Season Limit Question

Why is it okay to have a season limit on turkey but not on deer? Just curious to see the answers. On deer we are infringing on rights but most turkey hunters want some kind of limit imposed.

We also protect the hens but not does. What if deer numbers were shown to be declining? What then?

Just curious and provoking thought and discussion. Nothing more or less.

With no limit on does you would think we were over run with deer. We are not. We do have a 3 buck limit on bucks, but that's a joke because all you have to do is reprint a harvest record. And deer numbers are declining, all you have to do is ride around and count the deer, then remember how many deer you saw on that same route back in the 90's.

Money.

We do have a 3 buck limit and one of those has to be 4 points on 1 side. As for does, for many years there were a limited # of days that you could shoot them.

I hunt in Kentucky and they have a one and done rule on bucks. I don't like it. It's tough to let deer walk in early season and wait on the rut.

This is going to sound like a smartass answer and it's not meant to be.


It's just a damn turkey!

My thoughts-

People are conditioned, and deer hunters have mostly been conditioned to have immense freedom in their harvest. Any dramatic change is balked at, whether we are talking about welfare recipients, tax hikes, gas prices, etc.

turkey hunters have been conditioned to protect hens, limit harvest, etc. It isn't like that in every state.

Short answer? Charles Kelly wanted to protect turkeys and grow the deer numbers.

I wouldn't mind a 3 doe 3 buck limit per person. If you have a property that needs the does thinned more than allowed. Have a biologist come out and give them the needed doe tags.

Most turkeys have always been secretive and selfish.
However, those traits never really evolved until QDMA within the deer hunting crowd.

If y'all (the State) could just sow how trick the turkey hunters like y'all did the deer hunters.......the turkey hems would be dying by the trailer load!

You drinking? LOL

Don't want to quote Matt Brock but he said something earlier to the affect of comparing deer and turkey as comparing shark fishing to frog gigging. Just can't compare the 2. Many more predators for turkeys and the eggs. Never have seen a raccoon kill a deer but they sure can put a hurting on turkey eggs. Deer will eat all the food in an area and stay there. Turkeys will move to the food. If turkeys could be hunted with a rifle, restrictions would have to be even greater. If we only hunted deer from the ground with buckshot, not near as many would be killed. Everything is just different.

I would like to see a limit on does just like every other species. Why not?
Not sure why we do not have a real tag system?

As a means of fund raising, why not charge a fee for each supplemental feed stations that are used during the season? All funds go to Support the cause!

Let the bashing begin!

I'm good with 2 bucks and 3 does. But I don't get to shoot as often as some of y'all. I'd probably be good with one buck. I think it's why Kentucky has what it has. I think state may have to lower season limit on turkey at Skyline. I never heard a gobble last year in my faithful area where I've worked birds for years. Did get on birds in a different area of wma but was shocked at lack of gobbles in usual area.

More taxation to support what cause?

The predator discrepancy makes sense in theory but deer have plenty of predators as well: Coyotes and poachers mainly. Unethical hunters in a solid third place.

Probably the turkey hunters as mentioned above, have been conditioned due to extremely low turkey populations in the past and have not balked at the idea of shooting gobblers only.

Also, they are very different critters with very different environmental impacts if they get overpopulated.

Not yet....it will get better soon, though!
This iPhone will skip a word or two occasionally, though!
I just saw that! HaHa

kill all the turkeys, hope they go extinct!

You are therefore cast out of this debate.

That was quick! I am trying to MAKE myself get into turkey hunting next spring, just hard to make myself when I'm scouting for deer. I've heard its very addicting similar to all my friends that quit deer hunting to duck hunt after trying it once.

I don't think we will ever see a change in the bag limits in our lifetime. What we have now, is what it will be. Even if the state had firm data proving deer numbers were down, I seriously doubt they would change the bag limits.
The reason, is because for every hunter proving deer numbers are down, there is another stating their numbers are just way too high for their land to support. The got deer dying from famine and their bucks aren't reaching their 155 inch potential because the does are eating all the food!!! - sarcasm.
I only know a few people that kill more than 3 does a year. The problem is 200k people killing 1 or 2 each, so going to a 3 doe limit wouldn't really have an impact towards improving total reproduction numbers on most leases.

NH - I think on deer it is just because that is the way it has always been so that is the way always should continue (or something like that).

I have always wondered why (according to a lot of Alabama deer hunters) every other state's buck management methods are so much better than Alabama's, but not their antlerless methods?

Don't start if you don't want to be obsessed for life

If deer numbers are shown to be declining and we can't get a handle on the predator problem, the logical step to take is to restrict the harvest. If Alabama eliminated the killing of does in counties where the population is hurting I would be all for it.

I wish we were allowed to kill our season limit at one time and not have a one a day rule.

Problem is how do you do that? We need does killed, a lot of does killed. I see alot of does every hunt. I'm seeing 4.5-5:1 based on my avid bow hunter survey I'm doing for dcnr

I don't know jbc. I hope and believe we have very capable biologists making these decisions on seasons and bag limits.

Why should I have to have a biologist come to my club to give me tags to harvest enough does to keep my herd healthy? We only have five members and need to harvest 20 does. Why can't the clubs with low doe numbers stop shooting them and plant summer crops and year round supplemental feeding. The DNRC wildlife biologist will come to your property and help you. Do not take away the management tool of doe harvest from the clubs with high numbers.

It is not okay. The state has changed the bag limits on deer before and they need to do something again before it is too late in some areas. Again I am not in favor of painting the whole state with a broad brush but rather using the established districts to create limits according to the need in those districts .....

Why do you have to shoot them? How do you know you need to kill 20 does? Did a biologist come out to your club and give you recommendations or did y'all just come up with a number?

Yes, I have a biologist that works with me and we also have a two buck limit per member.

So you believe you and your neighbors are killing that many more bucks than does that your herd is that far out of balance?

I think a well planned camera survey would be a much more reliable method of determining buck to doe ratio than a hunter sighting survey.

When I was in club with 5000 acres we had about 20 guys that hunted regularly.
Year after year certain guys seen does and very few bucks and vice versa. It had more to do with how and where each person hunted, not population cycles.

If the numbers are really that low in certain areas the state should shorten the season in those areas, especially if the season limit is not going to change. One doe a day from Oct 15 (25) - Jan 31 (Feb 10) implies that we have plenty (maybe still too many) does available for killing.

Some of you guys are talking about areas that need lower antlerless harvests, where specifically are you talking about?

Be as specific as possible, this is pretty interesting to see if y'all match DMP/hunter reports that I have had.

Is Creola and Gulfcrest ALabama specific enough ......Just make it all of Mobile County to be sure

Southern Shelby county.

Heck I wish the governor would write you out a permit to do it so you'd quit talking about it

Used to hunt in evergreen and any timber land we hunted on the company required us to shoot a certain amount of does a yr and turn in all jaw bones. Every year they wanted alot of does killed off the land and would get mad if the quota was met. I found it hard to do that when you see one deer ever two or three sets.I guess they knew what they are doing because every yr we killed some great bucks off the property. I have my own lease now and after yrs of managing we have seen our herd go from hardly seeing any deer all yr long to seeing 5 or so deer on every sit. I think all places are different but a few years of letting deer walk makes a big difference.

I agree.... Then I wouldn't miss all of the good spring fishing.....

47

44 and 52

Butler, lowndes, Crenshaw. I've hunted there 20 years. Own property in all three. I don't see the # of does while hunting or on camera I used to. About 1/4 of what we had in the 90s, when we had doe days.

Most of northern lee county's (north of hwy 280 ) numbers are down and it's predators around here causing most of the carnage.

Try to work that out with him.

We have two properties less than a mile and a half apart. One has plenty of deer on it and needs some does taken. The other is almost a desert with VERY few on cam I'm talking two or three deer on cam in two weeks on fields. One has good neighbors who are managing the herd one has been a brown it's down club for years. This is just north west of Marion.

[url=][/url]

Limestone and Lawrence need a big arse break on the doe killing!!!!!!

Like others have said. Why not offer a doe tags for a SMALL $10 fee per tag and actually report and record the data. The State is pissing in the wind on numbers until harvest reporting is mandatory . The only folks that have a problem with a mandatory check in system are outlaws and poachers PERIOD.

Give us two bucks and let the rest grow.

If there are SO many deer that the population needs to be lowered, why are there ANY limits?

Seems contradictory to me!!!

You know where I hunt. In 5 seasons we've killed 7 deer. 4 bucks and 3 does. For 2 seasons it was on 40 acres and for the past 3 it has been on 120. I feel like our surrounding habitat is pretty good and ours is getting better every day.This year, due to camera's and sightings, does are completely off limits. I don't know for sure if what I'm (not) seeing is due to me, others, or nature.

I'd love to hear what you get from others in my area.

Here's the problem, but it's not really a problem at all. Folks in one area are hunting a certain way, and folks in another area are hunting a different way. There's not a right or wrong with the two areas. Deer will and have survived and flourished in both scenarios. As long as people don't start hunting for profit again, deer will be fine. What you guys are wanting (and have gotten with buck limits) is to shove your point of view of hunting down everybody's throat. It's this mentality, "if I can't sit and watch multiple deer on a hunt, I want the state to change it where I can". I don't care and it really doesn't matter to me (or the deer herd) that one area less than 1 1/2 miles away has a lower population than you want. Not picking on you at all, but your scenario is the "poster child" for what's going to ultimately ruin and govern the HELL/fun out of hunting. In your post you're actually seriously wanting change based on ONE and A HALF MILES.......

And yes BY GOD I used the quote function for the first time EVER!!!!

I agree completely. My dad didn't hunt. When I started hunting. I grabbed a family gun and walked out the door and I was LEGAL. It was our land and there was no dang tags, or other bullcrap or I probably would have never started in the first place.

Be careful what y'all ask for. Not everyone grew up hunting and it's hard to get started.

I hunt South of Fairnelson in Conecuh county and in years past we would cut off the doe killing on Jan 1st. or at 30 which ever came first. We have killed 4 so far this season. Weights are down and numbers are down. Habitat loss has a lot to do with this. The state wanted to lower the deer population and that has happened, so what do we do now?

I'm so damn tired of statements like this. Those of us who like seeing deer when we go hunting, sharing our opinions, is no different than you sharing yours. It simply sucks for you, because you appear to be in the minority. The meat hunters gripe the same way.

So what is different from that now? You can still do that if it is owned by a household member can't you? Are you somehow saying that it would be easier to get into hunting, if you walked out your back door, and never saw any deer, because the herd wasn't managed???

Nighthunter,

Areas I hunt with low populations.

-Chilton county, SW of Jemison
-St. Clair County, Ragland area
(Very few deer in both of these places, I see a deer or two 50% of the time or less)

-Jefferson County, near McCalla
(avg population, probably avg seeing 1-3 deer per hunt)

In Blount county where I grew up hunting we had a High deer population. Was very hard to go and sit without seeing a few does. Then everybody jumped in on the band wagon of if we kill more does we will have better bucks. Before the massacre I never saw one doe or buck that was in bad health due to overpopulation.Or starving. After a few years of people hammering them the only difference I can see is there are Way less deer. Not a change in the quality of bucks. Just a lot less of them. Where I hunt in Fayette County they need no doe days for three or four years.on the bright side it is getting better up here. But the only reason it is,is because we went to one doe per membership on a 4500 acre tract. And not even half us bother shooting a doe. A couple more years we should be good.

I understand what your saying trust me. But when you have 8-10 verifiable deer on 700 acres that isn't a stable herd in my opinion. We have seen 4 deer in 15 sits on that tract this year and 2 we think are the same deer. After a week of no rain we may have 4-5 sets of tracks in a field with most having not been hunted all year. If the sign was there I wouldn't be saying anything but it's not. Were not the only ones in the same boat I've talked to a lot of people around the state with properties just like it. Our neighbors on that land are still killing does we aren't but still may let it go since it is a loosing battle. It sucks paying $6-7000 for a lease and not even killing a deer on it. I really don't know the answer but even my suggestion wouldn't help that property. No fawns are surviving on it neighbors could still kill the few does they see and we would still be in the same boat. But if something isn't done soon the shrinking number of hunters will continue. Cause people aren't going to keep paying these high lease prices with little to no deer on them.

NIghthunter heres some areas with little to no deer sightings this season:

-Elmore county near tallapoosa river (Kent area)
-Lowndes WMA (not just speaking for myself either, with several that hunt there, the biologist, and even the deer check-in sheet is looking super slim)

There is tons of sign on Autauga wma (just north of Posey's Crossroads) , yet to lay eyes on a deer tho.

I'm just saying that right now, I have to have SEVEN different documents to hunt ducks on a WMA. From a HIP, to hunter safety, to signed map, to actual license, state and federal stamps, plugs, steel shot etc.

I come at it from the standpoint of wanting hunting to be as acessible as possible. And the burden of proof is on the state to prove why we should have to do something.

Why the heck can't the state pick 5,000 hunters, pay them $100 to report their kills? People just think a game check will solve our problems of low deer #'s and it won't do anything.
The 5,000 hunters could give the state probably more reliable data, and it is voluntary.

If I had to have a gamecheck number, a tag, and whatever other BS other states have to have, no, I probably wouldn't have fooled with it.

Nobody needs to kill 20 does off their property unless they have a fence around it. Mother Nature will take care of it if you are over populated. The thought of deer running around starving to death is a complete joke for 99% of the areas.

I have several places to hunt. Too many actually. I have 3k acres I have not killed more than 10 does off of it in 20 years. Biologist 10+ years ago said kill 30 does off it a year, but I never did. I was worried more about the hunting pressure than anything. Liked seeing deer in the fields. 10 years later and the deer are doing just fine. If I don't see 15+ a sit I've had a bad day. From hunting perspective it probably doesn't get much better. But we don't shoot does and the people around us don't kill them like chickens either, thankfully. Including surrounding properties total about 6k acres. Habitat is in great shape. Mother Nature is doing just fine and we've got some GREAT deer hunting.

I have about 2500 of old family land next to some "meat" hunters on in another part of the state. Habitat looks better. More SMZ's and hilly. Awesome looking place. Deer numbers are very low and if I see 3 I've had a great hunt.

Difference in my opinion... Doe harvest.

That's a pretty broad statement. We've been killing 20-30 does a year off 2,000 acres for 7 years and you can't tell it one bit. Still plenty of deer. Saying that "nobody" needs to kill 20 does on their place unless it is fenced it absolutely no different than the opinions of those who think you should kill every doe you see. From one extreme to the other.

Guess it's all about perspective and management goals. There's nothing wrong with either one, but I personally don't want to sit and see 15 deer per hunt in a 1/2 acre field. I occasionally see 15 deer a hunt, but expecting it is not what I am trying to accomplish at all. It's fine if you want to manage for numbers of deer seen/hunt, but expecting other folks who are trying to manage for different reasons to stop killing does is very narrow minded. Everyone does not manage their deer herd the same, and don't want to.

Matt, with your own eyes, have you ever seen a noticeable increase in the quality of bucks and total number of quality bucks, with an increased doe harvest?

I've seen a very slight, and I mean barely noticeable difference in averages per age class on some properties with habitat improvements and keeping deer below CC. Most of these properties were not much over CC to begin with.

I have seen the opposite occur though. I've watched properties go from producing 200 lb bucks with impressive headgear and 130-140 lb does to 150 lb bucks and 80 lb does within a matter of years, all because deer exceeded what the area was capable of supporting. Deer numbers don't seem to explode in suitable habitats now like they did in the late 80s and 90s when deer were occupying areas they hadn't for years, with very few predators. Now that coyotes are in the equation they can impact a herd's ability to grow exponentially like deer used to do. I don't think overpopulation is a problem in most places. Heck I know it's not. Liberal doe harvest is still needed on certain properties though. For folks to say it is not, is just as ignorant as the folks who have the mentality to kill every doe they see. Lack of education is the root of all the problems. Folks take one sentence from a QDMA article about doe harvest and justify it to kill everything. They're wrong. Also wrong, are the ones who think doe harvests should be stopped everywhere for everybody.

Nothing sucks for me Atoler.....
I'm good, just don't see limiting me from killing two does on October 15th so you can kill one on dec 3rd, OR sit and watch 15. Lol
Too much like socialism, especially when it's not done for the deer herds health/welfare. I always liked filling my freezer early with two fat does, but it doesn't suck...........yet. I don't appreciate the way you throw the "meat hunter" tag around as though it was a bad thing to kill for meat though. Isn't that the basis of hunting?

Atoler, I've definitely seen properties that had an increase in total number of mature bucks with increased doe harvest and trigger control. Definitely.

I find it hilarious when people talk about changing bag limits ruining hunting. I can almost guarantee you that more people hunted when we did not have these liberal doe days then they do now. I can also assure you that it will be easier to get more kids and adults involved in deer hunting again when the deer population is such that the majority of people actually see a deer when they go hunting rather than only see a few all season. This is what is ruining deer hunting and turning people especially kids to other activities.....

I hunt every day from the start of bow season, same with turkey (i probably like turkey hunting more). But turkey limits are about about useless from a management stand point. How many guys honestly limit out on turkeys? It takes way more skill to kill a turkey than the typical weekend warrior has than to kill a deer.

If they were serious about getting turkey numbers up they would put a bounty on yotes, coons and foxes. Coons kill way more turkeys than anything else. Yotes kill the adults (that is why they are getting quieter and not vocalizing as much) and Foxes, coons and opossums kill the eggs and babies.

I agree Matt but there are ways the State can manage the deer for the best of everyone.....i.e. setting doe harvest limits by districts (not for the whole State) and providing extra permits for properties that truly need to take more does for a biological reason.

If you put a limit of 2 bucks (8pt or better) and 2 does once every 5 years we'd have the best hunting in the country.

So hunting is about seeing deer? Not the health of the deer herd or "meat hunting"? I understand the draw of seeing lots of deer, I just don't agree that is should take precedence over harvesting deer.

Bigt, trust me, we know something needs to be done.

I think that with the states mismanagement of resources there would be arbitrary quotas given with little or no science to back it up. If done right I would agree with you though.

Nope.

i think that most of the ideas put forth by folks that actually spend enough time in the woods to know what they are talking about are at least partially right.

One thing for sure is that at the current liberal harvest rates it will get way worse in the near future.

Problem is that any serious efforts to increase the health of the state herd will be met with fanatical resistance from people that think they will not be able to kill enough button button bucks and fawns.

Matt that is good to hear. I also understand it is not as easy as all of us would like to think it is to make the changes that are needed. When trying to manage the State as a whole it will be just about impossible though. It does make me feel better that those people with the knowledge and skills see the issue and I have to believe that an appropriate plan will be implemented and hopefully politics will stay out of it.
Thanks for all y'all do

The states goal never has been, and I hope it never will be, to have the best hunting in the country (as for trophy deer). Look, I'm a trophy hunter myself, with personal standards, and hunt with like-minded people who share the same standards. Imposing my way of hunting, and my standards on an entire state with multiple user groups expecting different experiences when they head to the woods just ain't right. Everybody don't hunt for 150" trophies. We don't manage ANY other resource that way. Why should we deer? We don't place age restrictions on squirrels, ducks, turkeys, or any other game animals.

I can agree with that.

Hunting is about killing. Management is a whole different thing but just as important for the future of hunting.

That's a really good point I've never heard before.

I've hunted in Cullman county my whole life and I see deer almost every time I climb so I can't agree with a decline in numbers. Not saying there's not a decline in all areas but definitely not in mine

.

You must hunt in a fence

I work Cullman Co. and when we try to do deer surveys we chase the same one around the whole county. Seriously, parts of Cullman are pretty lacking.

I don't hunt a fence but I should have been more specific. I hunt the most southern part of Cullman and see tons of deer but I live in northern Cullman and don't see half the deer here so I guess numbers can be drastically different within just a few miles.

Be a lot of upset folks if they couldn't kill 2 yr old gobblers!
That'd be 90% of the harvest. I feel the same way about turkeys that you guys do about deer. Seriously lacking in some of my areas.

Matt it's too bad more folks don't think like you. Most have the attitude of my way is best and to hell with everyone that don't agree. you sound like a good ole' boy.

How long is "My whole life"?

me too. Read my first post in this thread

How long is "My whole life"? [/quote]
Around 20 years

I get tickled as I read through these threads and guys start out talking about the health of the herd, then on to mature bucks, and then wind up talking about which deer to kill by antler size.

That is not what I said. I didn't say you should kill ZERO does. I don't care what a guy shoots. He/She just doesn't need to kill 25 of them per hunter. If you want to know what I think.... I think 5 total on the season is a reasonable limit.

However... It doesn't matter to me if you killed 100 of 2k. I could probably do the same at my place, but I'm not going to try it. Based on the herd health and horns I see... proves to me you don't have to shoot does. I hunted in Jackson County in the early 80's. I know what the woods look like when you are overpopulated. I have found young underweight deer frozen after a snow. Been there. Which is why I said permitted shooting should still be in play.

We have moved to unlimited doe harvest on a property I own in Middle Tennessee. Went from shooting a couple 150 class deer a year to none on the camera surveys. Deer overall sightings are waay down.

Doe killing. That's the culprit.

I wish you could have hunted 20 years ago.

There we go. Think this is the kind of answer NH was asking for.

Haha I guess I don't know what I missed

I'm for a doe limit .... I view it like this...

If you are going to live off the goose that lays the golden eggs, you leave the goose alone...

I hunt in southern Shelby, Bibb, Perry and Chilton counties and over the years sightings are getting lower and lower on properties I hunt without a self imposed doe limit.

Would the hunters in this state be in favor of any changes to the current regs regarding doe harvests? If so, would "doe days" or a season limit, or both be something you would like to see?

I would prefer a season limit over doe days and verifiable tagging system.

I don't personally want any change. We stopped killing does 2 years ago on our place, but I value ability for landowners to make their own decisions, within reason.

In my area, a 5 doe limit wouldn't really change much. Each 40 acre owner could still kill 5 deer and decimate the population if they wanted to.

Doe days would be the debil!
If I had to choose I'd choose a limit that could be used anytime.

Either one

I say this with all due respect with no intent be personal.

I applaud you and other that have the resources and time to effectively manage your herd. Having said that, I don't reckon that the vast majority of hunters (90%) have any inclination to effectively manage the herd. I think they are like to log cabin builder that uses up all the trees in his area to build the cabin and keep a fire burning and gradually expands outward until his neighbor aint got trees either.

Most guys on this site and hunting sites are passionate and ethical enough to care about management. But we are not an accurate representation of an honest cross section of deer hunters statewide.

I honestly believe that most are shoot anything and everything that moves until there aint nothing left to shoot and move on to the next area and do the same thing.

Again, I say this respectfully; IMHO There has to be stricter management limits. If left up to the general population they will manage the herd down to zero and then start complaining.

I will say that I can't believe that this thread has gone as far as it has and remained constructive. Most of the time people would be telling each other to go to hell because they disagree about what's best

Hey, hey be careful you might cause somebody to come to blows on here.

In all seriousness, keep it up. Getting good info and keeping notes.

Keep stoking the fire Matt.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

A number of does limit would suit me fine, but it would have to be all weapons total, example 3 for the whole season including bows, etc. Also I would like to be able to shoot my quota late in the season rather than early, thus a season total limit. I havn't shot a doe in about 4 years anyway.

This is what we need for sure.

X2

In SW AL, I would prefer to see 'Doe Days", or season, that ends by Christmas. Hopefully, it would relieve some of the presure during Jan.

AND, I would like to see as much effort exerted in educating the Public on the concept of doe harvest and the reality of over-harvest as went into convincing people to shoot them to start with.

I will admit...many biologist (definitley not all!) are conceding that the antlerless harvest has went overboard and fawn recruitment has went to squat. BUT, there was a time in the not so distant past that nearly ALL of them were advoccating shooting every doe possible! The answer is somewher in the middle.

Closed the thread. Hogwild said it all

I'd be 100% in favor of doe days. If we're painting the whole state with one brush, 3 per hunter, none after Jan. 1.

Ideally we'd have zones, like Kentucky, and could get additional tags inside of each zone with biologist approval.

I didn't make it hogwilds post before I started typing. Pretty much nails it.

Alright bucknaked, get a little more specific. I don't know anybody, other than the fence across the road, that see deer every sit.

My experience is close to NH's

For the record... I hated "Doe Days". If there were five doe days and they all occurred last week while it was 80 degrees and tornado's....

I can assure you would regret it. Much more restrictive than just establishing some type of realistic overall harvest limit.

I can remember it like it was yesterday. Hot one year, Raining the next, People couldn't take off work, etc. Wife complaining because you were hunting at Christmas instead of going to the in-laws... Not to mention everyone just going completely buck wild shooting at every white tail bouncing away through the woods and running all over the place like lunatics.

No thanks.

And also shows the problem with "zones". I work with a large property adjoining Lowndes WMA and they NEVER kill enough does. Nearly overpopulated. Lowndes is just overharvested. Our weights are good but down from what they used to be. We don't kill coyotes because they help control the deer. See tons of deer but the numbers of hunters are limited so each hunter must kill quite a few does (10 +) to reach the goals. For these type of properties, neither a "zone" or personal limit (say 5 per person) would fit our management. I would also argue against making them pay more to kill more does. Now if they get special treatment for having an approved management plan or something, that would be fine but then most on here would bitch about the "rich guys getting special treatment". Leave it like it is. Most of the properties I work with don't kill enough does but all are excellent habitat with good deer populations due to good management... including one in Elmore county near the Tallapoosa river!

Doesn't the DMP already provide those exact type plans?

Doesn't it allow for site-specific Management if desired??

Why do the complainers not utilize it?

I don't like "doe days" statewide because of the rut timing in this state. No matter when you choose to have it during rifle season the Doe days would be right in the middle of somebody's rut. I'd hate to think the only time I had the opportunity to shoot a doe was during the rut.
Most clubs that have much sense about them will cut off the doe shooting by a certain date to let things settle down before the rut starts or shoot them in late January after the rut was over.
If the state tried to legislate the whens and wheres of how that was done it would be a complicated mess

I actually don't know if the hunters in the State would be in favor or not. It should not be solely based on that though. The State should definitely look at Hunter satisfaction and recruitment but more importantly on the actual need due to the declining deer populations in areas across the State. As far doe limits or doe days in my opinion and knowing a lot of Alabama hunters I would go with doe days over limits just for the enforcement side, but limits would be better than nothing and possibly slowly get it across to the average deer Hunter that it is possible to do damage to the deer population and the future of deer hunting by shooting too many does combined with habitat changes and predation.....

Cold Springs hunting club. It's at the southern tip of Cullman. It's about 3000 acres. I hate you boys don't believe me but it's hard not to see deer on every hunt and it's usually multiple deer. The plots are always ate down to nothing

Dang Hogwild it sure makes me feel better that other SW ALabama hunters think a long the same line as I do......let's keep it up! I feel there might actually be some hope

Let's see leave it like it is because you help manage land that has limited hunters on it due to their wealth and financial means......I think not! As I have stated before if a property truly has the need the State can always issue more tags to that property as they did back in the days of limited doe harvest, but to leave the whole state as is just because the wealthy have access to better land and can keep the hunters on the property today a bare minimum is just plain unacceptable to the small landowners like myself who do not control large tracts of land with virtually unlimited resources.....

I didn't say I didn't believe you. Just that I didn't know anyone with that experience. I'm about 20 miles from you. Every one of my plots need mowing.


Probably not 20. More like 10 as the crow flies.

Again Hogwild you are correct. There is a program and if doe limits or doe days were implemented they could utilize it and continue to manage their property by harvesting more does if needed. So that problem is actually a non issue.....

Then... You obviously need to kill 30+ does a year for the next 10 so you then won't see anything and you can complain with the rest of us.

I'd probably do 50 minimum year 1.

Point is they shouldn't have to be treated separately. The current regs allow them to manage their deer herd as they see fit as it does you! Why should they Have to be involved in a separate program? FORCE others to be involved in a government program!



I say the State should go to the small, unmanaged properties you hunt and others that want more government restrictions, and make separate regs and limit YOUR harvest to their specs. Leave the guys who have enough land and do spend the money to manage alone! Right now everyone is treated with the same regs. You want regulations on OTHERS to fit your ideas.

How many does you killin Gobbler...

Fess up now!

I haven't killed one yet but usually 5-7 does for the freezer. Haven't killed a buck in probably 10 years. Used to kill 20-30 a year.

I don't blame you for looking out for your own interests and your rich clients because if they were to enroll in the above mentioned program they would have a State biologist help them in their management needs and where would that leave you......looking for a job with the State I guess . So I do understand your position and apparent disdain for us poor guys that can only afford to have a hundred or so acres to call our own....

Wow that's unreal! I wonder what the difference is? The club borders a lot of Smith lake but I don't know if that would be it.

Yea, cause the State guys can do all the burning, timber sales, mulching, mowing, planting, herbicide application, site preparation and tree planting we do. Oh Yea, that would work with your Big Government regulation, socialist concept of things. Go ahead and have the State take over, that way everything would be FREE... Whoopee!

I normally agree with most all of your posts.
But, not this time!

Your twist was quick and clever. But, without merit. The DMP is to allow the MANAGEMENT of Wildlife. The Rules, Regulations and Seasons were adopted to Conserve Wildlife.

They can handle the deer management aspect of it since the last I heard the deer in this state actually belong to the State and you can continue to manage the trees and habitat that actually belong to the landowner....how about that it is funny how doe limits is considered big government / socialist when they have been in charge of limits and changed them accordingly in the past.....that just shows how illogical your form of logic is. You can respond however you see fit and I will let you have the final word because I refuse to hijack or disrupt a very helpful thread. Good day and I wish you no ill will and much success in your business as some of my close friends are in the forestry business

Thank you gobbler, well said. I already work with a biologists and my deer herd is healthy and we work with our neighbors. Why should I have to change what I'm doing?
I started hunting a lease in Elmore county last year and we don't have enough does there to shoot any. I don't need a biologists to tell me not to shoot them I already know that. In five years we will have to start shooting them because we will have to many.

How do you determine that you have too many?

Come on, man.....keep up!

You have to hire a biologist to tell you!

Of course, now we arrive back at my question.

Why are people opposed to DMP, yet willing to pay a private biologist??

As I normally agree with yours!

However the DMP route should not be the only route available for people to manage their land as they see fit. The Rules and Regs should be used to conserve wildlife where they need conservation. Landowners shouldn't be forced to be on a government program so they can manage their wildlife under the supervision of a government employee.

Don't get me wrong. Night hunter and Matt are great guys and do a great job. I am friends with a few other wildlife biologists with the State as well and think the world of them. Also, many of the landowners I work with DO participate in DMP, some for decades and I encourage it. However, I don't want them to HAVE to be on it to get doe tags when they need to kill does.

If I have a landowner, who manages strictly for quail for instance, will the State issue unlimited doe tags for this landowner to reduce their deer herd down to a MINIMAL population? Deer compete with quail for food plants and he may not want deer jumping in front of his dogs. For whatever reason he may not want deer! He should have a right to manage that way, but I would bet that some State biologists would go along with it but some would NOT and that is the problem with another government program.

I see your point.
However, I feel that those cases are isolated and extreme.
The Seasons and Bag Limits should benefit the Wildlife AND the majority of Outdoorsmen.
I managed a large hunting operation. Doe tags are NOT hard to come by for those type people.

I am sure the State could easily write in there somewhere that if a property is managed by a private wildlife biologist that biologist could make the doe harvest recommendations and issue said tags for that property. The State would probably need a letter or email sent in requesting the tags for the property by the biologist but that shouldn't be a problem. There are ways around these issues that can work for the good of all and just not a select few here and there. It will just take some cooperation with all parties involved.....

Are any of your landowners on cost share with the State?

We went from seeing 40 does on a green field with a 5-6' browse line and killing a few 110" bucks to seeing 20 does and killing 120-140" bucks. The body weight went from 70-90lbs to 100-120lbs. I see deer 90% of times I hunt. I own 40 acres and manage some family land and lease 300 acres for a total of 750 acres. I talk with my neighbors so we all know what we are all doing and that bring the total to around 3000 acres. We have triplets on our property every year and all the biologists I have talked to say that is a sign of a healthy herd. We don't kill 20 does each year but that is our goal, last year we only killed 16 because of the 1 doe per day. I am not a rich land owner but I do put in lots of work to manage the property.









'

I love when someone uses the Paintbrush example. We aren't rich, but have large acreage, just under 4998 acres. I know that what somebody does 50 miles from me affects the number of deer on my place, so the '' let me manage my land '' , deal doesn't hold water.
ALL WILDLIFE and LAND IS CONNECTED UNLESS IT IS FENCED. That's like saying if a nuke goes off in Atlanta, We're good because it happened in Atlanta??
On almost 5000 acres, I am lucky now to get more than 12 deer per 4 camera sets any time of the year. The only constant in that compared to years ago is the removal of female deer at an accelerated pace!!!

No, none of my landowners are forced to participate in cost-share programs with the State or Feds. They are free to plant what they want, and manage how they want.







Ah, the butterfly effect! I doubt what anyone does (excepting set off a Nuke) 50 miles away from your place effects what happens on your place. If you have 5,000 acres with only 12 deer you have overshot them. Time to call a Biologist! The State has some Great ones that would be happy to help! How would you account for neighboring 5,000 acre properties that have differing deer populations and harvest goals, with one being overpopulated and one under-populated?

agreed

How about if you have, own, or manage less that 500 acres you MUST have a State biologist come out and make management recommendations and issue your doe tag(s) for the property? Would that satisfy yall?

Not if I have to pay for extra staffing!

The premise of your original question is all messed up - whoever decided it is "okay" to have a season honor system limit on turkeys? There's less than 10 of us in the state who ever pay any attention to it.

Just had to throw that in.

Who cares about a stinking deer?

Yea, but wouldn't that address the problem yall seem to be having - rouge hunters decimating the deer herd in the State because of high pressure on small tracts of land? According to some on here we shouldn't have any problem with paying more on license fees to staff more biologists and government programs? I, for one, wouldn't have a problem paying more for a license.



Who invited you in here to cause trouble. Look what happens when it rains and I get forced indoors!

OMG!! So now the state is going to make law from judging what has been about a half dozen people bitching on the internet about not seeing any deer. SMDH!!!

If we want more mature "trophy" bucks in the state, shouldn't we quit shooting mature bucks? Or any bucks?

I grew up in Mississippi and back in the early 80's there were big money clubs on the river that only killed spikes and does. They had tons of mature bucks and always killed a barge load of spikes the next year. Then every third year a member could kill a non-spike buck.

Nobody is saying anyone must have them come out but if they were to impose a doe limit and season and I needed to take more does and it was free like the current program is then by all means yes.

Actually they are not rogue hunters per say they are law abiding hunters killing what the State allows and actually push for a long time.

Yep sure is genius

Ever thought we just like to have opinions from varying sources???

And it's comments like that that make biologists not take hunters seriously.

I would think the State would have to come out to verify how many does need to be taken (or not taken) in the area. Hard to make good reccs without seeing the place!? And, yea, it should be free (or paid for by the other hunters of the State, I should say). While I think it actually is a reasonable idea, recon how much bitching there would be about the State picking on the little guy on here?

It is free...

May not have followed clearly... DMP is free as is all our other services. The topic above is different from current programs.

Why do you think they would have to be forced to join? Who do you think is forced to join?

That's easy... they don't want us in their "business" or they are smarter than we are.

I'm not the one complaining. If I want to shoot a doe whenever I please during the already established limits. My place is less than 80 acres, reckon someone would come out for that to be in DMP?

It's farm land so I could shoot them in the summer with depravation permits. They eat the heck out of the beans my farmer is trying to grow. Which is better, make use of them or leave them laying?

When I see my area with these low doe numbers I hear of but see no evidence of. I might would want to concede, but probably not. I've made 2 deer hunts this year and only 1 duck hunt. Seen 3 Does on the WMA and 9 Does and 2 bucks at the farm.

Limits per person does nothing to address the balance of the deer population, or lack thereof. I know you and several others on this thread are at least able to give input on bag limits and such.

Our deer herd and deer bag limits can't be fixed by a tag system or a liberal season.

We need biologically sound ZONES in the state. Not 2 or 3. Maybe 20, maybe 50.

Lower AL gets and extended February season to hunt the rut. The deer on our farm, and in my area, rut at the same time the deer in lower AL do. I have never seen a buck chase a doe here before January 30th and I have never seen a fawn here before August 15th and most come a week or so later.

We have a pitifully small deer herd, and need a closed antlerless season for X number of years, but the Jackson county folks who hunt areas where crop fields are hammered or the population is at or near carrying capacity need to be able to kill however many they need to kill.

I'm sure it would be a pain in the rear to sit down as a group of biologists and DCNR decision makers and draw up 45 deer management zones, but if the state ever really wants to balance the deer herd, and has a genuine interest in all hunters being able to hunt at least part of the rut, then that's what it's going to take, IMO.

So, you think that because you have not personally seen decimated herds in areas that you have never been, you do not think that situation exists?

You readily admit that you have hunted twice this year, on your own place. But, you think that your opinion on the deer populations on properties that you have never even been NEAR. much less ON, matters more than the people in that area.

The fact that you represent the rabid QDM'er (yeah, I know....you used to run a 'big' lease over 5000 acres) is a problem. You guys really think that you know more than the people who actually own/lease/hunt other properties that you have never seen. SMH

I haven't cared for or been a member of QDMA for probably 9 years or more. I do see where they are misrepresented about killing all the does and being trophy buck oriented. None of which is true. They always advocated shoot as many as you need to. They advocated to make sound decisions and get management help if unsure of what to do.

Years ago I did advocate killing as many does as possible, because I seen how well it helped our club. We didn't reach 1 doe per hundred acres as I've often seen mentioned, closer to 1 doe per every 200 acres.

I agree overall numbers are down from when I started hunting in the mid 80's. Back then it was nothing to see 20-30 does in a group running thru the woods and rarely that elusive 1.5 yr old spike.

I can only relate to my experiences. I hear some guys saying there are no deer in the same areas I personally see deer and deer sign in.

I admitted from day 1 that I joined this site to advocate for buck limits. I was over at the QDMA site and some guys here invited me to join.

You are doing exactly as I did but for a different cause, there is no difference. I wish you godspeed in your endeavor.

Fur- It really wouldn't take all that many. You base it off of general habitat types, soils, deer pops., human population centers, breeding info, land ownership patterns and a couple other factors and you can begin to see patterns or shapes taking place. Pretty interesting.

I like the way that sounds.....

Oddly enough, I actually attended the CAB meetings and supported the current buck limits. And, I believe in 'intelligent' antlerless harvest.

BUT, I also see what the propaganda has caused and the attitude of the hunters in my area. Heck. we have folks from all over coming in to help 'manage' our does and so-called cull bucks. Then, they jump to the next club/lease and 'manage' those, too!!!

Now, it is by no means perfect but there will always be outliers no matter what is done.

Clay, Coosa, Talladega County.

It's really pretty simple just copy cat TN they've had their chit together for years.

Cull bucks really irks me....

I agree at times it was mis-guided by many, myself included. At the same time the sky is falling there are no deer in Alabama is just as bad. Slow down and make sure of what is going on.

I mention the 5,000 acre lease cause that is the place I actually learned about deer and their habits because of the buck restrictions. I basically lived there for 10 years, ask my wife. I consumed everything related to deer management and the one thing that holds true, hunter management is the hardest thing to overcome. The sad thing is that hunters will never agree.

As Westervelt spoke about, once clubs have more than 10 members the troubles begin. They were at the CAB along with QDMA and State biologist, etc....meeting for antler restrictions on WMAs and or Counties.

Where I hunt and roam now I don't see what is happening elsewhere. From what I gather there is truly some concern in certain areas. The only reason I posted on this thread is sometimes there are other reasons the deer are no longer in a certain area. That factor is often overlooked.

Several places I've watched the past years seem to have lost the deer in that particular area. Every one of those places has to do with habitat change.

The area at 247 and Hwy 72, those deer had to move cause of the pit taking out their bedding area. They still come to feed but rarely will you see them there during daylight now. Their bedding area has moved at least a 1/2 mile away. That will once again change in a year or so as a fill site is taking over that habitat. I bet there are guys on here that are used to seeing those deer. There usually is a really good buck hanging out with the other deer.

In another area that one should slow down anytime thru there, I haven't seen a single deer this year. The big change was how much timber was taken out on both sides of the road. There is still a strip of pines, just past the pines is a lunar moonscape for miles. I imagine the deer will return in year or so when habitat is better suited. About a mile down the road, deer crossings have increased.

I could mention more but that covers the gist of it of my point.

What is really interesting is that the turkeys have been exactly the opposite. Went from not seeing, hearing, or getting one on camera, to having enough to kill a couple.

just curious, what is it that needs to be done? Reduce doe harvest? I would think that it would be time to cut back on the length of the deer season in those areas, where am i wrong?

Was this before or after they went to a three buck limit with any weapon from the convoluted limits they had before or since they have gone back to a 2 buck limit?

You do not have to shorten the season if you limit the doe harvests,but as far as I am concerned as long as they left me from January 1 to February 10 I would be good .

I can't imagine cutting the season back. You south AL boys lost your dang minds because you couldn't use a gun for ten days.

Lol a man speaking from experience of dealing with the masses

I'm sure some did. But I'm glad y'all gave us 10 days in Feb. I would have given the whole month of December for those 10 days. Thank you!

I totally agree

Louisiana has 10 different deer season zones. The rut varies from late sept in some areas to feb in others. We also went to a tagging system and are allowed 6 deer. You get 3 antlerless tags, 2 antlered tags, and 1 either sex tag. Most of the state has an open antlerless season, but the area I hunt has 11 doe days due to a large die off a few years ago. I know lots of you guys are dead set against a tagging system, but it only takes a couple seconds to put the tag on the deer and is completely painless. I like the way ous system is set up. Allows you the freedom to take does when the oppertunity presents and also allows you to kill 3 bucks also. Will this work for alabama,for the most part sure it will, but the state as a whole. Some hunters will be happy to have this system while others will be highly against it. Just the nature of the beast.

Bucknaked is absolutely correct. That club is completely full of deer. You will see multiple deer I would say 98% of the time. The greenfields look like putting greens throughout the entire year. It wouldn't surprise me if a biologist told them to kill 20 does a year for many years.
On the other hand myself and 2 other guys lease just under 600 acers in the southern part of cullman county and our numbers are not like that. We have had the property for 12 years and the change we have experienced I think reflects what doe management planting good fields TRIGGER CONTROL on bucks and improving the habitat to the best of our ability. I would say the first trail cameras we ran when we first obtained the property in my opinion were low deer numbers smaller body weight deer and bucks racks that reflected poor nutrition. Back then I would say we would see deer maybe 30%-40% of our hunts and 7 or 8 does to 1 buck. We saw virtually no signs of a rut. Now I would say our trail cams show a much healthier heard in general bigger does almost all does producing twins and larger buck weights and much higher quality racks. Also I would say our sightings are somewhere around seeing deer 80-85 percent of our hunts and most of those multiple deer. We now see a fairly good rut. But to me this just proves that every property is different our property is maybe 10 min from the club bucknaked is talking about where they could take 20 does a year we typically take 2. obviously there is an acerage difference but the deer numbers are drastically different.

Great post on several levels.

I would like to have a five deer all seasons limit. Two bucks, two does, one either sex. Fawns (button heads) would have to be tagged as bucks when an either sex tag is no longer avaliable.

It's not a bad idea. However, I think it would be an issue with only requiring it for less than 500 acres. It would have to be for any size property AND you could use a licensed private biologist in lieu of a state biologist if one preferred. It would give the biologists a lot more work and I do not know if the state would be equipped to facilitate the number of requests in time each year for hunting season.
So, I believe it would probably be better to just restrict the doe season down to a specified number of doe days across the state and/or so many per person, etc. Then if certain properties were loaded with does and needed more tags then they could get the state or a private biologist out to make the necessary recommendations. The state would then approve this on a property specific basis. This would probably be easier to handle as the demand for this would be lower and it would split the work between public and private mangers that could submit the form to the state for approval.
The problem with all of this is that people have unrealistic expectations and are still going to complain no matter what. Some people think that if we restrict the buck and doe harvest then everyone is going to be able to shoot wall hangers off of there property. This is not the case so conceptually I hate to see restrictions applied knowing that the motivating factor/goal behind this from some complainers on here is never going to be achieved (in most of cases). State restrictions should be made for the overall health and numbers of the state's deer herd. But not to speed up the breeding season, force QDM principles, etc. Also, how about the growing coyote and hog problems that need to be addressed. One idea, instead of spending the oil and gas royalties to just buy more property why don't we use a portion of it to better spend to manage what we have, trap coyotes, trap pigs, and etc? There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

I've messed up and done it myself a couple times and it's gonna happen to anybody........ But if the state had some way to protect button heads and educate people to think it over before they shoot a single "doe" wandering thru the woods I think it would help the state's deer hunting as much as any single thing we could do. At least make people count them as a buck for their season harvest. The way it is now Lonnie Sixpack has a free pass to shoot every one of the poor little ignorant creatures he wants to

And I gotta get back to work so I'll go ahead and respond to any negative comments I'm about to get .......
There ain't no reason for anybody but a kid or a brand new hunter to EVER shoot a buck fawn on purpose. Legal or not it don't matter. That's the dumbest animal in the woods and he'd just about let you stand there and throw rocks at him til you hit him in the head with one. Let him go and odds are good that he will probably stay around your place for the rest of his life.
I know they taste good, but I'm sure 6lb fryer sized Jennies are delicious too. That don't mean it's ok to be greedy enough to shoot one of them.

Cleburne, Talledega, Calhoun and Clay counties.

Eastern Morgan County south of the river, west of US 431 and east of I-65, and possibly the entire county.

Central Baldwin County

Well, then get to it!

Add Marshall county, south of the river to the need to shut down antlerless season for a while. Come look at our farm, and do a trail camera survey, I think you'd be surprised....

See evidence of many coyotes in Marshall county?

I had rather you shoot a spike than a doe. If you want meat shoot a buck. If you want to shoot a trophy, shoot a buck. Does are protected on my place, so are spikes for that matter. But if you have to pull the trigger, shoot a buck.

The discussion was actually about fawns (button heads) and the tagging of said fawns. Spikes would require a buck tag.

I agree from a management stand point at least in the area I hunt it's would be way better to shoot a young buck or any buck for that matter than a doe until our deer population is back where it needs to be.....

I thought the reason we had to start killing so many does was because everybody was shooting little bucks and getting the buck:doe ratio and herd age dynamics all out of kilter?

As for shooting button heads, I haven't killed one in about 30 years. My son has killed a couple where we didn't take the time to fully ID which deer was what in a group, but I don't think it is the end of the world if some are killed. I think folks need to account for them in their overall buck kill totals if they are tracking that kind of stuff. If the doe (antlerless) killing opportunities are reduced either by limits or reduced season opportunities it will or should also protect the button heads and teeny-tiny spike bucks that are often "oops" deer.

We did and as always, we over did it.

what if you are in one of the areas that has had the doe population decimated? Then the blanket five could be an issue.

What if you live on 2 acres and kill 5 behind your house and your neighbor next door shoots 5 too and so on and so on........
It has to be done on a per acre basis or it's useless.

Your right a limit of five is too many. I have a new proposal. Let's go with a three deer limit. One buck, one doe, one either sex.

Yes, but there were coyotes when we had 3 doe days and the deer population was increasing, slowly. Coyotes are probably the reason we never got a good deer population though. Marshall county had 1 doe day for years, but the deer never took off.

I've seen one fawn this season. I trap and shoot coyotes. There's nothing more that I can do about them. Hunters can be limited on doe harvest, coyotes can't.

We've seen a big increase in the number of coyotes in the last five years. Mark Buxton says they've gotten a 500% increase in fawn recruitment by trapping coyotes heavy just before and during fawning season. It's amazing to see the results from a heavy increase in trapping.

the point here is to sell more licenses

How do you figure that?

Place I always mention is in Cleburne south of I20.In the immediate area I'm hunting I'd put it with about Morgan County, Northern part of Cullman... rural, but lots of houses = lots of hunters. I don't have any land in Marshall, but go through there often.. bout the same setup.

Nothing like the kind of deer numbers we've got on other places in Bullock, Dallas, Pickens, North Jackson etc.

Why not shorten or close the season in all of these areas that have such low (or seemingly declining) populations? Seems to be the solution for other game animals.

Closing the doe season or shortening the doe season is two of the options that have been discussed......

I am not talking about doe season, but deer season. Some of the folks on here sound like they don't have huntable populations based on the lack of deer seen, photographed, ...

Killing males doesn't really effect the population. Killing females has a huge impact on population.

Killing antlered males doesn't effect the population that badly. Killing unantlered deer has a hugh impact on the population.

Close the season on does. All seasons bow, muzzleloader and rifle. This needs to be done on all public land for sure.

Exactly......

That's what I love about people.....some love to go to extremes to try and make a point everything from kill them all to just close the whole season lol.

No, it is not to make an extreme point. Look back through the posts in this thread and other others one here where people talk about how they get no deer on camera, see no deer, no evidence of deer eating food plots ..., if the populations are that low in those areas why wouldn't you give them every opportunity to recover or lessen the harvest pressure?

It is done around the state with turkeys, some counties get 46 days, some 30, some even less, and some are not opened at all. The season limit for turkeys in all of those opened counties is the same, 5 gobblers, but hunters just have fewer days in the field to achieve their limit and hens are never allowed to be killed. I just don't understand why you wouldn't treat deer herds the same way if you KNOW (not think) that you have a problem in certain areas?

If you don't have money, you ain't getting quality hunting in this state. Just saw a post, that it would cost $5000.00 to join a club. The rich get the deer the poor get the shaft. I have a lifetime license and would only be required to spend 20.00 to hunt the WMAs. They ain't worth it. Public land is crap, herd shot to pieces.

The biologist supposedly working to redistrict and reduce the doe harvest, just posted in the Jackson rut thread that he ain't killed a deer in two years. He's still going to blast the next deer he sees. May have even said doe. Deer herd is surely in trouble. They are celebrating the arrival of turkey hunting in April. The deer hunting is that bad. Sounds worse than I even thought.

You're talking to the wrong folks if you think a club is going to cost you $5,000. More like $1,200.

Codie- read before you look even dumber...

I cannot believe this 10 year old troll has not been banned yet!!! Phucking ridiculous!!!!!!

Check these happy hunters out, scroll thru the pics and tell me these bucks are crap.

https://www.facebook.com/Alabama-Wildlife-and-Freshwater-Fisheries-Division-242269819151597/

Cut the two does a day out , do more to educate hunters on conservation and wildlife managment , the hunters safety course could do a liitle more in that regard . Anything to educate.

You do not have to close the season to rebuild the herd just close or severely restrict doe season/ limits and the rest will take care of itself. The State has had to do this before and it worked maybe too good in some areas. Just like when the started the liberal doe limit to reduce the herd. It worked and worked too good in some areas. There are happy mediums out there the state just has to be more proactive in those areas where there is need.

There is only 1 doe a day here in Colbert Co, might be that way thruout the State.
I know 3 guys that averaged seeing over 15 does a day this past weekend, and one guy yesterday had 21 on the field with (1) 6 point. He's saving that field for his daughter. Only hunted that field a few times this whole season.

We have plenty of does right here in the western end of Colbert.

That's why earlier in the thread we discussed the State managing the State in districts and not as a whole. There are places where the deer population in this state are evidently prospering and areas that are in trouble. Both areas should not be managed the same.....

Have two one week gun seasons for either sex plus week of pw and keep it one a day.Have an either sex limit by county and go to a true tag system.

I don't care/concern myself with anything other than public land, and land near public land. I grew up hunting on the Talladega National Forest in the sixties and seventies when the only deer in the state were on the Forest. Lack of deer on private land concentrated all the hunters on the WMAs. They had three, two day gun hunts a year on Hollis and Choccolocca. The doe to buck ratio was probably 10/15:1. Only antlered deer with visible bone above the hairline were legal. The harvest was probably 90% of the yearling bucks born each year. The WMAs looked like pumkin patches, on these hunts. Hunters were every where. It was insane. I somehow managed to kill a trophy 3 and a half year old 8 point on 8 January 1972. The deer only weighed 115 lbs. but, at the time and under the management system he was a monster.

I might be on probation here. I'm new and have already lost stuff after much typing. Therefore, I'm going to provide my comments in small blocks. NH already considers me weird, more later.

Na, you just jump to conclusions too quick about certain things.

By the way, I passed on the first doe I saw just for you

The rest of the story will remain untold...

You better not have passed on the next ones! The whole point was to shoot does on the place - it's overrun!!

Heck.....I am just glad that he got to SEE one of these elusive creatures that he has sworn to Conserve, Protect and Perpetuate!!!

No doubt. Let's just say I had a tough time sitting on my hands

Gobbler- things were good and healthy. I was a little surprised at the KFI and pericardium fat. Once the habitat catches up things will be good.

I'm in favor of doe days

I would not be in favor of "doe days."

I'm in favor of doe days.

I'm in favor of doe day, but where I hunt, our 4900 acres would be fine if a doe wasn't killed off it for about 5 years, maybe more. The problem with '' doe days '' is that it still provides the opportunity for the blood letters to kill.
The bloodthirsty hunter, or those that '' need some meat '' will take every opportunity available to rape, murder, and kill.
The only solution for some properties is '' no doe days whatsoever ''!!!!!!!!

Amen.

and if he shot 10 on that place he would be doing just that!

Im in favor of doe days,maybe allow certain counties a few more doe days.but im new to this site,love to hunt and like to fish.but hunting is my favorite.I got a question for you guy,s.Im hunting this area that is eat up with big buck sign.I go there this afternoon get in my climber.I sat there until someones dogs came in and ruined my hunt. So I got down at 4:00 and walked out a different direction. Man there was alot more sign there than I realized probably counted 50 rubs and about 15 scrapes.I was pumped about going back there tommorrow.heres the problem,I jumped the deer it was huge atleast 12 points,probably more,he ran across alogging road into some Chatswood.then he stopped behind a large tree, all I needed was him to take 2 steps,he never new I was there.but then them dang dogs started into the hardwoods ,then the deer started running I got 2 shots at him but I missed him.,do yall think he will keep working the area.he will score atleast 150 inches biggest deer I have ever seen in the wild.I killed a huge 7 point sunday 18 inch spread but this deer I saw today will put the 7 point look like a baby evry tine was atlast a foot tall.

Well now. Reckon who this could be? Somebody got a new TracPhone!

???

Only issue I have with "doe days" is that we can not predict the weather. If our week would have been the week of Christmas in 2015, 75 degree temps would have caused problems.

What kind of problems.

i would be fore season limit on does, I would be against doe days. I think coffee county deer numbers are down. I talked to a truck driver last week(drives alot at night) and he told me he aint seen near as many deer on the side of the roads. I would also be fore reducing the amount of out of state hunters

Season limit of 2-3 does until January 1 for the South Zone.

Strictly from a personal standpoint, I'd be for a season antlerless limit but I don't think it could be enforced very well.

Heck they can't even enforce the buck limits. I believe doe days is about the only answer to restricting doe harvest

I'm in for closing doe season altogether in certain areas and a week of either sex season around Christmas. No does after Jan 1 statewide. I'm in Covington county. And please by all means go to a verifiable tagging system that can and will be enforced.

That's my belief also....

Because an outlaw will obey one rule but not the other?

I honestly wish if they are going to restrict the doe harvest that the state would go back to the old buck rules or at least increase the buck limit. Definitely didn't seem to be a shortage of deer under the old system; whether the buck:doe ratio, mature:young buck ratio, and other herd metrics were optimum may be debatable, but there were plenty of deer in most of areas of the state.

No because doe days would be enforceable while doe limits would not....

How so? There ain't enuff wardens to enforce anything we have now......

I agree on the warden shortage but if you are in possession of a doe out of doe season it is obviously illegal , but if there is a doe limit it would not be so obvious.

Deer take minimum 3 years for me to want to kill him. What is the comparison.

This.