What do you do?

[DaveS]

My friend Troll has me doing some research right now. I'm seeing where some states that have point restrictions, make no referance to a deers "estimated" age, just things like that, "Minimum of 2 points on at least 1 side". A "minimum of 4,5 or 6 point total". Actually, not much differant than what is being shot now. Instead of a "point restriction" how about a "minimum spread" across the board. Lets say, the rack must reach the deers ear tips at a minimum to be a legal buck. That means a basket rack 10 pointer may not be legal, because his rack doesn't extend past his ears. Now wait a minute, that means that this 3 or 4 pointer is legal, because his rack does. What a nightmare. What restrictions would you put on a racked doe? I mounted several when I ran my shop. Now as I'm reading, there are more and more of them appearing in the deer populations. Is that something we want in our herds? Just a thought.

Troll, clarify how this point restriction works or could help the herd. The more I read Brother, the more confused I get. Some things I've learned already. Some places it works, some places it don't.....

Dave

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Dave, for what it's worth I don't think that there is a perfect system when you start doing point restriction. You can find the flaw in any situation, and also how can a hunter be sure that they are within the stardard set forth. I think that point restriction is a flawed technique inheritly for these reasons and I would never push for one. For example, if there was an injured deer shot by another hunter illegally and walked by your stand legally you wouldn't be allowed to shoot it, but ethically most would end that animals suffering. It's a slippery slope my friend full of ethical questions.

[DaveS]

That's what I'm finding out. On the same note of "putting down" an injured buck, if he was not legal, then he must be left where shot. Beyond most hunter's morals. I think the best answer would be let the individual hunter decide what he wants to harvest. I'm going to post some examples of "for and against" point restrictions.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

On the same note of "putting down" an injured buck, if he was not legal, then he must be left where shot.

Man that's such a waste though. Would be better if that injured Animal could be put down and donated to a Shelter for food.

[DaveS]

Remember though, You may not have any Illegal game animal in your possession no matter why, food bank or otherwise. It's not a good deal.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Remember though, You may not have any Illegal game animal in your possession no matter why, food bank or otherwise. It's not a good deal.

Oh no I completely understand that. Just another reason I'm against a point limit.

[Guest GunTroll]

I'm completely against a spead reg. I can count way better then my eye-cromitors can measure at any distance over 50 yards or so. I think some WMA's have that policy. When I think point restriction, I think 4 on one side. While you aren't likely to see the results in a year or two, you will at five or so. MO is proof. Been going there for 5 years now. Come look at the wall in my house for your proof.

So WD, why the flip flop on point regs? Like I said you were anti, saw the light, now regressing. What changed? Tell me so I may be privy to the knowledge. I'm thinking there is no write or wrong here. Just different opinions. With your primitive muzzle loader those regs you offered would be forced upon all and perhaps only a few would take advantage. No one is telling you , you can't go out with sticks and stones and harvest how you want during cannon, I mean rifle season. Its a contradiction to your point of not forcing more regs on the whole! Can't have it both ways my friend.

Like I said earlier, my preferred style of hunting for antlers has no negative results for meat hunters. Feel free anyone to tell me or rather show me with stats how I'm wrong. Points don't equal age and most certainly don't equal trophies necessarily. But it does offer the buck chance to make the leap into mega buck status if the genes are right and it forces folks to look towards does for meat. Look at the link I posted earlier. I propose a four point one side minimum here for TN. I have seen little young bucks that fill that slot that would be legal so bubba can still bring home the bacon to momma. Not sure how thats a negative unless your hell bent on breaking the law.

PA sucks for more reasons that their weak attempt at a point restriction of a whopping two point minimum buts thats besides the point.

The goal should be to encourage more harvesting of does with also letting folks like me have a go at a bigger more mature and possibly trophy bucks. I own no land to hunt on. I have 2500 acres of permission given pred hunting land as well as 600 acres of turkey land. I have yet to meet a land owner who has the room for another deer hunter with all the family members and folks willing to pay a premium and all. Times are tight and I can't pay up. I'm stuck with WMA's for the mean time around my house and I get to go and pass on does and take my chances with a dink buck if I want a TN deer. I know about the non-quota and all but TN sucks in the hunting department as far as regs and stupid draws are concerned. Its like I'm back out west trying to figure out that system which is equally hard BTW but my reward for going through all the motions here is a dink buck because no one will let them grow on public land.

Don't give me that freak gene stuff with does and antlers. TN had the dumb albino thing on the books for some reason. Oddities happen. Move on.

I'm pro land owner rights. I'm also pro QDM. Both can be had with compromises of some sorts. And you are right, it doesn't work everywhere but you don't know till you try.

[DaveS]

[/img]

For sake of argument, lets say Tennessee imposed an 8 point minimum point restriction on bucks. That means that this little 8 point buck which measures 4 3/4" tip-to-tip, inside spread of 6 1/4" and a main beam length of 9 1/2 inches, would be perfectly legal under the "point restriction".

Now on the other hand, under the "8 point restriction" this 7 point buck which measures 8 1/2" tip-to-tip, inside spread of 13" and 20 1/2 inch beam, would not be legal, but he would be on a minimum spread length of ear-tip to ear-tip.

[/img]

But in favor of good herd management and policing ourselves, I get this:

[/img]

and this....

[/img]

My whole point being, I DO NOT NEED "BIG BROTHER" to tell me what size bucks to harvest.

There is no Good answer!

[Guest GunTroll]

Who said eight point minimum? I'm feeling four to one side.

With both of the two tops picks, I feel my point is made. They would be legal and bubba can bring home the meat, therefore no harm in the proposed four point restriction. I'd pass em, but if you could care less about horn then they are fair game and meat for the freezer. The only issue I see is a buck that can't get above 6 total points. That is the weak point of my argument. Your photos has done more help to my argument than all my babbling has done.

Also the two top photos prove a spread reg is a horrible route to go.

Cool pics!

Edited August 18, 2011 by GunTroll

[whiskey]

I have hunted south Georgia with spread restrictions and Missouri with point restrictions. Both have yielded more MATURE big bucks killed in years following the law passing. Neither law can keep a young buck from being shot. There are always exceptions that get shot that should have been passed and allowed to mature. However, both do work to keep a lot of 1 year old bucks, the dumb ones, from being killed their first season with antlers. Just that amount of time allows them to mature and become harder to kill, thus allowing more mature deers. I would support a 4 point on one side restriction only in unit L. Those nice looking young eight pointers would still get shot, but thousands of 5 and 6 pointers would get to mature.

---

- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

[DaveS]

I think we should all just go to deer camp, sit around a nice campfire, get "toasted" and burn the soles off our hunting boots...the small crap will fix itself!

[Guest GunTroll]

You set the date, I'll be there!

[whiskey]

I think we should all just go to deer camp, sit around a nice campfire, get "toasted" and burn the soles off our hunting boots...the small crap will fix itself!

This is why I don't kill bigger bucks. I get pied and sleep through the morning hunts, wake up late, go to Waffle house, smell like grilled onions, decided it's pointless to go hunt while stinking, open another beer and begin the cycle again.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

So am I hearing a massive Man Doe hunt weekend?

[DaveS]

A vicious cycle indeed!

[Guest ADAM]

I always shoot a doe first. One because I try to help keep the does in check and, theres plenty of does where i hunt. Second it seems that I have better luck later in the season if I have already shot a doe, it takes the guessing out later in the season if I want to shoot a doe or not, but I always fill my doe tags.

[JAB]

I got no decent reply for your ol boy comments made above other than they are wrong in their thinking if they are breaking laws as you say. Also flawed logic on the ratio. People once thought the world was flat too.

WD40 was talking about people who need meat to feed their families. In my mind, there is no hunting or fishing law or reg that trumps a man's need/right to feed his family any way he can. Unless he is on your property (which is trespassing and doesn't need a hunting-related law to prevent), I don't believe that any 'authority' has the right to tell him he can't shoot any animal to feed his family any more than I believe in the right of any authority to tell him that he can't defend himself or his family by whatever means he has at his disposal. Also, to my mind, that is why the regs in TN are so confusing in the first place - TWRA has tried to make a business and money-making venture out of deer hunting and put ridiculous regulations in place on all other hunting because they are so afraid that someone will 'poach' a damn deer or two and they won't make their $56 off of it.

This doesn't mean that I think it is okay to just wantonly kill deer or anything else willy-nilly but a man's need to feed his family is a heck of a lot more important, in my book, than another man's 'need' to put a big antler rack on his wall. Again, this is coming from someone who has never shot any deer, period.

Edited August 19, 2011 by JAB

[DaveS]

A doe/deer tag cost what? Now, divide that by the number of deer you can take. The numbers say that a deer isn't worth much at all!

Edited August 19, 2011 by wd-40

[Guest GunTroll]

Self preservation is important. Can't argue that. Can't condone any law being broke no matter how dire the situation is but I won't tell a man he is wrong for feeding his ( I assume "any way he can" implies shadiness). Sort of a tough call. I suspect no one ever needs to kill a deer illegally to feed anyone with our current system of hand outs from the FEDS and charity from fellow man. If you have too much pride for a hand out/charity, change your circumstances. The choices you make, leads the life you live. Sounds harsh perhaps but it is what it is.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I would rather hunt and poach a deer to feed my family than ask someone else (more specifically working Americans) to support me. I think that as long as it's your property and you are hunting to provide (this can be proven many different ways) for your family I do not think that you need to ask permission to do so. I would think more of a person who killed an animal illegally to feed his family rather then sponge off of the sweat and hard work of other Americans. If you have to borrow Money from Uncle Sam and use that system I would say you have no pride and it's time to change your situation. Because after all The choices you make, leads the life you live.

Self preservation is important. Can't argue that. Can't condone any law being broke no matter how dire the situation is but I won't tell a man he is wrong for feeding his ( I assume "any way he can" implies shadiness). Sort of a tough call. I suspect no one ever needs to kill a deer illegally to feed anyone with our current system of hand outs from the FEDS and charity from fellow man. If you have too much pride for a hand out/charity, change your circumstances. The choices you make, leads the life you live. Sounds harsh perhaps but it is what it is.

[DaveS]

Most of the time, if a person will just let the game warden know that they will take a deer in, the wardens are more than happy to pass on a "hit" deer to get it off the road. And I also beleive that we do chart our own pathways and set our own course. But sometimes we hit a "bump in the road" and then things don't go too well. In those cases, you have to take what is handed to you. That's why I donate deer, buck/doe/undecided, directly to needy families that I know, as I do not trust our local prossessor. I'll cut, wrap and give them the deer. I do not ask for anything in return as their smiles of graditude pays me in my heart. When God calls my name, I can stand before him and feel absolutely good about my life!

Granted, there are freeloaders out there. Those aren't the people I help. I help honest under privilaged folks. I've been in their shoes, and please don't cast judgement upon them until you put their shoes on your feet!

[Guest GunTroll]

I would rather hunt and poach a deer to feed my family than ask someone else (more specifically working Americans) to support me. I think that as long as it's your property and you are hunting to provide (this can be proven many different ways) for your family I do not think that you need to ask permission to do so. I would think more of a person who killed an animal illegally to feed his family rather then sponge off of the sweat and hard work of other Americans. If you have to borrow Money from Uncle Sam and use that system I would say you have no pride and it's time to change your situation. Because after all The choices you make, leads the life you live.

Well, That's fine but land owners don't own the wild animals on the land. So you would be steeling from everyone. You are taking from, without adding to (sounds like Obama logic eh?). In the not so distant past we hunted deer to almost nothing. It can be done again, I guess.

Come on man! We have talked face to face. I don't know you well, but you are a man who has served this nation of laws like I did. That is what we are after all. A nation of laws. When that breaks down.... It is against the law to poach. With the liberal amount of does one can harvest here in TN, there should be no problem filling the freezer at home. If your too poor to have a freezer thats another issue all together.

By your logic you are basically saying you respect a person who steals from you (and yours), and disrespect a man who ask due to need? Sounds....backwards??

Most of the time, if a person will just let the game warden know that they will take a deer in, the wardens are more than happy to pass on a "hit" deer to get it off the road. And I also beleive that we do chart our own pathways and set our own course. But sometimes we hit a "bump in the road" and then things don't go too well. In those cases, you have to take what is handed to you. That's why I donate deer, buck/doe/undecided, directly to needy families that I know, as I do not trust our local prossessor. I'll cut, wrap and give them the deer. I do not ask for anything in return as their smiles of graditude pays me in my heart. When God calls my name, I can stand before him and feel absolutely good about my life!

Granted, there are freeloaders out there. Those aren't the people I help. I help honest under privilaged folks. I've been in their shoes, and please don't cast judgement upon them until you put their shoes on your feet!

That's funny! I hear you. I'm not judging and I ain't giving a pass either. Your doing good to me, I'd say.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Well, That's fine but land owners don't own the wild animals on the land. So you would be steeling from everyone. You are taking from, without adding to (sounds like Obama logic eh?). In the not so distant past we hunted deer to almost nothing. It can be done again, I guess.

Come on man! We have talked face to face. I don't know you well, but you are a man who has served this nation of laws like I did. That is what we are after all. A nation of laws. When that breaks down.... It is against the law to poach. With the liberal amount of does one can harvest here in TN, there should be no problem filling the freezer at home. If your too poor to have a freezer thats another issue all together.

By your logic you are basically saying you respect a person who steals from you (and yours), and disrespect a man who ask due to need? Sounds....backwards?? .

Dude I hope you didn't think I was serious at all. I respect ALL laws no matter how ridicules they may be. As far as people needing assistance, some people get down on their luck and need it and that's why it's there. I was just bustin balls

[Guest GunTroll]

I guess its hard for me, a person who has been called very dry , to see another that might be the same. Touche Sir!

[JAB]

A doe/deer tag cost what? Now, divide that by the number of deer you can take. The numbers say that a deer isn't worth much at all!

Cost to hunt divided by how many deer you can take. Well, let's see:

$28 for a basic hunting/fishing license

$28 for the big game stamp (which only allows one method - archery, gun or muzzleloader - you have to spend $28 more to use a different method)

$21 for a type 094

That's $77 in total license fees. In any unit besides unit L, there is a much tighter limit on the number of antlerless deer (does, etc.) that can be taken. For instance, in Loudon (where I live) antlerless deer can only be legally taken between the dates of Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 and the limit is one. Not one per day (at least not the way the regs read) but one, period. So if someone manages to take their limit of antlered deer during the season (three) that is a total of four deer. Not too bad for $77, I guess but start throwing in point restrictions, etc. like Troll wants to do and it quickly becomes not worth fooling with. As I have said, even without point restrictions (and with an aversion to hunting on public land) I have never even taken one deer. I can imagine how hard it would be if there were even more BS regulation piled on top of the BS regulations that are already in place. Sometimes more laws and regulations don't keep people from doing things they simply turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals when the regulations become so ridiculous that even the most law-abiding get frustrated and ignore them.

Sure, if I were hardcore interested in hunting I could travel to Unit L, spend a couple of days, put up with all the BS required to hunt on public lands and maybe even take a deer. However, folks who live in Unit A or Unit B and truly need to hunt to feed their families (thankfully I am not quite to that point) probably can't. If they could afford to make the trip, stay a few days and hunt then they could probably afford to go to the grocery store and not fool with hunting in the first place. Therefore, they are restricted to the deer they can take under the regulations in Unit A or Unit B and the fact that anterless deer can be taken in such great numbers in Unit L really wouldn't mean a hill of beans, to them. Now, remove the antlerless restriction or institute point restrictions only in Unit L and that might work a little better - except it would be just one more restriction that could turn an honest hunter into a 'poacher' just by crossing some invisible, arbitrary line made up by TWRA (from a Unit A county into Unit L county.)