Originally Posted By: Goatkiller
Not sure how you can say that it has thrived under the current rules and regulations....

You could say that it has thrived under the regulations we once had that only allowed "doe days" at which point in time more bucks than does were harvested. And I would agree.

Now the amount of bucks and does harvested are presumed to be fairly equal and the overall number of deer takes has declined since around 2005.

But then again, I am quoting statistics we don't really know for sure about do we? Because we don't report any harvest.

Point being if we are going to continue to have liberal doe harvest, extended seasons, etc. we need some data to work with instead of just taking a SWAG at everything.


All I was pointing out is that you guys are trying to make a case that going to a system of this nature has fixed everyone else’s problems and saying that it’s asinine to make any assertion that it has had anything but a positive effect on hunter satisfaction. I was only giving a few examples to the contrary.

I personally don’t see us as needing to make major changes from what we have now. Maybe just another minor tweak or two like broadening the doe day areas to include southwest AL as one example. The problem they will say is that they need site specific data to make those changes….even though we did it the first time without site specific data and again just a couple years ago. How did they cut out the current doe day area without Game Check?

The way we have been managing on a broad scale basis was really not the root cause of our current issues I don’t believe. Just implementing broad scale doe days seemed to work fine. I think we just got too aggressive with our changes when we decided to go from virtually protecting all does to a free for all within just a few years. Having this specific kill data that’s wanted now really wouldn’t have effected that decision I don’t believe. They would have likely still done the same thing. It was just too aggressive of a change. We’re now back peddling to the more moderate approach we probably should have taken to begin with. It’s all good though….everyone fuggs up. I just don’t see us needing to make drastic changes now because we should have just played things a little more conservative back then. We can manage just fine through the same broad scale rules we’ve had on the part of the DCNR... without all the site specific data. The DCNR just can’t manage the CAB without it.

Last edited by CNC; 06/20/16 09:54 AM.
We don't rent pigs