Game Check III

Any timber guys on here? Why do you bother to cruise timber? To get DATA. To know how much inventory you have to cut.

Any gas station owners on here? Why do you stick your tanks? To get DATA to know when to order inventory.

Any store managers on here? How do you know when to order supplies to restock? How much do you order and when? It is based on some type of inventory DATA.

Any farmers on here? How many acres do you have planted or how many bales of hay do you have on hand? You look at your DATA.

I could fill up the page with these examples. But, my point is that Game Check is just a way for the State to get DATA to use in their job decisions. I have never bought a stock without looking at the historical performance (DATA) before buying it but yet our DCNR is trying to make educated decisions on less than quality databases. All they want is a way to get good data to make future decisions. And, it is going to take a few years to get enough data to make educated guesses with.

If all we have to do is dial a stupid phone number or go to a website to help some people do their jobs, then I'm willing to make that effort. Period, If that is too hard for you to figure out, then just wait until the proverbial tank runs dry and then just reorder more (gas, deer, or turkeys, etc.) once it goes empty.

All those examples are free enterprise not run by government. If government gets involved, you can bet they'll mismanage the timber, run out of gas, run out of inventory, and burn up all the hay.

Wade, I can tell you're a smart guy. Every undergrad stats student knows that reliable data never requires 100% participation. In fact, well under 1% is frequently far in excess of what's needed. So why is deer hunting different than any other data set?

Those same students should also know the higher the participation, the more reliable the data is. Personally, I'd feel better about management decisions being made with data from my county, not a statewide survey with a fraction of participants from my county.

The benefit becomes so small it's irrelevant to pursue more data. Any pollster knows this. Why waste resources on extra data that doesn't do us additional good?

Pay 1,000 hunters $25 to do a survey. Boom, there's your reliable accurate data for minimal cost.

It's kinda like 1 buck trying to breed 100 does at one time impossible well that's the same thing these biologist and wardens are up against not enough man power to research every County on a daily basis therefore Gamecheck will help with more info , I bet we will be amazed after deer season to see a huge difference in past data compared to present as well as turkey info .

My entire mindset is based on the concept that I am SICK and TIRED of Govt Intrusion into my everyday Life! Couple that with the ineptness and corruption that runs amuck in Govt Agencies and it makes it even worse.

Not 'blaming' DCNR for anything.

But, Govt is getting too big and intrusive.

Problem is, people continue to believe EVERYTHING they say even when it comes to wildlife. SMH at the gullibility of people.

I agree 100%. I'd love to see deer numbers increase but I'd rather the government maybe just assist where needed, if needed. Not just slam the hammer and say we're gona do this or that. Everything they get involved in completely fails.

All I know is currently we know less about our wild life than just about any state in the country that has a whitetail deer population. We also have the most diverse deer population of any state in the country with the exception of Florida and have very little data/ county/ area specific.

I get statistics and surveys but I don't see "surveying" 1% of the population as a valid way to gain valuable information.

Then you need to check out a book on statistics at the library. Or just google it. Don't take my word for it. 100% participation of GameCheck is fruitless and a huge hassle that I don't support.

"I have never bought a stock without looking at the historical performance (DATA) before buying it but yet our DCNR is trying to make educated decisions on less than quality databases."

Any prospectus that you read will state something like this: "Past performance is not an indicator of future returns." ...............

You are on to something that I have suggested in the past, which is with all of these properties that are were in DMAP and properties that already are own some kind of record keeping why can't that data be requested and used, which by the way will most likely be better than what they will get from a game check call in system.

I am sure there would be many hunters and lease holders that would compile information for the year and submit it on a voluntary basis, I know I would for the lease that I am a part of. But when you slam down the dictatorial government gavel and declare participation by force and penalty, that is where the problem comes in. It's not a hard concept to grasp, but as in the words of a wise man "it's amazing how hard simple is for some folks!"

I already read one, in college...pretty exciting stuff...

Maybe my point should have been that surveying random deer hunters to obtain information that will be used as the basis for laws, regs, limits etc. is a joke. Our DCNR needs way more info. than what can be obtained in a simple survey.

Any ideas on why other states require a mandatory check in? If it's as simple as sending out a survey, wouldn't other states do the same? Or maybe we have had it figured out and other states haven't???

I'm not sure why other states do what they do. No one on this forum has been able to provide me with tangible results from other states' experience regarding deer check in, in the other 49 states. If the results are so good where are they?
Are we supposed to follow the CAB with blind faith?

PapaJ: Love that one. I LOL'ed.

Danny: I agree 100% about Gov't intrusion. I'm about ready to tell the idiots what they can do with my taxes. Hell,I just stood in a tag renewal line for half a day just now.....Why do I need a tag on my 4 wheeler trailer anyway?

But, I was invited to one of the Turkey meetings this week. We have a real Biologist trying to work in a political world in Montgomery. The guy has been there just a few years and we have adjusted deer seasons based on DATA. And, those adjustments were made at the request of hunters so everyone can supposedly hunt the rut where they live. Bottom line is that DATA was used to make the argument, not some Legislator that wanted his farm in his county to get a season extension. Bottom line is that at least we have some biological background in the Department and not some Governor's nephew that needs a job so he gets appointed DCNR Commisioner.

We could always dig Charles Kelley up and put him back in charge so he can take away the decoys. Maybe we did kill every one of them once decoys were legalized (ha!).

One of my serious points is that all we are talking being required is to dial a telephone or go to a website and enter something. I've never had any trouble dialing in Illinois or Kentucky. It ain't like we have to haul every dead deer or turkey halfway across the county to have it checked in.

There is little doubt that Game Check is going to show a huge difference in harvest numbers when compared to the hunter survey - the numbers will go way down. Because the hunter survey is random, it doesn't take a lot of participation to be accurate; 1% is plenty. Since Game Check is not random, it wll need 100% participation to be accurate. You can read this forum and see they are not gonna get anywhere close to 100%. If only half the hunters participate, that will result in harvest numbers that are miles below the actual harvest. And the bad thing is there will be no way to accurately measure hunter participation.

I don't mind calling it in. Eventually, it will become accepted and most hunters will call in their kills. I just hope they understand the numbers will not be close to correct for a long time.

How many of the open meetings have you attended to voice your opinion or ask questions? If the answer is none, why don't you attend one instead of constantly complain on Aldeer about what you know isn't going to work?

In order for a random small percentage sample of the population to accurately represent the total population, it has be REPRESENTATIVE of the total population. Otherwise it is statistically invalid. In other words, what are the odds that a) the people who bother to answer the survey are the same types of hunters as the ones who don't bother/refuse to respond, and b) all those who respond are being completely truthful

Riddle me this.


Little Johnny went outside with his bucket of marbles. He accidentally spilled the bucket on the driveway and marbles went everywhere. Some rolled into the grass, flower bed, and down the street. He picked up every marble he could find and then counted them. He ended up with 245 marbles recovered. How many were not found?


Side note:

little Johnny thinks he had between 651 & 47,777 marbles before he went outside but he really has no clue because he never got a good count to begin with. Little Johnny is only 4 years old and can only count to 10 unless he takes his shoes off. Little Johnny is far from dumb but he lacks the resources to get an accurate count to begin with. Mommy and daddy don't understand common core.




This post was not meant to offend our biologist here but I don't believe the other states know anything except for how many animals were reported being killed.

Well then stratify by county. Get 100 folks in each county. That's still only like 7,000 surveys. Problem fixed.

I plan to. They haven't had one in Bham yet. I bet I'll change their minds

What I was getting at is that the type of people who respond to voluntary surveys and the type of people who throw them in the garbage may possibly have different hunting philosophies/yearly harvest patterns. Plus, even if they had exactly the same harvest patterns, they may lie at a different rate from one another.

An across the board mandate (thus minimizing disparities in data between hunter groups with different mindsets), and enforced (minimizing inaccuracy due to lying) can be a statistically more valid method for collecting data.

Whether or not it's a great idea, worth the trouble, or prone to government abuse, etc is a different matter. I was just saying I can see a voluntary survey being highly prone to error.

In your opinion, what would be the different philosophies?

For one, I don't know because there's so many psychological variables involved. It might be opposite of what I would speculate who knows.

But if I were to speculate, I would guess those who respond voluntarily would be less aggressive in their numbers of deer killed per year (all other variables concerning their hunting situation being equal). I would guess those who throw it in the garbage, for whatever reason, would be more aggressive on number deer killed per year. The reason I suspect that is 1) those who break the law aren't going to own up, 2) those who knowingly overharvest versus what their particular land can sustain will sheepishly low ball their numbers and 3) i think people who voluntarily answer surveys are naturally more "compliant and community oriented" (not that I'm saying that's a preferable way to be) versus those who get pissed and rip up a govt survey, and thus would naturally be more prone harvesting inline with what they perceive would be conservative numbers.

All I'm saying its two different mindsets of people, and there would probably be differences in kill numbers

Those are all valid points - the people who return the survey may indeed kill stuff at a different level than the group that doesn't return it. But here is a key point that must be considered - whatever error factors the hunter survey might have are very likely to be the same year after year. And since we have decades of records from the survey, it gives us a statistically valid picture of the harvest. The turkey harvest according to the survey has been running around 40,000 for several years now. I don't think its really important to know whether the actual number is 35,000 or 45,000. What's important is that we can see it was 60,000 in 2007 so its obvious the harvest has declined from then. It will be a long time before Game Check can show such trends.

I will predict now that the 2017 Turkey harvest will be in the 20,000 to 30,000 range according to Game Check. I will eat crow in here if I an wrong.

I think the main benefit of Game Check in its early years will be the county info. Even if only half participate, it should still give us a better picture of each county than the survey. It will also show when the game is taken, which might be of some use. Again, I am not against the program and encourage every hunter to call in their kills. I just hope all understand the overall numbers are not gonna be reliable in the early years. The biologist at the turkey meeting I attended understood this, so I think the dcnr will understand. I'm just concerned that hunters won't and will demand changes based in faulty data

Ok , I agree with what you said with regard to trending. I agree differences between groups should remain constant if there's enough data gathered.

I still think it's really not accurate data. Especially when a state biologist may be forced to use it for number of deer killed per unit area of habitat.

In order for a statistical sample to be representative of the population, it has to be a random sample with absolutely no bias or forced contribution. This is a basic statistical concept. This game check is not voluntary, and it's not random, therefore it is a null and void sample when it comes to statistical significance.

The intent behind game check is that it will represent nearly 100% of the data. Thus, there is no need for it to be representative anymore. The "legally enforced forced contribution" part will reduce the data not included to primarily poachers and hard core old timers.

It still might not end up being a worthwhile idea, or end up abused, but it's dang sure more valid in my opinion

This was my assumption obviously. I am 100% against game check and I only killed 2 deer this past season. 1 in Alabama and 1 in Mississippi.

I think it's a huge waste of time, money and effort. honestly, I don't want to screw with it.

I think it could indeed be a worthwhile idea, and I sure hope it isn't abused. I believe that it could eventually be better info than the survey, but it is going to take a change in culture before I can believe its going to be more accurate than the survey. I was told at the turkey meeting that they were gonna continue doing the survey for at least a few years. Comparing the results might tell us something about GC compliance

I'm surprised you would say the survey data isn't accurate. Do you mean that you believe data is not even within the sampling error? Maybe you know something about it I don't. I have no knowledge of the procedure being used with this survey. I have worked on a number of similar mail in random surveys and I can tell you it is sure possible for human beings to mess up any project.

I don't have any special knowledge of the current system. Just kicking around my personal ideas on what could be influencing accuracy. To me, complete data just has to be more accurate than incomplete

I don't have any problem with an information to the biologist type of survey, but the Game Check doesn't have any significant information required other than killed deer, which doesn't have a lot of help in management of deer if you don't have other statistical information to go with it. If it is like other studies, it will run for a few years and then other studies will be required to make a conclusion. Making work.

That's another good point. By its very definition, Game Check is gonna record 100% of the LEGAL harvest. If it doesn't get reported, the harvest is illegal and won't be in the stats. We just have to hope the illegal harvest is small; my concern is that it won't be in the early years of the program.

When the buck limit first went into effect it showed a huge decrease in the legal buck harvest; it was 100% guaranteed to do that. Nobody is gonna admit on a govt survey that they killed more than the limit. I've always wondered just how much it reduced the actual harvest. I feel sure it reduced it some, but exactly how much is unknowable.

By comparing the hunter survey with the Game Check results in the next few years, I think we should get a reasonable idea of compliance levels, and the level of compliance should increase over the years. I think harvest numbers will go up every year for a few years, not necessarily due to increased harvest but due to increased compliance. Hopefully, at some point, the Game Check harvest will closely reflect the actual harvest. My main concern is that some hunters are gonna be spooked by the low harvest numbers in the early years and demand changes based on them. As long as everyone is willing to be patient, I think its a problem that will eventually go away. Maybe it won't take as long as I'm thinking it might.

Thanks for talking with me about it.

You make some good points. One way or another we shall see. I hope the information is displayed quickly and in a transparent way. I also hope it's collected in a way, and accessible in a way that allows an individual license holder to download and plot various things versus time for specific areas.

Good points y'all.

Hopefully everyone involved (hunters,CAB, and DCNR) will realize that the data will have some inconsistencies the first few years. But, at least it will give half of us ammunition to argue for something and half of us ammunition to argue against something. But at least is will give us something to base a decision on other than what great Grandpa said was best when he was around.

The sad part is, they've had better info than the GameCheck will give them for years already.

Big point you are missing there buddy is the above are all private sector/ free market choices. It is NOT a government mandate. The state needs to quit being lazy and listen to its own biologists and game wardens who can already give this info. These folks already know what areas need adjustments. There are a few academia who sit back at there desk and complain that this info just will not come to them unless game check is in place. That is a poor excuse. There are ways to get creative if one is to lazy to get out and get the DATA on your own. I'm sick of the argument that more government mandates will be the silver bullet to all our problems.

I don't understand the attitude of being hell bent against a call in game check system? The government has been fully involved In game and fish for longer than I've been alive, so I also don't understand the argument of "I don't want the government telling me how I can hunt ". They always have and always will. Statewide mandatory harvest data can't possibly hurt deer or turkey hunting, in my opinion.

I don't think it is hard to understand the difference between government using force and punishment to achieve beat down compliance versus educating the public on all of the benefit of the information provided voluntarily and much would be available for years from many hunting clubs, leased and pay for play free roam lodges. The government finds it much easier to use MANDATE and FORCE against its citizens (employers I might add) than to work with its citizens.

Its not so much the information as it is the way it is to be collected.

Hope that clears it up.

The way it's collected in Illinois is a two minute phone call, it's an automated deal. You answer a few questions, give a few measurements and get a confirmation number. No big deal! And the locals up there that I hunt with never complain about having to do it. Nor do they feel like the state is totally out of line for having a legitimate way to know for sure what is being harvested.

Yeah, it does such a good job in the area I hunt up there. Lol. I guess that's why I quit going up there.

Well they know how much timber they have to begin with. If the data was only collected on the number of trees that were cut, what would that tell them? If they cut 57,000 trees was that too many?



They know how big their tanks are and can estimate how many gallons per day they sell. What if they only tracked how many gallons were sold and someone else was responsible for filling the tanks?



Again, you can know how many you started with, how many you have, at what rate they sell. If you don't know how many you started with but know you sold 3 and you don't know how many you have left, how many should you order???



What if the farmers knew how much land they planted but didn't know how much land they had available to plant? Did they plant enough? If they used 12 round bales of hay last month but don't know how many they have left or at what rate they were being replenished, then what good is that data? [/quote]



And I could show you that unless you have the right data, it is useless.



Unless we know how many deer we have to start with and how many we "need" to harvest to maintain the herd, then what good is it to track how many have been harvested?

WMA's have their own rules based on biologist input I guess. I have hunted WMA's and have never been happy with the number of deer I've seen. I have seen some good deer but never that many deer. Maybe the deer are there but the pressure is too much? I don't know???

I am in a club and we limit ourselves based on a variety of factors, include personal observations. I would rather hunt in our club than in all the "free" WMAs put together. If we are seeing a lot of does, we tend to kill more of them. If we are not seeing as many does, we lay off of them. We have higher fees and fewer members so we don't have the pressure that a lot of clubs have. Regardless, I figure most clubs limit themselves to some degree, some more than others. Reporting our harvest will not change how we manage our land. We work to improve the habitat for the deer. While we are not perfect, we do kill our fair share of deer. I only killed one buck and one doe last year? Was that too many, too few, or just right, based on the harvest "Data"???

good point. surveys aren't for everything. Maybe they should do a random survey of 1% of the US population to see who should be our next president...

I am in a club and we limit ourselves based on a variety of factors, include personal observations. I would rather hunt in our club than in all the "free" WMAs put together. If we are seeing a lot of does, we tend to kill more of them. If we are not seeing as many does, we lay off of them. We have higher fees and fewer members so we don't have the pressure that a lot of clubs have. Regardless, I figure most clubs limit themselves to some degree, some more than others. Reporting our harvest will not change how we manage our land. We work to improve the habitat for the deer. While we are not perfect, we do kill our fair share of deer. I only killed one buck and one doe last year? Was that too many, too few, or just right, based on the harvest "Data"??? [/quote]

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner here. You are using actual DATA to manage your club!!!!!!!!!! The state is simply trying to gather data for a whole state so they can better manage the whole state. What works in Shelby County is not going to work in Jackson County or Dallas County. Harvest data is the first step into trying to get DATA specific to all areas of the state. Again, one phone call per deer or turkey ain't gonna overwork us.

The state doesn't know what the overall number of deer are so how can harvest data help with that?

Ok, Mr. State. I killed one buck and one doe last year. Was that too many, just right, or not enough? That is the harvest data, so tell me. 2 years ago I killed 1 buck and 2 does. 3 years ago, I killed 1 buck and 2 does. 4 years ago I killed 1 buck and 1 doe, and 5 years ago I killed 3 does. All of these came off the same property.

So, based on the data, how many deer should I kill next year? For the past 2 years I've kept some records on the number of deer I've seen while hunting so I feel that I am better informed about my club than the state could ever be.

If you want the result of State decisions on hunting quotas, hunt the WMAs.

Under the current conditions, I hunt in a club with a very healthy population of deer and turkey. I suspect that Game Check will not help or hurt where I hunt.

If absolutely knowing the number of deer present is require to make any decisions about deer management, every club out there should just chunk their Kill Book in the garbage, and every state agency in the country should just hang it up and go to the house. Might as well give up.

I'm sure you agree that we need some sort of overarching regulations to protect our resource? Given the complexity of our geography, land use, et. what should they base that on? Guesses? What Grandpa told them?

I'm not trying to be ugly, but I can see where a stage biologist trying to establish zones for does, etc would want something to go by.

mman,

Like you, I think site specific data on the actual property I hunt is the only way to set harvest parameters. I can show you 16 years of harvest data with observation data every 5 years on a piece of property in Perry County. We can each share our data with the State. But, that does not help them determine what the DATA is on the other end of the state. If they could get every club to submit the same type of data then there would be no need for Game Check.

I have made a couple of observations off the property in the past couple of years. The State finally appointed somebody with a Biology background (actually managed private lands and had a television series about how to IMPROVE your habitat and herd) as our Commissioner. In three years, he has had his Department go out and collect a lot of fetal aging study DATA and in turn used that DATA to change hunting dates that will allow most Alabama hunters to hunt the peak of the rut. A lot of people said our season closed too early, but, the DATA was used to adjust the season. Second, I have attended turkey meetings sponsored by the DCNR over the past couple of years and and both times Chuck Sykes has asked opinions on how to get good DATA for deer and turkey harvests from all parts of the state. If all I have to do is make a phone call then I am willing to do that.

95% of the threads are guessing what the data is going to say or what it is going to be used for. The first thing we have to do is collect the DATA before it can say anything.

But, don't ask me. I'm too stupid to quote back in the brown box on Aldeer. How are you highlighting the response box?

You don't have to know the exact number but you should have some idea as to the density of deer.

When you hunt an area, it doesn't take too long to figure out if the deer numbers are increasing, decreasing, or remaining about the same. You can't determine that just from harvest data. Many clubs today are very selective in what they kill. Harvest records won't tell the full story.

Of course we need regulations but even if all regulations were removed, I seriously doubt that the club I am in would change any of our rules.

I don't know what the right answer is. I see this as a possible step to get where we may need to be, but until someone can lay out a roadmap to where we are going, I will remain skeptical. It is a giant puzzle, but we only have or want some of the pieces. With so many clubs and private land owners being self regulated and with the State already controlling the WMAs, then I am wondering how useful will a game check system really be?

If all clubs were like yours and mine there would be no need for a game check system.

Call your District Biologist. Chuck said he was planning to attend several local meetings to tout Game Check. See when he is going to be in your area and go to the meeting. There was plenty of comment, question, and answer time at the turkey meeting. I want to help improve hunting state wide, not just on my piece of heaven.

Hit the quote button at the bottom of the post you want to quote

For yours, what I want to quote start with quote=Wade, [but has square brackets around it] and ends with /quote [also enclosed within square brackets like these, if that makes sense].

If this helps us out, then I will be all for it. I am just skeptical that it will provide any tangible benefits. Let's just say, the older I get, the more cynical I get.

Part of my job is analyzing data, so trust me, I love data. If I was a biologist, I would want all the data I could get, I understand that. They are in a no win situation and it is easy to see their frustration. They are obviously passionate about what they do but maybe their skin will grow thicker over time.

If we have to do this, I will comply and just hope it works

Testing my new quoting skill...

Well I be danged. 2414 posts later I did learn something new.

Chuck is one of the reasons I am hopeful and supportive of the state programs in recent years. I met him years ago when he was over a piece of property I hunted on and have followed him ever since. I believe him to be a person who truly cares about improving our resources and until he proves me wrong I am willing to support him and make a phone call or logging a deer on my phone app if that is what he says he needs.

If you feel that way then the right approach in my mind would be to have Mr. Chuck send one of the biologists out to your land and all the other folks in the area around you who are disgruntled and willing to do what it takes….and sign you guys up for their DMAP program. They can get all kinds of good site specific data while they’re there....way beyond what Game Check can provide... and then you guys can use this data to show up and lobby for changes at the CAB meetings …….The right way is not to force this on every hunter and landowner in the state or else because a few have issues. JMO

I have tried to get my club's landowner to enroll in DMAP,but he is not interested in it even though it is free and he has to pay his private biologist. Also the last time I checked my 100 acres was too small to be enrolled in the program. I really think it is the small landowners that have suffered the most over the past two decades because I can see where clubs and large landowners could use the current system in managing their land and if they had low numbers they would have no one to blame but themselves, but the small landowners surrounded by other small landowners really have no chance under the current system.
Btw I actually do not think it is the minority that see a problem with the deer density. I actually believe the minority is the hunters that have really good deer densities. I do wish there was some accurate way of getting the true number of deer a state has but that is impossible. So harvest trends and hunter surveys / observations are just some tools that can be used to monitor what is happening across the state.

I'm not disgruntled , not am I jumping up and down for major changes. I just don't get the resistance to the game check system. How in the hell is the honor system gonna do any good? Deer or turkey?

Does it not make one wonder why the DCNR has the traveling medicine show going around spending taxpayers dollars touting the great wonders of a MANDATED system, when they would not spend a nickel to educate the "public" (read that as peasants and you have the same mindset) about a voluntary system?

Sounds a whole lot like Nancy Pelosi saying "we have to pass it to see what's in it", no??

Is the "public" (yes, peasants here too) so incredibly dumb that the government can't educate us, so they have to MANDATE things and back it up with punishment for the "public" (peasants) to understand how great it is??

Just my little old opinion that any government department or bureaucrat should exhaust ALL options before proposing MANDATED compliance and punishment for their scientific experiments. Evidently that does not seem to be too compelling to many.

They've been pretty outgoing about the voluntary system since it was instituted. It's just that not enough hunters did it voluntarily -- after 80something years of not having any kind of check system at all -- so they wanted to make it mandatory (like other states).

They didn't do the traveling road show, but they didn't keep it a secret, either.

Never knew I was a peasant! Or incredibly dumb for that matter?? If only I could figure this deer hunting thing out. Their must be a bunch of dumbasses involved and working for the DCNR in Texas , Illinois , Kansas , Ohio ....... . Those democrats ruined the hunting In those states !!

Actually, the numbers went down in the part of Illinois that I hunted. They weren't interested in acknowledging it either. Doing so would hurt their license sales, so couldn't do that.

You think they went down because the kills were reported?

Yep. I agree.

Bring their soil down here and then we can talk on an even scale. Until then, it's useless.

What does soil have to do with reporting kill data?

Numbers and more numbers. Those states will always have the numbers due to the lack of gun season. They could not report chit ever and never see a decline in quality or quantity cuz they will never kill what can be killed in Bama cuz of the mighty gun. Other than Texas, but Texas numbers are out the roof. Wanna see a change? Turn Bama into bow hunting 90% of the year. You think numbers and quality will in increase or decrease? It has all to do about soil and what type of hunting is allowed. Game check didn't get those states where they are because of reporting dead deer.

Do you think the regs changed for that area because kills were reported? Spoiler alert, the answer is no.

I don't know the answer to this, but, what are the reporting requirements for MS and GA?

As I recall Mr. Sykes was not happy with the results he got with the "voluntary" system AFTER he tried ramming the MANDATORY version through that backfired in a big way. Kind of got his panties in a wad, so to speak and now he politiced enough with the career pathetics in Montgomery so he could get his way. Now he's trying to sale the wonders of game check because all of the other States have it. Isn't that how it goes.

By the way, I have no problem with them getting whatever information they want for their experiment. The problem is the way in which they are going about getting it through mandate and punishment when there are many other options to get more information that has not been explored or probably considered because mandate and punishment is just much easier.

That is a slightly different variation from the one I heard last week straight from Mr. Sykes. I will not speak for the man, but, look up one of the local meetings and attend if you want to hear his version. Just ask him, he will tell you. Again, all they are asking me to do is make a phone call or log on a website. How hard is that? And, how hard is that concept to grasp?

Most folks don't need his version to know that the person pissing on your back like to tell you it's rain. But not everyone can grasp that.

True. "All we want is a 1 mil tax." "All we want is 1 mil tax." "All we want is a 1 mil tax." Yea, and before you know it they've got 12-15 mil. But all they wanted was a 1 mil tax. You people don't look at the long term of this. Yea it's only this today and then that tomorrow, until it's completely outta control. This country is where it's at now cuz of this inch by inch process.

To me it isn't the idea of calling in a deer harvest, it is that the very limited kill information doesn't seem to be worth anything in the grand scheme of deer herd management.

Apparently the majority of people on this thread don't pull jawbones and record kill data. My club has been doing this for over 20 years. And will always do so. And yes it means everything to our clubs management goals. And the state gets our info , and have never forced any changes on us or our county. I don't trust government any more than the next guy, probably less! But I don't see why folks feel like the dcnr will do anything to hurt the hunting industry, it's a freakin cash cow for them as it is now.

We keep up with kill numbers but nothing beyond that other than an occasional doe weight check. Most everyone puts their bucks on the scale because they want to. I used to feel like all that jawbone pullin and intense data keepin was necessary to run a hunting club but I’ve changed my mind over the last few years. If you know what you’re looking at….and you’re there enough to see kills on the pole….just eyeballing things is good enough.

I look at the habitat and assess the impact the herd is having there and I look at the deer hanging on the pole and assess the health of the individual there. If you can assess a healthy cow in the pasture, then you can assess a healthy deer on the pole. At least well enough for the precision we need. No need to measure with a microscope when the population is being cut with the precision of an ax. A calibrated eyeball is good enough. On top of that I ask members in casual conversation about the numbers of fawns they see while hunting. I feel like that’s about all the info I really need to for me to be able to make informed decisions that are perfectly adequate. Not saying that’s for everyone but there’s really no need in placing all of that mandatory burden on the club members . Not everyone is into “data” gathering like the rest of us.

Well said. The Pelosi parallel was great!
Game check mandates are not going to solve the problem. Game check is not going to give them any new useful info that they don't already have access to (if they did a little work). We need to embrace Alabama hunting for what it is and quit trying to be like Illinois. We are never going to have the same results and that's fine. There is no silver bullet and if there was-- it wouldn't be game check.

I have no problem with Game Check as long as I can call the info in on my cell phone.

Embrace Alabama for what is?????? Crap on that I will embrace Alabama for what it once was and for what it can be again, but not what is right now.......You are right about one thing it has never and never will be like Illinois as far as the average antler score of a buck, but the hunting experience as far as seeing deer and chances to kill a few good bucks by local standards can be as good if not better than Illinois........it has been in my lifetime and can be again with better management of the resource. Now will Gamecheck do this......I really don't know but I refuse to accept this new normal of rare to infrequent deer sighting which is causing problems with keeping young kids and new hunters interested in the sport ( the declining hunter numbers has very little to do with so too many regulations).