I need 25 if the right 25 walk out.

Cnbc starting more ?

Sure you do.

I notice when a subject like this comes up, there's always the usual "don't tell me what to do" replies. And it's not that I disagree (Lord help, I'm as Libertarian as they come), but that answer is impotent. You cannot have selective rules or total anarchy when dealing with a shared resource. It's literally like the old parable of the village with limited grains for food, you simply cannot make it a free for all, because people cannot be trusted. I agree if you have personally owned land, then nobody should tell you what to do. But because there are very few folks who own enough land to be fully autonomous, then this argument of "don't tell me what to do" simply doesn't hold water....if "your" deer can cross onto "my" land (or worse, vice versa), then how dare you tell me what to do with my deer? See what I mean by impotent?...it works both ways! What you thought worked for you, also worked against you. It's a straw argument, yes it's your land, but they aren't your deer. I mean dang, I've been in clubs with 10,000 acres and one of our up and comer bucks that we were "managing" gets killed across the line on the neighbors land. We don't have common ideals, therefore your anarchist game laws infringe upon my conservative ideals. It's just a muddy mess. You cannot control every single dynamic, therefore it cannot simply be "live and let live" when it comes to a mutually shared resource. The rules have to err on the conservative side, since the true numbers of deer and hunters cannot be known, you cannot risk overharvest by simply turning everyone loose to their own whims.

This whole thing would have better optics if the current laws allowed for a large number of harvest. At least then it would "look" like you're not just arguing to kill everything brown that moves every time you hunt every day of the season. I simply don't trust people, I don't know enough people who would conserve the resource, in order to just turn the resource over to whatever you want. Most people I know would lose their damn minds and stack 'em up like cordwood, I mean geez they do it now even against the rules.

Great post. People that don't have a problem.... they think nobody else has a problem. It's a selfish attitude that's all about "me" and so typical of the times we live in.

I wish upon every single naysayer my neighbors. If any land comes up for lease next to anyone who thinks "don't tell me what to do"..... put your money where you mouth is and let us know. I need to come take a look at it my neighbors need a new "club" to join. I will do my best to make sure they hunt next to you since it's not a big deal in your opinion.

Good post!!

Not a good post - because we already have a buck limit of 3 bucks.
In the past it was a buck a day for 100 days.
AND the deer kills in Alabama now are HALF what they used to be in the past.

Now, if someone in some part of the state thinks they need doe limits in their county - then that should be the discussion, not screwing with everyone else's deer hunting.

Amen to fishing buddy !!
As far as the rifle season if you hunt public land it’s not that simple , there are very specific dates that are spread out over 3 months , bow hunters have a good bit more time but if you check the dates say on Black Warrior rifle season or Skyline those days are really limited. , guess I should invest in a bow 👍.

I thought it was about length of season and weapons there is a 3 buck limit. But I may be impotent LOL

And yes I know the different meanings for impotent just thought I would lighten up a little

In the past we had fewer hunters and more land. I'll stop short of saying we don't have as many deer today, instead I'll just say I have a lesser experience and see fewer deer today than I did "in the past". Point is you COULD have just had anarchy back then, and we DID for the most part....you could kill a buck a day for 3.5 months, and by and large the population grew. That's not feasible today, in fact it's wreckless and devastating. And this brings up another argument...I wish folks would quit this false talk of "we gotta get more people into hunting, or we're gonna lose the sport!" We're so oversaturated with hunters now that only a select few can have a quality experience. I wish it was the 80's all over again.

Actually, there are way fewer hunters today - in our state as well as every other state.
License sales have reflected a steady downward trend of hunters for over 20 years.
And at the same time there are a lot less deer killed also. From a high of 450,000+ a year to now where it is somewhere between 220,000 and 240,000.

*** if people want a better hunting experience (read mature trophy buck potential)( that is really what all these threads are about) THEN people need to pursue trophy clubs with trophy management. Let that be the trend - not this annual end of the season progressive Democrat ranting about wanting to restrict other people's times and methods of deer hunting.

I'd like to see us start looking at some of our land uses and trying to merge things more like cattle and wildlife to produce more quality habitat.....We've lost a lot of wildlife habitat due to other uses

YOU ARE ALREADY FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY/HUNTING LEASE.
OTHER PEOPLE ARE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

IF ONLY WE WERE FREE TO DO WHAT WE WANTED ON OUR OWN PROPERTY/HUNTING LEASE. OR IF OTHER PEOPLE WERE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR PROPERTY. Then it would be ok.

hahahahaha, that was for WMHunter

Killbux still has the best post with no solid rebuttle yet. It's a share resource so we must share management strategies. Haven't seen anyone overcome that point.

You’re on a completely different page than what I’m talking about……Think about the use of fire. At one time it probably wasn’t widely used a management tool but as landowners became more informed on the practices then it has become the norm now…..There are alternative practices to some of the ways we manage land…..What I’m talking about is beginning to explore using these options more in hopes that maybe they become the norm and help produce more wildlife habitat out of land that currently is not very productive or only producing a fraction of its potential…..Again, there’s nothing being mandated or imposed on landowners……It’s simply a change in ideology and folks are free to make their own choices…..Same concept with soil health and the no-till movement….It’s a change in ideology/management practices

Last year was the first time license sales had increased in years. I think most of that is from the duck hunting trend. I think those that only enjoy hunting if they kill a trophy tend to have a holier than thou attitude towards the people that can be happy just getting to go.And before you come down on me i have only killed 3 bucks in the last 3 years. i am not advocating any more added to the bag limit.I will kill one every year cut it up myself and make my own summer sausage how many can do that.The worse whipping i ever got from daddy was shooting bass under bushes in the creek. Not because i done it but because i didnt get them to eat in other words i wasted them. I know people get most of there food from the stores now.killing a deer in a foodplot out of a shooter house with a rifle on land only us can hunt dont make us Daniel Boone

Didn’t kill a buck this year. Had plenty of opportunities. Nothing that tripped my trigger walked out, BUT if 25 that met my self imposed standards walk out then yes I absolutely need 25. This year I didn’t need 1. And for the last 10 years 1 or 2 has been all i killed but if the right 25 walk out then I need them all. I don’t need any rule/ law to help my trigger restraint.

This guy gets it.

This argument is especially valid in areas that are nothing but small private properties. Every hunting landowner seems to think the deer are an unlimited resource and their free to take as many deer as they can off their property. Soon enough you've cratered the population.