|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 registered members (Cactus_buck, fur_n_feathers, MTeague, handihunter, brassmagnet, dave260rem!, 25-20, BC_Reb, gradythemachine, Bulls eye),
568
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2009370
01/30/17 04:07 AM
01/30/17 04:07 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,660
Kennedy, al
globe
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,660
Kennedy, al
|
Lot of thinking and speculation going on about whether the #'s are right or wrong.
Fact is, nobody is going to know the true #'s, and that makes this data inconclusive and useless. How could you possibly make a change based on this? Even if you have 10 years of this kind of data, it's still not accurate.The buck to doe ratio looks awesome to me, but I have to agree people are prob more likely to report a buck. I don't believe people are "hammering" does though. Most of my friends let does go waiting on a buck. Most people on here are the same way. Why do y'all think we're an anomaly, and the rest of the states population is any different than us?
Everything woke turns to shit
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: crenshawco]
#2009527
01/30/17 06:23 AM
01/30/17 06:23 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
truedouble
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
|
A lot of the counties that are not in the top 10 are what many considered "premier" counties, and have a lot of private or well managed property where people are not pulling the trigger on every deer they see. Its clear to see that Jackson county is at the top because it is a highly populated county. Counties with higher people populations are more likely to report more harvest, even if the deer population isn't as high as in other counties. More People = More Hunters = More Harvest Not sure where you think Jackson County is, but it ain't very populated what I was thinking and there is a lot of land in Jackson Co. that most people would never hunt even if paid to do so... Would never consider Jackson Co. to be anywhere even close to the top 10 most popular counties to hunt which I assume would equate to number of hunters http://www.us-places.com/Alabama/population-by-County.htm
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2009534
01/30/17 06:32 AM
01/30/17 06:32 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,616
Alabama
dirkdaddy
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,616
Alabama
|
Sykes wants the BS numbers so they can point to them and implement some BS regulation in light of them.
The DCNR and it's intentions became clear when they abandoned random sampling in favor of trying to shoe-horn 100% compliance surveys. There is a reason random sampling is used to collect data by anyone in data collection. These results are so skewed they need to be thrown out immediately.
Only thing these mandatory game check regulations serve is to give the DCNR a straw-man argument to point at when they want to make changes in favor of those that line their pockets.
Last edited by dirkdaddy; 01/30/17 06:33 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: teamduckdown]
#2009535
01/30/17 06:33 AM
01/30/17 06:33 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
truedouble
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
|
A lot of the counties that are not in the top 10 are what many considered "premier" counties, and have a lot of private or well managed property where people are not pulling the trigger on every deer they see. Its clear to see that Jackson county is at the top because it is a highly populated county. Counties with higher people populations are more likely to report more harvest, even if the deer population isn't as high as in other counties. More People = More Hunters = More Harvest Not sure where you think Jackson County is, but it ain't very populated http://www.us-places.com/Alabama/population-by-County.htm If you took an average of "black belt" counties, most of them are going to have a lower population than most of the counties in the top 10, and what population there is, is extremely poor. Not a lot of money in those counties floating around to be spent on hunting leases. On average it takes 3-5 Black Belt counties to equal the population of Jackson County. And the people killing the deer in most of these counties are people who are traveling in from extreme south AL and even FL. (Mobile, Baldwin, Escambia (FL), Santa Rosa) Jackson County is an easy explanation, because it does have 50K plus people but it is also, extremely large. Lot of hunting takes place there. And it borders Madison County (Huntsville) where there is plenty of $$, and a pile of people, but not much land to hunt, so where do you think most of those Madison county residents head to hunt? Not sure I understand what you are saying in regards to population... the number of residents in a county is not relevant, but the number of people that hunt in that county is... so even though the BB counties are very poor and rural that has nothing to do with how many people hunt there. BB is by far the most famous/ well know area to hunt in Alabama and people will drive from Tennessee and north/ central Florida to hunt there. Jackson Co. is primarily hunted by people that live with in an hour of the property (not a fact, but something I'm pretty sure is true as I've owned land and hunted there for 40 years). SO all that to say, I don't see how an argument could be made that more people hunt in Jackson Co. than Marengo, Wilcox, Lee, Montgomery, Sumpter, Bullock, Macon counties, etc.
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: Hogwild]
#2009562
01/30/17 06:54 AM
01/30/17 06:54 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,184
Over yonder
extreme heights hunter
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,184
Over yonder
|
MANY people still do not realize that they are supposed to check their does in.
As a matter of fact, NONE of the people that I have specifically asked knew it. easy now. I was told I was wrong when I said the same thing.
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2009572
01/30/17 07:03 AM
01/30/17 07:03 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,231
Central Alabama
Yelp softly
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,231
Central Alabama
|
Another theory: Weather plays a factor. I dropped off a doe at our local processor in Russell County yesterday. I asked him how his numbers were this year. He said they were down a bit from years past but not a tremendous amount. He was hopeful that the extended season would help him catch up. I speculated that the recent warm weather wasn't helping much. He said the biggest hit came right at New Years. If you recall, most of the state was deluged with rain from Jan 1- Jan 3. He said holidays are normally a good time for him. He said it's not uncommon to get 70-80 deer that week. This year he got about 10.
My point is, if the weather had been better around the holidays, some of those black belt counties you mentioned might have caught up. The bad weather has kept lots of guys at home.
"When there was no fowl, we ate crawdad, when there was no crawdad, we ate sand."
"YOU ATE SAND!" - Raising Arizona
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2009649
01/30/17 07:55 AM
01/30/17 07:55 AM
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 8,031
Central Alabama
muzziehead
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 8,031
Central Alabama
|
Those numbers are a complete joke. I can take you to one processor here in Montgomery that has already processed 75% of the total amount of deer supposedly killed here in Montgomery County. The only thing that I would conclude from those reported kills is:
1. The number are much higher in every county than what is reported
2. Hunters in Montgomery County have not figured out how to report their kills.
"Don't cling to Mistake, just because you spent a lot of time making it."
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2009664
01/30/17 08:17 AM
01/30/17 08:17 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
JSOG47
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
|
I think what people are trying to say with the points about the ratio of persons not reporting not being material to the discussion is twofold:
1: The percentage *should be* roughly the same in every county. if it is not, they will eventually be able to tell and focus enforcement in that county.
2: Scientists and statisticians are fully aware of the issue of non-reporting. This is hardly the first time statistical data has been gathered in such a manner and definitely not the first time there is doubt about gaining 100% compliance. Tossing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, is absurd. If we waited until we gained 100% accurate reporting in all studies science, including medical advancement would stagnate and grind to a halt. Science has established acceptable margins for error and methods to correct for false and non-reporting.
Last edited by JSOG47; 01/30/17 08:18 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: mike35549]
#2010030
01/30/17 12:26 PM
01/30/17 12:26 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,356
Prattville AL
ElkHunter
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,356
Prattville AL
|
Assuming deer are being killed at the same rate as last year, we have a 29% reporting compliance rate.
Now, is that the fault of the ones that created Game Check or is it the fault of the hunters not reporting their kills.
I vote the latter. Sort of sounds funny when a guy says, "Game Check sucks because hunters are not reporting their kills." Sort of like saying, "A teacher sucks because her students are not doing their homework and studying for tests."
Game Check is a valid system. It does require compliance. Is that a lot like many other things in our society? Game laws, traffic laws, etc......
Alabama Hog Control, Inc. www.alabamahogcontrol.comBarry Estes The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: Hogwild]
#2010211
01/30/17 02:50 PM
01/30/17 02:50 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
truedouble
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
|
I only have 2 problems with the entire program:
1) It is another form of Governmental overreach that should be unnecessary. The deer numbers are lower now than they have been in a while in many places. overalk Hunter Satisfaction is no higher than it ever has been with fewer hunters than years past. And, I have not seen a marked increase in the number of B&C entries for AL.
2) The information that they are requiring to report is nearly useless for Biological Data. There are no weights or measurements required, and bucks with no antlers are counted as does. That is an enforcement tool......not science! can you clarify what you are saying about hunter satisfaction? I think you are saying it's no higher than it was in the past... you may be correct, but I'd be surprised. The qualify of bucks being killed in Alabama has significantly increased over the past 10 years/ since the 3 buck limit (when ever that started). Hunter numbers are down, I'm guessing, b/c most millennials couldn't live a week without grocery stores. We live in a new day and time and I don't personally see a correlation between hunter satisfaction and hunter numbers.
|
|
|
Re: Game Check Numbers top 10 as of today.
[Re: truedouble]
#2010354
01/30/17 04:17 PM
01/30/17 04:17 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
bigt
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
|
I only have 2 problems with the entire program:
1) It is another form of Governmental overreach that should be unnecessary. The deer numbers are lower now than they have been in a while in many places. overalk Hunter Satisfaction is no higher than it ever has been with fewer hunters than years past. And, I have not seen a marked increase in the number of B&C entries for AL.
2) The information that they are requiring to report is nearly useless for Biological Data. There are no weights or measurements required, and bucks with no antlers are counted as does. That is an enforcement tool......not science! can you clarify what you are saying about hunter satisfaction? I think you are saying it's no higher than it was in the past... you may be correct, but I'd be surprised. The qualify of bucks being killed in Alabama has significantly increased over the past 10 years/ since the 3 buck limit (when ever that started). Hunter numbers are down, I'm guessing, b/c most millennials couldn't live a week without grocery stores. We live in a new day and time and I don't personally see a correlation between hunter satisfaction and hunter numbers. Hunter satisfaction is lower than I have ever seen it around here. I know more people that have either quit hunting or hunt very little due to the poor hunting. The idea that the quality of bucks have gotten better is just a false hood propagated by social media. There were tons of big bucks killed that nobody ever heard about. Hunter numbers are down around here do to lack of hunter success and kids choosing other interests due to hardly ever seeing a deer much less killing one.
|
|
|
|
