@fulldraw
Well-Known Member
Most likely won't be a WMA.
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Ames Plantation Hunting Club Shrinking
- Thread starter fairchaser
- Start date
BSK
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with this. Yes, it limits the number of people who can enjoy the land in a given season. But a MUCH better job of management can be done with this system. In essence, fewer people get to enjoy it per year, but the experience is much better for those who do.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
And the older I get, the more I appreciate quality over quantity.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
Pure speculation on my part but the rumor was that the University of TN was interested because they had invested a lot of research there over the years they didn't want to lose. There are many areas of planted trees of various oaks. These were initially isolated by high electric fences until they reached some maturity. This kind of research takes decades. If they are the buyer, I imagine there must be some kind of regulated hunting just to maintain a balanced ecosystem.
BSK
Well-Known Member
I knew this was coming!
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
On a very personal level, so do I,
and I do believe there SHOULD be "some" public lands that are archery only.
That said, I understand that "public" lands are just that,
i.e. they belong to all of us, not just those who are avid bowhunters.
One of the overall best ways of achieving good management with a bent on "quality" overall experiences is to have a certain amount of gun hunting and a certain amount of archery only hunting.
"Something" special for all the deer hunters, and of course, there typically should be opportunities for other hunters, not just deer hunters.
Simply because archery hunting is not as effective (at killing deer) as gun hunting, archery days can often be more numerous and without a hunter quota, as after all, most deer hunters today do not bowhunt.
If Ames does become a new "public" resource, I do hope Craig Harper has significant input into how the hunting is managed (instead of some non-hunting board of regents).
BSK
Well-Known Member
Agree on all of the above.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
TNdeer needs a "smiley" face like this as a "like" option.Sometimes neither a frowning face nor a thumbs up fits.
Fixed it for you
I really like the way LBL has their seasons structured. An early gun quota, a rut gun quota, a rut youth hunt, a late season youth hunt, and open to small game and archery the rest of the time.
The archery hunts open opportunities to still deer hunt on the years a hunter doesn't draw a quota hunt.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
LBL is a National Recreation Area, not a typical WMA, and there has to be some semblance of balance between all stakeholders. Parts of LBL are "no hunting" (and/or archery only hunting) and set aside mainly for other specific forms of outdoor recreation, such as off-road vehicle riding, bicycling, horseback riding, hiking, etc.
Most of LBL is open to an annual quota gun deer hunt, although most who apply cannot expect to be drawn more than once every 2 or 3 yrs. A minority of areas are "archery only", but most of LBL is open to the quota gun hunts, while nearly all of LBL is open to archery deer hunting and small game.
Sometimes, we hunters get the short end of the stick, but few should have much to complain about regarding LBL's hunting regs. Complain about the pigs, but understand, the pigs were released there by pig hunters, and/or a person or two wanting to purposefully cause problems for federal lands managers. Consequently, all us "hunters" too often get blamed for many the problems caused by a tiny minority of people who do criminal things.
That said, I'd personally like to see a bit more gun deer hunting opportunity at LBL, but don't see that being very likely when a super-majority of LBL users simply don't hunt, and many these same people are "uncomfortable" around guns & hunters.
It's just a sad reality we hunters are facing, and we should strive to do our best in creating more positive images of hunters among that non-hunting majority.
Last edited:
BSK
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I really like the way the Federal Migratory Bird Refuges used to be. They were open during bow season. No quota. Then they had a quota MZ hunt and a quota gun hunt. Some may have even had a quota Juvi hunt I believe. These Refuges were not overhunted/overharvested. Some had a real reputation for growing great bucks, and some great ones were harvested. Even as a neighbor to one of these, I thought they were well-managed and hunter densities/pressure were not excessive.
I know at least one WMA has been changed to a similar season structure this year.
Archery - "Same as statewide season, except closed the 2nd to last Friday in October (the day before the first Young Sportsman's hunt). Access gate closed 1 hour after sunset."
Then all gun hunts are by quota only.
BSK
Well-Known Member
I like that system.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Some clarification is needed, although I believe you are talking PRE-"Earn-A-Buck" on those refuges?
At the point these refuges began "Earn-A-Buck", their focus shifted from overall sound wildlife management to the wholesale eradication of deer. What they did with that, in may instances, was even stupidly dangerous to the participating hunters, and the entire program rewarded dishonesty, while punishing the honest, ethical hunters.
Fortunately for the deer & ethical deer hunters, those particular TN refuges recently eliminated "earn-a-buck", and the deer herds have begun coming back. The refuge managers can easily keep the deer density at a very low level now without such extreme measures.
The refuge managers were not incorrect in there being too many deer pre-earn-a-buck, but could have easily reduced that deer density just by increasing the annual quota hunts from 2 to 4 or more, and stated any bucks counted towards the statewide buck limit. Not being a bonus buck would have been unpopular with many hunters (as it is today), but it helps to maintain an adequate doe harvest, and ANY buck remains legal game (within the statewide limit framework).
Anytime there are too many deer, the answer is often as simple as allowing for more either-sex deer hunting, without need for complicated regulations (such as earn-a-buck, antler restrictions, etc.)
Team Browning
Well-Known Member
We went to look at a house being built on old paper mill property. They bought the land from…Charles Barkely. Apparently one of his investments is buying up former pine plantations and selling them for profit. Kinda crazy
BSK
Well-Known Member
Correct. How they "used to be" means pre-2007.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
SOME of these refuges (and/or portions of those "some") have gone back to similar hunting regs, like pre-2007. IMO, the main thing they did wrong pre-2007 was simply not allowing hunters the opportunity to kill more female deer. Most (maybe all) now is either-sex, maybe with a higher bag limit on female deer than male.
That's good, but the deer density on many areas remains so low as to be disappointing to most hunters. I hunted 3 full days on one of these refuge's quota rifle hunts last year. Saw a total of 2 young deer. Sure, maybe I'm not the best hunter, but I was afield 3 full days. Most other hunters hunted the 1st morning, then didn't come back, even that 1st afternoon. Weather was good, and not much a factor.
One more thing:
In many instances, national wildlife refuges are surrounded by productive row-crop agriculture. Unit L was declared on these areas, where the same deer herds were overlapping those refuges' "earn-a-buck" program. This all out war on female deer decimated the deer herds, most particularly and most ironically, wherever there was a national "wildlife" refuge.
Hopefully some better middle ground is now being found between too high & too low for the deer populations on these areas.
Last edited:
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
Some grand ideas for possible wildlife management. Knowing the area in question intimately, it would be impossible to apply any consistent management as there are too many access points to control access. That and CWD complicates any QDM type goals. At best, I hope they allow access to hunters so that it doesn't become a sanctuary where deer flee under pressure.
