EastTNHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,781
Let me start out by saying that I have no issue with someone setting goals for themselves when it comes to hunting. Different people hunt for different reasons, and I’m ok with that. I hunt primarily for the experience and the meat, and the antlers are then way further down the list. But I’m a little concerned with the direction that our sport is going in relation to trophy hunting.
Let me explain:
I feel that we as hunters should focus on ethics and responsibility to ensure that our sport can maintain rights and privileges to carry on for future generations. That means that we should be concerned with how we are viewed by the non hunting public, as well as working towards the sustainability of the wildlife and habitat.
I live near a popular WMA in SE TN that has antler restrictions which leads people to believe that it is a primary trophy destination. I have loved this property for years due to its diverse habitat, and although I killed my first buck on this WMA, I and my kids have also harvested several does off of it as we have opportunity (it takes several years to build priority points to draw a hunt on this WMA, so about 2-3 years between hunts). We also small game hunt and hike there. I have been talking to the WMA manager over the last few years, and he informed me that not enough does get harvested on this WMA, so the population and crop destruction has gone up to the point that most farmers do not want to bid on sharecropping leases there any longer. I have been telling this to other deer hunters for several years, but they continue to tell me that they don’t want burn preference points and a trip across state on a doe. I get that to an extent, but I try to remind them of our responsibility as hunters to help control the population and protect the habitat.
Well, my advice fell on deaf ears long enough, and now the WMA has gone to multiple doe-only hunts first, followed by just a few either-sex hunts that are now earn-a-buck. I called my regional representative before this was finalized, but I was one of the few who were paying attention and it was passed anyhow. My concern was that I would get drawn for the hunt and have the buck of a lifetime below my stand at first light before harvesting a doe, and then never see him again; or, I would kill a doe on the first morning and take all day getting it cleaned and out if the woods and on ice, and then basically lose half of my hunt, whereas I used to wait until the second day to do that.
Since this WMA now has eliminated the physical check in requirements (app/internet check in only) I am now hearing of several hunters saying that they plan to “check in” a doe at first light before even shooting one, and then staying in their stand to buck hunt. Or they will shoot a doe and let it lay while continuing to buck hunt. Neither is right for the game, the habitat, or hunters’ reputation
Needless to say, this whole thing stinks from several perspectives. I hear hunters complain about municipalities paying sharpshooters to thin deer herds, but when they have opportunity to do so they only want to trophy hunt and will not thin the does. I feel like we are our own worst enemies sometimes.
Am I off base on this?
Let me explain:
I feel that we as hunters should focus on ethics and responsibility to ensure that our sport can maintain rights and privileges to carry on for future generations. That means that we should be concerned with how we are viewed by the non hunting public, as well as working towards the sustainability of the wildlife and habitat.
I live near a popular WMA in SE TN that has antler restrictions which leads people to believe that it is a primary trophy destination. I have loved this property for years due to its diverse habitat, and although I killed my first buck on this WMA, I and my kids have also harvested several does off of it as we have opportunity (it takes several years to build priority points to draw a hunt on this WMA, so about 2-3 years between hunts). We also small game hunt and hike there. I have been talking to the WMA manager over the last few years, and he informed me that not enough does get harvested on this WMA, so the population and crop destruction has gone up to the point that most farmers do not want to bid on sharecropping leases there any longer. I have been telling this to other deer hunters for several years, but they continue to tell me that they don’t want burn preference points and a trip across state on a doe. I get that to an extent, but I try to remind them of our responsibility as hunters to help control the population and protect the habitat.
Well, my advice fell on deaf ears long enough, and now the WMA has gone to multiple doe-only hunts first, followed by just a few either-sex hunts that are now earn-a-buck. I called my regional representative before this was finalized, but I was one of the few who were paying attention and it was passed anyhow. My concern was that I would get drawn for the hunt and have the buck of a lifetime below my stand at first light before harvesting a doe, and then never see him again; or, I would kill a doe on the first morning and take all day getting it cleaned and out if the woods and on ice, and then basically lose half of my hunt, whereas I used to wait until the second day to do that.
Since this WMA now has eliminated the physical check in requirements (app/internet check in only) I am now hearing of several hunters saying that they plan to “check in” a doe at first light before even shooting one, and then staying in their stand to buck hunt. Or they will shoot a doe and let it lay while continuing to buck hunt. Neither is right for the game, the habitat, or hunters’ reputation
Needless to say, this whole thing stinks from several perspectives. I hear hunters complain about municipalities paying sharpshooters to thin deer herds, but when they have opportunity to do so they only want to trophy hunt and will not thin the does. I feel like we are our own worst enemies sometimes.
Am I off base on this?
