State to State Comparison
Whitetail Deer
Contributors to this thread:
I see it quite often. Hunters tend to compare the deer hunting regulations in one state with another. An example being- “If we had regulations like state “A”, we would have big bucks like they do.” It seems, very few hunters understand the fallacy of that.
You must manage each state, based on the variables of that state. Here is a simple example to point that out. State “A” has 20-million acres of huntable habitat. It has a deer herd of 800,000. It has 450,000-licensed hunters. The land is primarily agricultural farmstead, open fields with broken woodlots and relatively flat. Hunters are allowed one buck and one doe, per year. State “B” has 31-million acres with a deer herd of approx.. 1-million. It has 210,000 hunters. The land is varied from mountain to flat farm land. There are huge stretches of old-growth timber. Hunters are allowed three bucks and as many as 30-does a year. The deer in state “A” are larger and the bucks sport larger antlers. The hunters in State “B”, want the same regulations as they have in “A” so they can have larger bucks. Most hunters never consider the factors involved in setting hunting regulations, never consider terrain, food sources or hunter pressure. They just look at the regs and the antlers and say, “We want that.”
To further point something out, if state “B” should decrease the buck limit to two or even one, there would be very little impact on the buck population and none at all on the antler size. On the other hand, should state “A” increase the buck limit to, two, the impact would be noticeable in one year.
Apples to oranges. Each state and often each region of a state, must be managed separately, according to the characteristics of that area. If you pour 100-BB’s in a pan, you have a pan with 100-BB’s. Now tilt the pan. You still have a pan with 100-BB’s but they are all in one area. The same applies to wildlife. But hunters continue to butt heads.
Total mortality and recruitment in state A and state B need to be considered as vital variables that were excluded in your example above.
Thanks for the condescending wildlife management 101. The best we can do for our future is advocate for cold, hard scientific management and minimize hunter's feelings and whims as much as humanly possible (recognizing that factor is impossible to eliminate). If that means Illinois gets to share the woods xbows or you only get to shoot 10 deer per year, so be it. We get all pissy and dismiss libs when they bring "emotions" into issue, yet hunters bitching and moaning emotional arguments about wildlife management is the oldest hunting tradition there is!
Elk-Please explain to what my post has to do with IL or crossbows or for that matter, you?
And yes, Brotsky, I left a lot of factors out. Just giving a simple example. Reason being, this exact subject came up on another forum yesterday. It has zip to do IL or crossbows or emotions. It was about why one state did not have bucks with large antlers.
The Illinois xbow issue may be the end of hunting! Wow.
Bowriter,
I'm in agreement with you, " Proper Management " is key.
Habitat , genetics , food source , the dates of bow / gun seasons , liberal harvest , may be part of the issue for state B.
However , IMHO, the politics / desire of and from the hunting public may be a larger issue.
Why does state B , have the regulations they do ?
You only need to ask why do larger more mature deer come from state A when state B is a bordering state. Is it because state A has a better management from their DNR recommendations than state B , who's DNR , recommends a multiple buck and doe harvest with gun season during the period of the rut ?
Combine the bag limits along with a " hunters willingness to shoot multiple younger bucks or several does per year and this just may be a larger part of the problem ".
Just because the state allows me to harvest 2, 3, bucks or several does , do I really need to shoot a young or multiple bucks then get " serious " about hunting a mature buck ?
In other words , do I really need to fill my bag limit or is self restraint an issue ?
With all of this said, without the proper genetics , habitat , and food source it is difficult to have larger deer (antlers).
It all begins with the genetics , and a willingness to allow that deer, that buck to reach it's full growth potential.
bowriter, I agree with your idea that a region's buck/doe limits are based off of the size of the herd and the number of the hunters, but look at the example of Nebraska and Iowa. They're right next to each other and have pretty similar herds and habitat.
Nebraska has a 2 buck limit and unlimited NR tags. Rifle season starts on the Saturday closest to the 15th of November, so rifle opener can be as early as the 12th, as it was last year.
Iowa on the other hand, has a 1 buck limit, limited NR tags, and has no rut rifle or ML season. It's shotgun only and the season is in December.
Iowa (even since the CWD outbreak and since they decreased the herd size over the past several years), is generally accepted as having a better age structure to their bucks. Additionally, if you look at the biggest deer entered into the record books every year, you'll see that that evidence backs up that consensus. You could look at Minnesota too, a state with probably the most liberal opportunity in the region and also abutting Iowa and you'll see the same story.
So are you saying that these things like buck limits and season dates don't have any relationship to age class or more specifically, the odds that a hunter would see a 4+ year old buck while hunting similar situations in different states (ie: public in one state vs public in another or private in one state vs private in another)?
Or are you just stating that limits and season dates don't matter as much as hunters make them out to be?
I see where you're coming from and that TN is a totally different ball game compared with Iowa. But do you believe that if TN lowered its buck limit from 3 to 2 or 1, that people wouldn't see more 4+ year old bucks?
Ike agree with everything you said. However Iowa residents can kill 2 bucks as well as get an either sex landowner tag for property owned.
I believe much of the regulations are now driving by some biology ,how much profit can a state make quick from hunting and what influence insurance companies have. I hunted a section of SC for a while where we could only shoot 5 deer a year. The year I left it was moved up to 10 since the deer accidents with cars became so high and insurance companies wanted the number of deer to be lowered. In Viginia I see as many bears as I see deer. My out of state license used to have bear tags, now they are sold separately for 150 bucks. Just a quick way for a state hurting for money to make a quick buck from what I can see. I like it when states just listen to game biologist and take their advice.
Johns example is not very good. It leaves out way to many variables, even as a simple example. There is no doubt if state B lowered the number of bucks allowed to be taken that folks would see an increase in the amount of bucks seen in the future. If they added antler restrictions it would also allow folks to see bigger and better antlered bucks in the future. I believe the biologists actually do a decent job in most states, as there are not very many employed to micro manage their deer herds. Scooby
bowriter, you nailed it in your quick example. I ad most understand you left out a lot of variables for the sake or your point and not wanting to type 80 pages.
There is a group of people here that think we should lower the buck limit even though it has been statistically proven that only 30% of hunters actually harvest two antlered bucks. They always use KY, OH, IA and others as examples of what we could do here. Our habitat is different, Our food quality is different etc... . When you point that out, they say they aren't shooting to be. Blah, Blah, Blah. God Blss
Hey it could be worse.... Out here in California our Department of Fish and Game are anti hunters who's schooling for their Wardens is funded by P.E.T.A. "no joke" and are taught to manage the hunters not the wildlife! I was told by a so called "Warden" that we "as in hunters" are all breaking the law at some point and it was his job to catch us. Even with a few good Biologists the rules are still made by ill informed tree kissing, bunny hugging, Liberals!!! That's why we have overpopulated Mountain Lions and can't hunt them, over populated Bears and can no longer use hounds, and they are introducing more non native Wolves to an already under populated, over stressed deer heard.... But ya you guys keep complaining about only getting to kill 30 deer a year.....
WV dead on. For example, In TN, we had a three-buck limit. Only 2% of the hunters killed three bucks. I don't recall the exact figure but it was something like 2,000, statewide. The limit was reduced to two. Had no positive or negative affect whatsoever. Just because you have an increase in bucks moving up one age class, does not mean you are going to kill bucks with larger antlers. Age is only one factor of the three taht determine antler size.
But of utmost importance is recognizing that good deer management does not have one thing to do with antlers. No state...no state, should be involved in TDM. Their job is QDM. Not the same thing at all. And that highlights what I was getting at. Hunters judge primarily by antler size. Few will admit their deer may die of old age and never exceed 130-inches. Fewer still do not understand you cannot manage statewide as you would on private land. It is hard for many to believe the MAJORITY of hunters are not trophy hunter.
I am from Tn as is bowriter and in some cases older deer does not corlate to larger antlers but not many and states should be managing deer herds for the health of the heard i.e. Proper buck doe ratio and heard health based on size below carring capacity of the habitat not managing the deer for most money they can get out of it as Tennessee has done for years and has Illinois has done last 20 years and many more states . I totally disagree with you when you say going to 2 bucks made no difference. You are correct with the figure being only about 2000 less bucks killed next year but you put that on a 5 year total ( how many years it takes to start getting your age class back in balance ) and your talking 10,000 more bucks state wide or about 107 more older age class bucks per county now you have started making a difference. I know in our county in 1980's when we had a 2 week gun season , no muzzle loader season and 1 buck limit during bow season we had more deer and you could see 130 to 140 in bucks and every now and then a real giant. Up until they lower the buck limit you could not even get a pic of a good buck with all these cameras in the woods in most of the state. I got some pic this year for the first time of 130 to 140 in deer in years after the buck limit was lower . It is still twice as high as it should be . I love Tennessee but our deer heard is in top 5 worse manged Heard's in nation and that is no secret.
It is a fact that the only way a buck will grow the largest antlers he can based on his genetic potential and nutrition available to him he must live to over 5 years old and have competition from other older age bucks for breeding rights . You can put a prime older age buck in woods with no competition for breeding rights and he will not grow near the antlers he would if he has several older age bucks to compete with for breeding rights . So when states like Tennessee take samples 1 or 2 years out when they change things and say it failed to produce the results it is so flawed thinking to think it would in such a short period. They either do not see the full pic or do not want to fix problem for fear of losing dollars . What ever it is it is so sad to me .
I would guess that the actual number of bucks killed would only be part of the picture. The other part of the picture is having a tag in the pocket and how many people choose to pass on smaller bucks due to the ability to continue to hunt for bucks. How many 1, 2, and even 3 year old bucks don't get a pass because the hunter can continue to hunt? If the limit is 3, then guys can kill 2 bucks and still hold out for a big one. If the limit is 2, then they can kill one and if they want a big deer, then they can't kill that 2nd deer. Sure, not a lot of people killed 3 bucks, but how many people wouldn't have killed a 2nd if the limit was two?
ACB you are assuming some facts not in evidence. You and I agree on some points, not on some others. But that is a separate post/discussion. Four years ago, TN had the best deer management in the Southeast, maybe the whole country. We had a fantastic balance in age and sex ratios. Then, two key positions on TWRA got "rearranged" and we lost one of the best big-game biologists in the country, got a "tilted" commission and a puppet deer biologist. If you can get the true figures, go back say, four or five years and look at the deer figures-not the harvest report-the by-region, overall herd figures. I would defy any state to match them. I doubt you will be able to get those figures. Possibly I can get them for you. Now, we have no idea what we kill, what we have or what we are doing. The data is useless. If you will PM me your email addy, I'll send you something to read. I won't take up the space, but somewhere, I have a side-by-side comparison of TN/KY age stratas of male deer. It is rather eye opening.
Idylwild. You raise a valid point. If you have a three buck limit and only 2% of your hunters statewide, kill three bucks, that tells you one of three things. (1) They did not have the opportunity to kill the third. (2) They killed a doe instead, (liberal limit). (3) They simply decided to pass, waiting for a bigger buck. It doesn't matter what the reason is. Here are some facts. (1) I have yet to find a truthful, qualified biologist, familiar with TN, who could find a reason to reduce the buck limit from 3-2. Contrary to the belief of some hunters, the reduction has made and will make no impact on antler size or for that matter the age strata. The only impact was in limiting the opportunity for some hunters. (3) Long-term, it may result in a reduction of the doe kill. There are several contributing factors but I won't go into that. My example was very simplified and not done with any two states in mind, I only meant to point out why it is fallacy to compare one state with another in terms of setting regs. Once a program is in place and working well in terms of herd health, (not antlers), there are only two reasons to make a change in management. (1) Sound, biological need. (2) Hunter satisfaction. In the case of TN-not talking about any other state-the reduction from 3-2, met neither of those. I am privy to some data and info I cannot share, over 15-years of it. But trust me, unless something happens and quickly, the next move here will be an AR, then perhaps a reduction to a one buck limit. And then...we will still not have bucks with Midwest antlers. NOTE: Discuss this. IA has no firearm hunting during the rut and no centerfire rifle hunting. Should both NE and IL have those same regs? And MO and TN? What would happen, biologically, not hunter revolt wise, if all states simply put a five-year moratorium on killing any buck? Would all states have huge antlered bucks. You see that is why state-state comparisons are made---larger antler envy. No other reason.
Here in Rhode Island Non-Resident Archery tags are unlimited and cost around $50 bucks. Come one come all!! I live on a 5,000 acre Island where a 5.5 year old Buck will measure 100 inches at best. Genetics are poor, minimal food but good numbers of deer. The last buck I shot in Iowa grossed 166 and aged by cementum annuli at 3.5. Even though I live in Rhode Island I don't hunt here any more. Maybe the Midwest deer taste better:) C
Indiana dropped from a two buck limit to a one buck limit in 2002. I can say with complete confidence the age structure of our antlered herd has benefited from that change. Prior to the rule change, the annual buck harvest was comprised of 65%+ yearling bucks. The last published percentage of yearling bucks in the overall harvest was 41% in 2012. The state no longer publishes this statistic due to the tele-check / online deer check system which has replaced deer check stations statewide for the most part. My personal observations support the limit change is working as well.
Ike is spot on with his view on hunter thoughts . I have said when we had a liberal buck limit and they started raising anterless limits and could not get hunters to shoot them , that there could be 15 does out in field and 1 spike buck and if the average hunter had 5 anterless tags and 5 antler tags he would shoot the buck ever time . You have To lower buck limits to get hunters to meet your anterless goals as a wildlife biologist.
I would say yes to no fire arms season ( that includes muzzle loaders ) during the rut of any deer season in any state .
Interesting idea- more older age class bucks will cause antlers to grow bigger? I have not heard that before. Is it because they have an increase in testosterone or some other hormone in competition? Are they healthier and bigger body/antlers since they don't breed when young?
"It is a fact that the only way a buck will grow the largest antlers he can based on his genetic potential and nutrition available to him he must live to over 5 years old and have competition from other older age bucks for breeding rights . You can put a prime older age buck in woods with no competition for breeding rights and he will not grow near the antlers he would if he has several older age bucks to compete with for breeding rights "
In 50 years of reading, studying and practicing forms of wildlife management, I have never even heard this concept as a theory let alone as a Fact.
ABC, According to this concept of reduced antler size due to lack of breeding competition, wouldn't bucks stop growing antlers in a population maintained with only one male present at any time?
It's the "If you don't use it you'll loose it" fact that we have all been warned about.....
I just did a quick count. Five of the eight posts, directly above this one, prove exactly what I was pointing out. Now, something to ponder. For over 20-years, I was involved with management of deer on a 21,000 acre commercial hunting operation in the Southeast. We had the absolute best 24-year records of any state agency or private, (that I am aware of.). Each deer killed was weighed, live weight and field dressed and meat yield, aged, tooth wear noted, antlers measured and often, parasite studies. We took from 375 to 550 hunters per year. Each hunter was allowed one buck per hunt and one doe per day. Buck regs were: 8-points and 14", inside spread. Less than that cost $500. Under three-inch spike $200 and button $100. Those regs were some what relaxed for juvenile hunts. I can say without reservation, we probably had the best balanced by age and sex deer herd in the country. Several state agencies "borrowed" our data and studied our deer. Over 25+ years pf operation, to my knowledge, 19-bucks over 5.5 were killed by hunters. Two bucks measured over 160" gross...two in total. 81% of the bucks killed, aged between 2.5 and 4.5. Once a buck reached 3.5, he was by far more likely to die of something besides a hunter. Most were seldom seen once hunting started. We had no feeders or supplemental feeding. We did have over 400-acres of green fields. Some were not hunted and used for study only. Natural feeds were sufficient. We had a semi-predator control program. In short, it would be hard to find a better managed, free-range woodland program. There was no such thing as a cull buck and very few, true non-typs. So. What does this prove? Here is what I took away from it. Good food and age with proper age strata will not produce huge antlers. What we had were, on average, the best bucks for that state. And that is all any state can produce. In 1995, Oct. 15, opening day of bow season. I killed an eight-point that scored 142 and change. He was 5.5-yrs, weighed 205 on the hoof and was in excellent condition. He had never been seen before. I shot him from a hanging stand I placed the afternoon before in a place nobody in their right mind would hunt. For that area, he was a superb specimen, in prime condition and ranked #21 for bow-killed bucks, in the state. That is not a brag, I am using it to prove a point. How many states would have a 140-range buck be in the top 20? Not in three of the four states adjoining this one-not sure about the fourth. In two of the four states, he would not be in the top 50 or maybe even 100. But he was among the top 50, ever killed on this operation by any equipment. Would I recommend these regulations for a state or region of a state? Absolutely NOT! To start with, regulations are only good if you can enforce them. AR's statewide are seldom beneficial. And, no state could even begin to field the manpower to monitor a program like this. And finally, after five or ten years, hunters would still be bitching.
^^^^^^^^^^^BINGO. We have a winner^^^^^^^^^^^
I have a great deal of respect for you John. And though I agree that most states will never produce BIG bucks with regularity, I disagree that reducing the buck bag limit, won't increase the size of the buck structure overall.
Here in NC, I have personally saw it go from where we did well to see any antlered buck, to passing numerous small 1.5 and 2.5 year old bucks each year. And now, every year, either I, or my wife, will shoot one 3.5 year old, or older, buck, and usually see, or get a picture of, a 4.5 plus buck. So I know reduced buck limits help.
QDM, is also a key factor, which seems to be more widespread and more readily accepted among hunters, and has been a key factor.
Though most places will never kick out 180 and 200 inch bucks with regularity, I believe with reduced buck limits and better QDM education, hunters most anywhere, can be able to hunt 130 to 160 inch bucks, every year, without leaving home.
All you have to do is look at state records to know what you're dealing with regarding genetics in that state. Still, if the discussion is how to have more 3-5+ year old bucks around, that's a different discussion than genetics.
I totally agree with you on antler restrictions. I do not think they have a place in state wide regulations, that should be left up to individual land owners or clubs . I think a state should let a hunter shoot what every buck he wants to , the bag limit should be low enough to keep the buck to doe ratio in healthy balance along with the good age structure . When you take into account that 20% of antlerless will always be button bucks you have to target the buck harvest to be 40% less than antlerless because of the 20% bucks you kill on antlerless hunts and the 20% less does you harvest . Now with the pressure we are receiving on the heard from predators ( coyotes, bobcats , bears Ect ) that have to be figured into the equation along with hunting pressure, if you do the math a one buck buck limit on hunters is where it falls to keep the heard in a healthy balance . As many states are proving . In my home state of Tennessee that fear a hunter revolt on this issue , but what that do not realize there has been a silent hunter revolt last 20 years going on in Tennessee deer hunting community. They have been quietly leaving the state to hunt else where , me included. I first went to mid west in late 1980's and because of that fact for years I did not buy a license in my home state of Tennessee because I was not going to waste my time here . A buddy of mine asked why I did that , my reply was if you gave me a choice of hunting the best property in Tennessee or I could hunt the interstate right of ways in Midwest I would hunt right of ways in Midwest.
Come on guys. What John is saying is it doesn't dramatically increase the age class of hunter killed deer statewide.
John I do not know where the property you are speaking of is located but even it was not big enough if the herd around you all was way out of balance on buck to die ratio , because many of buck would have left that pice of property, where there was competition for breeding rights and went where the " girls were plenty and the boys weren't many " and gotten killed during the rut . It has to be done on state wide basis.
The hunting community in my home town almost all the hunters I know go out of state to hunt whitetails elsewhere.
"Come on guys. What John is saying is it doesn't dramatically increase the age class of hunter killed deer statewide." That is just about true. At no time, have I ever said, decreasing the big kill would not increase the age strata of bucks. Of course it will...to some degree. But it will not produce what the proponents want...larger antlers, nor will the annual kill of mature bucks increase significantly. But here is the crux. Why reduce the buck tags when there is no biological need to do so? If your herd age stratas are healthy, why decrease the buck limit? Do the MAJORITY of hunters want it? I cannot think of a state that does. Yes, trophy hunters want it. But they are a minority.
ACB it was plenty big enough, trust me. The age/sex balance was about as ideal as you could ask for. This place was an example for three university wildlife programs. The sex ratio was 2.7/1 and it was held at that for many years. Also, it can't be done on a statewide basis. It is impossible. No state can or would do it. One of the basic factors of wildlife management is financial feasibility. No state could afford to do this.
"It is a fact that the only way a buck will grow the largest antlers he can based on his genetic potential and nutrition available to him he must live to over 5 years old and have competition from other older age bucks for breeding rights . You can put a prime older age buck in woods with no competition for breeding rights and he will not grow near the antlers he would if he has several older age bucks to compete with for breeding rights " In 50 years of reading, studying and practicing forms of wildlife management, I have never even heard this concept as a theory let alone as a Fact.....
Um isn't the deer (irish elk) with the largest antlers ever in existence extinct?? If big antlers is your main measurement of health you don't know much about deer.
In some areas the nutrition just isn't there for large antlers. In a longitudinal state where I live in there is a heck of a lot of variables from area to area , yet the managers always want to try to apply a one-size fits all approach. Old man winter; automobiles; wolves, bears and coyotes must be considered and often times they are not. A rock covered spruce or tamarac forest in a Northern climate, surrounded by swamp is a alot different than a deciduous forest surrounded by cornfields and alfalpha, with limited surface water sources nearby.
My experience in the Midwest agrees with Bowriter pertaining to deer over 3.5 years old dying in MANY other ways than by hunters. Every January we leave a ton of great 3.5 years old behind and only get a few the following year. They are a lot like us men in that trouble seems to follow them as they age.
Not many people do Tony, glade I could enlighten you, it is one of the most over look parts of a healthy deer heard . I am not a trophy hunter just like to be in woods with a healthy deer heard . When you are in the woods during the rut and the bucks you see doing the breeding are button bucks ( as is the case in my part of Tn ) you are not hunting a healthy heard . I think Mr Sloan and I could agree on a lot but I suspect we would disagree on the value to the heard health by lowering the buck limit in most states . One other thing that lowers the hunting experience for me is the the long season we have in Tennessee. It makes the deer so wired that they are not acting in a normal way when they do under less hunting pressure.
Dale that would be interesting to watch over time to see if antlers disappeared over time with only one male doing the breeding .
Wild wilderness it could be both , but I have a study that was done years ago , I will try and dig it out of my archives when I get back home . That shows heightened testosterone levels when bucks have to compete for breeding rights .
ACB- just a hint, before you start practicing deer biology, learn the difference between heard and herd. Herd health is improved by lowering the buck limit ONLY if the male age strata is out of balance. The fact you are seeing button bucks doing the breeding makes wonder, if they are breeding. They are of course, capable of it and of course pass on the same genetics they would at 5.5-yrs of age, but are they really breeding the doe. I seriously doubt it. In almost any deer habitat that covers a large area, there will be pockets of more many does than bucks, maybe even all does. But when a hunter bases his evaluation of a deer herd and the health of that herd on what he sees during daylight hours or just during hunting season, he is dealing with faulty data. That is why most deer hunters make terrible deer managers. far too many confuse TDM with QDM. As a whole, four years ago, TN had one of the healthiest deer herds in the country. Male age strata was as good or better than any state. Were all the hunters happy? Heck no. And they never will be until the see two mature bucks for every spike. And that won't happen. The statement, that lack of competition results in loss of testosterone as per Tonybear's re-post, to me, is seriously suspect. IN fact, I think it is recycled pasture. I laughed my butt when I saw it the first time.
I didn't really get what you were saying to start out but for the record I 100% agree with your latest posts. Any animal's potential is going to be highly localized. In my locality many mature bucks top out in the 100-125" range. Many bucks die of old age in our rocky infertile mountains never having reach PY status. Now drop down into the fertile valleys or drive a couple hours in any direction and that changes, it's just an Appalachian Mountain thing. I adjust my standards accordingly and am still perfectly happy when I down a buck. To me it's the best whitetail hunting I've ever experienced because it's mountain hunting, not sitting in some cornfield funnel or suburban woodlot. Meat on the table and a rack I am happy looking at hanging on the wall in my basement. If another guys wants to drive 4 hours West where the potential is more in the 150+ range, more power to him but that certainly does not make him a superior man or hunter in my book.
I got one for you John, or anyone who cares to answer. I understand completely about what you are saying about genetics, diet, etc. But what is going on, when in an otherwise subpar area, or region, that has those 5 year old 140 inch buck, that once every 10 years or so, a true monster pops up?
Case in point, here in northwestern NC, where I hunt at home most, we are definitely not known for quality bucks, but about 15 years ago, a local guy shot a buck that scored in the 180's. I really don't know the age, or the details of the deer, but I would think that if that buck could do it, other bucks could do it as well. I am certain the same genetics are still here, and most deer in the same deer, have access to similar food sources.
Such occurrences happen repeatedly all over the country, every year. Last year in TN, while I was in Iowa hunting BIG deer, a potential new world record was killed within a few hours of home. So what is going on in these situations?
In MN we have no genetic issues. Our bucks will get huge. They only need to live long enough to get big. I disagree that a wildlife management agency cannot manage a large part of a state for better age structure. I think it can be done in most of MN with the exception of maybe the northern third of the state where winter is the great equalizer. If hunting is the major source of mortality, then you can regulate harvest in different ways to increase age structure. Wildlife agencies need to have the intestinal fortitude to drive the issue as it has been shown in most cases that acceptance of regs to increase age structure become more desired by hunters after they have been implemented (except earn a buck). It's just breaking long held traditions that is such a tough hurdle to get over. There's no question in my mind MN could be a top whitetail state in the nation.
"In MN we have no genetic issues. Our bucks will get huge. They only need to live long enough to get big." Key point- if they ever live long enough to get big. Poor nutrition can kill them (e.g. unable to get food due to snow), so can cars, wolves, and hunters.
A deer has to have enough to eat to grow antlers. An overabundant deer herd creates a nutrition poor condition and antler characteristics can also be expected to be compromised. The buck is competing with the rest of the herd for the necessary nutrition to build up antler mass long before hunting season and the rut comes around. I haven't seen a study which proves "that they grow bigger antlers if they have bigger bucks to compete against" theory. What I have seen is a lot of big antlers in suburban hunts due to the lack of hunting pressure, ample food (the local bird feeder and hostas), no wolves and somehow learning to stay away from the cars (which can be surprising how small the wood lots they do live in).
Hunting the Central, SE part of the state around Ag, deciduous forests isn't anything at all like hunting the big woods in the far North, NE surrounded by rock, tamarack and tannic acid swamps.. Deer can be big (does easily outweighing city bucks) but they seem to use all their resources to build body mass to stay warm, less on antlers.. Plus in theory the bigger ones are harder to be taken down by wolves and survive winter (Carl Bergmann's Rule). .
Many in the state think if we moved the firearms season out of the rut the world would be a lot better for the deer in MN. Wouldn't change the fact that the highest frequency of car collisions is during the rut, and during birthing season, plus deep snow winters when predators take a lot of them..
I would argue MN IS one of the top whitetail destinations (just look at the variety of geography in the state, and prior records including Camp Ripley), in my opinion-currently their management needs improvement. We thought the audit would have done that but the 2018-beyond plan doesn't include hunter input.
1-Todd T- It is called an anomaly. Happens everywhere in, I guess, every species. 2-12-yards- I didn't say a state couldn't, I said they shouldn't. States should not be in the antler business. If the herd is healthy, leave it alone. It is almost impossible to get any hunter to look at deer management without looking at antlers. Unless you are a private operation, antlers should not even enter into the equation. They have zero to do with herd health.
I will admit John I am not the best speller or do I have the best command of the English language, but I am bad to type on this phone and not edit my responses so that makes it worse at times . But having buck to doe ratio balance is not a healthy heard if you do not have several of those bucks in the older age class .( 6.5 or better ) not 3.5 and 4.5 age the TV guys like to call a mature buck . You probably have access to much more data on the Tennessee "herd" than I do , but I have seen none that says it has enough older age class deer . I agree with you completely that a state should not be in antler business. But the heard is being manged where there are not older age animals in " herd " then it is not where it needs to be and I do not think Tn is there we simply kill way to many bucks every year still . I can not say if the button bucks are breeding the does , I can just say on multiple occasions I have seen them trying and the does standing for them and if the " herd " in Tennessee was as healthy as you and the state have always thought it was this simply would not be happening. The button buck would be hiding in a thicket afraid it was about to be whipped and at least 1 antler buck would be trying to breed her .
I would have to agree John hunters make lousy wildlife mangers. I can say this because my roomate in college and one of my best friends still to this day is a wildlife biologist and among the things he manages is a deer herd and he will tell you the same thing I am about to say you will not find a more confidant bunch in there beliefs than deer biologist and there deer management models and the data they recive . In many cases on a state wide level they do not have the man power to do herd size studies so they are guessing on size of the herd and this makes there aussumptions using there deer model flawed and trying to convince them they could be wrong on something is like trying to tell a woman she is wrong .
I disagree. I think age structure should be a part of a manager's goals. Why shouldn't it be? If a large part of my clientele wants bigger antlers, why shouldn't I try to manage for those as long as it can be done along with herd control, habitat monitoring, etc.? I'm not saying trophy deer management, I'm talking a better balanced age structure where a hunter actually has a chance to see a 3.5 or 4.5 year old buck. In MN now it is lousy and could be improved. And define health.
Steve who are you disagreeing with , I total agree with you age structure should be a part of management of a deer herd or you do not have a healthy herd .
MN does not manage for age structure. They manage for a population level goal (way below carrying capacity btw). And we have very few older deer in our state. That said, I'm not sure what definition of "health" we are talking about. Free of disease, good genetics, normal growth and development, rut timing/breeding/fawning at normal times, etc. Even though our herd is young, our herd is plenty healthy. Unless you think older deer in the herd is important for herd health in some way. You won't convince our wildlife biologists of that though (I work right next to some of them).
Once again, ACB Read and comprehend. I did not say buck to doe ratio, i said age strata. Four years ago, age strata and buck to ratio was about as optimum as you can get. My statement was-"male age strata, (that is the breakdown by age of male deer,), was as good as any state." I stand by that. Therefore, there was no biological need nor request by the majority of hunters for any change. Go back 4-5-years and see if you can find the statewide harvest report for the entire year. I don't know if they even do that anymore. But at one time, TWRA provided the age and sex breakdowns. I even have antler circumferences by age. Sometimes, you have to dig to get good data and sometimes you can just talk about what you see.
Yes they use to publish that info , but it seems as the computer age has made things easier it has become harder to find that info . John I would like to know sample size and where they got there samples on buck age strata .
Bowriter, Does Tennessee have major disparities between the quality of deer on public land and private land?
From my experience, states with higher bag limits have larger disparities. And Tennessee's are out there. I don't even think we can shoot as many rabbits in a season as you can deer.
And the smaller/close to urban public lands it's even more extreme. Areas where they have varying degrees of micromanagement-- like public land out West, you see higher qualities of animals on public land and populations with more buzzwords like strata and equilibrium and crap.
I think logically what that should lead to are liberal doe limits for private lands to give land managers flexibility in controlling populations, and stricter management of public bag limits. States should also strive for a balance of quality and quantity on public. Fragmented landowners should be incentivized to form cooperatives to manage deer in contiguous tracts together.
You can't honestly sit here spouting out the statistics from a massive privately owned ranch and think that the hunting dynamics of our situations are even remotely comparable, do you?
It came from where all data comes. Back when we had check stations, that was hard data. That is where a great deal of biological data was collected. It was statewide. The remainder came, in a large part, from nocturnal photo imaging studies, done statewide. I don't know who your LEO is in your county. Contact him and ask if he can get you the data. TWRA has it...unless it has been erased. Getting it, is another thing.
In 2011, we age strata was as good as you would want for a statewide accounting on free-range deer. Obviously, no matter how good that is, there will be pockets where it is terrible. The pan is not level. Even in two identical, adjoining counties, it may very. But a state agency cannot manage by county. They simply cannot macro manage. Even on large, private tracts, it is difficult. I had one, 8,600 acre piece that had almost no deer on close 900 acres. The club simply could not and would not accept that fact. After almost $10,000 in habitat improvement and manipulation, we somewhat corrected that. In Louisiana, they have as many as three distinct sub-species of deer and each has a different antler size. But try and sell that to a deer hunter.
ACB-What county are you primarily hunting?
I smile to myself when I hear deer hunters base their whole premise of proper management off of kill statistics composed mostly from deer hunters that spend very few days a year in the woods. It literally blows my mind to think that big horn guys suggest that a deer that has a few seasons under his belt, is not capable of outsmarting hunters. What makes them think that?
This whole thread is discussing science and there are no scientists.
WV makes a great point. Hunters have opinions but unless you're going to apply the scientific method to your hypothesis it's impossible to take these arguments seriously.
scientific method Problem solving: Step-by-step approach consisting of (1) identifying and defining a problem, (2) accumulating relevant data, (3) formulating a tentative hypothesis, (4) conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, (5) interpreting the results objectively, and (6) repeating the steps until an acceptable solution is found. Sciences: Rigorous, systematic approach, designed to eliminate bias and other subjective influences in the search, identification, and measurement or validation of facts and cause-effect relationships, and from which scientific laws may be deduced.
Define a "healthy herd?" 12yards' example of MN is one that I cited above. MN blasts the Hell out of their herd. There are very few mature bucks. Southern MN could be comparable to IA, as they touch geographically and everything south of the twin cities is very similar in topography and ecology to Iowa. The difference? MN gives out tons of tags. My uncle hunts the archery, ML, and gun seasons. He told me he can get tags for each of them and doe tags. Iowa's herd is down like 50% from what it was not too long ago, yet, they're still killing large bucks there. The fact that Southern MN is not a hot-spot destination for out-of-state hunters, tells you all you need to know.
So is that healthy? To have a large disparity of does:bucks and very few mature bucks? It's not just about big antlers - it's about 4-7 year old deer. Perhaps TN won't grow any bigger antlers with a different buck limit, but MN could certainly have more 4-7 year old bucks if they cut tags and/or started managing a bit more like their southern neighbors.
Define a "healthy herd?" - Idyll
I'm glad you asked, because I see that phase slung around all the time and have no idea what it actually means and how it's measured.
John all my hunting in Tennessee is done in Sequatchie county . I have access to 2000+ acres in about 3 separate tracks one of which I am the only one that is supposed to be hunting is about 500 acres, but in my part of the world not sure that is the case. Our country is cut in too by the Sequatchie valley the mountains on the north west side is the Cumberland plateau and on south east side is waldens ridge . I was told when I was a young hunter that the west side was restocked by deer from the state of Virginia and the east side was restock with deer from the state of Wisconsin. I suspect that could be true the does on west side will come in heat in November and the ones on west side do not cycle till December.
Ike hit the nail on the head when it comes to Mn. The southern 1/3 of the state has no wolves. So the only thing deer really have to avoid is hunters and autos.
When Mn kills 75% of its 1.5 year old bucks there isn't many making 2.5. If half of them are killed by 3.5 the numbers are way down.
I get the whole people just want to shoot a deer. But them same people also say maybe this year I will shoot a big one. Well if they didn't shoot 1.5 year olds the last 3 years they could be hunting a 4.5 year.
Back when ol Lou was in charge all he cared about was tag revenue. Tags were plenty and we shot the hell out of our herd.
Bill O. Precisely. Hunter adjust data to fit the hypoth esis. It is called the Ballestracci method.
Right on the money Fulldraw.
John that is a problem with deer biologist also they have such blind faith in there deer models when it comes to managing a deer herd that you could not convince them they could possibly be wrong . When the models they use are dependent on good data and if one part of the data is seriously off then they are making faulty decision on the herd . For years I feel like Tennessee has over estimated the size of its deer herd , maybe as much as 30% and if that is the decision they are making on the herd are based on bad data. It is one of the hardest parts to keep a good handle on size of the herd . We have had a serious perdation problem in Tennessee by coyotes for over 20 years and I know early on there model did not take this into account. May now I do not know , but for years deer biologist dismisses there was a problem with predation from coyotes, because they did not have a box to plug in the numbers . Deer biologist do not have time to go out in the field , Ben Layton told me this years ago and that is a problem. I know in my little part of Tennessee I am seeing dividends from dropping to a 2 buck limit last year for the first time since game cameras cameout I got pictures of good bucks 2.5 to 3.5 year olds with good racks and they left buck sign in the woods for years you could not find much buck sign in the woods . I think if Tennessee keeps its buck limit at 2 you are going to be surprised at the size of the bucks Tennessee starts killing in 2 to 4 years and if we drop it to 1 buck limit you are going to be really surprised. Based on what you have said in this thread. This is a photo of the size of the locusts trees one of the bucks was rubbing .
This is him on the hoof .
John it is not just me . My hunting friends sent me pictures of good bucks they were getting last year and a few of them even killed some 130 - 140 inch deer last year when before could not get a picture of one much less kill one .
ACB I only had some, scattered data available but here is what was going on in Sequatchie.
Sequatchie County- Kill per huntable square mile, 2003/04--2.96 Total deer Kill: Male deer 422 Female deer 283 Of male deer physically aged, this is the breakdown for 2003. The last year I have handy, the county breakdown .5-1.5 yrs 38% 1.5-2.5 yrs 41% 2.5 and older 21% That is excellent!
In 207/08 the kill was this: Total bucks 376 Total Does 253 Again, excellent ratio. You must keep in mind, this is a very small kill so a small sampling. We killed more deer than that on the 21,000 acres you say is too small for deer management. BTW- I am all in favor of a one buck limit. In fact, I would like to see a five-year moratorium on bucks for all of east TN. Heck, What needs to be done is shut down deer hunting for five years. But only E. TN, say Knoxville east. I believe I shall suggest that at the Commission meeting, next month.
Full Draw-If that data is correct, then yes, MN needs to make an adjustment. When it is biologically needed, I support adjusting the regulations. What I don't support is MN trying to manage their deer like WI or WI trying to manage like IA. If you recall, that was thread I started.
But why not this. If the buck age classes are badly out of balance, why not just shut down buck hunting for a year or two? Why is that never suggested. It is what we do on private land. In a couple or three years, you are good to go.
Shutting down buck hunting would work but why not just reduce the buck limit where it will make a difference and still let hunters take to the woods . One of the problems with stopping buck hunting is that there may not be enough hunters take to the woods to meet antlerless goals if they are still into play . When I quit buying a Tennessee license years ago because of the lack of hunting opportunities on a healthy herd I started back buying one when we got turkeys so I could hunt them and when they went to a 2 buck limit I upgraded to a sportsman license , just my little way to say thank you and here is my support.
The problem with shutting down buck harvest is you would instantly put too much pressure on antlerless deer. MN has few places where they need to hammer the crap out of does to reduce populations. We've been down the "too many antlerless permits" road recently and I don't want to go down that road again.
Bowriter I agree with you to a certain extent on one state not following another state. Take Mn gun season. It's the first weekend of Nov. For the younger bucks that is almost certain death for how much they move around then. Iowa gun season is the first weekend in December. Like Ike said the southern 1/3 of Mn has much of the same habit as Iowa. Granted the northern portion of Mn is different. Different weather at times, completely different habitat. Why can't Mn have 2 different seasons for different areas? If we are talking what's best for the herds health.
Mn has always been a 1 buck state as long as I can remember. Sure you can party hunt in Mn. So certain hunters can potentially shoot more then one buck. Once again Ike brings up a great point. Mn buck population gets hammered.
I have seen over a dozen does with no fawns in one township this year so far. Why is this? Sure a few were last years fawns and I don't expect to see a fawn with them. But the older does should have a fawn or two. I don't think it's coyotes killing them so why no fawns? I think it's buck related and the lack of 2.5 year old and older bucks in the herd. Also hammering bucks with rifles during the rut has to have an affect on the herd over time.
So back to your OP Bowriter. I agree no two states should have the same management styles. However if two states have identical habitat or at least part of the state why can't they have the same at least for the portions with the same habitat?
"In fact, I would like to see a five-year moratorium on bucks for all of east TN." - Good luck with that. The E. TN guys are the ones shouting the loudest that they want a 3 buck limit, if not more. It wouldn't bother me much, other than a few hunts, I do almost all my deer hunting out of state anymore.
John excellent is in eyes of the beholder. It is awful to me when 79 % of your buck harvest is 2.5 years or younger . We are simply killing way to many bucks in Tennessee evey year , in large part because the biologist are over estimateing herd size . If you go back to the 1980's in our country, just before they liberalizes the buck and doe limits we were killing something in the rage of 600 to 700 bucks and some good ones at that on a 2 week gun season and no muzzleloader season . We had a 2 buck limit at the time . We needed to increase the antlerless take at the time but not the antlerd . Going back to the to the title of this post , as you know everything is a bell shape curve and I think every state could learn something from the states on the right side of the curve and improve there herd .
Full Draw, The key to IA is not when there gun season is. They key is...no firearm hunting during the first rut. I have long been advocate of that if your goal is reduce buck kill in general and mature buck kill specifically. Here is what is wrong with that. If a state does not drastically need it, why do it? If you ask 1,000 hunters in a state where that has not been a long-standing custom, to approve of that, you are going to have a revolt. Don't confuse what is superb on private land with a state-wide mandate.
12-yards- IN some cases, perhaps it would put too much pressure on does. In some cases, it would not. Again, obviously, this is not an option for state-wide management. Again, when a buck gets past 2.5-years of age, he is killed by something besides hunting, over 90% of the time. The reason being, he is seldom seen during daylight during hunting season. Of all the factors that impact your male deer population in total, hunting is not number one. It is just the best control valve. On suitable, sizable, private land, I can design a perfect deer management program. Most hunters would not like it. But if they went along with it, 30-35% of the male animals would be over 3.5 years of age-a healthy balance. But...there would not be a wide-scale increase in trophy bucks killed...or seen. By far, the majority of bucks killed would be 2.5 or less. That is a fact. There is only one way to correct that. Make it illegal to kill any buck with less than 16"-inside spread and less than eight-points. State-wide, that is impossible to enforce. Obviously, some states have a problem that needs correcting. Most states in which hunters think they do, don't.
ABC-I'm sure you are right. Troops, I'm going fishing. Maybe the young ones are hitting. I have been catching too many big fish. But also, maybe, I got you thinking. Trust, me, of the 20+ factors taken into account when managing a deer herd, Hunting is just one of them.
To me the biggest thing as to why so many deer dont hit that 3.5+ range in MN has to do with being able to cross-tag party hunting. I'm from the south central part of the state, lots of ag and large parties hunting together that throw the meat into the community pot to divide amongst entire party... more people in group the more need to shoot anything with horns mentality in order to get there venison fix for the year.
"Again, when a buck gets past 2.5-years of age, he is killed by something besides hunting, over 90% of the time."
Seriously? Do you have data to support this? And I would be happy just to see more 2.5 year old bucks. I rarely even see those in MN. A 3.5 is almost non-existent. I do agree with you that a spread requirement would be a good thing but next to impossible to implement.
John I just read your article in calling out the commission and was pleasantly surprised to see you made the case for why Tennessee needed to go from a 3 buck limit to a 2 buck limit by pointing out the psychological of most hunters when you said a hunter that has killed 2 bucks already and is still hunting and the buck of a lifetime walks by and he shoots kills it and you have made a criminal out of them with one change . First off they made that decision so they made themselves criminals. Second this is what I have been saying and someone else said on here earlier ( and this is not deer biologist but has a lot to do with managing deer ) a lot of hunters do exactly what you just said and never kill that third buck , but with the change they will now have to shoot 1 buck and wait on that buck of a lifetime and by default many will never kill that second buck . So the herd will see more bucks live another year and the herd dynamics become much more healthy over time . Last point I do not know where it falls and neither do you with out without holding a vote by all deer hunters in Tennessee as to they like changes or not , but I suspect you would be surprised at the results.
LOL- I'm sure you are right. I expect that is why the antlered buck kill went up 2,000 animals when the limit went from 3-2. But of course, again, you failed to read and comprehend. Reducing the limit from 3-2, is not what made criminals out of law abiding hunters. In fact, what I said was, it had no impact, positive or negative on the harvest. As for hunter’s opinions, again, we are not talking about east TN hunters. We are talking about the majority of all 200,000+ TN hunters. Well over 50% oppose the reduction. Personally, I don't care but I am pretty sure I am contact with far more of them than you.. But let me share a couple quotes with you from a TN game warden and a state biologist.
“Franklin State Forest (7,000 acres and our largest state wide hunting area in the county) looked like epizootic hemorrhagic disease had devastated the deer herd with all of the button bucks found laying on the ground............ but sadly instead, they all had bullet holes in them with the hunters probably saying "uh-oh" as they took off running like hell. The very purpose of the 3" length limit was to make sure that crap didn't happen.” “I am convinced TFWC has simply turned a lot of Tennesseeans into liars and home butchers. We all know it is impossible to spot half inch bumps on a deer's head at 300 yards in low light. Hunters are forced to leave their dead deer in the field, or,more likely, to take them home and butcher them themselves. Consquently, TWRA will never get accurate kill records because folks are not going to report their kills. I really thought Tennesseeans had enough common sense that they would not impose such ridiculous rules.”
Now. Acb. I realize I am not going to change your mind and I wouldn’t expect to. It is hard to open a door that is rusted shot. Again, I’m sure you are right. Now for those with an open mind, in another thread, just posted, I have given the web site for an open deer management seminar tonight at 7:45 eastern time. It is free and conducted by a man I regard as one of the top five deer biologists in the country. It is limited to 25, so if interested, jump on anytime after 7:45 eastern and 6:45 central.
12-yards---that figure is 3.5 yrs, not 2.5 and it came from several sources, among them Auburn U and I believe QDMA. I have seen it in many places and it varies from 90-94%. Check with your state folks. It is going to vary from state to state depending on habitat. Simple math will give you a pretty close figure.
And finally, I believe this post has been exhausted, I will now turn it over to ABC.
I found a study that was done in eastern and northern Wisconsin on deer mortalities. Hunting was the #1 reason for mature bucks to die in Eastern Wisconsin. Now Northern Wisconsin predators closed in on hunting however hunting was still the #1 reason.
“I am convinced TFWC has simply turned a lot of Tennesseeans into liars"
I'm sure glad our game wardens think so highly of us.
“Franklin State Forest (7,000 acres and our largest state wide hunting area in the county) looked like epizootic hemorrhagic disease had devastated the deer herd with all of the button bucks found laying on the ground............ but sadly instead, they all had bullet holes in them with the hunters probably saying "uh-oh" as they took off running like hell"
I call BS on this. For one, there are not that many deer with antlers bigger than buttons, but smaller than 3"s. Two, Franklin State Forest is heavily forested, mountainous land. Our game wardens are understaffed and for them to say that they are out walking these WMA's and finding all these dead deer before coyotes and bears get a hold of them, or they simply rot, is preposterous.
This is my last post on this thread I with Randy on the deer everywhere thing , but will say there was no need to change the 3" antler limit to be a buck . I am sure you are in touch with more of them than I am but not near 200,000 of them so you do not know anymore what the vote would be than I do . I for one am glade to see Tennessee making changes in regulations to improve the deer herd and taking the decisions away from the power brokers that have been selling our deer for the most money they could get for years and before blasting me on this last point I have a internal memo from TWRA that proves the very fact that is what they were doing when raising license fees several years ago .
In WV we have a 3 buck limit. It is true that only a small percentage of hunters kill 3 bucks. Not that many kill 2 bucks. However, for at least the last 5 years our buck harvest has far outpaced doe harvest and the doe harvest objectives set by biologists are not being met in many counties. Why shoot a doe when you can shoot a 1.5 year old buck?
My analogy is giving a kid 3 dollars and sending him into a candy store . He's going to spend the first dollar without a second thought, maybe a little thought into second dollar, and a lot of thought into last dollar. That same kid that is only given one dollar is likely to think quite a bit on what he is going to spend his only dollar on.
As far as people shooting the first buck they see and then holding out for a trophy. In most areas that's a fallacy because with multiple tags most hunters shoot the first buck. With everyone shooting first buck they see there are very few if any "trophy" bucks left and after spending a few days hunting and not seeing a "trophy " deer they either quit hunting or shoot the next buck they see.
In the overall picture some people would accept that as being ok but when you throw in the fact that because of liberal buck tags the biologists are not meeting their doe harvest objectives then you start getting into problems like out of control buck/doe ratios and overpopulation in areas which turns into a viscous cycle.