BSK
Well-Known Member
Agreed Winchester.
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Poll on deer hunting activity
- Thread starter RUGER
- Start date
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
I believe BSK is the knows and understands more about deer than most anyone on here. Statistics are only numbers though and many times mean absolutely ZERO in the real world. No way anyone truly knows how many deer we have, how many mature bucks there are or how many are killed. Who knows which buck will turn into a great deer at an older age or be a great one at a young age? NOBODY truly knows anything. I believe whatever can be done to help more bucks live to an older age and still allow a hunter to shoot whatever buck he wants is only a positive. Just not 3 young bucks a season. Makes absolutely no sense. All the statistics that are thrown out in many instances can be completely wrong, just like thinkin a 1 buck limit will magically make trophy bucks show up everywhere. What harm can there be though in helping more bucks get some age? None that I know of.
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
Luck has much to do with hunting, I don't care what you say. But probably the most important thing there is hunting is having time to go and dedicate to killing a great buck. You can have everything you want, be a skilled hunter, be the best hunter, etc., but just like when a young buck is killed he will never grow anymore, you are not going to kill a buck if you are not hunting when he shows up. I guarantee, many of the bucks you see killed on TV, if not most, they did not hunt one hour, one half day or a day, probably hunted more like days or even weeks to kill a great buck.
"I guarantee, many of the bucks you see killed on TV, if not most, they did not hunt one hour, one half day or a day, probably hunted more like days or even weeks to kill a great buck."
Headhunter,
That last post is all I can take.
ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME???
YOU HAVE GOT TO QUIT WATCHING TV AND COME BACK TO REALITY!!!
Headhunter,
That last post is all I can take.
ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME???
YOU HAVE GOT TO QUIT WATCHING TV AND COME BACK TO REALITY!!!
BSK
Well-Known Member
Headhunter said:
Nothing could be further from the truth. When "numbers" appear to "mean absolutely ZERO in the real world," it isn't a problem of using numbers, it is a problem of human interpretation of those numbers. Sometimes the problem is the way the numbers were collected (improper study design), sometimes it is a problem of innocent mistakes in interpretation of the numbers, and sometimes the problem is purposeful misinterpretation of the numbers for political purposes (pushing an agenda). The trick is 1) figuring out which numbers are meaningful and which aren't; and 2) for numbers not meaningful, which of the three problems listed previously are the cause of the problem.
But without "numbers" and stistics we would know nothing. Absolutely nothing. We would still be living in caves and throwing rocks at the moon in fear.
Absolutely true. We do not know and probably will not know for some time (until Star Trek-like planetary scanners are invented). However, pointing that we don't know exactly how many denies that fact that we know more and more all the time, and decisions based off "the best information available" gets better as more information is known. We now know far more about "what is out there" than we used to, hence we can make better decisions. In the future, we will known more, hence make better decisions, but suggesting good and/or helpful decisions can't be made until we know exactly "what is out there" is utter foolishness. The more we know, the better the decisions that can be made, and the lower the chance the wrong decisions are made. But the idea that no good decisions can be made until everything is known absolutely defies the advances we have made without knowing everything that can be known.
We don't, and that's why we don't attempt to manage individual deer. We set the stage to let Nature take Her course.
Nobody knows all that can be known, but that doesn't stop people who know MORE from making great predictions and accurate calculations; i.e. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc.
You'll get no argument from me there, except in degree. What if a perfectly adequate number of bucks ARE surviving to older ages? Why would you need to change anything? Removing hunter opportunity in that situation does nothing but produce a less positive experience for the hunter for no biological gain. Why would you knowingly introduce a negative for no positive return?
Now I'm not suggesting buck survival is adequate everywhere in the state. It certainly IS NOT. Some areas have perfectly adequate and healthy buck survival and some areas don't.
The trick is, how do you find and address the problem areas without harming hunter opportunity in the areas where no additional restrictions are needed, and would certainly be a negative if introduced? To exacerbate the difficulty of accomplishing this, what if the "problem" areas are scattered helter skelter all over the place and are mixed in directly adjacent to areas that do not have a problem? Now how do you find all these micro-problem areas and address them without negatively effecting the neighboring areas? Unfortunately, from a statewide agency perspective, the answer is you don't. That level of micromanagement is not yet possible.
Why doesn't it make sense, considering very, very few hunters are killing 3 bucks a year? In fact, more than half of hunters kill no bucks at all in a given year, and only 1-2% of hunters kill 3 bucks in a year.
All of the statistics being completely wrong? Virtually impossible. We don't need to know absolutely everything that can be known to make some good biological and sociobiological decisions.
I and others have listed the possible negative ramifications of a highly restrictive buck bag limit where it is not needed many times. You just refuse to accept these potential problems.
All this said, I have absolutely no problem with the TWRA trying some experiments. I have absolutely no problem with the TWRA testing a 1 buck limit in areas that have poor buck age structures. But first, they would need to find areas large enough to manage through such rules that have a poor buck age structure (such as an entire county of group of counties), and second, I would want to see hunters want to see buck age structure improved in these areas and be willing to do what is necessary to improve buck age structure.
BSK What do you think would happen to the buck age structure in lets say Iowa or Illinois if they went to our season.
BSK
Well-Known Member
SEC said:
Comparing the big-agriculture Midwestern states to heavily wooded and hilly TN is comparing apples and oranges.
The big-ag Midwestern states have the short gun seasons and/or low buck bag limits they do for two primary reason: 1) tradition--they have always had short firearms seasons and low buck bag limits; and 2) to limit the buck harvest in habitat and terrain where deer are highly visible and harvestable. When the terrain is table-top flat, and 80+% of the habitat is wide open ag fields that have been harvested by firearms season, deer (and especially bucks) are highly visible, hence highly harvestable. A long firearms season or high buck bag limit would allow overharvest of the buck population.
On the other hand, much of TN is very low-visibility forest and/or rugged terrain (which also limits visual distances). TN can allow longer seasons and more liberal limits and produce similar hunter-induced buck mortality because the short visual distances here are such limiters on buck harvestability.
mathews338
Well-Known Member
that's what i was thinking. most guys i know dont even scout because they have good ground in which they have hunted for years and they know where the deer are gonna be year after year.SEC said:
i only scout new ground. i see no need to scout the places that i've hunted for years. i have some stands that i have never moved and every year they produce mature bucks. my friends and i just stay out of those areas until it's prime time to hunt them.
Great info!!!BSK said:
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
102, I have basically never watched hunting shows and do not watch hunting shows. The VERY few I have watched are terrible and you do not have to watch very many to see that generally big bucks are killed in hunting shows. I personally know some guys who make some of those shows, very well known names. Generally speaking a great amount of time is spent to get a kill on camera. I know some of the "canned" hunts are probably not as difficult, but one advantage most of the tv hunters have (and it is a huge advantage) is that they can hunt a particular buck for days on end.
I base ALL my thoughts on what I SEE in this state and my personal experience. I still say there is NO way in this world to know what can happen in the wild (or even with the suburban deer) and every young buck that gets killed cuts down the percentages even more since they are already so low as BSK has stated if you believe that. I do not. I believe and it has been proven to me that more areas in this state than most would believe can grow some great deer if only given a chance to. I firmly BELIEVE anyone should be able kill any buck they want, but only 1 (maybe 2) but not 3 or more, that is crazy in a time when our population is exploding and hunting lands are decreasing even more.
in response to my post
"
Quote:
Just not 3 young bucks a season. Makes absolutely no sense.
BSK posted
Why doesn't it make sense, considering very, very few hunters are killing 3 bucks a year? In fact, more than half of hunters kill no bucks at all in a given year, and only 1-2% of hunters kill 3 bucks in a year."
Then there is just as strong an argument for a 1 buck limit as there is a 3, since more than half of the hunters do not kill a buck.
I am not a "trophy" hunter as you probably think I am. I despise TV hunting shows. I do try to kill the best buck I can when I kill one and I shoot most every momma doe I see, and only momma does. I firmly believe our long gun season along with the 3 buck limit are 2 things that could be modified to help the overall hunting in our state without hurting anyone's hunting enjoyment in any way.
I base ALL my thoughts on what I SEE in this state and my personal experience. I still say there is NO way in this world to know what can happen in the wild (or even with the suburban deer) and every young buck that gets killed cuts down the percentages even more since they are already so low as BSK has stated if you believe that. I do not. I believe and it has been proven to me that more areas in this state than most would believe can grow some great deer if only given a chance to. I firmly BELIEVE anyone should be able kill any buck they want, but only 1 (maybe 2) but not 3 or more, that is crazy in a time when our population is exploding and hunting lands are decreasing even more.
in response to my post
"
Quote:
Just not 3 young bucks a season. Makes absolutely no sense.
BSK posted
Why doesn't it make sense, considering very, very few hunters are killing 3 bucks a year? In fact, more than half of hunters kill no bucks at all in a given year, and only 1-2% of hunters kill 3 bucks in a year."
Then there is just as strong an argument for a 1 buck limit as there is a 3, since more than half of the hunters do not kill a buck.
I am not a "trophy" hunter as you probably think I am. I despise TV hunting shows. I do try to kill the best buck I can when I kill one and I shoot most every momma doe I see, and only momma does. I firmly believe our long gun season along with the 3 buck limit are 2 things that could be modified to help the overall hunting in our state without hurting anyone's hunting enjoyment in any way.
stik
Well-Known Member
Headhunter said:
a reduced limit and shortened season would hurt my enjoyment by ending the season too early
spoon
Well-Known Member
stik said:
Ditto what stik said
Beekeeper
Well-Known Member
X3A.Hall said:
strutandrut
Well-Known Member
X4Beekeeper said:
strutandrut said:
Same here. I was really glad to see where they had extended season back to the first weekend in Jan. I almost always don't even see a buck that last week, let alone kill one, but the enjoyment of being out there is still present.
huntfish4life
Well-Known Member
Done
Comparing where you hunt to where I hunt in Tennessee is like comparing apples to oranges.We have huge fields hundreds of acres in size,small wood lots.Somewhat like those midwestern states previously mentioned. Its not uncommon for us to see 20+ deer a day up to 7 or 8 bucks on a good morning. The young bucks are not making it through the long season where I hunt.BSK said:
Still amazing to me, to see that many deer day in and day out, and on top of that, add 7-10 bucks a sighting? I've said it before, but I'm lucky to see a buck or two, usually, during the season, with a high of about 4, maybe 5 different ones in an extremely good year.
