How long before you get your three tags in the mail?

I think our current process for recording your three bucks is just a warm up. I think pretty soon you will actually be issued three tags that must be attached to the horns like other states. I think this would be great for growing bigger bucks, and improving the overall age structure of our deer in alabama. We all know now that some people kill three bucks then just print off another tag and fill it up also. I dont , but I know some people do. I dont think for a minute that this would stop the outlaw from killing more than his share , but it would keep more honest people honest and make people be pretty selective on that third buck. I think it would be the one single thing that could most impact the quality of hunting in the state.

The only thing I don't like about the three buck limit is if you hunt public land you have only a couple of weeks to shoot a doe. If they want to grow bigger deer they need to make it easier to shoot something other than the first small buck that walks out. I try to be selsctive but when you aren't able to kill a doe during doe days then you have to take whats available.

Bibb if you look at the quality bucks coming in this year,I think its clear to some of us that as it is there has been some good impact already.
Gdalecoach its clear you are a meat hunter and thats fine. I would rather eat deer meat everyday too. These changes are for the benefit of the quality of hunting available in Alabama. Looks like you'll just have to hunt harder or become a better hunter to get your does. Are you bowhunting. Maybe thats how you can get you does or hunt other areas like corps land.

Amen! I would love to see the tag system come about. Even if there is no check in station, having to tag your kill would be a start. As far as Gdales comment. . .if he is shooting the first deer that walks out that could be his problem.. and chances are on public land, you arent going to see three wall hangers anyway, so go on and use one of em on that meat deer. Personally, I wouldnt mind if we didnt have but one or two buck tags . . definitely makes you choose your kill more wisely.

I'd like to see the tag system.

Maybe they could institute a call check in system.

The DCNR currently manages wildlife on 756,000 acres of land on properly designated wildlife management areas. Those areas are designated for wildlife mangement in accordance with the game and fish laws. The commissioner of the DCNR has been given broad authority to manage those areas as he sees fit.

If you want the DCNR to have authority to manage wildlife anywhere else in the state that you want them to, you need to go thru the legislature and get laws passed that authorize the DCNR to do that. Until you do that, don't expect people to honor the rules people like you come up with by manipulating the system to get your way without going thru proper legal procedures.

If the land the state manages by law is not good enough for you, get your own land or lease some land and then make up all the rules up you want to and manage it however you like. Tie little tags on antlers and restrict yourself from hunting to your little heart's desire.

Hunting is a right recognized by our constitution. Our state game and fish laws allow for hunting within reasonable limits set to protect the species... not for wildlife management. If you don't like it, go thru the proper legal procedures to get it changed or get over it. Until then, your petty rules will continue to be violated.

I've been screaming that very argument, from the rooftops, since before there was an imaginary buck limit.
Feds aren't interested, they defer to state for seasons & bag limits on NF lands.
State seems only to be interested in expanding their rule over private lands, leaving public land hunters to scavenge for tiny morsels that fall from the plate.

I doubt tags would make any difference or have any impact around the areas I hunt now? I figure if folks down around where I hunt shot more than 3 bucks they just would not tag them. Why not tag does too? That might impact areas that I hunt as much as buck tags, North Pickens County is not over populated anyway.

1. The folks "you know" will just take the chance of shoot and drive like hell home so they don't get caught with an untagged buck.
2. Outlaws will always kill more than supposed to.
3. Honest folks are already honest. If they ain't, they ain't.
4. Tags won't keep some that "you know" from doing wrong, but huge stiff fines, jail time, and the states support for increased GW's and surveillance will prevent "some".

Now if folks know "some" that are breaking laws and those folks REALLY CARE ABOUT CONSERVATION AND GAME LAWS, they will turn those SOB's in.

CHACHINGE!!

I agree , I have not actually witnessed somebody do it, but I am just sure there are plenty of people sorry enough to not think twice about it.

I agree Outback. On most NF land I hunt, the buck/doe ratio is getting way out of whack. There are very few mature bucks also. I think an earlier doe season and a longer one will greatly benefit the deer herd there. I am not opposed to a tag system, it would keep an honest man honest. If some hunters would use better judgement, we wouldn't have a 3 buck limit anyway. I know of some people who used to kill as many as 20 deer a year. If some people have unfilled tags and want to give one to another hunter who has met their limit I wouldn't be opposed to that either.

Do the math:

Estimated population of deer in Alabama according to Gary Moody when the qdm limits were being debated: 1.7 - 1.8 million deer.

Kill 35% of 1.7 million to keep at same level = 595,000

Total deer killed during 2009-2010 season = 289,000

Additional needed to keep deer in check = 306,000

We better quit killing coyotes. They're doing our job for us already. Add tags and a bunch of other qdm crap and we might need to import some more coyotes to keep the deer population from exploding. Lord knows more hunting opportunity ain't the answer.

I don't think you can say that for the whole state. There are some areas that do need more deer killed, but there are also some areas that need to back off the doe slaying.

If you get excited and get that feeling that causes us all to deer hunt, shoot! One simple rule.

The whole state is exactly what I'm talking about.

The specifics of individual properties were not used to implement qdm limits... they were implemented statewide. A tagging rule would follow the same logic... manage statewide, not specifically.

306,000 fewer deer killed than qdm advocates and you're bringing up tagging rules being needed??

If equal numbers of does and bucks of that 306,000 had been killed, that leaves 153,000 more bucks that could have been killed without "harming the health of the herd" as the liberal qdm bunch preaches it.

Which "hole in the bucket" are we going to use as a reason for the next rule to restrict legitimate hunters from killing deer???

they'll go to a tag system eventually if serious hunters will keep pressing for it - alabama's deer hunters are becoming more quality oriented, so i think it's just around the corner - i'd like to see a 2-part tag system for both bucks and does - possibly even divide each county into quadrants - this would allow for different quotas where needed - the harvest information provided by a tag system would be extremely valuable in managing our state's deer herd

Ok, here is my question,say a guy is a meat hunter and he does not care one bit about horns. Should he be limited by the state simply because as some on this forum say, he is not a quality hunter. I will not fault a guy if he shoots a doe every day of the season if he wants as long as it doesnt go to waste. I think the trophy hunting elite mentality has done damage to the sport of hunting. I have to hunt in places where there are very few deer because I cant afford the 2,000.00 dollar lease and you can bet your bippy if a spike or a 4 point comes out somebody is going to smoke him because he may be the only one you see all year. Please dont jump on me to bad

If you go back to the beginning of this debacle, no one cared to ask what the rank and file hunters thought or how we felt about how we would be affected. "Study groups" composed of members of special interests groups met and made their proposals relying to a large degree on a survey of 18,000 Alabama Wildlife Federation members in support of their agenda.

There were around 250,000 licensed hunters who were never surveyed for their input. The directors at the DCNR had little input and were opposed to the changes. They expressed concern that fewer deer hunters and fewer deer being killed would be a result.

It's easy to pull numbers out of the air and say a majority of hunters across Alabama support this qdm crap. Until I see the results of an independent survey that includes all hunters, not just members of a special interest group, then I will know the truth. No such survey exists because it was never conducted.

You do not have to do anything. Do not blame taking a small buck on anyone but yourself. If you are proud of it then shoot it. If you are not proud of it then wait for one you will be proud of.Btw shooting does does not make the bucks bigger letting the small ones live longer does that.

You and I both know those are bogus wild ass guess numbers that do not mean anything.

If the hunters on public land would manage thier resources better they would have the best and cheapest hunting land in the state, but the mentality of hunters on public land is what has drivin most to private leases anyway.

5,000 acre lease....easy to make restrictions

public land with 5,000 people hunting it....not so easy

Guys,

Please be careful what you ask for!!!! I have hunted in States where you have to hire a lawyer just to hunt. It is crazy. I love our simple system!

I would like to see buck tags but I doubt they will come. Just to much headache and expense unless they go up on the price of the license.

Just look at some of our sister states, they have archery, dog hunting, muzzleloader, turkey, small game, big game, and they make you buy a dang license for each. Do you really want to start down that road. I say keep it simple and just hunt.

You can control your trigger finger. Exercise it or don't, it is up to you.

"Serious Hunters", you mean trophy hunters. I would be willing to bet that the majority of Alabama hunters would classify themselves as just hunters. They would rather have a simple system like we had before or at worst like we have now. The "simple hunters" voices are not heard because most are not politically savy. They do not have friends in Montgomery. They just hunt. Most ethically. They are the majority.Rich people and city folks influence the majority of changes in hunting regulations. Why? Because they talk proper and have friends. Its time the majority are heard from. We just want to hunt. Just a license and a weapon. That simple.

You mean the hunters that years ago desecrated the deer population of the state, because they where uneducated and dont know whats best for the deer heard. I understand now. They just wanted to hunt , kill what ever they want to kill and everything will be fine.

Ya'll can argue all you want about this. In my opinion a tag system will do no more good than what we have now.

No, that's not what he's talking about.

He's talking about the serious hunters who rebuilt the deer herd during the past century after those before them desecrated the herd for a living. All it took was a little moderation and a whole lot of common sense. You can thank them for the deer you now want to manage.

Deer don't need you to wipe their ass and spoon feed them. Most counties had zero deer in 1900. In 2000 there were 1.7 million... and it was done without qdm and without tags.

Finally someone with common sense.

For some reason....I like 49er

It'll pass.

49er i hear there's a big debate going on in Smuteye over the legality of a proposed jay walking ordinance - maybe you can help straighten things out before it gets out of hand - about the time you get done those tags ought to be in the mail

There's no way there are 1.7-1.8 million deer in Alabama. Maybe back in the 80's but not now. I've seen the population in my area decrease over the past decade. I used to see a lot more deer then than I do now, both in the woods, on the roads, and in the fields. The area i hunt in doesn't need a lot of doe thinning. I hunt on 225 acres of family land and I take ONE a year and that's it. I killed one buck this year and may take one more if he's a nice one. If anything my area of Autauga county needs LESS doe days, while the buck limit is just about right. I wouldn't argue with only having a two buck limit.

I agree that before any more rules are changed that the every day, run of the mill, deer hunter needs to be surveyed, not these $2,000.00 a year lease hunters. I'd say they are in the minority and shouldn't decide what the rest of us should or shouldn't harvest.

No need to go up on the license cost, just require every hunter to buy a license.
We have 10 times more hunters, than license sales indicate, because there's no incentive to buy a license.
You can go for decades without having to show anybody your hunting license.

The solution is so simple my bird dog could do the math.
1) Implement a tag system, whereby the tags are acquired with your license, sequentially numbered and issued to the individual.
2) Impose heavy fines for transporting an untagged animal and conduct random inspections at local processors, coffee shops, gas stations and honky tonks. (most of the GW's visit these establishments regular, anyway)
3) Require the filled tags to be logged in by using the EXISTING internet survey site, or the EXISTING tele-check and the EXISTING local retail stores.
Unused tags would simply expire with your license.
The increased license sales would more than pay for the tags, and the Game Wardens would actually have SOMETHING to enforce.

I'm with you Outback!! And willing to help start a petition, sign a petition, etc. to get it going.

I wonder why Georgia did away with tags while so many in Alabama seem to want to start them?

Maybe because their bureaucrats overcomplified the process?

I purchased a lifetime hunting and fishing license in '89 so that I wouldn't have to annually remember to purchase one, would you be for the State exempting lifetime license holders?

Hell no ... no exemptions.

Lifetime holders would have to do whatever would be required inasmuch as tags or check-in is concerned.


All you guys whining about the "little guy ain't being herd" and the state's "deer heard" and whatever else is being carped about, show up at the Advisory Board meeting in February, March and May. Make your voice heard, contact your AB representative and the DCNR guys and tell them what you'd like to see.

Quit bitching about it on a Web site or go do something about it.

Alright, that's it. Discussion over. Clem's getting upset.

Clem, you are too funny!!!

For all the Advisory Board worshipers that get upset if you talk about hunting unless you are in one of their meetings:

For the record May, 2007

Subject: Vote on motion for qdm hunting restriction

[page 88 CAB meeting minutes]

Why not at least take advantage of the opportunity to speak directly to them as a group?

They're there. You know the time and location for each meeting. Even if you do only have 3-5 minutes, you can talk with them during breaks or before/after. That opportunity exists. Use it.

49er says he's taken his own route and spoken directly with others. Good for him. That's a step, too.

Why does someone who is serious about deer and deer hunting always get called a 'Trophy Hunter' in a derogatory manner?

It irks me to no end to see grown men, seasoned hunters no-less, with a shed full of spikes and other small yearling bucks antlers. It HAS slowed down with the 3 buck limit. But, mostly just by the law-abiding hunters.

A 'real' tag would go even farther and be much more enforcable! Think about it.....you could not let anybody see a set of antlers that did not have a tag attached, much less take him to a processor or taxidermist.

I also agree with Outback that MANY hunters don't even buy a hunting license!!!!!

The lack of tags, and the repurcussions of having an 'untagged' buck might would help to encourage more to buy licenses.

Great Post Hogwild! I'd love to see all those piles of basket racks
disappear from all pickup beds.

Perch,

Sometimes well-meaning people get so caught up in their OWN civil liberties that they fail to see the greater good.

The Tagging would be a HUGE help to Law Enforcement!!!

It might not stop the night and road hunting......but, the ones doing it had better not get caught with a fresh rack that is not tagged!!! And most criminals aren't real smart! LOL

You don't have to do a tag a teli check system works great. Just call your kill in to a recorded message get a kill number and log it on your license. Theres a dozen states that do this and it works great. If a processor has a buck with no kill number he gets fined along with the person who kills the deer its simple.

Oh yeah, don't forget to require every licensed hunter that kills a deer to use only approved processors and if you process your own and you don't have a log number then there is really a huge fine. Ooops, I forgot GWs don't have time to check every house. Only the honest people are going to do what is required, which I would bet almost 100% of the honest people now comply. It's like gun control, it only controls the honest people.

Might just be me.....

But I think that a tag that remains permanently attached to the antlers would help to solve many of the existing problems.

Do you also want the warden to go hunting with you and hold your hand. Just more big brother government getting involved in every aspect of life. Let me guess yall are all democrats too. Why don't we just let the federal government issue us our deer tags? Why not? The do such a great job with everything else. (Ha Ha)

I completely agree. People have different opinions , but like I said we couldn’t go from no tags to having to attach one to the antler. So I think we currently are in a transition period and within 5-7 years we will go to tagging. Now the current system would have been much more effective 15 years ago before everybody bought their license on-line and could just print off however many they wanted. The current system would probably be more effective now if you just received your license in the mail , and it was on special paper and you only had one copy. I know people will say that maybe they want to buy their license the same day or don’t want to wait for it in the mail. It wouldn’t be perfect but when you bought it online you could get a confirmation number and that would allow you to hunt immediately without the license, but after like ten days you would be required to have it. I know I have done this before in Florida with a fishing license.

Why would you make that huge jump in your conclusion??

I guess that you trust all people, never lock your doors or put your belongings away, don't have a gate on the property you hunt and leave the keys in all your vehicles with the windows down.

I doubt it.
Or, you just don't have anything that you have worked for and place value in one!

Is there a rampant problem with people shooting more than three bucks? If so, since the GWs can not be everywhere, is anyone that has actual knowledge and facts providing that to the GWs? If not, why not? If there are people that are not following the regulations and laws now will a tag system be the panacea that will set them on the straight and narrow?

I wish we would go to a 2 buck tag system and have an antler restriction. It drives me crazy to know that I let smaller bucks walk on the wma's and when your loading your stuff in the truck there is hunter after hunter coming out with spikes and fork horns. It would bring the average size of our bucks up and we would start seeing more of them.

WMA's are public land. If a person is happy shooting a spike, then they should shoot it. Some people only get a weekend or two to hunt. They don't have time to "Trophy Hunt". Not everyone cares for trophy hunting. Some want to shoot what they see. There are still big bucks out there. If you want to shoot larger deer quit being lazy and hunt harder. Dont blame your lack of success on the man that shot a spike. Public land is hunted very hard but the people that put in their time kill big deer.

Funny thing, you know.....you talking about hunting PUBLIC land.

The same person that does not want Govt. control of his hunting wants to hunt on property supplied by the Govt. LOL

I guess you did not read the post before mine. I did not say I hunted public land. I just made an example from the post before. Read up.

Yeah, I've read them all.

You don't like 'The Man' telling you what you can do and what you can't do while you are hunting.

You are not alone, though!
With the liberal seasons and ridiculously high bag limits that AL has in place.....ANY restrictions (even less than what was in place a mere 10 or 15 yrs ago!) that they impose now are frowned upon and resisted by many of todays hunters.
I ain't picking on you! You seem like a good guy!!!

It's just the irony of some of the posts that amuses me.

Maybe it is because they were needed to help enforce the Laws when they were first implemented, but their neccessity waned as the hunters became more compliant??

Just a thought!

I don't really want any more restrictions, no tags, just buy a license and go hunting, I was not crazy about the 3 buck limit, but most years I do good to see one I want to shoot anyway. I came up hunting when a spike was a good kill; I have killed my share of them in the last 30 years. I wonder sometimes if the trophy hunting crowd has hurt the young hunter. I hunted several years before I killed something that would score 100, I could see how a young feller would grow tired of something with a very low payback. I came up bow hunting and killed about every deer that I could with a bow, and had a blast. I lease my own place with two other fellers and we can shoot whatever we want. We are selective though, none of us has killed many deer and we encourage kids to kill any deer seen. We don't restrict any kids to any type of progressive scale like I see all the time where a kid can shoot one spike, then 6 pt, then 8 pt or better. We let them have at it. I do not even have a kid now that hunts, but the other 2 guys both have kids that hunt some, but so far only one small doe killed by a kid on the place this year, kids don't want to hunt, rather stay home and play video games I recon...

Book, this post kinda nullifies your line of reasoning in the rest of your post and the philosophies of your group:



I think that the whole Outdoor Experience that is commonplace in today's World is too 'slow' for today's Youth.
There is no small-game hunting for fear of 'spooking' the deer.
There are no exciting dog-drives that leave the youth exhilirated.
The 'sit and wait' and seeing NO deer approach is just not conducive to keeping the attention of youth.
Not to mention, be still, be quiet, take a 'scent'free' shower, gotta get there early, gotta sit here late, gotta sit here all day......etc. does NOT sit well with most of taday's youth.
PLUS: I have not heard anybody say they wanted to restrict kids to shooting 100"+ deer. Matter of fact, I haven't seen evidence of wanting to restrict ANYBODY like that.
It IS a problem. But, I think that your blame may be a little misplaced.

Effective doing what??

What is the goal you wish to accomplish??

As I posted earlier, we only killed 16% percent of our deer last year. A basic premise of qdm is that at least 35% should be killed to maintain the current level.

The number of hunters is down as well.

What, exactly, is the goal that would be accomplished more effectively if I hang your little tag on my deer?

I absolutely do NOT believe that!

And I bet that you don't either.....but since it is the basis of your arguement; you'll swear that you do.LOL

Hawg, I have been in several clubs that allow a kid to kill basiclly 2 small bucks in there lifetime, then its 115-120+ bucks like adult members. I was in a club in Coosa Co that claimed to be kid friendly with this rule, now I don't have a dawg in this fight. I have one daughter that has killed a few deer, but she will only go about one day a year now that shes in college. No real problem with the rule, just don't claim to be kid friendly

I used the same source the proponents of qdm limits used in the beginning.

Are we going to change horses in the middle of the stream now??

What is your goal in advocating tags Hogwild? Exactly what goal would be accomplished by using them?

I agree, Book.
That is not kid-friendly at all!!!

To help identify illegally killed bucks and to help curb the excessive harvest of young bucks.
Pretty simple and straight-forward.

I do not need to search the internet for articles, or opinions, to back up my common-sense philosophy.

We should not have ANY laws because only honest people comply, and the dishonest people who break the laws don't get caught very often.

How many young bucks were killed last year?

You don't know the answer to that.

How many bucks were killed illegally??

You don't know the answer to that.

The only goal you have is to force someone else to do something you want them to do to make you feel better.

There are no well defined goals in this mess. No process of evaluating the results is in place.

We don't know where we started, and we don't know where we need to go. It's all a wild shot in the dark and you know it.

Site-specific management is the only truely scientific method to manage deer.

I do know of a BUNCH of illegally taken bucks.
THAT is where you are wrong!!!

You are also quite naive in your own perception of what goes on in these woods down here. And before you get on your high-horse about turning these people in.......The local GW knows it just as well as I do and is trying to catch these people. It ain't that simple, though.

I do know that the numbers that you quoted and that are used in the DCNR's management of our resources are pulled out of thin air and used to manipulate the system and twisted to promote whatever special-interst is being promoted. I didn't really figure that YOU would admit it, though!

Why exactly are you AGAINST tags? Not any special number....but tags themselves?

We're not discussing specific areas here. The qdm restrictions are STATEWIDE. So that is where you are wrong. You don't know how many bucks were killed illegally STATEWIDE, and you don't know how many would not have been killed illegally if I was required to hang a tag on the deer I kill.


That's why I don't advocate that my preferences be made into rules down there. You don't know what goes on up here. You are naive about what happens on my lease, but you still want to be involved in the management decisions there.



I am against tags because people who own or lease land should have the freedom to make their own site-specific wildlife management decisions. The role of the DCNR is to protect the species.

They protect the species by setting seasons and bag limits. That is their job.

So, you don't think that your area of the State has a problem with poaching, road-hunting, night-hunting and overharvest of bucks?

Lucky you to live in THAT World! LOL

[quote=Hogwild]I do know of a BUNCH of illegally taken bucks.
THAT is where you are wrong!!!

You are also quite naive in your own perception of what goes on in these woods down here. And before you get on your high-horse about turning these people in.......The local GW knows it just as well as I do and is trying to catch these people. It ain't that simple, though.



So how does a tag system make catching illegal harvest easier?
Is the illegal harvesting occuring on the land that you manage?
I believe you and 49er are speaking the same language when ya'll are saying that neither one of you knows what is happening in each others neck of the woods and that is EXACTLY why site specific management is the answer and not a Statewide tag mandate that nothing to stop illegal harvest or make catching the perpertrators any easier. A tag system would just put more required useless stuff in the way of having fun going hunting, right?

Oh, but you leave off the defined purpose of those seasons and bag limits... to administer the functions and duties of the Department. Nowhere will you find the purpose of wildlife management mentioned in the laws that define the functions and duties of the DCNR... nowhere. Wildlife management is an option the commissioner is given on wildlife management areas.



I didn't say that, so why are you laughing out loud? Those are your words.

D**n as smart as you are you should work for the DNR or at least be a warden. Then when you straighten out our wildlife you should run for president. You would fit right in.

Fun-4-all,

IF there was a tag system that called for permanently attaching the tag to the antlers of the buck (like many States already do) it would allow a GW to ticket an individual for possessing a fresh rack without a tag.

IF there was ANY fear of getting caught DURING or AFTER the illegal act, it would reduce the chance of people doing it. Right now, the GW's have a hard time....they cannot be everywhere all the time. They literally have to catch them in the act! Tags would help alleviate that problem.

Never said it was a cure-all.

How do you know I don't?
How do you know that I don't know who you are, where you hunt and how?

If you think there is ANY rule that the CAB can concoct that would be more effective in guarding against violations of the rules that club members place on themselves, which are usually more restrictive, btw, then you are the one that is naive. Try killing a buck illegally where I hunt, and the game warden won't have a chance to get to you first. Your pockets will already be a bit emptier before he gets involved, and you may not hunt there for awhile, if ever again.

49'er

It ain't the legal-hunting, law-abiding, lease-holding people that I am worried about!

And that ol' 'tough-guy' BS is just what turns most poachers on. They LIKE to poach on property where the people think like that. LOL

To catch a poacher, you better learn to think like one!

I doubt if I could think like that even if I tried.

How about if we just manage the deer ourselves and let the game wardens catch the poachers, night hunters and road hunters instead of checking our tags and making sure we have 144 instead of 143 inches of orange on and seeing if we filled our little qdm record out??

Who's doing the damage to the species here anyhow??

My main point is to help with the enforcement of the current Laws.

Why are you so against that?

Because it takes attention away from enforcing current laws and puts it on enforcing petty rules that serve no good purpose for the protection of the species. Well intentioned hunters are getting the tickets instead of the outlaws in far too many cases. That hurts both ways.

I'll just agree to disagree.

So, carry on with your crusade against the Buck Limits.
I already knew that you didn't like them and what your agenda is.

Sorry that you cannot garner the support that you need.....NOT!

I don't think we do disagree.

I think we both know this is all about enforcing qdm (buck) limits, not about enforcing bag limits set for conservation of the species.

And the "tag system" is different than the "Antlered Buck Harvest Record" that is in place now? I would imagine that if a GW saw a set of fresh antlers in the back of a truck that he would ask to see the State required "Antlered Buck Harvest Record" for verification that it was recorded as required "Before Dressing Or Moving The Carcass". Both systems require that the GW see the antlers and check paperwork. I would submit that if a person is not doing that now, then they probably will not do that with a tag system either. With that being the case "fear" does not lend more weight to one system or the other. However, if you want to talk about "fear" becoming an issue the the State should implement significant fines or prison time, but you know we are just talking about deer. The same deer that some people (farmers, insurance and paper/lumber companies) might consider pest and some people (self proclaimed "trophy hunters") might consider protected (until of course it meets their standards to kill). I would venture to say that the vast majority of hunters are between these two extremes.

If a person wants to manage the property that they hunt on by shooting any State defined legal deer that they want or by only managing for what they consider "trophy" (or for political correctness "Mature") deer then I say enjoy managing your land locally!

Sorry, but I rambled onto a different discussion that doesn't need to be hashed out on a tag system thread!

Out Back ,,,,, you are forgetting that land owners , people that live on the land and people over 65 do not have to have license.

what about them ?????

I am personally for a tag system. Reasons... The local village idiot that lives next to my 800 acre lease. He comes in when we are not there, rides the roads day and night, shoots all moving deer. And what can we do?? Nothing. We do manage our place and so do the neighboring clubs. GW's are non existent where we hunt. The Hrvest record we currently use... even IF he did fill out a record, after he shoots three small bucks, he can just go print another.. who will ever know? Some might argue that the Meat hunter has to shoot spikes because it is all he may see.. well it dang sure will be if he shoots the first thing that walks. If there are spikes in the area, there are does, and most likely there are bigger bucks. Nothing wrong with being a meat hunter, but it doesnt mean you cant hunt to promote a better quality of wildlife. It is known that an old doe will only birth one fawn, whereas a young doe is more likely to birth two. Kill the old doe when possible. Now with all that said, I am not saying it is just wrong for someone to shoot a spike. If it is just all you see and just have to... fine. BUT.. it is the guy that shoots multiple spikes in a season. That hurts your deer population waaaaay more than what a doe will. We would all see more deer and better deer if everyone atleast attempted to practice a little qdm. If you havent, I urge all of you to watch the show, "Wild Justice" on NatGeo. You can see some insight into the lives of the california GW's and maybe appreciate some of us that have a genuine love for the outdoors and a passion for protecting our wildlife.

It's not just you, it's just common sense.

They would still be required to obtain the appropriate tags, at no cost.

Thats ridiculous. A tag system will have no more effect on reducing illegal kills than the 3 buck limit did in forcing those who killed a bunch of bucks each year to stop at three.

Why not?

I think it is ridiculous to say that it would not help the GW's to do their job.

Don't have a license.....no tag!
Killed more than 3 bucks (WHICH MOST POACHERS DO).... no more tags!
GW called out to investigate a notorious bunch and finds fresh untagged antlers.....a ticket!

How could it NOT help?

Heck, it is no more 'inconvience' to the hunter than the system now if you are a law-abiding hunter and do as you should! So, why be against it?

If I were to open my wallet right now you would find licenses for three different states, and I live in Alabama, if i broke the law and was not caught in the act, but later, I would simply say that I killed it in a different state. If I was concerned about getting caught leaving the property I would simply use the skinning rack at the barn behind a locked gate and keep the horns and meat there or just say the horns were given to me by someone else or that they came off of a deer that had been shot from the road or get some tags for my minor children and use them myself or any number of excuses.

You have heard over and over that you can not legislate morality. Agree with this or not, if a person chooses to not abide by your tag system, the reality of being caught is very small. In fact, because of Alabama's limited resources, almost non existent.

No, that's not ridiculous. But it will trim down a level of those who don't want to take the chance. The man said isn't wasn't a cure-all.

Louisiana started there tag system in 07, before you were allowed 6 deer per season, all bucks or all does or any 6 deer, then in 07 when you got your license you got your 6 tags 3 does and 3 bucks, your license is a water proof and tear proof recipt type and is great, your tags are removable, when you harvest your animal tag must be placed and you have 72 hours to call in your tag. and record on license to. I was fortunate to still be there when they started it and its a good thing for the honest hunters, Alabama needs to lookat other states and get some ideas for our state.

Key phrase "its a good thing for the HONEST hunters".

That statement makes me wonder............

If it is a good thing for honest hunters,

WHO would be against it?????

The premise that was discussed earlier was that a tag systerm would help the GWs catch illegal hunters (i.e. poachers). Therefore, if it only works for the "honest hunters" then how will it help the GWs?

There is a system already in place that apparently only the "honest hunters" abide by, so why create another system to keep the "honest hunters" honest? More regulation, hoops to jump through, etc does nothing except burden the "honest hunters" and create more inefficient bureaucratic waste. If the goal is to reduce the illegal harvest, then that should be handled by very stiff penalties against the "DIShonest hunter (i.e. poacher)".

However, if the goal of a tagging system is to micro-manage the resource down to the local level then that is a different discussion altogether.

The other thing a tag system with telecheck would be good for is collecting more accurate data on our deer. The current system is voluntary and im sure even all the honest hunters don't submit their data

WOW!!! Uncureable problems

I reread my post and I didn't see anything in it about me blaming my lack of success on anything. I killed 2 very nice 8 points this year both were on public land. One came from here and one from mo.
I don't know one person that would shoot a 4 pointer over an 8 pointer, and if they say they would there lying. All I am saying is its only common sense that if u let the small ones walk there gonna get bigger.
I know u can't talk sense into some folks especially the ones with the brown its down mentality but when that generation dies off we should be able to have what other states have.

How is a tag system not voluntary? A person still has to take the paperwork out of their wallet, afix it to the animal and call it in. Would a poacher do that? If you have to send the tags back in at the end of the season before new tags are issued, what would keep the poacher from just not using the tags or not use all of the tags and send the ones they did not use back in even though they killed more than they were supposed to?

The tags also would only account for the deer reported and not for shot and unrecovered, killed by predators, killed by cars, die of old age, etc. A management tag system is a good idea when there is a defined controllable area where the amount of pressure, land area and harvest information can be obtained, such as State WMA or other individual tracks of land that someone wants to manage for herd density, buck:doe ratio, age structure, antler size etc (this occurs now).

Micro-management of the resource should done at a site specific location under the broad regulations established by the State (like it is now). That is not to say that studies of local areas should not be done to see what is happening or what can happen, such as Lowndes and Barbour County WMAs, but using that information across a broad spectrum of different properties would not be good science or management.

just curious how implementing the info gathered from these studies on a statewide level would not be good science or mgmt - please explain

Too many variables and assumptions, it's kind of like the NOAA weather forecaster being able to forecast what will happen at your house at any point in time when he is sampling the entire country. However, you can tell what the weather is doing at your house when you are there observing the current conditions and using previous history for that location (the same goes for deer manegement from the State level or from the local land/leaseholder level).

Are we supposed to?