doe day with tags

[jevans]

You people that keep throwing up the argument that SC can not grow 150"-170" deer, what is your basis for this? Tell me one state that you can go to today and are guaranteed to see a 150" buck if you hunted today, where they are just running around all over the place? The fact is no one knows what SC is capable of. Our state has been producing several 140 class deer a year in the last several years. 20 years ago this was unheard of. There is no denying that over the last 15 years our bucks on average have gotten bigger. Why? Is it because a lot more people are a lot more selective now? I can assure you "genetics" haven't suddenly changed. Most bucks that have the right build to make something get killed before they are even close to reaching their potential. Anyhow, I'm bored with this

[Bigtimber2]

Few think tags are about making 150" as a norm. It's a straw man.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[GBelly]

Our state has been producing several 140 class deer a year in the last several years. 20 years ago this was unheard of.

unheard of or just not reported or scored. no internet, mass texting, or social media either to "pass the word"

I am sure some of this quality mgmt stuff has saved a some young bucks, protein pellets and other minerals getting dumped havent hurt either.

[jevans]

Few think tags are about making 150" as a norm. It's a straw man.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I realize this. There isn't a state in the United States where 150 is the norm. The argument that SC can't grow them is getting used up.

[PJ1012]

Few think tags are about making 150" as a norm. It's a straw man.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

A serious question then, and I know you and I go at it all the time. We don't agree much but I respect your opinion. If you know its not going to make 150" bucks why do you back it so much?

[jevans]

unheard of or just not reported or scored. no internet, mass texting, or social media either to "pass the word"

I am sure some of this quality mgmt stuff has saved a some young bucks, protein pellets and other minerals getting dumped havent hurt either.

You may be right about the social media thing, but I can think of 2 that were killed this past season that I personally saw right here in SC.

[GBelly]

we killed A LOT of big deer between 1980 and 1993. most were never scored. we just knew they were big. year of hugo dad and i combined on 5 bucks that all went past the min 125 for the book. offically scored a couple, the rest we cut the horns off and tacked them to the shed.

i think back and maybe i didnt realize at the time how many big deer were being killed during those years.

[JJ1965]

A serious question then, and I know you and I go at it all the time. We don't agree much but I respect your opinion. If you know its not going to make 150" bucks why do you back it so much?

Even if some of them are never going to make 150', why not let some of them go another couple years and see just what they do make? I know a guy who kills 20-25 bucks a year. 95% of them are 1.5 years old, and most are cowhorns and 3-4 pts. He is not going hungry, he makes good money,and actually has to scrounge around most times to give the deer he kills away. It makes absolutely no sense to me why he won't kill some does, or why he feels the need to kill 20+ little bucks a year. This tag system should stop some (not all) of this. Some people are not going to care and will still do what they do, but if half of the people who kill all of these little bucks are limited to 5, that is a lot of young bucks that get another year to grow.

I have another friend that is a member of a club that practices trophy management. They base their harvest not on number of points or spread, but on age and quality. They kill does, and they shoot only mature bucks. I saw a picture from this season of 5 bucks together in a food plot that all appeared to be 3.5 years old. (too young to shoot on their club) Every one of them would score somewhere between 120-140 gross. You can't tell me that in 2 more years these bucks won't be pushing 150 or better.

I am not saying a statewide trophy management program is the answer, and I can't even say that I would completely support that, but I am not convinced that with patience, giving these young bucks time to reach their potential, that 150 class deer are not only attainable in SC, but that they could be fairly common.

[PJ1012]

Thank you for a very honest answer. I can talk to people and discuss things when we all talk normal and don't fight like a bunch of women. I can respect that answer. I may not agree with it but I respect your opinion. If you don't mind me asking what part of the state is your friend in? How long have they practiced the management they're on and how many acres do they have?

[Bigtimber2]

A serious question then, and I know you and I go at it all the time. We don't agree much but I respect your opinion. If you know its not going to make 150" bucks why do you back it so much?

The 5 buck limit will not even move the needle on age structure. My support of limits is due to many hunters kill more deer than the land they hunt can support let alone just take the excess yield.

I am glad to see a cap on them and a way to enforce the cap. I wish DNR had accepted a 10, 12, 15 buck limit in GZ6 years ago the rest of the state could have lower limits that would improve the age structure years ago.

5 bucks tags will make few hunters selective.

[JJ1965]

Thank you for a very honest answer. I can talk to people and discuss things when we all talk normal and don't fight like a bunch of women. I can respect that answer. I may not agree with it but I respect your opinion. If you don't mind me asking what part of the state is your friend in? How long have they practiced the management they're on and how many acres do they have?

They are in the central midlands. My friend has been a member for 5-6 years, but I am not sure how long they have practiced this program....maybe years before he joined. I believe they have between 1000-1500 acres, but I understand that most of the surrounding land is also on some sort of trophy management program. They feel pretty confident that most of the deer they let walk will be around next year.

[PJ1012]

The 5 buck limit will not even move the needle on age structure. My support of limits is due to many hunters kill more deer than the land they hunt can support let alone just take the excess yield.

I am glad to see a cap on them and a way to enforce the cap. I wish DNR had accepted a 10, 12, 15 buck limit in GZ6 years ago the rest of the state could have lower limits that would improve the age structure years ago.

5 bucks tags will make few hunters selective.

I see that point. And in some parts of the state it may affect a deer herd to take that amount of deer off a place. But other parts of the state (i.e. GZ6) the population can withstand that and be just fine. It goes back to you can't paint the whole state with one brush.

[Highstrung]

we killed A LOT of big deer between 1980 and 1993. most were never scored. we just knew they were big. year of hugo dad and i combined on 5 bucks that all went past the min 125 for the book. offically scored a couple, the rest we cut the horns off and tacked them to the shed.

i think back and maybe i didnt realize at the time how many big deer were being killed during those years.

I loved those years. I did score one and put it in the books in 93 at 140, my dad I know killed one that would make the books. He did a few years back also. A fella that I know who's taped a bunch of big bucks scored it at 144. I asked my dad if he was going bring it to the sportsman or get it in the books, just a wondering.. He said "no, I don't need it".

[Bigtimber2]

Hunter's egos run the record books. The original intent was to record trophy animals and their locations to track trends. The books would be better if hunters name were not recorded.

The late 80's and 90's produced a bunch of trophy animals as deer expanded into untapped areas and the herd was exploding. Unlikely to see that again but it sure was fun time to deer hunt. In the Piedmont anyway.

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

Would you please propose a program that would. Also, please do not tell me the old game laws were suitable because they weren't, please don't tell me you "don't want anymore government over reach", just give us a good sound plan that will work for everyone.

Yes and it is pretty simple. Allow property with extensive acreage to manage the herd for numbers not for size. On EVERY occasion when I spoke with CR (and it was many) he made it 100% clear that if our club (which has been keeping records for years and years) enrolled in the QDP the number of buck tags issued to us would decrease and the number of doe tags would increase each year. If the QDP would allow those who wish to manage for numbers to do so, then I would not have an issue with the new plan. I understand that what we do is out of the norm and that the places we hunt are pretty much freaky places; however, what we have done has worked for 20 plus years. We don't care about a 1 to 1 ratio. We care about a pack of hounds burning one's tail up. The fact that this is overlooked is crazy.

[Bigtimber2]

Your neighbors will welcome the regs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[PBiz]

I'm sure my neighbors welcome the idea that we don't shoot does and that 75% of our 4.5 yr old deer leave my property for the majority of the season, because they don't like hounds and other related pressure..

[Silentweapon338]

Hunter's egos run the record books. The original intent was to record trophy animals and their locations to track trends. The books would be better if hunters name were not recorded.

The late 80's and 90's produced a bunch of trophy animals as deer expanded into untapped areas and the herd was exploding. Unlikely to see that again but it sure was fun time to deer hunt. In the Piedmont anyway.

In the beginning on the 2nd day DNR created the book.

A yes, the infamous "Book"

If the names were not there more people would be apt to get a deer scored. As many have said they didn't want a deer scored in the old days. Many times this was so no one could "pattern" a man an go kill his deer.

Back then not was known about the science of growing big deer. What folks did know is 1 area was capable of producing big bucks on a regular basis. If they had their name in the book multiple times from (name a county) they may loose their spot to some Dr. or Lawyer.

This mentality of I've got a secret and I'm not gonna tell anyone still persists to this day. I personally am ok helping others out and showing them what I have learned along the way in hopes we all can harvest bigger bucks. If 150" is gonna be the standard so be it.

As I recall SC turned out a few 190's this past year. That was never suppose to be done in SC. WE can't do that...oh really?

If 150" is the standard in a few short years some kid will come behind us and move the bar in 15-20 years to 170" and they will say it can't be done. And my guess is if ceteris paribus that kid will do it!

[Coastal Woodie]

In the beginning on the 2nd day DNR created the book.

A yes, the infamous "Book"

If the names were not there more people would be apt to get a deer scored. As many have said they didn't want a deer scored in the old days. Many times this was so no one could "pattern" a man an go kill his deer.

Back then not was known about the science of growing big deer. What folks did know is 1 area was capable of producing big bucks on a regular basis. If they had their name in the book multiple times from (name a county) they may loose their spot to some Dr. or Lawyer.

This mentality of I've got a secret and I'm not gonna tell anyone still persists to this day. I personally am ok helping others out and showing them what I have learned along the way in hopes we all can harvest bigger bucks. If 150" is gonna be the standard so be it.

As I recall SC turned out a few 190's this past year. That was never suppose to be done in SC. WE can't do that...oh really?

If 150" is the standard in a few short years some kid will come behind us and move the bar in 15-20 years to 170" and they will say it can't be done. And my guess is if ceteris paribus that kid will do it!

It's possible for sure, I know of a few 150s that were killed in Horry and Marion counties that weren't entered into the record book in the last two years. This area has never been known for growing anything over 130" but there has been some exceptional deer killed in the last few years. People are starting to become more selective and it is starting to show.

[scatter shot]

I would encourage any landowner/managers that want to manage for more mature deer to do so and I wish them all the luck in the world. I would imagine that they would have to use stricter harvest guidelines than what the state would offer public land hunters and that would be their choice.
But I am 100% against the state managing the majority of the public land herd for bigger deer with antler size limits and or tags. If they need to manage for a healthy, balanced herd by using tags to limit harvest numbers that's okay. I don't think the state should be trying to manage for bigger public land bucks if it would hinder a hunter from harvesting a few bucks of their choice.
In other words, the state regs for public land deer should be the lowest, common threshold and what private land people do to enhance their own management goals is up to them.