Crossing the Campbell County Line . . . . .

I'm not looking to stir up or continue any controversy here about buck limits, nor anything else.
Just seeking some serious feedback or ideas regarding why my "observations" are as they appear, and genuine help in trying to figure out this "riddle".

There has been much talk on other threads regarding the factors necessary to produce the largest antlered bucks. Some have very strongly stated the most important factor is "soils". I have never questioned that soil isn't an important factor.

Anyway, here's the observation.

Whitley County, Kentucky is an East KY county in Appalachia. It borders Campbell County, TN which is an East TN county in Appalachia. The soil maps I've reviewed show no significant differences between these two Appalachian counties, and by many measures, not just soil, they are more similar than different, and could in fact just be a single county, except that the TN-KY state line separates them.

Now just to be clear, I am not promoting anything about "Boone & Crockett" other than both KY and TN can lay claim to these legends. But that said, the "B&C" records seem to be the best place to turn for some actual "records" of what's been killed that was considered "exceptionally" large?

Here's what has me stumped.
Whitley County, KY is showing 16 "official" entries in that famous "Boone & Crockett" Book.
I can only find one entry for Campbell County, TN.

OK, this could just be some kind of freak happenstance, but it becomes an even larger "riddle" the more one looks beyond these two counties. First, Whitley County, KY has produced more B&C bucks than ALL East TN counties combined. Secondly, Whitely is not even East KY's top county for B&C bucks in their Appalachian region. I just chose to discuss Whitley because it borders Campbell County, TN.

One county farther west, we find McCreary County, KY bordering Scott County, TN. McCreary County has 8 "official" entries. If there's even one for Scott County, TN, I apologize for overlooking it. Continuing west, Wayne County, KY has 13 "official" entries. Bordering it to the south is Pickett County, TN. Are there ANY entries for Pickett?

Just to put this in a little more perspective, every single one of these KY counties specifically mentioned above (and all of them bordering TN, although we can debate whether all are in "east" or in "middle") ---- every single one of them has produced more B&C bucks than ANY single county ANYWHERE in Tennessee. That includes many West TN counties with tremendously better soils, lots of corn & soybeans, such as Henry County, TN.

I have likely made some mistakes within some of the above, and welcome any correction.

But what I ask most is, "What am I missing?"
Why are these such poor-soil KY counties producing all these B&C bucks, when some soil experts are claiming the soil to be the #1 factor for producing the largest antlered bucks?

I don't care if I'm wrong with any of my "theories". I'd just like to know the answers to why those Appalachian counties of East KY APPEAR to be growing so many larger antlered bucks than even West TN in it's entirety. I mean, could it be that TN hunters just don't record many of their B&C bucks, while the KY hunters record most of theirs? For all I know, maybe we're killing more B&C bucks in TN, but TN hunters never tell anybody, and those KY hunters tell everybody?

Thoughts?

I only know but a few hunters that strictly hunt KY and KY only. They are completely different hunters than others that I know. They are after big mature deer and if they dont kill one year thats fine by them. They may kill a doe for snack sticks and sausage if they dont tag a buck. They dont travel and most hunt their own personal ground.

Are these people "normal" KY hunters? IDK, but if so I'd guess that has something to do with it. Different mind set is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an entry for Pickett but it wasn't killed there. Wayne is more comparable to Fentress since Pickett is only about a mile wide on the border. The difference that creates this is quite simply the buck limit and season structure. KY buck limit and season structure allows for many more bucks to reach maturity than across the line. It's the same thing with turkeys in that area, many more turkeys across the line because of the Lower limit and shorter seasons. It's very clear if you live in the area like I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer is length of season and limit. I used to hunt Whitley.

What would be the breakout in private vs public land in these counties, and how big is the acreage per owner.

AXL78":1z359lv8 said:

What would be the breakout in private vs public land in these counties, and how big is the acreage per owner.

Click to expand...

I don't know about all these counties, but few TN counties have as much "public" land available for deer hunting as Campbell Co., TN. I believe Whitley Co., KY is similar in this respect to its TN counterpart to the south. Generally speaking, I believe there may be more "public" hunting ground in East KY than there is in East TN.

Much of this area is in the general vicinity of the Big South Fork National Recreation Area. Note the extensive acreage of the Daniel Boone National Forest which borders the Big South Fork NRA. As another "aside" both TN & KY are very fortunate to have not one, but two National Recreation Areas, and each straddles the TN-KY state line.

Big South Fork Area . . . . .
http://www.nps.gov/biso/planyourvisit/u ... map1s2.pdf

I'm not sure about other "public" lands, but Whitley Co., KY contains 38,000 acres of the Daniel Boone National Forest.

It is obvious ,no one wants to say it or talk about what it is.

The 1 buck limit and the length of season,Just better management in general.

Good time Charlie":1hl2m98g said:

It is obvious ,no one wants to say it or talk about what it is.

The 1 buck limit and the length of season,Just better management in general.

Click to expand...

That is definitely a factor.

I just wonder how about the available the land is to deer hunters, and how controlled the hunting is. Are the seasons on the public land similar for deer, and is the acreage the same for the most part on the public land. Are there large wealthy land owners for the most part, or individual small farms? Along those lines anyway. I am not familiar with ETN or EKY at all.

Private acreage is very similar and public acreage is very similar over on my side of this area. Web Soil Survey will also show you that soils are very similar, if not better on the Tn side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As said above its a different mind set. We have a mindset along with Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia a lot of brown it downers and think they have to kill a deer to have a successful season. I could careless I am a trophy hunter but by God do what you want and I'll do what I want. But it is a very different mindset and it is very obvious starting in Kentucky going into Illinois and Kansas as those are the only states I have personally been in but it is a different mind set. Could we grow bigger deer yes we could will we? Probably not. Should we try? Well that's what the stir is about now. The biggest factor imo is the buck limit which we are good a two buck limit is good even a three is OK and I personally don't want it to change is our rifle season during the rut most states with bigger deer is a bow only during the rut. But I do not want that personally. But that is why we won't at least not for a while.

Good time Charlie":2o8d57t1 said:

It is obvious ,no one wants to say it or talk about what it is.

The 1 buck limit and the length of season,Just better management in general.

Click to expand...

It looks like harvest numbers are pretty comparable, so that would rule that out.

Whitney Male harvest 803 Female 353

Campbell Male harvest 844 Female 391

These numbers were off each States website. Tn - I added all males together. It was a quick check so I am unsure on the numbers, but provided they are right, and those numbers are the same yearly, I would conclude that it is not season dates or limits.

Good time Charlie":2pouwxrh said:

It is obvious ,no one wants to say it or talk about what it is.

The 1 buck limit and the length of season,Just better management in general.

Click to expand...

I think it may be much more than that.
Pennsylvania has a 1-buck limit, too.
Pennsylvania even has antler restrictions protecting a large percentage of their young bucks; KY allows "any" buck to be taken by any hunter any where.

Back to comparing Whitley Co., KY to Campell Co., TN . . . . . .
Whitley contains 445 sq miles (about 285,000 acres) and only about 36,000 human residents.
Campbell contains 498 sq miles (about 319,000 acres) and only about 40,000 human residents.

Areal imagery appears to indicate no obvious significant differences in habitat or terrain features of these two counties, and the majority of both counties' land mass would appear "huntable". They even both have very comparable annual deer harvests, at least in terms of the number of deer killed annually from each. Campbell is a little larger than Whitley, and appears to have more "public" hunting lands, including the North Cumberland WMA.

Again, by nearly all measures, these two side-by-side "coal country" Appalachian counties seem more similar than different?

You can get an areal view of the primary Campbell County "public" hunting lands (as well as the entire county and adjoining Whitney Co., KY) per this link:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/view ... 10f1f66613

Although I don't kno which unit Campbell Co is in, i do know Whitley Co is a zone 4 county which means it has fewer number of days of rifle hunting which btw is antlered only.. Also the majority of the Mzl seasons are antlered only with only 3 days during the late season of either sex hunting... Also I believe the season limit in a zone 4 county is 2... Zone 4 is the the most restrictive of the zones in KY.

Well... it seems that your particular line of questioning is leading us toward a conclusion. Reduce buck harvest, shorten seasons and deer hunters in Campbell County change their mindsets to only kill "Booner-ish" bucks or does for jerky sticks.

Boone & Crockett was invoked in the original post, so I feel it's fair game to make another point. Let's take a walk back 50 years to the days when B&C was trying to gain popularity and put some animals in their record books. The minimum for a typical whitetail buck was 150 inches, net, for inclusion in the 3-year records and 160 was the net typical minimum for inclusion into the all-time record books. A lot of 160-inch bucks got erased from the all-time records based upon a vote of B&C's board of directors. I'll bet that the B&C board of directors that voted to raise the minimum typical score to 170 gave some pretty lofty speeches about how they needed to better honor the trophy bucks that were going into the records by raising the score for inclusion. In reality, they wanted to make the "club" of buck killers more exclusive. They reached their goals of getting more bucks into the "book" to actually have enough material to make a decent sized book they could sell.

If you've read this far, I'll share more. To the best of my knowledge, all "official" B&C scorers in Tennessee are TWRA employees. When was the last time that any Tennessee Deer Registry list was published? I don't mean putting some hunters and their bucks' scores in a web site, either. Answer that question and you will start to get some answers to your questions. For those of you not inclined to do the research, it's been a long, long time.

Stick with me a little more and I'll tell you a short story. Back in the 1950s there was a dentist in Arkansas who got motivated to showcase the tremendous bucks that Arkansas was producing at the time. He became a scorer because he was passionate about big bucks. He traveled around the state and followed up every lead he got about a big buck. He scored many, many bucks and put a lot of 150-inch bucks, fewer 160 bucks and a handful of 170+ bucks in the records. He was so successful that, in part, it led to B&C raising their minimums and kicking out all of those bucks scored under 170. Needless to say, that dentist got mad and quit scoring deer.

Yes, soil, genetics, age all make a difference in how much the average rack scores, but the rack has to be scored. Perhaps your findings just might be that Kentucky B&C scorers are more passionate and dedicated at finding and scoring big bucks than their TWRA counterparts. There is evidence and history that suggests that might be the case.

Remember, 170 inches (net) of bone is an arbitrary number derived at by a B&C board of directors that have long since died. It in no way reflects the enjoyment of being a WHITETAIL HUNTER and pursuing this wonderful creature in Tennessee or anywhere else. I'll pose a question of my own: If you had a choice, would you kill a 159 7/8 net buck every year for 10 years, or kill just one 170-inch net buck in a 10-year period and eat tags for nine of those years?

These threads are getting old. Not everyone cares about a deers "score". I personally hate to hear folks refer to bucks by their score. I think it's tacky.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

jaybird62":1e8lvi8b said:

Yes, soil, genetics, age all make a difference in how much the average rack scores, but the rack has to be scored. Perhaps your findings just might be that Kentucky B&C scorers are more passionate and dedicated at finding and scoring big bucks than their TWRA counterparts. There is evidence and history that suggests that might be the case.

Remember, 170 inches (net) of bone is an arbitrary number derived at by a B&C board of directors that have long since died. It in no way reflects the enjoyment of being a WHITETAIL HUNTER and pursuing this wonderful creature in Tennessee or anywhere else. I'll pose a question of my own: If you had a choice, would you kill a 159 7/8 net buck every year for 10 years, or kill just one 170-inch net buck in a 10-year period and eat tags for nine of those years?

Click to expand...

Interesting theory for sure. I just think in todays age and time of instant communication word gets out quick. Its also free to get your deer scored and recognized by TWRA (I think) but for an official B&C it cost some $$.

We all know someone who has killed a booner but never had it scored, I just dont think those people outweigh the ones that do have them officially scored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cecil30-30":ufi67pon said:

These threads are getting old. Not everyone cares about a deers "score". I personally hate to hear folks refer to bucks by their score. I think it's tacky.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Aside from the experience we all get from the hunt itself there is not many other ways to quantify the deer. Whether you call it a 10pt, 200lbs or 130" we are still quantifying it. IMO it has nothing to do with beauty or anything subjective, its simply a number we use.

Now when someone starts to criticize the score, that gets on my nerves. Mine is bigger than yours type of thing is ego driven, I dont like that either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jaybird62,

Thank you for your well laid-out post. Sincere, enlightening, and thought provoking. As I said in the OP, I'm looking for real answers (such as your post), and not trying to attract the pissing and moaning posts from a few who just want to piss and moan.

Just to reemphasize, this was not meant to promote B&C. For me, this thread is more about a soil issue than an antler issue. My sentiments towards B&C are similar to yours. But where else can I get comparative and "standardized" state-by-state "records" of each state's largest antlered bucks' measurements?

In summary as stated at the beginning . . . . .

TheLBLman":2ade0ezi said:

I'm not looking to stir up or continue any controversy here about buck limits, nor anything else.
Just seeking some serious feedback or ideas.
. . . . . . . not promoting anything about "Boone & Crockett" other than both KY and TN can lay claim to these legends.

What I ask most is, "What am I missing?" ]

Click to expand...

TheLBLman":2ade0ezi said:

Just like to know the answers to why those Appalachian counties of East KY APPEAR to be growing so many larger antlered bucks than even West TN in it's entirety. I mean, could it be that TN hunters just don't record many of their B&C bucks, while the KY hunters record most of theirs?

Click to expand...

Not trying to promote any certain "score" either, but do believe most deer hunters would prefer to be seeing more larger antlered bucks than smaller antlered ones, whether those "larger" ones are 130's or 150's or 170's? Is that not reality? For us here in TN our TN Deer Registry is (or could be) the better "record" of keeping up with our better bucks. Surely you see the value of keeping records, including the records of antler measurements?

jaybird62":2ade0ezi said:

Yes, soil, genetics, age all make a difference in how much the average rack scores, but the rack has to be scored. Perhaps your findings just might be that Kentucky B&C scorers are more passionate and dedicated at finding and scoring big bucks than their TWRA counterparts. There is evidence and history that suggests that might be the case.

Remember, 170 inches (net) of bone is an arbitrary number derived at by a B&C board of directors that have long since died. It in no way reflects the enjoyment of being a WHITETAIL HUNTER and pursuing this wonderful creature in Tennessee or anywhere else. I'll pose a question of my own: If you had a choice, would you kill a 159 7/8 net buck every year for 10 years, or kill just one 170-inch net buck in a 10-year period and eat tags for nine of those years?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure what I would prefer in answering your question, but appreciate what you're communicating. For my personal hunting, and I'm not trying to impose this on anyone, my first criteria regarding what's a "shooter" buck is AGE. In most of the areas I hunt, ANY 159 7/8" buck would like exceed my age criteria. And I really don't care half as much as you may be thinking about "score".

jaybird62":2ade0ezi said:

Well... it seems that your particular line of questioning is leading us toward a conclusion. Reduce buck harvest, shorten seasons and deer hunters in Campbell County change their mindsets to only kill "Booner-ish" bucks or does for jerky sticks.

Click to expand...

This is my only disagreement with your post, as I'm actually pretty content with our current TN deer regs. I'm not trying to lead us towards a conclusion of reduced buck harvests, or shorter seasons, although I have no problem with shooting more does for jerky sticks.

My "theory" is a myriad of other factors COMBINED are trumping soil in growing more larger antlered bucks all across America.

There are many circumstances where soil CAN be the #1 factor.
In times past, it may have generally been that #1 factor.

Today, seems to be many more circumstances where AGE is the #1 factor.
As no matter how wonderful those soils, still need "age".

I believe a "myriad" of multiple combined factors (which may or may not include an age difference) are causing Whitley County, KY to produce more larger antlered bucks than Campbell Co., TN. Of course, this is under the assumption that initial comparative data is reasonably valid.

I believe as hunters become more aware of all these factors, many (or many more) will voluntarily make decisions that lead to their helping to "manage" for more larger antlered bucks to be grown and appear in their localized annual deer kills (or harvests, if you prefer). I believe this can be done while still having lengthy deer seasons, and WITHOUT a 1-buck limit. Mainly just an issue as to what do the hunters want most; but first, they need that correct information before being in position to make those decisions. With that, MANY may find there is even more enjoyment and satisfaction in being a "hunter-manager" than just a hunter.

At least here in TN, it seems past time to stop saying, "We can't grow lots of larger antlered bucks because we just don't have the soils".
It's perfectly fine if anyone has no desire to grow a large antlered buck; but it's not accurate to say we "can't".

All this leads me to think the soil on the other side of the line is better, if they put that many more in the B and C record books. Really, unless there is another explanation, that has to be it, or something in the water. The glaciers stopped on the other side of the state line to my knowledge.