 3-buck issue is the manner in which it was handled. When the politicians ram something down the hunting populace's throat it pits a sizable part of the hunters against "the man." It's taken a long time for the TWRA professionals to influence a change in hunter attitudes to pass younger bucks to allow for more older age class bucks to be in the harvest. The TWRA doesn't get all of the credit, though. The hunters attitudes toward self restraint made the biggest difference in improved age structure in the harvest.

Handling the limit change in the manner in which it transpired made quite a few hunters mad. Couple that with today's check-in system, higher license costs, and perceived lower buck opportunity and it's a recipe for a situation that is quite the opposite of what the megabucks crowd is trying to achieve. Wouldn't it be ironic if more "3rd" bucks were actually killed this season and not checked in than were reported last season because a couple of Commissioners had an agenda they wanted to pursue over the recommendations of Agency biologists. After all, bucks that don't get checked in don't provide many statistics.

 

[Vermin93]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

Wouldn't it be ironic if more "3rd" bucks were actually killed this season and not checked in than were reported last season.

It would be ironic, sad, illegal, unethical and pathetic.

That said, there will always be cheaters and lowlifes.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

Well this is TNDEER stats don't matter ! Half the site knows more than any stat or proof of anything

 

[Jcalder]

Re: You want the statistics? You can't handle the statistics

East TN....the only place in the country where a lower deer population justifies a higher buck limit. :lol:

This could be a groundbreaking new game management strategy - a higher buck limit in areas with a lower population and a lower buck limit in areas with a higher population. Maybe this would catch on with game management organizations across the country since I'm not aware of any of them that have implemented such a back-arsewards management strategy.

Seriously, though, it was great to see Tennessee finally join North Carolina, Virgina and Georgia with a 2-buck limit in the East TN geographic region. :tu:

Actually. It did work. When Tennessee first had a deer season you could a ton of bucks and no does. Unit A and B does not have the opportunities that unit L does. Both places I hunt in A and B cannot handle multiple does being killed each year. There's a reason some old timers will not kill a doe.


Big or small, kill em all