One More Step
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Bowriter 24-Apr-18
GhostBird 24-Apr-18
mountainman 24-Apr-18
elk yinzer 24-Apr-18
Bowriter 24-Apr-18
Bowriter 24-Apr-18
Charlie Rehor 24-Apr-18
mountainman 24-Apr-18
YZF-88 24-Apr-18
IdyllwildArcher 24-Apr-18
Bowriter 24-Apr-18
elk yinzer 24-Apr-18
Bowriter 25-Apr-18
pav 25-Apr-18
Bowriter 25-Apr-18
Bowriter 25-Apr-18
stick n string 25-Apr-18
mountainman 25-Apr-18
Rut Nut 25-Apr-18
buzz mc 25-Apr-18
LINK 25-Apr-18
mountainman 25-Apr-18
12yards 25-Apr-18
Bowriter 25-Apr-18
mountainman 25-Apr-18
Rut Nut 25-Apr-18
Medicinemann 25-Apr-18
JTV 25-Apr-18
IdyllwildArcher 25-Apr-18
buzz mc 25-Apr-18
LINK 25-Apr-18
From: Bowriter
24-Apr-18
I took them to task two years ago. This week, the TFWC is considering changing the regulations back where they were, i.e., three buck limit, antlerless deer category or 3" inch rule, if you will. That's good and some of the commissioners have done a 180 and now, agree with me. Good move and it only took two years. So, along with that, they are considering allowing air bows in archery and some, single-shot, brass cartridge guns in "primitive" weapon season. Just one step closer to the one season-any equipment scenario. Trust me, it's coming.

From: GhostBird
24-Apr-18
Thanks for the heads up John.

From: mountainman
24-Apr-18
Hate to hear any of this. I know you are against the 2 buck limit. But I have to say, every single person I know was for it. Obviously there are people that don't like it, yourself included. But seriously, every 3-d shoot, every outdoor store,every person I talked was in favor of the 2 buck limit. And a lot of them were for a 1 buck limit.

And the "airbow". Don't get me started.

From: elk yinzer
24-Apr-18
Yuck. 3 bucks? For serious?!

From: Bowriter
24-Apr-18
As for the three buck limit. I am not against it. What I am against is the reduction to two bucks with no biological basis. 99% of the people in favor of the reduction have no idea how many bucks, statewide that reduction would amount to. The total number, statewide is less than 2,000 over 95-counties. That is in a state where the buck doe ratio is already among the best. Thinking that a reduction will improve the antler-size is completely false, nor will it improve age strata. In fact, any honest biologist will tell you, it has no impact in TN in any manner except two. (1) It penalizes some hunters and (2) it reduces the doe kill. Elk yinzer-we have less than 200,000 deer huntesr statewide. Less than 1% kill three buck a year. Until the craziness set in, we had one of the absolute best age and sex strata in the country. That is how deer should be managed, i.e. by total population, age and sex. TN is not and should not be in the antler management business. That is for the private management folks. Info from the public was heavy in reinstating both laws. The majority of deer hunters opposed the two buck limit and got blindsided by the 3" deal.

As for the male deer with less than 3"-inches abolishment, that knocked a huge hole in the doe kill. Hunters, who had killed two bucks quit hunting. Hunters who were afraid of killing a buck by accident, quit shooting does. Hunters who made mistakes, quit reporting reporting. One of the worst laws, statewide, ever enacted. As for the rest of it, probably be politics as usual.

From: Bowriter
24-Apr-18
This is a post I put up for the Commission, today. Pretty much explains my feelings on it.

Coming to a state near you???

Approve the air bow-an arrow shooting thingie that uses a compressed air cylinder to shoot an arrow??? And, why not? Also allow some single-shot, brass cartridge rifles during our "primitive" weapon season. Why not???

Well, the why not is is obvious-to me. It is because at some point, you have say, "Enough is enough". or, simply say, "Buy one license, shoot whatever you want. It is a 100 day season, kill them any way you wish." Truth is, neither of the previous items make a dang bit of difference in this state. We are losing hunters at an alarming rate, might as well stick your sore thumb in the dike.

Sure, the TFWC can waste time worrying about deer urine spreading...something?? or they can actually concentrate on important matters. Stuff like sound, biological wildlife management. Now there is a novel thought.

I have no dogs in this. I hunt private ground, I hunt it the way I want, providing it is legal. Plus, I am getting old, doubt I will hunt many more years anyway. Truth is, it isn't going to make much difference. Get the three buck limit back, if you want to appease the majority, reinstate the antlerless deer category, two great moves, considerations that actually do make a difference-to some extent. Then, screw things up if you want. Might as well since the fishing is going South at a pertly pace.

24-Apr-18
I believe the Arrow Bow is now being called an Arrow Gun.

From: mountainman
24-Apr-18
"we have less than 200,000 deer huntesr statewide. Less than 1% kill three buck a year"

If less than 1% kill 3 bucks a year, how does allowing 3 bucks a year appease the majority?

From: YZF-88
24-Apr-18

YZF-88's embedded Photo
YZF-88's embedded Photo

YZF-88's Link
They're still calling it an Airbow on the Utah Wildlife Board agenda for this Thursday! Watch live, they're going to talk about crossbow scopes, airbows AND baiting!

24-Apr-18
The thing I'd guess it'd do more than anything (than the actual killing of 3rd bucks), is cause people to hold out for a better buck with their second tag since they may kill two small ones knowing they could hold out for a good one with their 3rd buck tag. It could theoretically improve trophy quality. I think you'd have to have 5 years of a 2 buck limit and compare them to the 3 buck limit years. There may be no biological reason to kill less bucks other than trophy quality, but if you just want to kill more deer, then why not kill does? I've killed young bucks for meat, but its usually because that's what was available.

From: Bowriter
24-Apr-18
Yep. They hold out for the third buck and in the process, kill more does. In their minds, it allows them to keep hunting-something the MAJORITY want.

From: elk yinzer
24-Apr-18
Is there a biological basis for archery season anywhere but urban areas? If we want to talk pure biology wolves and mountain lions certainly fit into the picture. Is that really a road we want to go down?

From: Bowriter
25-Apr-18
Elk Yinzer-Actually archery season is very biologically unsound and probably, were it not for the revenue and the populated areas, it would not be allowed in most states. And, in all probability, it will begin to die out of natural causes in many areas with the next generation. We are seeing that decline now. However, it is, in most areas, almost as slow as the movement of iceberg. Therefore, unless we do as geologist do, we don't recognize it.

BTW- have you noticed any re-introduction of natural predators in any areas? I use to do a learning game with my General Science students. I took them out side and marked off a large circle in the grass. Then I would put four students, two male, two female in the circle and asked them to pretend they were starting families. They would each pick two more students as children and the game continued until they could get no more students int he circle. I would then ask them, how they would survive. Always, at least one would say, "The old ones have to die off." Or, something to that affect. That is how we began to discuss predation and hunting.

From: pav
25-Apr-18
Hopefully, the powers that be will survey deer hunters before making any decisions. When Indiana adopted a temporary one buck rule, the survey results were roughly a 50/50 split. A few years later, when it came time to abandon or adopt the one buck rule permanently, the survey results came back nearly 3:1 in favor of adoption.

From: Bowriter
25-Apr-18
What is important to always keep in mind is that you cannot ever, compare one state to another. How many deer hunters in IN? How much huntable land? How many deer? What is the statewide, sex ratio? IN is not TN, therefore you cannot use IN data. When a state has a near perfect buck:doe ratio, a healthy deer herd, a great age strata and good hunter satisfaction, you don't start messing with the regulations to please an uniformed minority. Changes must be environmentally sound, biologically sound, financially feasible and last of all, meet the approval of the majority of hunters--the majority. IN the matter of one buck, two bucks, three bucks-the biological impact was zero except for one factor. It significantly reduced the number of does killed because after killing a second buck, many hunters quit going for fear they would kill a buck by accident. That is not rumor-that is a proven fact.

From: Bowriter
25-Apr-18
This is a direct quote from one of the biologists.

"In the last two hunting seasons the new rule has been in effect, biologists have reported a significant decline in the number of does taken by hunters."

25-Apr-18
Nice to see you have a lot of time and info to post, post, post on ur topic of the day, bowriter. Your vast knowledge is overwhelming. Funny how that vast knowledge was completely vacant a couple months ago when there was an anti here on the site bashing hunting for a week or two. Where was ur seminar then.... Go ahead n keep talkin bout stuff that matters little....

From: mountainman
25-Apr-18
"Yep. They hold out for the third buck and in the process, kill more does. In their minds, it allows them to keep hunting-something the MAJORITY want."

If someones mind is manipulated that easily. I really don't take their opinion to seriously anyway. Same with someone who is "afraid" to kill a buck by accident. It's quite simple, know exactly what you are shooting at, or don't shoot.

Funny thing is, the 2 bucks rule hasn't effected the hunting time of me, or anyone I know, AT ALL. If you want to hunt more after your two bucks, go kill does. If a person wants to kill a doe, he or she will kill one. If a person really wants to HUNT, they will hunt instead of looking for an excuse not too.

Lets not forget that when they adopted the stricter rules for antlerless deer, the number of button bucks killed in the state per year was cut roughly in HALF. Thats 4000(roughly) more bucks that will be hard antlered the next year.

I think the average joe blow hunter(the ones that apparently need a 3rd buck tag so they will hunt and shoot more DOES) will generally shoot a buck over a doe. Maybe one factor is there are simply more bucks available now. The hunters shoot them first and in some cases don't feel the need to shoot a doe.

So anyone following can see the numbers- here they are from the last 3 seasons.

2015- Bucks 81,934 Does-77,107 Buttons-8,403 Total-167444

2016- Bucks-81,152 Does-71,690 Buttons- 4,848 Total- 157960

2017- Bucks-77,618 Does-62,800 Buttons-4,388 Total-144,806

There was a large drop in harvest numbers for the 2017 season in bucks AND does(and buttons to some extent).

Pulled from an article about the reduced 2017 kill numbers. "TWRA chief of wildlife Mark Gudlin blamed the dip on two major decisions – unusually warm weather during the muzzleloader segment and a “huge” EHD (epizootic hemorrhagic disease) outbreak in the eastern part of the state (1,298 deer found dead)." And yes Bowriter, I saw your name in the article saying you don't like the 2 buck limit.

I think it is a little more complex then just blaming it on a 2 buck limit vs. 3.

From: Rut Nut
25-Apr-18
From: Bowriter

25-Apr-18

Elk Yinzer-Actually archery season is very biologically unsound and probably, were it not for the revenue and the populated areas, it would not be allowed in most states. And, in all probability, it will begin to die out of natural causes in many areas with the next generation. We are seeing that decline now. However, it is, in most areas, almost as slow as the movement of iceberg. Therefore, unless we do as geologist do, we don't recognize it.

CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW ARCHERY SEASON IS "very biologically unsound" AND "would not be allowed in most states"???

From: buzz mc
25-Apr-18
Keep in mind that a good portion of TN has been under a 3-does a day limit from the fourth Saturday in September through the first week of January. This was established to reduce the herd. Could it be possible that it is occurring and there are simply less does to shoot and the ones that are out there are more wise and harder to kill due to the liberal season?

From: LINK
25-Apr-18
“What is important to always keep in mind is that you cannot ever, compare one state to another. ”

Interesting even if they are side by side like Kansas and Oklahoma? I live fairly close to the Kansas border and forever Kansas has had a 1 buck policy, until 15 years ago oklahoma had a 3 buck policy. You cross the border and just 5 miles from one place to the other you could see a difference in age structure. Now Oklahoma has a 2 buck limit and Kansas started handing out tags like candy and the line is obscured a bit. You can still see the difference but Oklahoma is catching up. I wish we had a 1 buck limit. I have to agree with mountainmans statement.

From: mountainman
25-Apr-18
Buzz- This could be the case as well. I hunt public land with bow only. It may have been a fluke, but I didn't see as many does this season.

I was the first year in a long time I didn't kill at least one doe. I had opportunities, but chose to pass because I just didn't see that many.

I also run into the occasional person the last few years that brags they killed 10-15 does that year, simply because they are allowed. With the 3 a day limit, it wouldn't take long in some areas for the population to decline if enough people were shooting every doe they saw.

From: 12yards
25-Apr-18
Tennessee hunters need to get their eyes checked if they can't tell a small buck from a doe. That is hilarious to think that guys quit hunting because they were afraid they were going to shoot a small buck instead of a doe.

From: Bowriter
25-Apr-18
From Rut Nut- "CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW ARCHERY SEASON IS "very biologically unsound" AND "would not be allowed in most states"???"

Yes, I shall. When you compare the actual impact on the deer herd with the number of hunters and infuse the wounding loss, It is apparent that in terms of population control, bow hunting is of small value. Therefore, the only reason for it is hunter desire and that, translates into economic impact, i.e sales of licenses and related archery items.

Now. Why do you think there is such a push in states to include the "air bow"? Could it possibly be financially driven? Could it be that by doing so, states believe they can revive a shrinking participation in archery season. Be honest with yourself. Look at hunting in general. Participation is shrinking. As with the iceberg, older hunters are dropping off the edge, "calving" as it were and not being replaced. Therefore, the demand for an archery only season is also shrinking. Biologically, it is of no value when compared with the same results from firearms, You see, biologically, hunting is nothing more than a means of population control. That is all. And bowhunting is the least effective means.

As to the figures Mountain man posted, yes, those are the figures the TWRA used. However, they are flawed. Why? Simply because the tele-check method of reporting makes them so. For example, how is this explained? In the first year of the reduction from three bucks to two, there was an increase in the number of bucks killed. Now during this first year, the antlerless category was still in place. The number of antlerless deer reported was down by approximately 7,300 animals. However, the doe kill was up by about 7,200 animals. A former biologist with TWRA, threw a major BS flag.

You see it is simple. First you form a point you want to make or a hypothesis, then you simply adjust the data to prove that point. Six years ago, TN had a tremendously well-managed deer herd, recognized as one of the best in the nation. The accurate sex ratio was approximately 3:1, does: bucks. Perfect. The age strata was 1/3 animals 2.5-years or older. Perfect. Then, (1) Tele-check=loss of accurate data. (2) Buck limit reduced, (which honestly had no impact whatsoever on the herd, only on hunter thinking and participation.) (3) Abolishment of the antlerless deer category.

Today, the deer herd is quite healthy. However, the data is almost useless. Yes, in some areas EHD was a huge factor in the reduction of kill numbers. But what happened in the prior years? If you have access to the data before it was "adjusted", how do you explain the number shift from one category to another. Trust me, it can't be done. But the main thing is, attempts are now being made to correct some of the issues, to "fix" the mistakes.

I lobbied long and hard for open town meetings at a time and place the average hunter could attend. That is "being discussed". I lobbied for a roll call vote so hunters could tell how their representative voted. Maybe that will happen. I asked for accurate surveys so the commission could know what the majority wanted. Again, maybe on that.

Understand, no matter what they do, it doesn't impact me. I hunt private land and I hunt however I want, as long as it is legal. I kill what I want, however I want-legally. But as an outdoor writer, I have a responsibility to tell it as it is, not as they want it told. Surprisingly, I am now seeing some honesty beginning to crop up in and among the Commission. They are now saying, exactly what I have been saying for three years and I am not the only one. Outdoor writers are finally beginning to stand on their hind legs and say, "Wait...that aint right."

It is not a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of what you want or I want. It is simply a matter of what is right. Six years ago, we had probably the best deer management program in the country. So, TN decided to improve on that?

From: mountainman
25-Apr-18
There is something we can agree on bowriter. The telephone and internet system could be very easily abused. Although the internet is convenient, I would have no problem going back to check stations. Although I realize it was getting harder to physically check deer as the check in stations started to dwindle.

From: Rut Nut
25-Apr-18
From: Bowriter

25-Apr-18 From Rut Nut- "CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW ARCHERY SEASON IS "very biologically unsound" AND "would not be allowed in most states"???" Yes, I shall. When you compare the actual impact on the deer herd with the number of hunters and infuse the wounding loss, It is apparent that in terms of population control, bow hunting is of small value.

I THINK YOU ARE USING THE WRONG TERMS, BOWRITER. I WAS ALWAYS TOLD THAT BOWHUNTING IS BIOLOGICALLY SOUND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE DEER HERD. IF IT DID, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE BIOLOGICALLY SOUND.

From: Medicinemann
25-Apr-18
"CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW ARCHERY SEASON IS "very biologically unsound" AND "would not be allowed in most states"???" Yes, I shall. When you compare the actual impact on the deer herd with the number of hunters and infuse the wounding loss, It is apparent that in terms of population control, bow hunting is of small value. Sounds inefficient by your description....not necessarily unsound. If you infuse the wounding loss, wouldn't that would increase its effect on population control.....albeit a very small one.

From: JTV
25-Apr-18
Hell, the one buck rule is one of the few positive things Indiana has done for the deer season here in Indiana.. .. they still need to back off the bonus tags in many areas and cut back on the late Dec. kill all the Does/antlerless season ... btw, the bowgun if ever legal here should only be in the season with shoulder fired tools(firearm season), as should crossguns .. back your your regularly scheduled argument ... carry on ...

25-Apr-18
"Tennessee hunters need to get their eyes checked if they can't tell a small buck from a doe. That is hilarious to think that guys quit hunting because they were afraid they were going to shoot a small buck instead of a doe."

I have to agree with that. If there was a reduction in the doe harvest with the change from 2 bucks to 3 bucks, it was probably because after people shoot two bucks, they stop hunting because not as many people will hunt for "just does," but if they have a buck tag, they'll continue to hunt and maybe shoot a doe that happens to walk by.

It certainly is silly though, to count a button buck as one of your buck tags. They should be antlerless tags because it is certainly possible to mistake a button buck for a doe, but the 3 inch rule mentioned is a completely different discussion than 2 vs 3 buck limits.

From: buzz mc
25-Apr-18
In TN, a button buck is still considered an antlerless deer as long as the button doesn't extend past the hairline. Which is the majority of them.

"An antlerless deer is now defined as any deer with no antler protruding above its hairline. "

From: LINK
25-Apr-18
When I was a young guy I cleaned deer at the meat processing facility. Oklahoma back then had doe days during the gun season. You could shoot a buck any day of season but does only on certain days. It was a buck only day and a fella brought in an anterless buck, no horn past the hairline, just nubbins. I told him that was an anterless deer which wasn’t legal and he explained how he could see his testicles through his scope at 200 yards, lol. If this fella can see testicles surely you Tennesseans can see a protruding antler. ;)

  • Sitka Gear