TO: Commissioner Barnett Lawley
FROM: Buck Limit Committee
DATE: May 4, 2007
RE: Proposed Buck Limits in Alabama


On 4 April 2007, a committee comprised of Mickey Easley, Steve Ditchkoff, Bill Gray, Chris Cook, Steve Guy, Ted DeVos, Keith Causey, Brian Murphy, and Joe Hamilton convened to address issues relating to buck limits in Alabama, and to formulate recommendations for Commissioner Barnett Lawley and the Conservation Advisory Board. Specifically, the committee was asked to provide recommendations to the following questions:

(1) Is there a need to limit the number of adult male deer harvested for proper management of the Alabama deer herd?
(2) If there is a need to limit the harvest of adult male deer, what way would be recommended that would incur the least amount of inconvenience to the hunters of Alabama?
(3) What research is necessary to ensure proper management of the resource and to ensure its future health?

After receiving their directions from the Commissioner, the committee met with Mr. Corky Pugh and Mr. Gary Moody to incorporate their input into the decision making process. This meeting lasted approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes and enabled the committee to ask for opinions and input into the process. This also enabled Mr. Pugh and Mr. Moody to ask questions of the committee, and provided them an opportunity to express their opinions on buck limits, the state of deer management in Alabama, and alternatives to buck limits.

Following this, the committee met for approximately 5 hours, and addressed the issues outlined by the Commissioner. The following outlines the recommendations of the committee.

1. Need for Buck Limits

A buck limit would serve to reduce harvest pressure on the male segment of the herd, thereby reducing the number of young bucks (1.5 years old) harvested and increasing the number of bucks 2.5 years old or older in the population. In other southeastern states, buck limits have successfully reduced total buck harvest, reduced the proportion of 1.5-year-old bucks that are harvested, and increased the proportion of older bucks in the harvest. Because age is associated positively with antler size, this change in age structure of the harvest has translated into more large-antlered deer being harvested.

It was unanimously agreed by the committee that buck limits would be beneficial to the deer herd in Alabama for both social and biological reasons. From a social perspective, data suggest that a majority of deer hunters in Alabama are becoming more interested in deer quality than quantity. Additionally, the majority of respondents in the 2003 AWF survey indicated that they would be in favor of buck limits or antler restrictions.

Biologically, there are numerous potential benefits to a reduction in the buck bag limit. As fewer bucks are harvested, the proportion of mature bucks in the population increases, harvest pressure is shifted to the antlerless segment of the deer population, and a more balanced adult sex ratio results. This serves to compress breeding dates, which leads to a reduction in late-born fawns. This is particularly important in a state like Alabama with a late (January) breeding season. Additionally, the presence of mature bucks in a population serves to suppress breeding effort in younger bucks, thereby allowing them to conserve resources which can translate into healthier deer in succeeding years.

2. Recommended Limit

The committee felt that either a 2- or 3-buck limit would be beneficial to the deer herd in Alabama. It was unanimously agreed that buck limits less than 2 or more than 3 would not be appropriate for the state. The following is a list of three buck-limit scenarios that the committee felt would be beneficial, in order of preference:
(1) 2 bucks
(2) 3 bucks (one buck must have at least 4 antler points on one side)
(3) 3 bucks
Without question, the 2-buck limit would provide the greatest protection to bucks and have the greatest overall impact of reducing buck harvest. Because of its potential impact from a biological perspective, it was the preferred solution of the committee. However, the committee also felt that from a social and political perspective, it would also incur the greatest opposition by hunters in the state. In contrast, the 3-buck limit would have the least impact biologically, but would be the most palatable to the majority of deer hunters in Alabama. The 3-buck limit with one buck having an antler restriction was a compromise between the two scenarios that would have both intermediate biological benefits and intermediate hunter opposition.

All things considered, the 2-buck limit was preferred by the committee. In addition to reducing buck harvest, it was felt that a 2-buck limit would further increase antlerless harvest, thereby improving efforts at herd reduction; with obvious benefits regarding reduced crop damage and deer/vehicle collisions. The committee also felt that the majority of the hunting public would embrace the 2-buck limit and approval ratings would be high. However, it was felt that whichever scenario was incorporated into the Alabama deer management program would be a vast improvement over the current one-buck-a-day scenario.

3. Necessary Research

The committee unanimously agreed that it was critical to monitor the effects of buck limits on deer quality, hunter success, and hunter satisfaction. However, during the discussion it became readily apparent that any monitoring program would be much stronger if it was evaluated in terms of goals. As a result, the committee determined that the ultimate goal of the buck limit should be to reduce the harvest of 1.5-year-old males to the point where they are only one third of the total adult buck harvest. This number was determined after examining data from surrounding states that have successfully implemented buck limits.

To monitor deer quality, it was suggested that adult male deer should be randomly examined at deer processors to evaluate the age structure of the harvested population. This will enable simple monitoring of progress toward the goal of 1.5-year-old males comprising less than 1/3 of the adult male harvest. Hunter success (e.g., number of bucks and does harvested in the state) and hunter satisfaction could be monitored through the existing survey that is conducted by the state, or more complex surveys could be administered to evaluate these aspects of the program. Specifically, it was recommended that the success of the program be evaluated after 3 years.

4. Implementation of the Program

The committee felt that a major issue associated with a buck limit would be enforcement. It was generally agreed that a license system where hunters were required to document (date, county, antler points, and signature) the harvest of a buck in designated space on their hunting license prior to leaving the field would be a simple, yet efficient means of ensuring that hunters abided by the limit. This system is currently being employed in other southeastern states.

Although it may be argued that this system is somewhat reliant upon the honor system of the hunter (the system operates under the assumption that the hunter will fill out his/her hunting license as required), it is the opinion of the committee that the current system of one buck per day is also dependent on the honor system, as is every wildlife bag/possession limit to a certain extent. As a result, neither the proposed bag limit nor license/tagging system would impose any additional challenges to law enforcement agents.[/u]

Another common argument against buck limits is the responsibility that is placed upon the hunter to properly identify deer prior to harvest. However, the responsibilities that a buck limit would place upon hunters would not exceed those that already exist under the current limit of one buck per day.

The committee felt that non resident hunters should also be allowed to harvest a season limit of bucks, regardless of duration of the license that they purchase. It was generally agreed that concerns regarding nonresidents purchasing duplicate licenses to obtain additional buck permits would be enforceable as a felony due to falsification of a state document.

While the committee was not convened to address issues concerning wild turkeys, the group felt that a similar license reporting system would be beneficial for turkeys in the state of Alabama.
--------------------------------
--------------------
***************
Steve Ditchkoff
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences
Auburn University
***************