How does the cost of GameCheck and the extra burden of logging and interpreting the data make more money for GW's??

Spit the Kool Aid out!

Blessed, let me assure you again, I'm not trying to argue. I'm still on the fence with this issue. I can only speak for myself but the reporting using a computer within 48 hrs. works for me IF we have to have this.

OK, after "X" number of years we get what is being killed, when it's being killed, and deer density. Where do we go from there? I expect the answer to be set limits and seasons accordingly. But do we drive for deer population to be the same in Baldwin Co. as Jackson Co. with the seasons and limits? All counties driven to be equal? Do we drive toward just below carrying capacity or well below? Do we drive toward more bucks or larger bucks? I know the county I'm in varies greatly from one size to the other in population and size. I don't know how else they can do it on the reporting but just saying a county and setting seasons and limits for the whole county off of that could do more harm than good in the lesser parts of the county.

You are wrong it has been answered many times in more than one thread......

Understand Centralala ...all I know is this is a start , the Biologist and State need our feedback and I am all for it the way I see it what does it hurt to have some data its more than we've had in the past .
The State went in and ask the Processors in this State to write down buck or doe and the date of the kills and they would pay them 1 dollar per deer for that data ....guess fow many Processors participated in that ? You guessed it Zero .

A freakin dollar? How about $5? It would probably be a lot cheaper too.

I don't know anyone here or where they hunt so I can only speak for what I see on one small part of one county. FOR ME, the two does a day was a big and devastating rule for where I hunt. Maybe not so for you. My opinion what bit them FOR MY AREA was they didn't count on the severe coyote problem. Hard to trust them after letting the 2 doe a day FOR MY AREA go on too long. But ultimately I want to know the goal and who set this goal and why it was set there. Number one always has to be the health of the herd and then hunter satisfaction. If economics is in there anywhere the decision is wrong. So, what's the goal: more deer, less deer, everyone equal. More bucks or bigger bucks? What's the goal and how will this get us there?

They could have payed them 20 and no offense to Processors but a lot of them work off cash and wouldn't report it anyway .

How much did they budget for that?

I know one processor in south Alabama that says he had the information saved and ready for the state to get, and nobody showed up.

Can't answer that question Mr. Sykes just brought it up in discussion.

the answers i've gotten is as useful as the game check ,,, none !!!!

Its not been voted on yet so until then carry on I guess , but like I said it beats what we have had in the past and at least Sykes and others are trying .

Who's voting on it and when?

I think the Legislature is what was told and it will be mid July

what the crap has that got to do with anything? Every other state has one so we need it to? I wonder how many times you heard that at the meeting tonight? BTW thats a piss poor reason and would be better not being said.

Most people I would think would want to move their State forward and try to do thinks in a professional matter and be able to provide facts about our wildlife instead of guessing what might be taking place , Much easier to do things when you have data to go by to make changes.

So dead deer data tells us what live deer we have left to kill? Interesting concept. So if I kill 10 deer next year, How many can I kill the following year?

Shocktop that can be your question when you attend a meeting .

I know I'm not gonna change anyone's mindset, don't intend to, but here it goes... I too was at the meeting, in uniform, but there none the less. The director eluded to Snappercheck, which is a mandatory harvest check system for red snapper through our department's Marine Resources Division. What they have found through mandatory reporting is that the mail survey was greatly over estimating the red snapper harvest. So the data gathered from Snappercheck could help change limits and improve the fishery, whereas with just the mail survey the estimate could still be getting high balled every year and no changes or incorrect changes might occur. That alone speaks volumes, the mail survey for hunters could be way off and that is something we need to know.

So what will mandatory Gamecheck give us? Many of you are looking at gamecheck as only giving the department data on the deer that are killed, but it will also give data on hunters, such as the hunter's age, gender, state residency, and whether or not the Hunter is license exempt. This data alone can help show who is hunting and who we need to be reaching in order to promote hunting. Just a side note... License exempt hunters are not included in the mail survey so there is no way for the department to gauge the number of license exempt hunters or what they might be killing, ect...
In addition to the data about hunters we also get data from the deer that are harvested. Would the biologists LOVE to have data like body condition, deer age, weight, lactation, ect? Absolutely YES. However at this time that is simply not conceivable and would be a reporting mess. What the department will have is a estimate of how many deer are killed by hunters in the state, the ratio of bucks to does being killed, where these deer are being killed(county), and the date the deer was killed on. This information can help with season dates, bag limits, ect.

And folks.....just because the department "doesn't know how many deer there are to begin with", does not mean that getting a harvest estimate will be useless. If an exact number had to be known for deer management purposes then I guess all the deer management we(you and I) have done to our properties was all in vain..

So there, some information for you to pick apart, construe, and mold into the idea that "big brother" is out to get the hunters...even though mandatory Gamecheck is nothing more than a way to promote, manage and conserve hunting in Alabama.

Thanks yotetrapper for explaining things better i am not good at that .