How can they say what the harvest number should be when they don't know what the population number is. Now they want to know exactly how many deer are killed when we have been told for years that a sample number was very close to the actual harvest number. I would think carrying capacity of the land would be more important from a management standpoint.

I think�.I say I think the Illinois folks� issue was that regulations for out of state hunters had been freed up too much and really impacted the hunting. Allowing everyone in the country to come get a piece of deer hunting heaven for a price.....or in other words, the state thought they had enough deer that they could sell off more of them to generate revenue.

That on top of killing too many does in general. They also beeched a lot about outfitting operations springing up everywhere and milking the cash cow. These are landowners in places like Pike Co too mind you. They said that hunting wasn�t what it used to be because of all of it despite the hype you had heard for years. They always talked about Iowa having a better set-up. Take it with a grain of salt because I�m only passing along what others were saying but it was coming from Illinois landowners.

So I'm not sure how any of that supports the argument that we don't need rules or game check. Someone complaining is a given, no matter what the rule set is. Is y'alls point... "well they are complaining" so in turn we don't need rules ourselves.... I'm not sure that is a real powerful argument.

So the answer to all that is what... 4 bucks and unlimited doe harvest? Reduce the amount of Game Wardens... No need for game check or reporting harvest? Doesn't sound like it.

How is it that for over 60 years the Alabama deer population has survived and even thrived without Game Check?

Because we had doe days. The population finally started to rise. Now it's going back down. Times change.

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.

Clem I have only hunted in Mobile, Washington and Baldwin counties and no I do not expect to see many 130s in those counties. My main concern is not the score of the bucks antlers but rather the lack of hunter enjoyment due to the lack of deer sightings. I have seen quite a few new and experienced hunters give up on deer hunting and it had absolutely nothing to do with too many regulations but rather the lack of deer without any reasonable expectation of killing a good buck ( around 100 inches is pretty good around here). So maybe people misunderstand me when I talk about other States.....has nothing to do with the size of bucks but rather the amount of deer and the reasonable opportunity to kill a buck.

It has not been thriving for a long time in my area.....

^^^^^^ This

This is where I am coming from too....

How is tracking harvest going to help if we don't know how many deer should be killed???

2 years ago I killed 3 deer (1 buck and 2 does). Last year I killed 2 deer (1 buck and 1 doe). Did I kill enough? Too many? Just right?

What are the conclusions that can be drawn? The deer population went down where I hunt so I killed fewer deer? I hunted less? I was more selective??? Any conclusion on this data would probably be wrong.

If they can't properly answer these questions for one person, how can they be answered for a whole state???

Does this mean that nothing should be done? I don't know??? Harvest data will show trends but I serious doubt limits will be adjusted due to just this data. It would certainly have to be combined with lots of other data.

The only way I can see for harvest data to be truly useful is if fairly accurate population estimates can be obtained in order to determine how many deer SHOULD be harvested and then have harvest quotas implemented on that data.

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.

I never ment to imply it fixed anything just saying it hasn't seemed to hurt anything either. I agree with most of what you are saying and maybe I am naive but I am hopeful that with this and other data they can make a case to limit the doe harvest in my areas......

Guys - you are arguing something that doesn't make sense.

They don't know anything based on how many deer are killed so why report it? Why would anyone ever report their kills. I mean screw a Federal Waterfowl survey and the whole 9 yards..... They don't need that? We don't need rules, data is useless, blah, blah.

What?

Here is the bottom line, you either want to play along or you don't.

Ya'll don't. Y'all are worried about not being able to shoot whatever you want when you want. We haven't even gotten there yet, but you see the door is opening. Bottom line is we've got to do a better job whether we keep things the way they are today or continue to let y'all go ape and shoot the woods to pieces.

Case Closed.

BigT, they could limit the doe harvest in your area or three counties or the South Zone or whatever without having a mandatory statewide check system.

Or, even better, the season could be tweaked and go to 'doe days' or no doe days and/or having some education about not shooting the chit out of does after years of being told to shoot the chit out of does. (And I was guilty of the latter; have seen my errant ways.)

But instead we'll have another mandated regulatory deal. Is it onerous? No. Is it time-consuming? No, IF the app and check-call deal works. But is it something that absolutely without question HAS to be done just so we'll be like other states? No.

Perhaps the data will be beneficial. We'll see in another 3-5 years.


Any of you guys hunt ducks? Ever talked with newbies interested in duck/goose hunting who wants to know what they need to hunt?

State license
Hunter Ed course
State duck stamp
Federal duck stamp
Federal HIP survey permit (which everyone lies on)
WMA license (if you hunt WMA land)
WMA daily map permit
Non-toxic shot and plugged gun
Mandatory sunrise-sunset times
Limit that may change every season
Specific limits on some duck species, which can change every season

You really have to want to hunt ducks or geese and be committed to it with all those regulations.

Ever looked at states where they have all kinds of regulations and draws and quota hunt points and such?

I've looked at applying for tags in Colorado, Montana and such for some game species. They have a truly confusing array of "units" and dates, not to mention having to find the public lands and/or private folks who might let you hunt or have landowner fee/hunt/tags or whatever they are. It's so confusing that I gave up. Screw it. If it's that difficult to figure out then it ain't worth it.

I have friends who have put in for tags in two different states for 20+ years for two different species of game. More than two decades. They're happy. They have ONE chance now, probably the only time in one if not both of their lives they'll be able to hunt those species of game in their states. But, hey ... tags and draws and management have given them that "once in a lifetime" -- literally -- chance to hunt.

Maybe deer hunting in Alabama will be worth it to some folks in another 10-25 years. Hopefully we'll still have enough squirrels and coons and rabbits without having tags and check-systems and such on those.

The reason we have the numbers of ducks today is because of all that.

I've got no problem with the way that has been conducted, stamps included and the whole nine. You won't find many old waterfowlers that do mind it. We remember when we use to have to hunt a point system. Unlike deer hunters we are use to having to live by rules and people want to report their numbers, check in ducks at check in stations, let the biologist check them for bird flu at the boat ramp, etc.

That's just a bad example. The problem is the deer hunters don't want to hear any of that. Rules have been too lax for too long. All they are doing is asking you to tell them how many you killed. Unless you are ashamed you shot so many why does it matter so much. Telling someone how many does you shot is a long way from putting in for out-of-state tags in Colorado. But if Colorado didn't do that... what do you think would happen? Would they just have Elk and Mulies everywhere if they lifted the limits? NO! They'd have less.

Y'all just don't want the possibility of a limit imposed on you. Well, welcome to reality..... A Free-For-All system has never worked in the history of game management.

I hunted a point system. I remember those days, with points and lead. We had ducks then without a mandatory HIP survey, mandatory Hunter Ed and the idiotic liberal mandated steel/non-tox shot requirement that killed more ducks and geese the first 5-10 seasons than any lead may have.

As for your "Y'all just don't want the possibility of a limit imposed on you" line, that's BS. The limit already is imposed. You don't understand or get it anyway. It's not about a limit or physical tag. It's about yet another government regulation being added, yet another "do this" thing.

If you're good with being told what to do by the government more and more and more, fine. Not everyone wants that, though. Enough folks can and did govern themselves adequately enough during the buck-a-day and doe days seasons that we had good hunting, healthy numbers and few major issues.

You're right I don't get it.

You must be mad as Hail you gotta drive the speed limit every morning....

I hate speed limits. Really do. I wish we had an Autobahn lane, and could put brush guards on vehicles to bump slow/bad drivers out of the way.

But like this Check system, if it's approved, I'll do it.

Nah�..you�re way off in left field with that one. I barely pulled the trigger last year or the year before and I�ve voluntarily reported all my kills since the start. While it may come across as sounding bad�.the truth of the matter is that I could do whatever I wanted to regardless of which way we go. I don�t though and it�s due to �education� much more than regulation. I just think the bigger picture of where we are headed with all of this is a bad idea and will not lead us to greener pastures. It will just lead us to a more complicated system.