Told you!

Easy on the AU remarks... but bingo

it was and can be found in the minutes

Gobbler, that's a broad statement. You said: The buck/doe ratio in the harvest actually leveled out the year before the limit was implemented, if I remember correctly. Hunters were voluntarily shooting less bucks and more does.

Yes, I agree that the practice of shooting as many bucks as possible was on the decline but IMO, way too many immature bucks were being killed up until the point when the limit was passed. "You" may not have seen the bragging of "I killed X bucks last year!!", but you probably run in different circles of the hunting world, as your circles probably manage better than most. That's a compliment to you, btw.

From a biological viewpoint, I was always under the impression that the state wanted a more balanced sex ratio and to understand why, one would need to understand what an out-of-balance sex ratio does to a deer herd. I never thought then nor now that, "It's about antlers!"

I thought the state was attempting to reduce:
Late born fawns. (Not good for many reasons not all hunters understand.) Which has negative residual long-term effects
Bucks (what were left) were running themselves sick (literally) as the rut was drawn out over a long period of time.

To name two reasons.

I support the 3 buck limit and it's not about antlers.

i respectfully disagree. The harvest numbers began to change when the doe harvest was changed, and if you look at the surveys they indicate that more does were being killed than bucks well before the limit for bucks was changed. If i remember an AWF survey indicated that just before the limit Al hunters were killing 3 does to every buck.

Also worth noting, one of the members of the limit committee shared on here that they estimated going with a 3 buck limit would only affect 4% of hunters, so 96% were already killing 3 bucks or less a year. You reckon the new limit changed the minds of the 4%?

I'll look at the data Eskimo. I haven't seen it before my eyes in a while. I could be mistaken, but I thought I remember the buck harvest being more than the antlerless harvest until about the mid 2000s. I do fully agree with Gobbler that a lot of AL hunters had already started limiting buck harvest and correcting some of these problems without government intervention, in some areas. In others, there was, and still is a strong mentality of killing every buck seen while protecting does. A lot if it is an education issue. You can't educate folks unwilling to learn though.

personally i dont doubt any of the biologists motives, i do however, doubt some of the cab members and other influential peoples motives. Speaking of evidence and buck to doe ratios, what are they in alabama, before and after the limit? The only answer ive ever heard is i dont know. Im not even sure that i have heard 2 people employed by the state agree on how many deer that live in Al.

Just a side not on harvest and balance....Law says a hunter can only harvest 3 bucks....om most clubs that is the limit per membership...there is also a limit on does of 1-2 per member. And of course in that membership there are BUCKS ONLY guys...and some of them allow others to shoot their does and some don't.
When the harvest data adds up at the end of the season, it's easy to see why we can't seem to get the herd balanced using that scenario...then add in additional natural buck mortality and where are you?
Carry on...and somebody needs to make some popcorn!!

Yeah I'm just so eager to awake in the morning and see how long it takes to read all the midnight replies.

The question is; will you be able to sleep from all the anticipation?

Yeah. I will sleep just fine.

I just wonder if there is a better age class structure or sex ratio in AL now or is it just speculation? Wish we had the data to know



Same thing. We implemented the limit assuming it would lead to better sex and age structure... no one knows if it did or didn't. I don't know that we have more older deer in Alabama... do you? We both have abundant common sense but I still don't know about that



True, I have occasionally seen some compression of fawn drop when converting from poor to well managed herds. Not as much as one would hope or think though! Shifting the breeding season - That's what they taught us at AU - Gospel by God



Yes, that is correct but you left out an important factor. Those 4% of the hunters were killing 33% of the TOTAL bucks harvested in the State!

We have a 3 buck limit. When did that happen?

my point being, did the new limit change that number? Personally i only know of 2 guys that would have fell in that 4% on some years, before the new limit, that changed the # of bucks they kill each year in Al. The rest still kill as many as they want.


And a tagging system is not the answer. If they are not gonna obey the law then another law certainly isnt going to make them.

Im impressed with your ability to paste several topics in 1 post. You should give some classes on that, i still havent figured it out.

Regarding knowing what biologists know...I guess I subscribe to this: If you know this... and you know that... then acting on "known" facts by implementing a plan is better than doing nothing.

If does aren't bred on their first cycle and they go out of estrus and come back into estrus 28-30 days later, you have to look at why they weren't bred on their first cycle. Availability of bucks? Hmmm... seems like a plausible answer. How many times do does 'conception dates get pushed back by 30 days because there aren't enough bucks to inseminate them?

Wouldn't basic reasoning suggests that if better sex ratios were in place, many does would be bred on their first cycle thus tightening conception dates and cause the fawn drop to occur earlier and compressed? I won't get into why this is a good thing but wouldn't that make sense?

What "makes sense", what is "plausible", what is "suggested", and what is "basic reasoning" is VERY different than what we "know". Do we know that does are not being bred on their first cycle? If so so we know why? Do we know that sex ratios are skewed?

I miss 49r'

I can't speak to an AWF survey because I haven't seen it. I did look at the DCNR survey results yesterday out of curiosity. The data can be found on page 7 of the link below.

Allow me to summarize. The doe harvest first began to exceed the buck harvest with the 2000-2001 hunting season. But 3 seasons since then still estimated a higher buck harvest based on the survey. Most years the harvest was a near 50/50 split. Tallying up the total bucks and does killed since the 2000 hunting season, the harvest of does has exceeded that of bucks by 4.27%. If anyone doubts my math, I'll be happy to copy and paste my spreadsheet that I saved. I'm weird in that I love analyzing data like that.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/20132014HunterHarvestSurvey.pdf

I can add that through DMP data I can track the number of does and 3.5+ bucks being harvested, which should translate into the number of 3.5+ bucks in the breeding population. In the last few years it has increased by a fair percentage across the state. Each club is different as should be expected due to differences in management. Can this be translated to all lands in the state, no. But it does give us a snapshot to look at. DMP clubs get to make their own decisions on how they want to manage, it is not a trophy or QDM program, it is a herd/habitat health and educational program.

I said that to say this. Is the buck limit the best way, possibly, but maybe not. It is what we have and it does seem to be working in areas that we have data on (of course, we work pretty closely with those folks too). IMO this is where Game Check would have been a viable tool for us but we all know how that ended.

But sorry folks...I can't post this data since it belongs to private clubs.

it ended up right where i like it ,,,, voluntary !!!!!!

Most people do but it is why we can't answer specific questions sometimes. So the public is losing out IMO.

Gripe about our data collection methods, gripe about our research, gripe about our management, gripe about can't get help, gripe about not enough enforcement, and then gripe if licence cost goes up $.25 or when we can't answer a question to your liking. We are in a no win situation no matter which way we go. That's why we do our best to keep in mind what is best for the wildlife/habitat first, hunters come second IMO.