Agree or Disagree?

[TheLBLman]

As I've said for many years, I firmly believe the state's deer herd should be managed for the maximum harvest opportunities that do no harm to the herd. I would STRONGLY oppose a 1 buck limit.

At issue becomes the definition of "harm" to the herd.
And, "maximum harvest opportunities" for whom & for what?

Why don't we just give the maximum harvest opportunities to bowhunters,
and outlaw deer hunting with guns?

EVERYTHING matters, and the herd management is not just about buck limits.

I believe the current 2-buck limit (in TN) is the best compromise of all factors.
Would simply just like to keep it.

That said, believe I'd prefer a 1-buck limit over a 3-buck limit at this time in TN.

 

[JeepKuntry]

Stick with 2. Lower the number of does one can take.

 

[deerhunter10]

And what is a glaringly obvious common denominator between those states? They all have much shorter gun seasons than TN. Deer hunters in those states are forced to sit and watch more bucks outside of range while in TN the same hunters would've already pulled the trigger. And I think it's safe to assume that more opportunities and instances of their hunters watching mature bucks outside of range has generally raised the standards of their hunters as well. Efficiency of weapon matters.

The question was about bag limits not means of the kill.

 

[BSK]

At issue becomes the definition of "harm" to the herd.
And, "maximum harvest opportunities" for whom & for what?

To give the greatest number of hunters the most freedom of time in the field and harvest opportunities that do not harm the ulimate goals of the Agency for the state's deer herd - whatever those goals might be.

Why don't we just give the maximum harvest opportunities to bowhunters,
and outlaw deer hunting with guns?

In the past, there were reasons for a bow season. Bow season and MZ season were established back when the Agency was trying to grow the herd. In addition, at the time, few people participated in either season. It was an attempt to give more hunters more hunting time in the field, knowing these seasons would produce few kills (hence have little impact on the goal of building the herd). However, I don't believe those biological reasons still exist. Yet bow season now persists simply out of tradition.

 

[BSK]

Again, I'm opposed to a 1 buck limit on principle alone. It isn't needed and is an unnecessary restriction. I opposed going from a 3 buck limit to a 2 buck limit. And I was right, it accomplished nothing other than limiting hunters' opportunities. It did not increase the buck age structure. I oppose going from a 2 buck limit to a 1 buck limit, for the very same reason. It will accomplish nothing except limiting hunters' opportunities.

Personally, it wouldn't affect me one bit. I almost never kill more than 1 buck per year (by choice).

 

[deerhunter10]

What's the goal of a 1 buck? We keep 12 to 15 mature bucks a year on our places. When it went to 3 to 2 it changed nothing. Still the same size deer, Still the same amount of deer. I'd be pissed off to spend the money we spend and hunt opening day and be done in 2 hours. And that percentage of untagged deer will sky rocket.

 

[41Magnum]

I agree

Would like to see 1 buck limit statewide and all TWRA managed draw hunts be bonus bucks.

I agree on the WMA bucks being a bonus deer as well. Don't understand why they took away the bonus. Personally I wouldn't mind the 1buck limit (in my area) but like others I mostly just take one good buck a year anyway. Let the smaller buck go, and have for years. My .02

 

[ROB]

I have hunted deer in TN for over 25 years and have been a Lifetime Sportsmen License holder for almost that long. During that time, TN has set their deer hunting regs so as to manage for a balance of hunter opportunity and herd health, which I completely agree with. I'm not a wildlife biologist , or any kind of biologist for that matter, but I recognize what a difficult tight rope that is to walk. Everyone has different circumstances & objectives. There will never be a "one size fits all" solution & you'll never please everyone. Overall, I think the current regs are a good compromise.

 

[TboneD]

The question was about bag limits not means of the kill.

Yes, the question was specifically whether a 1 buck limit would benefit all the deer hunters in our state, which many seemed to ignore to just focus on whether it would result in more mature bucks to hunt each fall. So when you pointed to states usually thought of for better buck potential than TN, my point was simply to remind folks that those states have gun seasons much shorter than ours. Heck, you can't even use a modern deer rifle in Iowa or Illinois, two of the three states you mentioned.

 

[Ski]

Personally, it wouldn't affect me one bit. I almost never kill more than 1 buck per year (by choice).

Others have said the same thing. My question is why? Why do you self ascribe to a one buck limit on your own land? Is it just a personal thing or is every hunter on the property held to the same standard?

 

[Lost Lake]

Yes, the question was specifically whether a 1 buck limit would benefit all the deer hunters in our state, which many seemed to ignore to just focus on whether it would result in more mature bucks to hunt each fall. So when you pointed to states usually thought of for better buck potential than TN, my point was simply to remind folks that those states have gun seasons much shorter than ours. Heck, you can't even use a modern deer rifle in Iowa or Illinois, two of the three states you mentioned.

The post was originally about Oklahoma, which is none of my business.

Somehow, it morphed into a question about Tennessee.

 

[Ski]

The post was originally about Oklahoma, which is none of my business.

Somehow, it morphed into a question about Tennessee.

The OP asked about what if the same question applied to TN. That's how it was presented in the first post.

 

[Lost Lake]

The OP asked about what if the same question applied to TN. That's how it was presented in the first post.

In his first post, it mentions nothing about Tennessee. Only after I pointed out that Oklahoma is Oklahoma and not Tennessee, it morphed into that question.

But we all knew where it was leading.

 

[redblood]

Like many have stated, i feel 2 is a good compromise- although i will always stop at one. A one buck limit would have advantages, especially for public land hunters as it would get people out of the woods quicker.

 

[Ski]

In his first post, it mentions nothing about Tennessee. Only after I pointed out that Oklahoma is Oklahoma and not Tennessee, it morphed into that question.

But we all knew where it was leading.

Yep you're right. I stand corrected. Just re read it and I must have completely misunderstood the premise of the topic. In that case I could care less what OK does.

 

[TheLBLman]

Let me say one more time: I do not want a 1-buck limit in TN.

My question is why? Why do you self ascribe to a one buck limit on your own land? Is it just a personal thing or is every hunter on the property held to the same standard?

But, it is interesting that many hunters, like myself, may have somewhat a 1-buck limit on their own private hunting lands.
Why?

Part of why may be because not allowing any one hunter to take multiple bucks annually, in turn, provides all hunters more opportunity to take "a" buck annually?

The 1-buck limit is not always mainly about growing more older bucks.
It can be as much about promoting the prospects of 11 hunters taking "a" buck,
instead of 1 hunter taking 11 bucks.

Yes, the question was specifically whether a 1 buck limit would benefit all the deer hunters in our state, which many seemed to ignore to just focus on whether it would result in more mature bucks to hunt each fall.

So when you pointed to states usually thought of for better buck potential than TN, my point was simply to remind folks that those states have gun seasons much shorter than ours. Heck, you can't even use a modern deer rifle in Iowa or Illinois, two of the three states you mentioned.

To add to what TboneD has stated, anyone want to explain the irony of a 1-buck limit state, such as Kentucky, having less than half as many gun-hunting days (as TN), yet the percentage of KY hunters killing "a" buck is higher in KY than in TN?

 

[TboneD]

In the past, there were reasons for a bow season. Bow season and MZ season were established back when the Agency was trying to grow the herd. In addition, at the time, few people participated in either season. It was an attempt to give more hunters more hunting time in the field, knowing these seasons would produce few kills (hence have little impact on the goal of building the herd). However, I don't believe those biological reasons still exist. Yet bow season now persists simply out of tradition.

I saw in this thread that only 13% of deer harvested in TN are killed with a bow. If we discontinue bow season to replace with weapon of choice, how do you propose preventing even more areas with "deer droughts"? You don't think they'll be a big increase in the doe harvest?

 

[Ski]

Let me say one more time: I do not want a 1-buck limit in TN.

But, it is interesting that many hunters, like myself, may have somewhat a 1-buck limit on their own private hunting lands.
Why?

Part of why may be because not allowing any one hunter to take multiple bucks annually, in turn, provides all hunters more opportunity to take "a" buck annually?

The 1-buck limit is not always mainly about growing more older bucks.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Several with their own properties and who manage the ground for better hunting self assign one buck limits. Why?

Let's say I've got a few hundred acres that I manage for good hunting. The hunters consist of myself and a few family members. What would happen if each hunter killed two bucks off the place every year? Even if they were only the oldest bucks, how many seasons before we no longer have that good hunting I've worked so hard to create?

Public land hunters don't have the luxury of setting stricter standards for the property they hunt to ensure a sustainably good hunt. Why is it good for the goose but not the gander?

 

[Ski]

To add to what TboneD has stated, anyone want to explain the irony of a 1-buck limit state, such as Kentucky, having less than half as many gun-hunting days (as TN), yet the percentage of KY hunters killing "a" buck is higher in KY than in TN?

The answer isin your question. More bucks mean more opportunity. With more bucks running around the woods hunters don't have to hunt as long or as hard to get one.

 

[Lost Lake]

But, it is interesting that many hunters, like myself, may have somewhat a 1-buck limit on their own private hunting lands.
Why?

Part of why may be because not allowing any one hunter to take multiple bucks annually, in turn, provides all hunters more opportunity to take "a" buck annually?

The 1-buck limit is not always mainly about growing more older bucks.
It can be as much about promoting the prospects of 11 hunters taking "a" buck,
instead of 1 hunter taking 11 bucks.




To add to what TboneD has stated, anyone want to explain the irony of a 1-buck limit state, such as Kentucky, having less than half as many gun-hunting days (as TN), yet the percentage of KY hunters killing "a" buck is higher in KY than in TN?

Maybe the answer to your question about TboneD's statement is that with the abysmally short rifle season that Kentucky has, and coupled with its superior antlers, its hunters have less trigger restraint than Tennessee hunters?