TWRA Executive Director Ed Carter said, “This new approach of a reduced buck limit may result in an increased doe harvest in certain parts of the state and ideally will increase the harvest of mature bucks over time. It is unlikely that we will see a decrease in the overall annual deer harvest as a result of these changes.”
Previously TWRA biologist Chuck Yoest said that TWRA surveys, and a survey by the private conservation group, the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, indicated that the majority of hunters are in favor of keeping the buck limit as is. In the TWF survey, 56 percent of respondents said they think the bag limit should remain at three bucks, while 38 percent said the buck limit should be reduced. Six percent thought the bag limit on bucks should be increased.
Yoest said, "We can't accurately predict the impact on reducing the buck harvest. We're not certain that decreasing will produce tangible results."
Swan said according to the data Yoest presented to the commission, the number of mature bucks taken in Tennessee is in line with Missouri or Kentucky, two well-known deer hunting states. He added that no one from the public was at the meeting to speak for or against the change.
It seems to me, except for a few uninformed individuals, most hunters realized it did not make one bit of difference and so, simply stayed home. The question I have is, what willhappen a few years from now when those uninformed individuals still don't have Midwest bucks behind every bush.
In addition, there is no factual data to show having more mature bucks in the overall population is of any biological benefit as long as a measurable number of does are not going unbred.
I haven't killed three bucks since I can't remember when so as a deer hunter, I don't care.
Lewis
You see too many times on hunting forums guys shooting the first buck they can just to get one under there belt for the year. Then they horn hunt. Well let the young guy walk if you want a big buck. If they are shot when they are young they won't get any bigger.
The one buck limit has driven deer hunters to be more selective, shoot less yearlings, and in turn drive up the average age of our buck herd.
From Fulldraw, "I have no dog in this fight. With that said I can't see how reducing the buck harvest isn't going to increase the quality of bucks. You see too many times on hunting forums guys shooting the first buck they can just to get one under there belt for the year. Then they horn hunt. Well let the young guy walk if you want a big buck. If they are shot when they are young they won't get any bigger."
My reply-No matter how many bucks you have that are mature, there is no way to increase the quality. Try not to confuse quality with large antlers. The two are totally different. According to our professional biologists, TN right now has a quality deer herd. Also keep in mind, once abuck reaches 3.5-years of age, he is over 90% likely to die of something besides a hunter. So more mature bucks does not automatically mean more will be killed.
There is no, I repeat NO factual data to indicate that increasing the number of MATURE bucks in a deer herd in any way improves the quality of that herd. Age does not improve genetics.
If 50% of the bucks in TN were over 3.5-years of age, the average size of the antlers would never be on par with IL or IA or many of the Midwest states. Age does not impact genetics.
But here is the point. According to the biologist in charge of the deer project in TN and his boss, the biologist over all big game.... "Yoest said, "We can't accurately predict the impact on reducing the buck harvest. We're not certain that decreasing will produce tangible results."
"Swan (commission member) said according to the data Yoest presented to the commission, the number of mature bucks taken in Tennessee is in line with Missouri or Kentucky, two well-known deer hunting states. He added that no one from the public was at the meeting to speak for or against the change."
There will be no tangible impact on the results and no need for the change since TN is now in line with two of the states that hunters were holding up as examples.
But here is the real rub. THE MAJORITY OF HUNTERS (58%) oppose the change. Since it will have no environmental impact, biological impact or financial impact, the the wishes of the MAJORITY of hunters should be satisfied, not the minority (36%). All hunters own the deer equally, not just the trophy hunters.
Once again, an example of what happens when politics and biology bump heads. But here is another impact. TN, following other states, now has home check-in. You kill a deer, take it home and have 24-hours to check it in on line. I predict a lot of bucks are going to be freezer checked unless they have big racks.
If anyone would care to read my column concerning this matter, if they have it posted by now, you can see it at www.wilsonpost.com, just click on the column section. If it isn't up yet, it will be soon.
Now, Bou. When TN hunters in a couple years, see no improvement on the number of bucks and the size of their antlers, then, I predict they are going to lobby for a one buck limit. When that doesn't work, I have no idea what they will do. You see, when you have a 1" ice cube tray, you can only get so many ice cubes from a gallon of water, no matter how cold you freeze it. If you want bigger cubes, you have to have a larger die. And you have to have less ice cubes. Genetically speakng, you can't change the die.
Pav-Thanks for proving my point exactly. When you compare one state with another, the comparison is valueless. Indiana has to manage Indiana deer just as TN has to manage TN deer. Bobby Knight never coached in Knoxville so his won lost record means nothing to the Vols. (Sorry, only analogy I could come up with :)
Once again, a perfect example of ignoring hard, bioloical, factual data. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT CHANGE GENETICS BY ADJUSTING AGE. A button buck has the same genetics as he will have at 5.5. His antlers will be no larger than he is GENETICALLY capable of producing. TN deer are not the same GENETICALLY as Midwest deer. Nor do they have the same nutritional source.
Simply a baby step by the commission to increase doe harvest by the commission.Their is no silent march to a one buck TN...it would be anarchy.
It will make it easier for private clubs to sell a "one buck limit" to it's membership now though which could provide an additional step 5 inches of antler in time....:)
As for a one buck limit, I do not believe that will happen and here is why. There is no biological reason for it and should that be proposed, I would estimate that 90% of the hunters would oppose it. And THAT would finally get them off their hip pockets and let their feelings be heard. I do not believe the commission would go against both their own biologists and a VOCAL majority that would attend the meeting.
A one buck limit might actually be detrimental. Here is why. It is quite likely a large number of hunters would simply stop hunting after they killed their one buck. That would then, eliminate the considerable number of does that get shot when a hunter opts for that instead of an unfilled tag. The option of a second or third buck is what keeps many of them in the woods. Also, that move might have a negative finacial impact on license sales.
You see, as it stands, the reduction in buck tags from three to two, does nothing...absolutely nothing with the possible exception of making a few hunters mad at the commission. A few hunters, once they have killed their second buck, may quit going but the percentage of hunters who actually killed three bucks-kept on hunting-is so small, it is of no consequence.
A 2 buck limit will make folks think twice before shooting a second buck. With the 3 buck limit, the first 2 bucks seen get shot to fill the freezer, then you hold onto the third tag waiting for a big buck. Now, only the first buck will be killed and the hunter will hold onto the second tag.
I agree with Bou as well. It should have been reduced to 1.
If your worried about doe harvest increase then don't shoot does.
And of course TN is capable of producing 150-160 inch bucks. It does so every year. But not because they reach 5.5 years of age. They are more of an annomaly. Our average buck at 5.5-years might be more 125-130.
It is a solid fact. If we had a five-year moratorium on killing bucks, we would still not have bucks in the 150-160 inch range for an average. Read and comprehend. TN can only produce what genetics and nutrition allow. TN DOES NOT HAVE THE GENETICS AND NUTRTION TO PRODUCE BUCKS WITH ANTLERS ON PAR WITH MIDWESTERN STATES. In addition, please understand, the age strata in TN is just fine. The number of male deer in the herd is just overall. We cannot produce 2" ice cubes with a 1" ice cube tray.
It is just biology 101...a class many trophy hunters fail.
Granted I live on the northern border, good deer hunting here as it is. But most everyone I know up here is for the reduced buck tags. Ky wasn't always been looked at as a big buck state, but look at them now with their one buck limit. And their deer herd is still in fine shape.
I'll just add one thing. The state of TN, by percentage of kills, has almost the identical age breakdown as KY. That is, as many mature bucks are killed in TN as are killed in KY by percentage of kills. They just aren't as large antlered. I would like that explained if someone could.
To explain a littler plainer. If you examine 100 kills from KY and 100 from TN, you will find an equal number of mature bucks in both states. You will also find, larger antlers on the bucks of the equal ages. The KY bucks will be larger than bucks the same age in TN.
A good portion of Kentucky has that rich in mineral soil like Illinois , Iowa and Missouri. Not sure how it is further down the river in western TN.
In my opinion the more surviving bucks the more likely on older fit buck will be around to run off the lesser bucks and breed the does resulting better genetics and better antlers. Fewer mature bucks means more immature or closer genetically related animals breed the does resulting inferior genetics with inferior racks.
Fortunately, when it comes to outdoor writers, TN has the better gene pool. Right, Bou :)
Remember about 15-20 years ago when they conducted the great trophy buck experiment on Natchez Trace WMA? Best I can remember it was pretty much a bust. Also, didn't they do the same thing at Catoosa? Don't remember the outcome of that one.
Most people seem to be overlooking what you so plainly pointed out.... no biological reason to do this, plus the majority of the hunting public didn't want it either.
Great soils make for superstar managers......
Would love to drop some of the nations best buck growers (if their is even such a thing) in the acidic hills of TN/MS and see what they come up with in the way of trophy deer in 20 years.
Presidents Island has the soil which equals nutrition to produce larger bucks that the average TN buck. However, under an equal management program, bucks from the "trophy" producing staes would be considerable larger in terms of rack.
It has not one thing to do with a bag limit reduction that is not needed.
Many hunt club members will kill over their limit of bucks and either not check them or use someone else's tags.
In our case a 2 buck limit would be an improvement but only for the honest hunters. Like TN I'm sure that there aren't many hunters in VA that check 3 bucks each year - but that's only because they don't check the rest.
I'd be in favor of a 2 buck limit with a check in requirement in VA. The bucks would have a better chance to mature. This should allow more of the breeding to be done by more mature bucks which should compress the rut. The biological advantage is that fawns should all be dropped at nearly the same time which would help them to survive the growing coyote population.
This isn't an attempt to grow Midwest bucks in VA - that's not gonna happen. This would be an effort to grow a healthier, more mature herd in VA.
I've seen spotted fawns as late as November - that's a problem.
Honestly, I like hunting mature bucks and love easting good venison. I've never seen the reason to shoot 3 bucks to feed my family.
I'd be in favor of 2 bucks in VA! Good luck in TN.
Look at the data this way- 237,300 hunter's passed on killing a small buck, saving their "Last Buck Tag" for a chance at a bigger one while they kept on hunting.
With a 2 buck limit, I bet at least half, over 100,000 hunters will not fill the 2nd tag now, with the chance to hold out for a bigger one.
100,000 extra bucks will make a difference in the availability of mature bucks, and consequently larger antlers
Limiting buck harvest is fundamental to improving quality.
And yes, R. Hale, limiting buck harvest is fundemental in improving overall herd quality. That is why we had a three buck limit and a healthy herd. However, don't be missled. There is no factual data to show a certain percentage of mature bucks is of any value in herd health, only in hunter perception of herd health.
And of course, one can skew the data to say just about anything, Wilderness. In fact, I doubt if we even have 237,000 deer hunters and the majority of them, probably did not go hunting more than once and most of them did not see a buck. LMAO
Even more difficult, is to explain that there is no hard, factual data to support a need for mature bucks in a deer population. There is nothing a 5.5-yr. old buck can do that 2.5-yr.old or for that matter, 1.5-yr.old cannot. Age contributes nothing to overall health or genetics. It is a desire of hunters because it is one of the three requirements for large antlers.
States are not charged with providing large antlers or even mature bucks. That is not their job. Their job is to provide the healthiest deer herd possible based on environment, biology, finances and last, hunter desire.
To manage a deer herd biologically correct, the hunter desire should always come last. The manager is not managing hunters, he is managing wuildlife.
If age is the only requirement of the three that can be changed for larger antlers, why wouldn't the state do it? The hunters spoke up and said that is what they wanted. If it doesn't create an unhealthy deer herd, it's only logical direction that the commission can go.
And as to your question re age being the only requirement we can change etc. Again, as said early, the hunters did not speak up and say they wanted it. 56% were opposed to it. Only 38% were in favor. That is why it has caused such an uproar. The move to two bucks with no biological reason to do so and against the wishes of the majority is simply politics and the way the "Old Boy" network works.
The majority of hunters are opposed to it, it will have no tangible impact on the deer herd, the harvest or antler size and there is no biological reason to do it. So, it is totally ILLOGICAL that the commission would do it.
Sometimes, you have to read all of the posts to get the story. All of that, I clearly stated early on.
