Thanks for your contribution to my thread, but my sheriff isn't waging a war on anything except crime. He is by far the most responsive LEO that I know. I would totally trust him to fairly enforce all the laws in my county. I'm sure he would never profile hunters and pull them over because they had an ATV.

Only one Guvner round here and that is Skinny.

I think we all seem to agree that something needs to be done differently and that the stakeholders (a great bureaucratic term) need to be more directly involved. While we don't agree on everything, having some common ground is a big step in the right direction.

So all we need is for Skinny to agree to run!

There is no one idea that is likely to actually happen, and that certainly includes mine. Just the agreement of a lot of people that change needs to happen could go a long way toward getting it started. I could support almost any system that gives people a genuine voice in how our fish and game will be managed. Being allocated 5 minutes at a cab meeting with the certainty that whatever you say will be ignored is not a voice.

Thanks to all who have commented; I gotta go to bed. Good hunting to all!

Amazing how difficult it is to understand that the DNCR should only provide a MINIMAL framework to insure the wildlife resources flourish and that people play nice with each other and let the landowners manage their lands as lenient or as strict as they want withing the MINIMAL framework set forth by the DNCR. What has and is occurring is the DNCR through the current regimes actions is stomping the hell out of the ability to control ones own property at the groveling and cheering on of those (mainly the "trophy" hunter brigade)that want the government to control everybody else!!!!!!! Government should ALWAYS be the last resort to create, eh, solve the problem that they created!!!!!!

We had that until about 10 or so years ago.

For a handful of years..... Before that it was a free for all on bucks with limitations on does. Now it's a free for all on does, with limitations on bucks. The current regs are likely the least limiting ever, except for those few years where it was a free for all on bucks and does.

SON OF A .....!!!

How about we require anyone that has to do with making game regs to be an actual biologist and come from different areas that they would represent at meetings. I feel like that would be a good start. Also, if you own, run, or represent a business that could profit from said regs, you're out.

The Management Advantage

The only problem with that argument is the fact that for MANY years now, the DCNR has been under-staffed on Field Personnel/GW's. I would counter that ANY presence, or even the threat of a presence, is a far better deterrent to illegal activities than what has existed the past few years in many areas. We keep making more and more Rules and Regulations. BUt, seem to be severely lacking in enforcing the ones hat are already in existence.

Just my $.02!

that aint going to happen....this is politics. don't drag common sense into it.

This isn't a movement. Just some dudes unhappy with a proposed gobbler limit change a few years ago that are severely butt hurt. They are no different than 49er. He wanted to be able to shoot spikes year around.

My beef is how he got gc, backroom deals and going against the advice of his biologists on the season extension. It's a crooked ,pack of lies.

I always thought the state manages fish and game because they are a resource of the states and belong to all the people that reside in that state and not just a select few that own their own land. The deer on our place that actually live there and feed there are free to roam where they choose. Therefore everyone that boarders our property can kill the chit out of them because they don't belong to us. That's the way I see it as far as wild game goes.

Then add in the zones, days for doe season in certain areas, forced game check, writing kills down on a piece of paper,requiring a pencil or pen to be on the person when they are hunting, ad nauseum, etc.

Clem was right it used to be that way, probably before a lot of today's "hunters" were old enough to "hunt" and there were apparently more deer. I wouldn't hesitate to say that the same people that are complaining today about there not being any deer are the same ones that were complaining that there were too many does 10 years ago.

Part of the lenient framework would be to set the bag limit for the game animals to flourish, if a landowner wanted to restrict that even further the they are more than able too. If the landowner needs to increase that limit they could request that from the DCNR. Pretty easy really.

Leroy, you're spot on, said it repeatedly and it just ticks people off. The State owns ALL the deer! While the State is "technically" managing deer, in reality they're managing deer hunters for the greater good of the deer (not the greater good of the hunter). And I don't even believe in today's time the purpose is to use hunters as a tool to control the population... I think they're having to be careful today about it going the other way. Most of us agree there was an overharvest for the past 20 years, coyotes have exploded, loss of habitat, more car collisions, et al. I just don't sense that the average hunter concerns themself with the larger picture. We are selfish creatures!

Just a random example... There are proven and repeated studies showing a correlation between the presence of mature bucks in a social structure and that herd's immune system. Y'all this is SO much bigger than just how many and what size deer you want to kill. Managing a DCNR is wildly complex, "hunting rules" are but a sliver of that pie. Some decisions (while they affect hunting) weren't purposed to be about "hunting", but instead are about herd health, or other ecological matters. This is why I'm telling y'all that Sykes is an elite level deer guy. Hell, I don't know about his political manners or personality, he may suck at that part of the job, but you're being foolish to pretend to know more than him about "your" deer.

It seems you're all caught up in some political gamesmanship, while those who know the most about DEER don't have a problem with the current DCNR.

Ok then ikillbux, what was the BIOLOGICAL reasoning behind extending the season for the northern half of the state? I mean, bucks were given a limit of 3 a year to keep too many from being killed then we were given more days to kill them. Either Sykes really isn't that smart or he is bought and paid for by special interests (which is most people's biggest complaint). Which is it?

He's bought and paid for. Somebody needs to file an ethics complaint against the fool. I wish I had time to investigate it. I truly believe something is there.

That special interest was HUNTERS!!!!!!!! The food plot whiners pissing and moaning about "we can't see deer without the rut, the rut, the rut, the rut, the rut (insert vomit here)" Wanh, South AL gets it, wanh!!! Unbelievable pressure from the public, literally everybody was wanting that crap. There was no biological reason for extending it in the south! Same reasoning, whining hunters. They "caved" to the pressure if you will, trying to please this impossible bunch of "kill em all" hunters we have.

Now, prove to me there's some sinister special interest lobby other than hunters, I'll admit I'm wrong. But in the end, that's NOT what 9/10 of these guys on here are complaining about...they are complaining because they think there's an agenda to make hunting in Alabama like hunting with the Lakoskis in Iowa.

Who "Benefits" by having an extended season?