Originally Posted by poorcountrypreacher
Originally Posted by BhamFred
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.


But don't you think the new attitude is just because the director now has a much different attitude than the director then? I've always thought the data they had was plenty good for setting seasons and bag limits, and what else does the state need to do anyway? I think the director from 20 years ago understood that, and the director today does not. I don't know if the science involved in random sampling is just over his head or he is trashing the old system because he has another agenda. I really don't know which it is, but its gotta be one or the other.

One good thing about GC - there won't be any need for the state to keep all those biologists on staff. All they will need now is one guy to analyze the data and make the recommendations to the CAB. The rest of them can be sent to the field as GWs.


Serious question. If the voluntary sampling is used, how do you apply that to specific areas? More specifically, from the numbers I've seen in the past, it seemed as if certain counties could very well only have a handful of "results". So should Alabama be managed completely on a statewide basis? Or should it be managed on a more regional basis, since we have such a varied deer herd?

I agree that a survey can provide good enough information to throw a blanket on the whole state. I'm simply of the opinion that Marshall county can't withstand the same amount of killing as Dallas county. Which is what I hope game check is leading to. It would be immensely useful if the plan is to break the state down into smaller areas. Otherwise, it's not that useful unless the whole state has a die off.