A few weeks ago we had a long thread here about a column written by Director Sykes in which he referred to landowners hunting their own land, children, and hunters over 65 as welfare recipients because they weren't required to buy a hunting license. This is also the column in which he complained about his department spending so much time regulating field trials on private land, an activity in which no game is taken and no firearms are used. Despite the fact that it clearly isn't hunting, our director took upon himself the need to regulate this activity, and then complained vigorously about how much time that regulation takes. Only a genuine bureaucrat could use such circular reasoning.

There have been calls to replace the current dcnr with a new system that puts hunting and fishing back into the hand of the People. This week, Capital Ideas, the newsletter of the Alabama Forest Owners' Association, took note of Mr. Sykes' article and had this to say about it:

>>>“WELFARE CASES” That’s what Chuck Sykes, Director of the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, called you in an article in Great Days Outdoors, 12/16. Evidently, in Sykes opinion, hunting on your own land without a license, a legal activity in Alabama, deserves nothing but his contempt. Is Sykes unaware that nearly all of the hunting land in Alabama is privately owned? Does he not realize that insulting the folks who provide nearly all of the resources he and his agency depend on for a living is counter productive?

BACK IN 2011 WE WROTE: “We wonder what would happen if trespass laws were strengthened and vigorously enforced. Would it be possible to repeal the game laws and allow private owners and the hunters who lease their land to develop and enforce their own game management rules?

Might it be possible to have abundant wildlife without a Division of Wildlife?<<<

http://www.afoa.org/CI/2017/01.pdf

I've been a member of the AFOA for many years and have found it to be the organization in this state that is most interested in protecting the rights of forest landowners. If you own any timberland, I'd encourage you to join. It is really the only outdoors oriented organization in the state that is willing to challenge the state bureaucracy.

I would not quite agree with the stated idea in the article of repealing the game laws; I'd still much prefer to see them set by a board elected by license holders and then enforced by the sheriffs, but any call for change is something I will cherish. My opinion is that the current administration will never cease from its attacks on private landowners and will continue to add as many regulations as it can in order to increase its power.

The election of Trump has given us the chance to reverse the intrusion of the federal government. What we desperately need is a new governor in AL that will do the same at the state level.

Sounds like the DNCR should establish broad lenient regulations and allow landowners to establish tighter restrictions on their own properties as they see fit to meet their own land management goals. DNCR can do as they wish on the lands that they own or lease. However, instead of trying to force square pegs in round holes their time would be much better spent educating the public on what they see as the latest and greatest magic potion razzle dazzle management (money making) scheme to satisfy the never satisfied every deer should be a 6 year old world record monster ginormous buck crowd.
Seems like a logical direction and use of their time and effort instead of trying to bring down the force of the governmental boots on ever citizen (taxpayers) hunters neck.
Just my humble opinion.

I hunt my own land and have a lifetime hunting and fishing, guess that means my white privilege is showing.

I am all for smaller government in every reasonable way which extends to the state level and without a doubt to the DCNR. I follow the laws to the best of my understanding and ability and will in the future. However, the Sykes comments infuriate me in that they should have no power but those granted to them by the public but there is no accountability for the public DCNR servants in the current system. I realize to make those positions elected positions is not practical as every special interest group would be pushing for elected positions for their governing board to institute accountability. Therefore the only way to effect responsible change is by pressure brought to bear on the current elected positions within the state.

I assume there are 30,000 or so members here with a common interest which could be a significant political force if united and focused. Maybe AL Deer needs to form a PAC elect some representatives and start pushing for change at the DCNR among other things.

You go Chuck, keep piling straw on the camel's back.

I think this is the most intelligent and well informed thread I've seen concerning the DCNR regime in a long time.

As a Florida resident, I don't really have much of a say in the politics of Alabama game management, but I would certainly support a responsible PAC with my wallet that would bring about the destruction of the current Gestapo administration and replace it with people that understand that we whom ARE governed must GIVE THEM our consent to BE governed.

Somewhere, right now, 49er is smiling after reading this thread.

Well, he was right on a lot of things.

You're right.

Content was often fine, the delivery needed work as well as the ability to see who is on your side and not argue with those that agree with you. I told him many times that he needed to go to law school to learn how to apply the case law to the proper context of the situation. Research was never his weakness though.

A couple of thoughts on revamping the DCNR, first off, no member of CAB should be allowed if they have a financial interest that can be connected to DCNR Regs. Dan Moultrie, who may be a fine man, I don't know, I've never met him, should not have any say so what so ever to do with anything related to baiting, feeding etc.. In the world I live in, that is an ethics violation.

Secondly, since harming the population of a game animal takes a long time to recover from, there has to be some oversight of property owners and lessors. I'm all for them having a say in the matter, but not total control.

As a hunter and license holder, I would like to have more of a say in the matters of G&F regulations.

The war on drugs to the war on no safety vests. I see this ending well...

Carry on

This was a joke nothing more... Guess I'll refrain totally.

Agree on all of that.

Been trying to get some monentum going for an outdoorsman alliance for sometime. I'll sure back it getting it started. And, the Preacher is right on AFOA. All of the other "sportsman oriented" associations have turned into cooking contests and social gatherings.

It's sad that the reason anybody is wanting to abolish anything is an unwillingness to govern clearly and consistently. Just pure laziness.

I don't want to abolish the DCNR, but there sure is a need for a "watchdog" group to get them in touch with the license holders. The CAB should have been abolished years ago.

I just want Chuck gone. He's let this power go to the head. Like he's a dictator.

Y'all questioning Chuck Sykes again!!!

Dude's an ELITE level deer manager. I've concluded y'all aren't againt Chuck Sykes, you're against deer management.

This sums it up.

Tonight I will resubscribe to AFOA!

I think for the most part your assessment is correct. Most folks don't want or need the government telling them how to manage their land and it's resources. You keep on rocking the dream that Chuckie is going to make Bama the next Pike Co. IL though.

Chuck is a dick tater.