Where does the "You need to kill X number of does for every 100 acres" come from??? If you're supporting the killing or need of killing does... let me ask you this question: BASED ON WHAT DATA for "YOUR" property?

Stop killing for the sake of killing when you don't know how many or IF you need to reduce your deer pop!

And, stop blaming the QDM or QDMA on excessive killing of does. Deer mgmt states to kill does ONLY if you need to!

Deer carrying cap changes based on timber practices, predation, etc... it's a moving target but make logical decisions based on what's best for your deer herd and not your desires. Get educated on deer weights, milk present in does and if no milk, could it be reasons of predation or too many does or... NOT ENOUGH bucks? Are you killing too many immature bucks? Spend some time attempting to educate yourself about deer mgmt and not what you hear at the coffee shop!

If you tell your kid he can shoot one a day then that is your problem. The law doesn't state that you have to shoot a deer a day. That is the limit. You as an experienced hunter should guide the younger hunter in the direction that is best for your situation. Other species have limits as well but most hunters don't fill there bag every day. It all starts with you. If your not seeing deer you should probably change location or your habitat.

Y'all just need to hunt better areas. Either that or I've just become accustomed to mediocrity(averaging 2-3 per hunt, sometimes 12-15). I mainly hunt 3 counties Bibb, Lee, and Macon. I see does and fawns nearly every hunt, and rarely see bucks. Prob 30 does/fawns for every 1 buck seen. I would prefer to see antler restrictions, or a reduction in bucks tags. I honestly don't think deer numbers are low. I think some areas the people are unable to manage themselves

I grew up with a dad who was born in 1923 and he grew up in South AL. There wasn't a huntable deer population for much of his life and he preached NOT shooting any does and if you killed a doe, you were a very bad person. For MANY years, that was true but what stuck with me about my dad was the fact that he did what was best for the deer herd and he instilled a conservationist mindset in me.

Obviously, that deer mgmt style had to be tweaked when deer numbers soared but the bottom line is to get educated and do what's best for the deer herd.

jibuc10, I see bucks on A LOT of my hunts but I hunt a large area where hunters don't shoot bucks under 3 yrs of age. My club targets 4 yr old bucks but the surrounding land has some pretty good buck mins with TEETH in their rules against adult hunters shooting young bucks.

Hunters' greed, a lack of self-discipline and restraint, dishonesty, etc... will really hurt your buck pops. Ethicality in hunting club members is just as important as the rules themselves. I am happy with my hunting club... with our doe and buck numbers and with my opportunity to shoot mature bucks and my son has already shot a 125" ten pt this year! And really, that's my joy. AND, my son understands restraint, discipline and the joy of watching immature bucks. He also understands deer mgmt and harvest (killing!) decisions are based on what's best for the herd and not HIS desires to burn powder.

JL, you've got a buddy that has a few deer. But don't shoot any little ones! We have a special hanging tree, that's not for deer.

You're right.

2 things:

1. I asked recently how much of the state was overpopulated, i.e. "needs" does killed. The unanimous answer was almost 0%.

2. I still value freedom over onerous regulation, because once we give up something, we will likely never see that freedom back again.

On our land, we don't shoot does, because we like seeing deer.

A lot of Yall on here kill me with your thinking on this subject .. Most hunters don't have a clue when it comes to land managment. They must be told what to do . We must have rules and regulations and its the states job to protect the natural resources . I sure do hope that the politicians who make the final decisions on will do more to preserve wildlife populations. If more money is needed for better studies by raising liscense fees or maybe we should look into setting up a fund for timber lands to tap into to promote burning. All the money hunters spend on deer piss, and cover scent and other gimics could be put to a lot better use.

It's amazing how tough it is this day and age to ask the hunter to educate himself and show some restraint. The rules and regulations are there for safety and guidelines for the overall health of the deer herd. Sure there has to be some rules in place as a baseline, but I hate to see it when some people think that more government mandates are going to fix there problem and they will start shooting more trophy deer if the government will just make more rules. It's not going to happen. If you want to see more deer then lay off of the trigger, lower the pressure, and probably most importantly improve your habitat! If your kid is shooting one a day then don't complain you aren't seeing enough deer because that is the expected end result with that behavior. Also, you can't mandate for the law breakers because they are going to break the law anyway. I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules and some government restrictions, but don't think that's going to fix all of these same problems I here people complaining about on here every day.

Do you feel the same way about gun rights? Hunting is also a (state) constitutional right. Not a privilege.

We have to have rules and regulations, but some folks think that if we keep asking for more laws then we will all see 20+ deer each hunt and shoot a whole lot more trophys. I'm fine with lowering the doe numbers. We are overrun with does because we don't shoot enough. It's just a decision we made that we want to see more deer and realize the trade off. More fees makes me nervous because historically the government will waste the money and get used to receiving it and then not want to give it up. One thing you mentioned about a fund for timberland got me thinking. The forever wild program could use some of the oil/gas royalies to divvy up burning and trapping predators by county instead of buying more land. That could work but it is still going to have minimal impact across the whole state. I think people need to have realistic expectations for Alabama hunting,

Sorry, but that does not hold water.....they do NOT stay young......unless there is a Fountain of Youth somewhere on the property???

If she can out smart you imagine what she can do to predators when she has twins. Got to give her plenty to eat and shoot the predators! You got it right Hogwild!

Killing does without ANY FACTUAL data results in decimation of the deer herd. Parts of Marshall County are prime examples of this stupidity.

Some of you folks act like putting a harvest restriction, is like adding another branch of gov .

Land managment and gun rights are not even remotely close .. That's like comparing evolution to culling bucks .

Government wont help. Burning public land wont help anything other than the public land. Timber companies burn their land but that will leave a sterol forest with nothing but pine. The sterol argument is there from conservationist. In the end it is left to the individual hunter to decide what and how many to harvest. If the doe is taken for food then I have no problem with that. If said hunter's heard is to large in his opinion then let him make the decision to blast some does. I know a few people that need to do this but will not.

Believe me when I say this. I am not a proponent of the propaganda of if you kill more does you will kill bigger bucks, I have personally never seen it come to fruition. But there has to be a number of does that you can kill each year without actually reducing the size of the heard. There are going to be a certain number of does recruited into the herd each year. If that year less than number die for whatever reason the size of the herd will not be reduced. There won't be as many as there would have been if none died but there is a number that can die each year without a heard reduction. The problem is figuring out how many are being recruited each year, and figuring out from that number how many you can shoot without causing a reduction if you don't want one. If you want an increase maybe you shouldn't shoot any. You also here a lot of people say if you kill a doe you took out 3 deer for next year. That is bull crap I would be willing to bet there is no where in AL that the recruitment rate is 2 fawns for every adult doe. There in part lies the problem a lot of people think every doe is gonna raise 2 fawns next year so you have to kill a bunch to keep population down. When in actuality from the studies I have read if your recruitment rate is .75-1 per adult doe you are doing great. While average is probabbly in the .50-.75 range and some places with a large predator problem may be in the .25-.50 range or lower. I think there are a lot of people that understand recruitment rates. If you are on the low side of those recruitment rates you can not kill very many does or your population will go down and go down in a hurry. And may go down enough to where your recruitment rate falls to near 0 then you have the problem of your herd not being able to recover even if you shoot no does. Just my .02.

What I don't understand is where in the world do all of those 1.5 - 3-5 year old bucks go that we let walk every year. Maybe just become so nocturnal you never see them except during the rut is only conclusion I can come up with.

I've said before, there are no regulations in Alabama, other than the 3 buck rule. Nobody can complain about regulations, and government, because we basically don't have any rules. It's near impossible to manage land unless you own a big chunk and don't have to share the costs with 30 other people that just like killing stuff, and most southern hunters like to kill stuff.
Habitat is also out the window, for I would say 99.9 percent of Alabama hunters, because you can't just tell the paper company, '' hey, I want to control burn half of my 4000 acres and build some bigger food plots ''. They'll tell you to find somewhere else to hunt.
The only way to really increase deer number is to significantly reduce the doe harvest to what it used to be, and control predators. That's the only 2 options for most normal hunters. They could shorten the season, but even I wouldn't want that working a full time job with a family.

I can see where someone who is managing there own land correctly, would be opposed to regulations , but what are you suppose to do when you have a large land area with multiple small Tracts? how do you solve this problem?