MS extended the season in only a few counties in the southeastern part of the state, which were biologically proven to have a later rut, extending into February. The season was extended to allow hunters the opportunity afforded by the rest of the state, to hunt the rut of course.

I can potentially see a couple of negatives. Neither of which I have ground to stand on right now. With last year's new regulations allowing primitive weapons on Novemebr 9 until the opening of regular gun season, and the extension into February I can argue the length of time guns are allowed could potentially over-exploit the buck segment of the population. And, south MS has a lower deer density and poorer habitat quality than the rest of the state. Combine those two together and I could see problems at some point.

The hunters sure haven't complained about it.

But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. I feel that we should be doing two things: (1) Making decisions based on data, and (2) Considering the biological, social, economic, etc. implications for whatever change is proposed. In my opinion, number 2 doesn't seem to be getting much attention.

Steve, a few days back I started a thread that simply asked for a biological reason as to why the season should be extended. After several pages of responses, would you care to guess at how many answers I got to my question? ZERO!!! It's kind of like talking to children while they are drooling at the window of the candy store. You can tell them the candy could rot their teeth out down the road but all they care about is the satisfaction of the here and now. They want what tastes good to them now, not what's healthy.

To close the season of any species of game in any county or area when, upon a survey by the department, it is found necessary to the conservation and perpetuation of such species and to reopen such closed season when it is deemed advisable.

Dr. D.,



First: seasons are currently being set for all kinds of reasons other than those defined by law. For instance, what are the biological effects of killing a deer with a gun as opposed to killing a deer with a bow? If there is no biological difference, is there a valid reason to set seasons according to the method used?

Second: biology is a combination of zoology and botany. If the state has a duty to regulate consumption of our zoological resources using scientific data to determine what is best for the animals, does it have a duty as well to use biological data to determine what is best for our native plant resources? Should the harvest of our natural timber resources on privately owned property be regulated according to data that shows what's best for each particular species, or should the "if it's hardwood it's down" crowd be allowed to consume the resource as it desires?

The effects of political science are an integral part of the decision making process in regualting the consumption of our natural resources. It is not purely natural science. Property rights, fundamental rights, and now, I suppose, animal rights are all involved. Should we also include botanical rights since it's biology and not zoology we're discussing? Hmmm!!!

I would like to know your biological reason against it, or for QDM, or for being able to kill 100 plus deer in Alabama.

Let the science speak first. You act as if you KNOW it would be detrimental to the herd.

To those who advocate setting seasons stricly for the biological benefit of wildlife:

What fundamental rights do animals have, if any, that the state has a duty to protect?

Are you, perhaps, a conservative animal rights advocate?

To those who advocate setting seasons stricly for the biological benefit of wildlife:

What fundamental rights do animals have, if any, that the state has a duty to protect?

Are you, perhaps, a conservative animal rights advocate?

I would like to know your biological reason against it, or for QDM, or for being able to kill 100 plus deer in Alabama.

Let the science speak first. You act as if you KNOW it would be detrimental to the herd.

MS extended the season in only a few counties in the southeastern part of the state, which were biologically proven to have a later rut, extending into February. The season was extended to allow hunters the opportunity afforded by the rest of the state, to hunt the rut of course.

I can potentially see a couple of negatives. Neither of which I have ground to stand on right now. With last year's new regulations allowing primitive weapons on Novemebr 9 until the opening of regular gun season, and the extension into February I can argue the length of time guns are allowed could potentially over-exploit the buck segment of the population. And, south MS has a lower deer density and poorer habitat quality than the rest of the state. Combine those two together and I could see problems at some point.

The hunters sure haven't complained about it.

The Right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and self-sustaining species population.

The Right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.

Bill of Rights for Animals
1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.

2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.

9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.

10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide

OK then. It's a fact that the deer herd in Alabama has a skewed ratio of bucks to does. So ask yourself, what's the reasoning behind the season extension? To hunt the rut of course? Why do people want to hunt the rut? To kill that buck chasing that doe. Now, there have been a few on here tell me it's not about killing that buck but the "experience". HOGWASH!!!!! If you believe that then you will believe Nancy Pelosi is a right wing, consevative, gun advocate and Skinny is the Tooth Fairy. Now, is killing more bucks beneficial to a herd that already has skewed sex ratios or is it detrimental?
Also, is that hunter that's waiting on that next Booner going to be more inclined to shoot that doe that needs to be taken out and possibly mess up his chance at old mossy horns he thinks is just out of site or is he going to let her walk? You know the answer. More bucks killed + less does killed = bad for the herd.

Ever hear of the three buck rule?? If I am not mistaken, doe harvest actually DECREASED the first year of it's existence. I really don't see how two extra weeks (and possibly closing two to balance) can be deemed unhealthy to the herd based on sex ratios.

Your biological reasons against it did nothing to convince me. I just counter with "it gives me two more weeks to shoot does and balance my herd".