If in South Carolina you are hearing any of the "But you don't NEED more than ..." bullcrap, put a stop to that immediately. Not a damned soul there should be able to tell anyone what they "need" on their property or in their freezer.

Y'all better push hard for science and biology that is proven and has some kind of reason. Because "you don't need ..." and "aw, everyone knows letting bucks get old and mature is good for everything" are not proven in science and biology.

It would be nice if someone would just say "Hey, most of the hunters want bigger bucks with bigger antlers and having a tagging system and/or point minimum is the way to get there" instead of dancing around with "biology" and "good of the herd" and all that. Same kind of stuff as Corn vs. Food Plots: Just say that both are to help kill deer and be done with it, because they are.

How was the three buck limit decided on?

Were there biological facts about the herd or was it a just willy-nilly number?
If so, why is that number uniform across the state when the land is diverse and herds unique in different areas?

Also, if it was deemed necessary to have a limit - why just on bucks & why no doe limit?

Your thoughtful responses are appreciated.
I am a member of another forum & we are discussing the possible implementation of some kind of tagging system in SC where there currently is none. We have many legislators who tune in there and some that post.
I'm not familiar with the process that AL undertook to come to its decision. Hopefully I can relay that information to them if it had merit & create a positive impact. Thanks.

Thats right. Deer hunting controls people. They want big bucks and they are willing to tell you what you can and can't do in your property in order to get it. Honestly I don't think the buck limit has done much of anything other than take away freedoms and liberties.

Just a side note, some of you are no different than the political appointees who ignore scientific evidence and suggestions from those the people of the state have hired to manage our resources. Someone has to make decisions that will promote the perpetuation of the resource. It has already been proven that standing back and watching unregulated harvests is very very bad. Some of you scream about it being an over reach of government power and stripping of your liberties, yet the whole while complaining about how we've allowed the killing of too many does and must stop it now. I've literally seen both statements in the same post by the same people. You can not have it both ways. Either you entrust the state to make the best decisions from the information we have, or you don't. Hate the government on one hand, and cry for their help on the other.

I can PROMISE you there are knowledgeable, hard working, passionate biologist that work for us that care about the resource, and it being here for a long time, and helping people manage their properties to meet their objectives. If we didn't have the desire to conserve the resource and make it better we would all be doing something else to make a better living. We do what we do because we LOVE it.

Thanks for your post, Matt!

Just a side note, some of you are no different than the political appointees who ignore scientific evidence and suggestions from those the people of the state have hired to manage our resources. Someone has to make decisions that will promote the perpetuation of the resource. It has already been proven that standing back and watching unregulated harvests is very very bad. Some of you scream about it being an over reach of government power and stripping of your liberties, yet the whole while complaining about how we've allowed the killing of too many does and must stop it now. I've literally seen both statements in the same post by the same people. You can not have it both ways. Either you entrust the state to make the best decisions from the information we have, or you don't. Hate the government on one hand, and cry for their help on the other.

I can PROMISE you there are knowledgeable, hard working, passionate biologist that work for us that care about the resource, and it being here for a long time, and helping people manage their properties to meet their objectives. If we didn't have the desire to conserve the resource and make it better we would all be doing something else to make a better living. We do what we do because we LOVE it.

Question for Matt and Nighthunter. Nighthunter, you KNOW where I am going to go already!! IF at all possible (which its not) all fawns could be born the same day, I would assume more would survive predators. How old does a fawn need to be for its BEST chance of survival from predators?

And I really like the 3 buck limit. But hunter education is equally important.

Matt and Nighthunter, do we have more deer now in Alabama than we did 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Anecdotally, I know how I would answer that, but what say ye biologists?

my memory is a little rusty but if i remember the CAB minutes correctly, steve guy who is affiliated with ALFA made a recommendation to form a committee to look into the need of moving from 1 buck a day to some form of a season limit. The committe met and made a recommendation to the CAB. The recommendation was for a 3 buck limit. When steve guy was asked why the 3 buck limit, he said because the ultimate goal of a 2 buck limit with antler restrictions would be too intrusive for Al hunters as a first step. So the CAB took the recommendation and i believe all but one member voted yes. Thus changing the limit beginning in the 07/08 season.

Let me add that the CAB approved this against the wishes of the wildlife section of the ALDCNR, who felt that based on the data available, that Al hunters were beginning to manage the herd without government intrusion.

There's decades of scientific proof that deer herds with a more balanced sex ratio and higher percentage of older age class bucks leads to a tighter breeding window and overall better general health of deer.

The goal was to increase the number of bucks in the overall population, NOT produce trophy antlered deer. Deer are not cattle. They have a much tighter breeding season, and when a buck gets with a doe it takes 12-36 hours of his resources and energy tending her until she's ready to breed. The majority of does come into their cycle in a relatively narrow time frame. If there's 1 buck to every 3 does simple first grade math will tell you that is not a good scenario. Those does that do not get bred will cycle again about 28-30 days later until they are all bred. That leads to bucks exhausting their energy needlessly over a long breeding season. Without wading too deep into this, it was for the benefit of the herd to increase the number of bucks in the population. Higher breeding success, healthier deer, fawns drop in a narrow window in mid to late summer instead of from July-October.

Harvest data collected for the last few decades has shown the trend for AL hunters was to shoot more bucks than does every year. Bucks already have a naturally higher mortality due to their nature than that of does. So AL had a very screwed up sex ratio. Since the implementation of the 3 buck limit we have seen the harvest data begin to level out, with a smaller percentage of bucks being killed to does. That was the purpose, and it is working.

A direct result of limiting the number of bucks that can be killed is an older age structure, which leads to more bucks with large antlers. That wasn't the reason for the limit, but is anyone complaining about having more 3+ year old deer running around?

I don't recall anyone saying "because the ultimate goal of a 2 buck limit with antler restrictions would be too intrusive for Al hunters as a first step".

If in South Carolina you are hearing any of the "But you don't NEED more than ..." bullcrap, put a stop to that immediately. Not a damned soul there should be able to tell anyone what they "need" on their property or in their freezer.

Y'all better push hard for science and biology that is proven and has some kind of reason. Because "you don't need ..." and "aw, everyone knows letting bucks get old and mature is good for everything" are not proven in science and biology.

It would be nice if someone would just say "Hey, most of the hunters want bigger bucks with bigger antlers and having a tagging system and/or point minimum is the way to get there" instead of dancing around with "biology" and "good of the herd" and all that. Same kind of stuff as Corn vs. Food Plots: Just say that both are to help kill deer and be done with it, because they are.

The committee met for several YEARS and had a wide variety of members over that time. Both private sector, academia, and State biologists and managers were part of it. They actually recommended a straight 3 buck limit to the CAB with NO antler restrictions with an alternative 2 limit. The CAB decided to do a 3 buck with an antler restriction. I don't recall anyone saying "because the ultimate goal of a 2 buck limit with antler restrictions would be too intrusive for Al hunters as a first step". The CAB did NOT approve this against the wishes of the ALDCNR. Corky and Gary opposed it, maybe a few others. The FAR majority of biologists agreed with it.



While I generally agree with you on this Matt, a lot of this is theoretical. I have yet to see the fawn drop in central AL move to June or get super tight even on low density populations. I have seen it tighten when fixing badly managed properties with drop extending from July to November but never tightened to less than 2-3 months.

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. I don't have the numbers in front of me and certainly could be wrong, but I think it has been pretty level since.

I would like to see some form of proof that the statement "an older age structure, which leads to more bucks with large antlers" is true in Alabama! Or that there are more 3 year olds roaming the woods.

I would like to see some form of proof that the statement "an older age structure, which leads to more bucks with large antlers" is true in Alabama! Or that there are more 3 year olds roaming the woods.