I've read through the comments on here and think it's a very interesting, yet political topic. I commend those that are suggesting that whatever decisions are made should be based on scientific data. Along these lines, much of this discussion has focused on the reproductive surveys that the state has been conducting since 1995. They have a decent data set, and are working hard to make it even stronger. Hopefully, science will play a role in this decision.

But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. I feel that we should be doing two things: (1) Making decisions based on data, and (2) Considering the biological, social, economic, etc. implications for whatever change is proposed. In my opinion, number 2 doesn't seem to be getting much attention.

Does a potential increase in buck harvest concern anyone? Does a potential decrease in the proportion of mature bucks in the herd cause concern? Does a potential shift in sex ratios have implications? These are just a few of the biological effects that could occur. Would they devastating to our deer herd? No. Might they take the deer herd in a direction that is not what we would prefer? Maybe.

I don't know if any of these three (and there are more) would happen, but, I would like to think that the potential for biological effects such as these would be considered during such a debate...in this venue as well as in those where the decision is actually made. I have refrained from discussing the social, economic, and other types of effects that such a change could lead to, because my training is in biology.

I understand the desire of deer hunters in Alabama to hunt the entire pre-rut, rut, and post-rut. I have no problem with opinions that are either for or against such a proposal. I just hope that we all consider the effects that any changes might cause.

I guess I would ask all to just take a few moments to consider both the positive and negative aspects of any proposed changes, and try to consider them from both sides of the argument. I think such an approach would help to generate additional thought-provoking discussions.