I'm still still trying to figure out who is gonna pay for all these site specific limits, that's gonna get expensive

There is a synopsis of The Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek. He was an advisor to Ronald Reagan It's mostly about economics but can be applied to much of government in general. Read it and you will better understand why site specific limits set by the people more intimately involved with the local variables will trump a limit created by central planning.

"and most of that improvement is due to education and voluntary restraint of the hunters, not the buck limit."


You came to the conclusion that I intended by asking the question.

According to Gary Moody, the ALDCNR's chief wildlife official, they began a process years ago of educating AL hunters to practice more trigger restraint with their buck kills and implement a more liberal doe season. Mr. Moody along with much of the Wildlife Section of the DCNR did NOT support any kind of AR's or a change in a season limit because they noticed that the hunters in AL were responding to their subtle message by killing less bucks and more does, and saw no need to make any changes.

In fact, before the new limit, every harvest limit survey concluded that they were right. AL hunters were killing more does than bucks and not only that but they were allowing more bucks to walk. If I remember correctly, an AWF survey concluded that Al hunters killed 1.32 bucks and 3 does per hunter. Now I realize that Im not the sharpest knife, but it appears even a dummy can come to the conclusion that if all of these surveys are accurate, it would not take long for all of our management goals to be realized, no matter how out of whack the buck to doe ratio is.

So, if the surveys dont support a need for a limit change, what is the justification?
The study group pointed out that before the limit only 4% of hunters killed 4 or more bucks a season. Is this justification? to limit a small minority of people? if it is, it is a poor excuse and one that is most futile.

Is it to move us toward being a qdm state? if you ask(or read the other thread) this was not the case either, which for the record, I dont believe one bit.

So what was it? Why did some see a need to change the limit? When I have asked and read some comments by those that made the recommendation, the answer has been "because it is not biologically sound to allow hunters to kill 110 bucks a season"

And so that is why I asked the question:
Many who justified the 3 buck limit did so because in their mind allowing someone to kill 110 bucks a season was not biologically sound.
But with 200,000+ plus licensed hunters and maybe that many more unlicensed who can kill 3 a season,and following their same line of thinking, is this not also biologically unsound?


Again, Im not the sharpest knife, but this argument is ridiculous, since if fulfilled it would have the same end effect as the limit that they are denegrating.

Since it don't affect 96% of hunters as you state....why the pissin and moanin? You one of the 4%?

Alabama too.

Bucktrot
Sorry if I misunderstood you post bud. My intention was not to belittle the QDM practices heck we implement some of the same standards around our place. Times have definatly changed as have the views of many of the hunters of yesteryear. We do have the same core values as yourself when it comes to this great sport that we all live so much. And hope that it pays dividends for you.

I have never killed more than 3 bucks in Alabama but I liked the old limit better.

Many people believe in limited government intervention and that the role of government should be regulation only where necessary and allowing the people to make choices beyond that with their local knowledge.

Others think it is best for the government to supply the answers through regulation and central planning.

You one of those?

I didnt see a need for it. I realize that in Alabama its our opinion that our neighbors are the ones killing all of our deer and ruining our chance at killing a 150"+ each year, but our opinion is not reality.

There are years that I can do nothing right and never pull the trigger on a buck and then there are years that I can do nothing wrong and would fall into that 4%. Most of the time, I fall somewhere in between.

Some places, the opinion neighbors are killing MOST of the younger bucks,IS a reality. IMHO

In a case where a selfish, irresponsible's individual's actions can affect the quality of hunting for many other folks in a given locale, WHILE not affecting the quality of hunting for 96% of licensed hunters....all day and twice on Sunday. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Alabama's deer hunters do not have sole deer hunting rights to hundreds and certainly not thousands of acres. Folks who do are the exception and not the rule (you know that, and I know that, and anybody who is intellectually honest knows that) and as a result, they're situation should not drive subsequent regulation.

As I've said before, I personally would not have a bit of problem if the state exempted individuals from the 3 buck limit if they can prove that doing so will not significantly affect the buck population in an invidual locale (ex. a person who has sole hunting rights on a 1000 acres).

Ya'll continue to act like restricting someone's allowable buck harvest to a "ridiculous" ONLY 3 allowed is on the same infrigement upon individual rights plain as attempts at restricting gun ownership, or further taxation of millions of working Americans, or Obamacare, etc. Ya'll just sound like a bunch of whiney, dramatic women when you make such leaps.

Darn straight it is. Anybody who thinks that it's not possible for an individual to significantly affect a deer herd and the subsequent quality of hunting in a locale is either totally ignorant or is simply being dishonest. I've ashamedly done it myself so I know that of which I speak.

And that's how it starts. Do you also think it is ridiculous to allow clips that hold 30 rounds? Lots of people do. What about 29 rounds, 28 rounds.

The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of people will never find themself in a situation where they need a 30 round magazine. Those few that do should not be the ones to drive regulation should they?

People are quick to give up the liberties of the few when it doesn't effect them. Pretty soon someone wants you to give up something that does effect you.

It's not about deer. It's about a model of government.

Did that change when the law changed? Of those that I know who would have fell into that 4%, only 1 guy has changed and abides by the law.

In that case, you and and a whole bunch of others including myself.....should have raised total hell and rebelled against the government over the fact that we couldn't kill any does whatsoever and only 1 buck per day for all those years. I had to pass a bunch of deer back then and my rights were trampled on as a result. Think I'm gonna sue.

Jughead its not gonna stop there. While I didnt like the process that got the new limit in place to begin with, its done and there is nothing that I can do about it. I made the adjustments that I needed to to ensure that those years when everything goes right, that I dont go over the limit. And if the limit was the end of it, then I would never say another word about it...but its not. You know that there are some who want to place AR's and maybe even reduce the limit further, and in my opinion this could have a detrimental long term effect on hunting.

That's a good point. I've heard a few folks throw out that kind of ridiculous restriction too and even though a different, more stringent restriction STILL wouldn't affect me personally 95% of the time....I can't fathom a reason that the state would want to go further than what has been done and why hunters can't be satisfied with what we currently have. Anybody that pushes for the government to go even further is an idiot....in my humble opinion.

that goes back to my college days

I'm still trying to understand just how in the hell we can regulate deer season at all on a site specific case, that would be extremely expensive, as of right now you can shoot and kill any as you wish under what the establishment has determined

yea that sucks but there has to be some sort of regulation, we've seen what no regulation looked like, closed deer season and reintroductions into areas

I really doubt AL wants to take on a season with varying limits per district or county etc.... just try and figure a way to regulate that

now go back to my comment about cost
at what point are you and most others willing to pay for this kind of situation

Now they could be charged with over the limit, before no limit. Most ya'll have never hunted around a family of 4 that will average 20 apiece, and that's just the bucks! That scum moves to the ajoining property, they "hunt it out" and move on. You're screwed for years!

I really do not understand all this restricting peoples hunting rights. Every species of game animal has some kind of bag limit whats the big deal.I limited out two years ago with a week of deer season left(which could happen any year since I hunt on multiple leases) but did I stop hunting heck no! I just took other people with me. Hunted with my adult daughter, a friend that had never killed a buck and a friend's son so he could hunt by himself. I just do not see the problem......

We all agree with that...ownership always helps people buy in. But once again, there are many people that will not buy in, even if educated...these people are the ones that make pretty much all laws necessary.