Antlerless deer limits - 2/day (gone), 1/day with no season limit, an antlerless limit per season, limited doe days, ...

...and castration by rubber band.

Of hunters, neighbors, or deer?

I haven't kept up with the "politics" of deer hunting in Alabama. What are the hot topics? What do hunters think of the buck limits? What changes are hunters pushing for?

In TN, lowering the buck limits is the hot topic right now. Although little evidence exists the current 3 buck limit is allowing too many bucks to be killed, a very vocal segment of the hunting community is still pushing to lower the limit to 2. If that truly is what the majority of hunters want, I don't have a problem with that, although I seriously question whether it will make a difference.

Seems like a small change(3 to 2) like that would take years to notice a difference.

Again, if hunters want a 2 buck limit, I'll support that. But the problem with saying it will help is the fact that almost no one is killing three bucks. First, of TN's 220,000 deer hunters, less than half kill even one deer a year. Only about a third kill even one buck in a given year. Of those who do kill bucks, only a tiny percentage (1-2%) actually kill 3 bucks. So is a 2 buck limit going to "save" many bucks? Probably not. On the flip side, it isn't going to inconvenience many hunters either. And the argument of the 2-buck supporters may be correct in that under a 2 buck limit more hunters will wait on killing a 2nd buck, knowing that ends their buck hunting for the year. The result being some of those hunters never do fill that last tag, hence some extra bucks are "saved."

At the same time, I'm not sure this is needed, except in the lower deer density counties of eastern Middle, and East TN (units A and B). Most of the counties in the highest deer density areas (Unit L), have good harvested buck age structures, suggesting the age structure of the buck population is doing just fine. I hate to see hunters limited if that isn't biologically necessary. I'm a firm believer in the state providing hunters with the maximum freedom of harvest that will not do harm to the resource. I am deeply, DEEPLY opposed to the new movement towards managing state resources to produce large-antlered bucks. That's an effort best left to individual land-owners, not a system that should be forced on everybody by the state.

I know anter restrictions doesn't boost population as a whole. With that being the case, the antler management on State lands is more for the hunters. It's a tight rope that they have to walk. Because if hunter satisfaction is down, pretty soon the hunter numbers will be down. When the hunter numbers go down, so does the money coming to the State. Do you feel that this is the reason why they're managing from an outside of biological reasons standpoint?

I fully support a state managing different public lands under a variety of rules. This gives the non-landowning public the chance to hunt different types of management strategies. TN has some public lands managed using nothing but the annual bag limit as the only buck restriction. They also have some public lands under "QDM-type" restrictions. In addition, they have a couple being managed for trophy potential. Giving hunters a choice of management systems to hunt is a great idea.

I just don't want the state telling all hunters what age bucks to kill. Making suggestions is one thing, but trying to outlaw the killing of young bucks absolutely will drive hunters away from the sport. And in most of the Southeast, is not biologically necessary.

Welcome back BSK!