tvc184

[quote name="bronco1" post="743554" timestamp="1263425736"] The sooner the better, not sure when but I know it is an issue they will have to address. Once you have more and better breeding stock, you have to cull the less desireable deer to produce the best herd. [/quote] How do you come up with a rule to enforce culls though? Simply state "age" as the factor and educate the public? Hope that most hunters can age deer on the hoof? The only thing about the spike or 13" rules is that you can look at an easy measurable standard. Just like a fish, you can bring out the tape measure and see if it is correct. There is easily visual certainty of the kill. They go with the 13" rule simply because of the width of the ears as a guide. As far as killing culls to improve the herd, I won't disagree with that but we have always been able to kill all the culls we wanted (with the proper number of tags) and yet we still have lots of them roaming the woods. With hundreds of years of hunting with no restrictions, we don't seem to have done a very good job of insuring good genetic deer. I think much of that comes from the kill any buck mentality that many people (Many bearbryant, not "all"). I think that if we kill enough does (buck to doe ratio) and let deer mature as they should, nature will take care of itself somewhat. When there aren't 7 does per every buck then the dominant bucks will do most of the breeding. As it is now (especially on public land) with does not being killed, one dominant buck in an area can't breed or protect all of the does. We have lots of inferior bucks breeding does that would otherwise not get to. I'm all for killing culls.... I am just not sure how they are going to do it or if they are ever going to do it.

[quote name="bronco1" post="742676" timestamp="1263319012"] That is a problem but with a little time I believe TPWD will address that issue. We have a really good fish and game dept. but it's not flawless. As the public gets more comfortable with the antler restrictions, they will eventually include a cull buck. [/quote] The AR's have been in place for several years. I wonder when they are going to get around to it on allowing some means of taking culls.

[quote name="bearbryant" post="742851" timestamp="1263339365"] The point I was making was that I was not a "shoot anything that moves" hunter.  And as i said I'm giving the 13 inch rule time to work. [/quote] But for every ethical hunter in this area there are others to match that aren't. I don't see how anyone can deny that east Texas has a problem with people killing very young deer that generally doesn't happen in other parts of the state.

[quote name="PNG Proud" post="742894" timestamp="1263346438"] Has anyone started fishing the reefs yet?  This is about the time when it starts to get hot, and with the intense cold, they may actually be stacked up there RIGHT NOW! [/quote] Or dead. I've heard that  there was some fish kill due to the extreme cold, especially farther south. Anyone know of any fish kill locally?

[quote name="bearbryant" post="742425" timestamp="1263262168"] Well I disagree with you on that.  I've let many many small 8pt walk along with 4pts and 6pts through the years.  I've also taken 1.5 year old 6pts and ain't ashamed to admit it.  I'm a hunter not a trophy hunter.   I've been able to kill 8 bucks year for the last several years and could have yet usually take 2 bucks between me, my two boys, and my wife... all hunters. Still I'm embracing the 13 inch rule.. I got enough hunters in my family that there is no possible way I can't end up with 5-6 deer every year.  Now if they make the spikes illegal I'd be in a bind. [/quote] You say that you disagree and then say that you have taken 1.5 year old 6 points. That was exactly what I was saying. Passing some doesn't change that fact. I am all for legal hunting and what you were doing was legal. I am just glad that the state has now finally stepped in to manage the land as I think the hunters should have all along. Within a couple of years, the same deer that are being shot now at a 6 point will be heavier 8 pointers or better.

westend1 - The favorite gun I have is a Ruger #1 in .22-250.  It's a great shooting rifle, but hard to justify when you could get a Remington 700 for [b]MUCH[/b] less. I have a Remington 700 synthetic stock in .270 and a Savage Model 11 with the AccuTrigger in .223. Both shoot 3/4" groups at 100 yards. I love a lot of other guns and would enjoy having them. For my hunting purposes though, I can't drag my billfold open for something that I really like mostly to look at. Anyone wishing to donate however..............

The TC's are great guns. I just can't see myself spending as much on an interchangeable barrel as I an buy an entire new gun that the equal in accuracy and function. If I get one though, it will probably have to be donated by a rich relative that I am unaware of. I look at it much like the Ruger No.1. A beautiful rifle that I can't bring myself to buying because I don't need a $1,000 single shot rifle that will kill no more deer than my other "cheap" guns.

[quote name="bearbryant" post="742005" timestamp="1263176339"] I still dont know a soul other than outlaws that shoots anything that moves.  [/quote] I know some. They shoot what was legal deer last year such as 1.5 year old 4 and 6 pointers. Completely legal deer but haven't been allowed to mature at all. If it's brown, it's down. This year the east Texas restrictions made it illegal but before then, a deer was a deer was a deer and age or size didn't matter. That is what I am talking about and that constitutes a large percentage of even legal hunters.

For some reason I have missed this thread. I would like to see an early Sabine Lake tourny but think it might ought to wait until March or so. With this brutal winter, I am not sure if I want to get on the water right now.  ;D

The part about not taking culls is a problem but we are paying the price for a lot of other east Texas hunters. Even on here you have people that want to be able to shoot anything that moves and believe they have the right to do so. We have limits on fishing by size and now we have the same on deer. It is our own collective fault. I think it will still work in the long run.

[quote name="bullets13" post="741839" timestamp="1263163521"] i just started hunting this year for the 1st time in 15 years, and i used a TC 25-06.  i didn't take any shots at game this year, but i love the way the gun shoots. [/quote] The TC's are interesting and I wouldn't mind having one. They are probably some of the most well crafted guns on the market. I just wish someone would donate it. I can't bring my self to spending as much money on one gun as I can buy 3 different Remington 700's for.

The .243 is a great whitetail weapon. Any notion that somehow you have to track them farther with that round than others is ludicrous. I was reading on a hunting forum a couple of weeks ago where one guy said that the longest that he tracked a deer and eventually lost it was a hit with a 300 Win Mag. There are no magic bullets. Put it through the heart and/or lungs and they will do down. That is a huge target for a rifle. If you hit them only in the shoulder or guts then it won't matter much which round you missed with. The last two years, the only deer that I have shot with a rifle with 100% success was with a .223. Both shots were quartering away and I got complete pass throughs a lots of blood. Of course it really didn't matter because they went 30 yards or less. Both were double lung hits with large exit wounds. Of course, I have people that tell me that you can't do that with a .223.

Out of curiosity, of the many calibers available, is any of them really any better than the others at typical whitetail distances? Can a .308, .260, .270, .280, .264, , 25-06, 30-06, 7mm (the several available), 8mm, etc., do a better job than any of the others? I can see maybe a 300 Win Mag being better at extended ranges like maybe 600 yards but even that is debatable. I can understand the fairly light weight rounds like the 22-250, .223 and .204 maybe not having a lot of energy at say 200 yards. I see people make statements like, well if I decided to kill a bull moose in Montana then I wouldn't have to buy a new gun if I had a 300 Win Mag. That may be true but unless that is something on the immediate horizon on someone's agenda, is it simply wishful thinking or an attempt to justify something in someone's mind? I guess I could go buy a Ford 3500 pickup on the assumption that maybe someday I may decide to start my own construction company and may need such a vehicle. I love guns and think if someone wants a gun, who cares why? Buy five of each for all I care. Back to the original question, in the typical deer hunting scenario of usually 100 yards or less but almost certainly not over 200 yards, does it really matter?

I am sure they will go up to what the market can take. Out of the thousands of people on east Texas leases, I don't know how many of them are ready to pony up an additional $2,000 or more. Like I mentioned, the price per acre is not much different than in other areas anyway and the cost is offset by more hunters on the same amount of land. Like those in the west and south, I think the land owners/companies can price themselves out of the market, especially in the slow economy. When we have people that are already having a hard time with $700..........

[quote name="pngfan1" post="740555" timestamp="1262960224"] 300 Win Mag Remington Sendero. [/quote] That sounds like a south Texas rifle for sure.

[quote name="pngfan1" post="740566" timestamp="1262960800"] Believe me I have seen many deer less than 13" spread that was mature in South and West Texas. But, its the best the state can do to protect young bucks, which happens to be why East Texas is so far behind rest of the state. Years and years of killing 2.5 year old bucks. There are much better management plans but it is better than nothing and East Texas should see improvement, if the game Wardens can enforce it effectively. Enforcing any law in east Texas is a challenge. Good luck though, I will continue my 6 hour drive. Pressure is a problem in East Texas also. Too many hunters on most places for acreage. That is why East Texas deer are so fast to go nocturnal. I hunt 5 people on 3000 acres on my South Texas place and 4 on 2000 in West Texas. [/quote] At 3,000 acres in east Texas you would typically have 25-30 hunters. The problem with east Texas that is completely unlike most of the rest of Texas is that people live there. Most of west and south Texas are uninhabited. There is hardly any land in east Texas that doesn't have someone living within half a mile or less. I have hunted a couple of south Texas ranches and it is miles and miles between cities or any communities. There isn't as much problem with poachers because most people don't want to drive for a couple of hours or more to kill a deer illegally. It is so much easier when you can sneak onto the lease or public land that is 400 yards away. There is also the money issue. While the cost per acre leased is not really much (if any) different, in east Texas they keep the cost down by stacking hunters. A typical east Texas lease runs about $500-$1,000. That is for maybe 100-150 acres per hunter. A south or west Texas lease might run $1,500-$5,000 per gun but you get 300-600 acres per hunter. The people that hunt south Texas do so because they can afford to hunt there. Most east Texas hunters don't have the option to pay $5,000 per gun because they simply don't have it. I hunt on a lease for $700 a year and have had people drop off because they can't get the money together to hunt it. Some that do hunt on it do so because they can't afford to hunt anywhere else. Half of the complaints on the new antler restrictions is the fact that many believe that it will cause the lease prices to match other parts of the state. That will price a lot of them out of hunting or either turn some into poachers or hunt on the overcrowded public land. East Texas could grow a deer herd that rivals west and south Texas if it was managed. The antler restrictions are a good start but if lease prices go up much, it will just compound the poacher problems.

[quote name="sitsinstands" post="739589" timestamp="1262826724"] i have found out the best place to buy guns is at a gun store thats my opinion [/quote] It is if you are wanting to pay the premium of the small shops.... if they can be found locally.

[quote name="BUCMAN08" post="732254" timestamp="1261082611"] coop could we see the white stuff ........this is what i heard  ;D [/quote] I can guarantee that it is going to snow. .... at some time in the future.

Tough find for a 7mm-08 for less than $300.

[quote name="bronco1" post="731503" timestamp="1260988182"] [quote author=Vpbaseball#9 link=topic=63838.msg731237#msg731237 date=1260956155] We did pretty good yesterday.... 2 widheon, 1 teal, 1 ringneck, 8 gadwall, and a snow... seen lots of birds..... Bout to head out again [/quote] Looks like it was a nice productive outing, congrats. [/quote] Back when I hunted in the 70's and early 80's, that would have been a pitiful haul. When it got down to three birds and we were lucky to even get shots at three birds, is when I quit. I guess the days of three guys going out and bringing back 30 birds is over.

I haven't killed anything the entire season. Then again, I haven't killed any waterfowl since 1988.

[quote name="bearbryant" post="728546" timestamp="1260621774"] Just yesterday in Buna I found a fresh scrape near my stand with recent activity.  Evidently the rut is not totally over.  [/quote] The fat lady hasn't sang. I think the rut is the most misunderstood and misguessed thing about deer hunting. The rut always extends over an extended period. Does will go back into estrus if not bred the first time. Doe population has a great impact on the length and timing of the rut. The rut is not caused or initiated by cold weather and a few other tidbits. Anyone that can pinpoint the rut in a given area consistently and in a very narrow time frame (as in 90% of deer are bred in that small time frame), then they can be millionaires.

[quote name="Tiger90" post="718908" timestamp="1259376440"] As cool as it was to see all of the fishermen and actually fish there, it is causing bad erosion.  Well before Ike you could see the currents etc on the satellite pictures and see the beach sediment going into the bay area.  Nobody can deny the beaches were larger 25-30 years ago. [/quote] That is the way I look at it. I can't see doing all the damage that it causes in the name of helping a very few fishermen.

[quote name="chronicent" post="726176" timestamp="1260264364"] I use A .270, pretty cool, but last month i went on hunting with my friends the classical way. Bow and Arrow. Pretty cool 8) [/quote] Classic? You used wooden shafts, flint arrowheads, etc.?

[quote name="ST413" post="720725" timestamp="1259588981"] Sounds like it. I have only seen one shootable deer and very little else. It was a doe only saw it very briefly. Hav e seen a few other little does and two bucks one which may have been a shooter spike but could not be sure it didn't have any extra pts. I have seen as many deer in one hunt in the past as I have all year so far. [/quote] True on the numbers. There was hardly a hunt in previous years that I couldn't kill a doe. This year even those are far between although I have two of them so far.