And the "airbow". Don't get me started.
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.
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.
If less than 1% kill 3 bucks a year, how does allowing 3 bucks a year appease the majority?
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.
"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."
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.
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"???
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"An antlerless deer is now defined as any deer with no antler protruding above its hairline. "