The reports of conception dates confirm what we already
knew: from Montgomery south the bulk of breeding takes
place the last week of January and the first week of February.
So hunters in those regions only have the opportunity to
hunt the first few days of the rut, unlike those in the
northern half of the State.

Starting the season one week later and ending one week
later in the Southern half would be no difficulty for
anyone.

The report also confirms what I have stated in the past:
the rut is genetic based photoperiodism and that is based
on where the deer came from when restocking was done. Most
of the Southern half of the State have deer restocked from
southwestern Alabama which breed later than any other
whitetail in North America - unfortunately.

The report is just a political whitewash courtesy of the
folks who just are too lazy or too sorry to make positive
change. They just don't want to get off their buns and do
anything. There is nothing contained in the report to justify the conclusion, it is just the say "no" mentality masquerading
as a "report". No suprise. That is the nature of beauracracy.

Who did the study and who wrote the report?

Why didn't they sign their names to it?

I guess I'm confused on the Montgomery line deal. The other counties with late breeding must have to suck hind tit.

And this ties you on number of posts WmHunter.

I wouldn't.

Me neither

I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone not hunting southern counties would be against the southern counties being allowed to hunt the rut. Is it spite? Is it some kind of a competition? Is it a difference of opinion on when the rut comes in? Is it because any kind of change whatsoever is bad?

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

If I collected one doe in March on our lease in Tuscaloosa County and found that the doe was pregnant, would anyone believe me if I proclaimed that the "average" conception date in that area was in March?

How about if I got the Commissioner of the DCNR to put his name on it? Would you believe it then?


I counted 17 collection sites in the Appendix of this report where the "average conception date" was calculated using 5 deer or less. Six of the sites show an "average" conception date that was calculated using only 1 deer.

Good point. I think they should study up on "statistical significance". If I flip a coin and it lands on heads 8/10 times, that doesn't make it an 80% chance of heads over time...

Take a look at Monroe County. 6 deer sampled and the average conception date is March 4. What happened here? ..... Everybody late to the party?

Take just one or two does that concieved far outside the norm (say in November, or April) and it can throw the average conception date out of whack unless you have a large sample number. That is probably why they want to continue their sampling for several more years to obtain enough samples for it to better average out.

One other thing, I seem to recall reading somewhere that when the biologists take their samples, the fetus must measure a certain length, and if not, are discarded from the data sets. If this is true, then is it possible they are discarding data that would shift the average conception to a later date?

Maybe somebody can answer this?