Did you know that the voluntary reporting has declined in both the past 2 years? It was broke.

Is the deer herd broke? (Let me guess, you'll say we need data) and then I'll say why can't we use standard statistical methods, and no one will be able to give me an answer to that.

Deer herds not broke at all. No need for fixing.

I'm kinda ambivalent about it; the thing that bothers me the most is that it's gonna be years before GC data is gonna be as accurate as the Hunter Survey data we already have, and it seems from his public comments that the director doesn't understand that. My fear is they will use flawed data to make radical changes that do nothing to help wildlife. And my biggest fear is that's the purpose of it. Hope I'm wrong.

And how did you come to his scientific conclusion?

Judging from your posts, the deer are dang sure broken where you hunt.

The fact is, there's plenty of places around the state that have very low populations in areas which once had thriving ones. There's also quite a few areas that don't have many deer, and never have. Can we identify counties like this with game check? Yes. Can we see when these declines start to happen in the future with game check? Yes, after we have a few years base line.......

I like the idea of keeping up with deer harvest numbers for future management of the states resources and it may be another way to keep people honest about the three buck limit. Almost every state in the country has some type of harvest recording system and we were one of the last ones to implement one. People in other states don't seem to mind tagging their deer, there's nothing complicated about it.

The deer herd, where I hunt, is very good. It is certainly not broken. We have been managing the land. If the state were to go back to 1 buck a day, we wouldn't change anything. I have a vested interest in the land I hunt. I want to ensure that the deer herd is healthy.

I don't have a real problem with the current game check system. I used it on opening day, and while it took a little time, it was not too bad. If I were in charge, I would want a system like game check in place, but I love numbers. Sure, there are other valid ways to obtain data.

My problem with the system is that it did not seem to me to be above board. There were publications saying it was mandatory even before it was in effect. Nobody has come out and said how they plan to use the data, other than using it to determine trends, which can be misleading. They want the data because we are only one of 3 states that didn't have some type of check in system "and that should tell you something", according to Chuck. I think the perception was that we are backwards and behind the times.

There is also the "slippery slope" that this may have put us on. Is this just a step in the direction of something else? That is were my distrust of the government comes in. Seldom does the government make things better. While the intentions may be good, the end result is more and more regulations, red tape, and bureaucratic nonsense.

What are the hunters' goals? Healthy deer herd? Quality? Quantity? Some hunters just want to kill as many deer as possible with no regard to the consequences or future impact to the herd. However, as more and more land is being leased to the hunters, we are becoming more and more game managers. We don't want to pay a lot of money then totally wipe out the deer population. On the land I hunt, I see nearly as many bucks as I do does and young ones. That didn't happen over night or by accident, or because of anything the state has done.

What are the state's goals? I don't think we know the full answer to that question, but hopefully, it is an overall healthy deer herd.

I just think the public would be much more understanding if the state would lay out how they plan to use the data. Their goal is to increase the quantity or quality or whatever, and this is how they are going to do it. They are going to use population studies in a county along with hunter surveys, and whatever else plus they were going to use the harvest data to see if enough deer (or too many) were being killed, or whatever...

Some people are fine with "trust us", others are not. Some are trusting, while others are skeptical. Most people that are skeptical, are skeptical for a reason. Just saying, "we need the data" is not a sufficient response for many hunters.

Wow, that was much longer than I intended.

For those that think it's a pain in the ass I don't understand that at all. How hard can it be to call an 800 # or click in information on an app?

I personally think it just pisses off those that dislike it so much. It's here and it's not going away so I'll and the rest of us will have to deal with it or you can choose to be an hardheaded.

Dang Rebelman, Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and repeat after me...."The government always has our best interest in mind. Chuck will be fired for not doing his job(not for not doing what politicians want him to do), Game check will make outlaws law abiding citizens, and we can all sit around the fire, hold hands and sing camp fire songs."

More government interference. We no longer own land, we rent it. we cant manage our land, we need the government to tell us how to.

You are correct, crenshaw. That scenario does lave a large element of a conflict of interest. However, my post was directed primarily at the specific issue of hunters not wanting to use the App.

You can manage your land any way you see fit. Game check has not restricted you from doing that. You never owned the deer.

I, as a hunter, don't want to use the app because it is being promoted by crooked politicians and the CAB so that they can all grease one another's pockets and achieve their agendas. I don't think it has any scientific or biological reasoning behind it

THIS^^^

Thank you Reb, I said the same thing! We have had regulations since we've been hunting deer, and there will be continued regulation whether we have GC or not, so how can it possibly hurt to make those regulations based on MORE information than they were previously making them with????

The general sentiment here is as if up until now you could just kill however many of whatever critter you wanted to kill anytime you wanted to kill it, but now somebody is limiting those rules out of nowhere. I didn't see this much tinfoil hat crap when they passed the 3 buck rule several years ago. GameCheck has not (yet) created one single rule that we didn't already have. We all bitched about how there was no teeth to the state laws already in place, and GameCheck is at worst only a matter of "teeth", not an added restrictive rule. I've said forever that the ONLY way you can manage is to localize the decisions (by county), and GC will lead to that.

Young Mr. Ainsworth made the motion for the vote to extend the season. He and his high fence pals got 10 more days to sell hunts out of the deal. BTW, this is not a conflict of interest in Alabama.

I'm opposed to it because the state had good suggestions 20 years ago on how to get real data and ignored it. Then spent who knows how much money trying to convince us they were getting good data, only to say now they didn't.

they`ve done such a swell job with the wild hog population.

I hate it when folks reduce an argument to absurdity. Nobody is saying that.

But kinda you could,... as long as you had a printer or a copying machine

Definitely. The workaround seems incredibly easy.