How about this... Can anyone tell me how many deer were harvested in Red River County each of the last 10 years? Then break it down by age, sex, antler characteristics?

If not (and the answer is "no"), then why did we need to make changes anyway?

Having hunted there for years, we were seeing more deer, bigger deer, and more bucks every year.... until..... the implementation of Antler Restrictions.

Now someone will tell me there's nothing in common, or there's something else wrong, or that we should just shoot does.

During the time of growth in the county, where was this mystery problem then?


Bottom line, it's horn hunters dictating to TPWD a way to grow horns at the expense of the average everyday hunter. One person should not have to change their way of hunting to support another person's desires...

Bottom line: horn hunters make up the major majority of the AR lovers.....prove me wrong. Someone should make a poll, meat hunters who like ARs, horn hunters who like ARs, meat hunters who don't like ARs, horn hunters who don't like ARs......nah, nevermind, there would be fibbing I'm sure.

It's not a matter of like or dislike. I don't get flu or pneumonia shots even though my doctor insists the statistics favor me getting them every year. I don't necessarilly buy into the AR regs but I have seen benefit and hope to see them again in my current situation. I'm sure they are not working some places. Call the biologist and instead of complaining ask them to do a closer study in your county and maybe they can gather more specific information on the area in question and possibly adjust things.

Then again it's easier just to complain on a forum nobody who can fix it reads.

Now curly nobody would fib on the forum! I wish somebody would kill me some venison since its working so well for everybody and i dont care if its buck or doe i just want some meat and yall can keep the horns.

Too many people only link anti AR people with meat hunters with slob hunters with whatever.

I actually liked the system we had been under, and saw the productivity of it. I don't like the new system, can't see the productivity of it, and can't find scientific reliable data to support it.

I even found a QDM guru, who is opposed:

Age structure of the herd is important in making management decisions. A herd composed primarily of young animals usually indicates either a growing deer population or a heavy harvest. A very old age structure indicates an inadequate harvest.

Miller and marchinton, "Quality Whitetails".

Their same thoughts on the statistical reliability of the data collection methods (specifically using Texas as an example)

"Population age structure of harvested animals in an area can be strongly influenced by the sampling methods......note the disparity among the results of the three types of data (Texas PWD, Temple-Inland Club Reports, Institute for Whitetail Deer Management Inc random collection)"

Another main problem with the collection of data was the low-grading of Temple-Inlands deer by hunters. Better scoring bucks by antlers are thought to bring an increase in lease rates.

No such thing as a meat hunter or horn hunter.... There are only hunters... some more selective then others.

by your diffention your are a horn hunter... Nice mount from last year..if you where a meat hunter that rack would be a skull on the wall in the garage : )

So lets forget about the Meat vs horn stuff and call it hunting.

Passthru i have called the biologist for hopkins co. and the warden and they pretty much blew me off saying they were killing more deer than ever in the county! I told him no kidding you doubled the bag limit what do you expect? go figure that on your deer slide rule and see what you come up with. The question is how long is the limit sustainable.

Miller and Marchinton, again...

"Clearly, older animals are better at evading hunters than younger, naive ones. Couple this with hunter inexperience, bias must be considered"

They also note that hunting over bait, food plots, and from blinds creates a bias to younger animals...

lol..if they are still receiving Temple-Inland Club reports then the info is somewhat biased.

Disagree, sorry. There are meat hunters, and horn hunters. Some base their selection on horns, some on meat, some of us, have to weigh in the middle. There are some that will only shoot big bucks. There are some that shoot a big deer regardless of sex. Some of us would like the chance to make that decision on our own, not having the government tells us.


Before someone throws the "shoot whatever walks" at me, I haven't taken a deer in east texas in 5 years. I am selective on my own, just don't like the added inlfuence as it is decreasing hunter opportunity.

"Expectations (of quality deer) increased as respondent education level increased. Our results indicate that deer management strategies should focus on providing opportunity and allow for management flexibility in for hunters on private lands."

Collier and Krmementz, Univ of Ark, 2007

Hmmmmm more flexibility for private lands.... manage public lands, there's a thought...

LMAO true story!!! SOLD

Check the date...

There's another study that says private land has higher standards than state land. Maybe, at least that is what everyone here says...

If so, does that bias the results of the locker-plant study? Or high-grade deer taken after antler restrictions?

Sounds to me like, if the vast majority of the private land has higher standards, someone ain't abiding by those standards?:

Temple Inland sold ALL there land almost 3 years ago.

They only have Boggy slough and one other camp... Both HF'd

Thanks for the nice mount compliment! I am a meat hunter first but I am happy to get a big buck if one presents a shot. Besides, I have a buddy who does taxidermy part time and he cuts me a good deal. If not for that I would still put them on a plaque and hang them in my house. Kind of a tribute to the buck for giving me sweet venison protein....ooops, I guess I watch Spirit of the Wild too much....

I know that. Let me help:

The article was written when it was still in operation...., hence, check the date.

No one ever said they were still getting data from a defunct organization.

The article questioned the validity of the data collected, not if it was still in operation. It had nothing to do with when they quit.

Typical response. A flaw in the armor of AR's and some go into attack mode.

Their webpage is a JOKE. Oh yea don't forget the CD.
30 yr old data on spikes. heheh

Background

(some email traffic) voicing opposition

> here is what Mitch Lockwood (TPWD Whitetailed deer manager)_ wrote me:
>

Quote:

"I have gone to great lengths in previous correspondence (to PhishTX et
> al.) to indicate there is not proposal on the table. It seems apparent
> that the extensive effort I have expended to convey accurate
> information is not an efficient use of my time. If I cannot convey
> simple messages as such, I truly question whether I will be able to
> explain more complicated technical information effectively.
>
> By the way, my web page on the subject is almost complete. Some may
> think it ironic that I am creating this page for a total of 6 people
> who have voiced opposition (to me) out of several hundred comments.
> While this is biologically based, input from our constituents is always
> important to us-which is the reason I have expended so much time
> corresponding with you, PhishTX, et. al."

The Experiment

Little history lesson....

From Commissioners Hearing April, 2000

Quote:

Quote:
MR. GLASSCOCK: Commissioners, I
4 sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share
5 the concerns of the Texas Sportsman Association.
6 We have membership out of the state, in the
7 state. And the largest part of our membership is
8 in a three-county area, Colorado County, Fayette
9 County, and Austin, Lavaca.
10 I note in -- on page 74 of your
11 little document, that Austin, Bastrop, Bell,
12 Caldwell, Colorado, and Comal all fall together,
13 with a list of other counties.
14 We seem to have a one rule fits all
15 when it comes to deer regulation. And where
16 we're living, it's not working…"
Blah, Blah, Blah

You see them whining....here?? Hint:It is in red, from the year 2000

and From Commissioners Hearing April 3, 2002

Quote:

Quote:
,,,,,,
23 MR. WOLF: Mr. Chairman, members, for the
24 record my name is Clayton Wolf, the white-tail deer program
25 coordinator. I'm going to present,,,,,,,,,,,

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

,,,,,,,, 15 hopefully will adequately describe why we think we can achieve
16 that.The proposal is for six counties in the post okay
17 ecological area specifically the southern end of the post oak
18 ecological area; those are Austin, Colorado, Fayette, Lavaca,
19 Lee, and Washington Counties. There's several reasons we
20 chose these six counties. One is we have very active wildlife
21 management associations in these counties. We actually have
22 30 co-ops. Those 30 co-ops have over 2,500 members those
23 2,500 landowners own over 527,000 acres of land which
24 compromises approximately 40 percent of the deer habitat in
25 these six counties. ,,,,,,,

SEE, Historically, Texas Sportsman Association, (TSA) was having a problem with their deer management (for better Quality horns) on the 527,000 acres that they represent. The TSA, rightly, sought help from their local TPWD biologist. The original Experimental Antler Restriction should have been left to those that solicited it to fix their problem. TPWD should not be creating wildlife regulations based on TSA’s management problems, with data that is based on their own hunting pressure numbers, their totally UNIQUE ecological region of the state, UNIQUE harvest data, UNIQUE population data, UNIQUE buck/does ratio, UNIQUE carrying capacity, UNIQUE habitat, etc. and applying this antler (Quality) restriction/regulation throughout the state.

Now, had the TSA and the biologist used that information and data to better achieve their management goals then they would be happy and possibly harvest their Better Quality Antlered deer. However, the TPWD Big Game/White-tailed directors are turning this into a regulation is a bad approach to wildlife management statewide. They have taken scientific wildlife management given it to a public opinion based regulation, with a survey being the deciding factor if this will be passed in each county or not.

(another email for good measure)

Quote:

To:
Mr Wolf, (Clayton Wolf TPWD Big Game Director)

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate that Mitch is busy. I have asked the same (for data), regarding your proposal. All of the supporting data has been harvest data. Biased by what the hunter that chooses to harvest, (horns, sex, body size, young, old, tender, tough, crippled, spotted, palmated, whatever) and take to processor, or check station. Granted harvest data is good for is counting dead deer, ageing dead deer, counting the points and scoring dead dead, but it does not at all represent the deer that hunters leave alive in the field. It is not an indicator of the live herd, be it age, sex, health etc.

You say that this is not a trophy plan, and I agree. I actually applaud you for saying it. Yet the people that support it think it is, and that is why they support it. They are mislead into thinking there will be a trophy behind every bush. AND I DIDN"T GIVE 'EM THAT IDEA. Must have been your presentaion, it surley doesn't diswade that line of thinking very effectively.

What is the problem the needs to be fixed with a new regulation in these 34xx counties?

Is it the same problem the the six original counties had?

Is this a county problem that is being fixed statewide? The original counties had low deer numbers, right? What were they? These proposed counties....what are their numbers?

Why the low numbers in the six counties?

Was it habitat related? Is the habitat the same in the 34xx counties?

What is the carrying capacity of the six original counties? It the carrying capacity the same in these 34xx counties?

Is the hunting pressure the same in the six original counties as it is in these additional 34x counties?

How often does the TP&W do population studies on the LIVE deer herd? Where is the data?

Is the area that data is collected from the same area the it target by regulations? Ecoregion to Ecoregion, county to county? Or is it Ecoregion sample data used for county size regulation? Or a six-county experiment used for statewide?

Now I'll try to answer your question: (from previous email)
Now I'm not a biologist or statistician, but surley a man in YOUR position follows this.
I would be interested to see your data that shows the genetic makeup of the herd, (per regulatory unit, even).
Please humor me that you dont get the logic that if one set (A) is targeted for death, and therefore restricted in their recovery (reproduction) while another set (B) (5"-12" genttically inferior) is protected from death, and not restricted in reproduction, that set (B) will become more and more dominate with each successive harvest of set (A). Like the results you show, minimail the first year of the program, but as set (A) is eliminated, (and fewer are allowed to reproduce) what are you left with? SET (B) 5"-12" genetically inferior THE NEW TEXAS WHITE-TAILED DEER BREED STANDARD.

Remember "I Love Lucy" trying to fill up the boxes of chocolate off the converor belt? Inferoir genes will just keep on coming while the hunters harvest what they can of the good genes and put them in the box (freezer).

If the TP&W did surveys (NOT HARVEST) on the live population that included ?a box to check for? genetics, then we could both have data and could figure out how long it would take to have the new dominate inferior trait of the state's herd.

Re:the second tag. I ask for YOUR numbers here.
Is the live buck/doe ratio the same in all of these 34xx counties as it is in the first six counties?
Are the harvest numbers the same for all of the counties? You can use the harvest data for this! I'm just asking for a count.

I'm sure Mitch has shared our discussions with you. I really do appreciate the time he has given us. I have not had many of my questions answered though.

Respectfully, & Thank You,
PhishTX

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Where Next ? (depends on what the definition of is, is)

This was brought up in a public hearing, emails, and letters to the TPWD.

Quote:

The criteria used for candidate counties were: the county currently must be a one-buck county, 60% of the buck harvest in the county must consist of bucks less than 3.5 years of age, and the county must have a contiguous border with another county in which antler restriction regulations have been implemented.

What part of NETX is "Contiguous" with original AR counties?



Apparently someone emailed TPWD the definition of “Contiguous” . I haven't paid much attention to the webpage in a while. But look SHAZAM they change the criteria in mid stream to fit their agenda.

Why was the webpage changed and the criteria changed?


Will This Strategy Select For "Narrow-Rack" Bucks?

Quote:

“Some people interpret this as a strategy that will select for branched-antlered deer with less than a 13" spread. Well, it will - until those deer reach the age at which their spread exceeds 13". In other words, this strategy will select for better quality (i.e., branched antlered) young bucks, and will allow many of them to mature before they are available for harvest. It will eliminate the risk of high-grading, which is a likely outcome when many hunters choose to use their only buck tag on a 6-point or 8-point yearling instead of using it on a spike. Hunters are correct when they say there are some "narrow-rack" older bucks out there. They are also right when they say a portion of them will be protected under this strategy, which is not desirable. We don't claim that this strategy is flawless….”

We thanked them for including this. You know us, the original 6 that the webpage was created for?
However, How about before passing a regulation based on an EXPERIMENT because a coop couldn’t manage their menbers.

How about, doing a study to see what this 5% turn into over time, say 6, 7, 8, 10 yrs.
How about EXPERIMENT with THAT, before these regs are passed.

Thanks for reading along.....but that is all I'm doing on the webpage for now.

I know just giving you hell..

j.giles

BOBO the clown......now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are!

Boss figured out how to track how much work I DON"T do via my number of posts for the week..

What makes you a HORN or MEAT hunter? What is with this stupid terminology? When I shoot a deer, buck or doe, I EAT it. DUH. I have shot ~40-50 does in my life. Only shot 5 bucks, and only 1 that some would call a trophy. By that definition, I am a MEAT hunter. Am I wrong that I also like to see and shoot a BIG deer? NO. Is it wrong to shoot any deer you please without concern for the possible impact on the herd? You decide.

If you don't get it, then you don't get it, it's okay. I didn't coin that "stupid terminology". Let's say you are hunting, you have no doe tag or it's not the right week to take a doe and the first deer you see is a small but legal buck. No trophy but legal. Would you pass that small legal buck to wait and see if one comes up with bigger antlers? If so, you're more of a horn hunter, if not, you're more of a meat hunter. If you don't care about horns, then why not take him? If you're a meat hunter, then the horns don't matter. If it's legal, take it. Why wait on a doe? I know, if, if, if but I'm just trying to explain it the way I see it. I'm sure someone can explain it better than me though. Are antlers how you want to judge the health of a heard and are they the best deciding factor on the future of a herd, maybe you think so maybe you don't. A herd consists of bucks and does. You're right, you decide. I'm not saying that you have to be one or the other and I'm not catagorizing any particular hunter but I do think there is such a thing as being either a meat or a horn hunter and yes, I reckon you can be either or both.

I couldnt say it better. Go get em curly! And i do understand what ya mean.