3 Buck Limit Question

How was the three buck limit decided on?

Were there biological facts about the herd or was it a just willy-nilly number?
If so, why is that number uniform across the state when the land is diverse and herds unique in different areas?

Also, if it was deemed necessary to have a limit - why just on bucks & why no doe limit?

Your thoughtful responses are appreciated.
I am a member of another forum & we are discussing the possible implementation of some kind of tagging system in SC where there currently is none. We have many legislators who tune in there and some that post.
I'm not familiar with the process that AL undertook to come to its decision. Hopefully I can relay that information to them if it had merit & create a positive impact. Thanks.

1. Biological factors? I'm sure the state biologists had a say so. Whether it was heeded or not, I don't know.

2. Why uniform? Ease of implementation and enforcement. Pure and simple. It would be more biologically sound if they went to specific regions and a tagging system instead of what we have now, but our governor is threatening to cancel hunting season as it is unless he gets his new taxes.

3. Why no does? raising the mean age of does is not a concern. We (as a state) wanted older bucks and a higher buck/doe ratio.

Hang on, because you opened a can of worms.

The answer that you're looking for is ANTLERS.

I don't necessarily agree, but that's your answer.

I agree - it seems to be about ANTLERS.
Under the guise of bettering the resource.

Id don't necessarily disagree with that. Its just not being honest.

To protect the resource would be to protect the babymakers. The same way as hen turkeys are off limits.

I believe the reason given was age class structure. That's what I remember seeing, anyway. The doe limits got reduced, also.

Older bucks = bigger racks. There was no dishonesty about it.

I agree. But you have 10-15% of the state where they have so many deer that killing off the herd DOES.NOT.COMPUTE

Plus the whole QDMA mantra of killing does (I know, I know there's more to QDMA than that)

They should try coming up in the hills and hollers and hunting a long 3 day weekend and seeing only tree rats.

I'm not even saying I'm wanting stricter limits ( I don't), but the end goal is bigger antlers, IMO.

Im very much playing the devil's advocate here.
I like antlers. I don't shoot small bucks.
3 a year is fine by me.
And Im not heavy handed with does, purely my choice & don't fault people that kill a dozen a year either. I look at them as "buck bait". I like them hanging around my stands.

A lot of people feel like they are trying to *sell* the buck limits in SC, where traditionally there has been no limit, for the "good of the resource" when in fact its really about antlers. Also, people want to know HOW they are going to come up with the number.

If in South Carolina you are hearing any of the "But you don't NEED more than ..." bullcrap, put a stop to that immediately. Not a damned soul there should be able to tell anyone what they "need" on their property or in their freezer.

Y'all better push hard for science and biology that is proven and has some kind of reason. Because "you don't need ..." and "aw, everyone knows letting bucks get old and mature is good for everything" are not proven in science and biology.

It would be nice if someone would just say "Hey, most of the hunters want bigger bucks with bigger antlers and having a tagging system and/or point minimum is the way to get there" instead of dancing around with "biology" and "good of the herd" and all that. Same kind of stuff as Corn vs. Food Plots: Just say that both are to help kill deer and be done with it, because they are.

Better antlers yields better resources in my opinion. What am I missing? To me those terms are synonymous. Same thing if you talk about a better buck/doe ratio.

Unless you are one of the people, like some in Alabama, that fear improving the heard will just attract out of state hunters to the degree that locals will be priced out of hunting.

I wish it was 1. And enforced....

1). Just my opinion, the 3 buck limit was a starting point. Is it somewhat arbitrary? Sure, but any number would be. The limit should be a moving target. If the herd is stable, the limit stays as it is. If the herd declines, the limit is lowered. Whenever you set a limit for the first time, it will be subjective. The key is to monitor the herd after the limit is set and then tweak it from there.

2). Why no doe limit? Are you familiar with the voluntary Game Check system? I think a lot of people assume that does are being harvested at a much higher rate than bucks but the data doesn't show that. Bucks are harvested at a 50% higher rate than does. Why set a limit for something that isn't being over harvested according to the data? If the does begin to be harvested at a higher rate, a limit may need to be set. I know a lot of folks will jump in here and say that you can't believe the data because not everyone voluntarily reports it. Statistically, the data can be significant. It's no different than an election poll. You get responses from a very small percentage of people and use that as a basis for determining how the whole population will vote. Game Check can give us a rough idea of the harvest just by looking at what a small percentage of hunters are reporting.

3). Why uniform limits across the whole state? My response is more based on personal preference than biology but I'm glad it's uniform. Having hunted various other states with much more complicated laws, I prefer simple. Some states have their open seasons and limits set by region and this gets confusing very quickly. This is one area where I think Alabama is doing it right. Our current regs are easy to interpret and are constant throughout the whole state. If I get invited to hunt another part of the state with friends, I don't have to worry about different rules or regs. It's simple and I prefer it that way. You have a point that there may be a better biological reason for managing it based on geography, but I dread the day we start making it more complicated than it has to be.

You're dang right. The government already tells us that if we make more money we don't "need" it, by taxing it at a much higher rate. Don't tell me what I need.

Yelp,
I agree you with on the stats part and that makes sense.

I think you are a little off on your Buck/Doe harvest numbers. According to the numbers that the state compiles from the hunter survey they mail out every year, does are killed at a slightly higher rate than bucks. I think the average over the last 10 years is something like 8-10 percent more does than bucks have been killed. You could look it up and get the actual numbers. I am pretty sure it is a statistically accurate survey.

I think you have to factor in the type of hunter that will call in to the Game Check system. My opinion is they would be more ethical, wouldn't over-harvest, etc. We've got to consider the 99% majority of hunters in Alabama who kill everything that moves and never reports their harvest, at least not honestly anyhow. I do not trust the results from surveys.

You are right Mike. The hunter survey results from past year shows a higher doe harvest for most years since 2000. It may be 8-10% higher, I didn't do the math on it but the percentages are usually pretty close to 50/50 for most years with 2013-2014 being the exception (60/40). However, I think this is only the second year for Game Check. Once the results for the 2014-2015 season Hunter survey are published we can see how closely they agree.

$$ would be the root of it.

Larger antlers = more $$
Less bucks being killed = more bucks reaching maturity = a larger number of deer growing large antlers = hunters being willing to spend more $$.

my memory is a little rusty but if i remember the CAB minutes correctly, steve guy who is affiliated with ALFA made a recommendation to form a committee to look into the need of moving from 1 buck a day to some form of a season limit. The committe met and made a recommendation to the CAB. The recommendation was for a 3 buck limit. When steve guy was asked why the 3 buck limit, he said because the ultimate goal of a 2 buck limit with antler restrictions would be too intrusive for Al hunters as a first step. So the CAB took the recommendation and i believe all but one member voted yes. Thus changing the limit beginning in the 07/08 season.

Let me add that the CAB approved this against the wishes of the wildlife section of the ALDCNR, who felt that based on the data available, that Al hunters were beginning to manage the herd without government intrusion.

I think when you institute buck limits it is also important to have liberal doe limits for the individuals that think they are a failure as a man if they go hunting and don't pull the trigger on something. Gives them something to shoot at besides spikes and armadillos. Also for those that like filling their freezer with deer meat to feed the family.

Thats right. Deer hunting controls people. They want big bucks and they are willing to tell you what you can and can't do in your property in order to get it. Honestly I don't think the buck limit has done much of anything other than take away freedoms and liberties.

Does South Carolina have a board of political appointees that are wedged firmly between the law-making folks and the folks paid to study such things and make such decisions? If so, does that group have the right to ignore the F&W guys? If so, good luck.

There's decades of scientific proof that deer herds with a more balanced sex ratio and higher percentage of older age class bucks leads to a tighter breeding window and overall better general health of deer.

The goal was to increase the number of bucks in the overall population, NOT produce trophy antlered deer. Deer are not cattle. They have a much tighter breeding season, and when a buck gets with a doe it takes 12-36 hours of his resources and energy tending her until she's ready to breed. The majority of does come into their cycle in a relatively narrow time frame. If there's 1 buck to every 3 does simple first grade math will tell you that is not a good scenario. Those does that do not get bred will cycle again about 28-30 days later until they are all bred. That leads to bucks exhausting their energy needlessly over a long breeding season. Without wading too deep into this, it was for the benefit of the herd to increase the number of bucks in the population. Higher breeding success, healthier deer, fawns drop in a narrow window in mid to late summer instead of from July-October.

Harvest data collected for the last few decades has shown the trend for AL hunters was to shoot more bucks than does every year. Bucks already have a naturally higher mortality due to their nature than that of does. So AL had a very screwed up sex ratio. Since the implementation of the 3 buck limit we have seen the harvest data begin to level out, with a smaller percentage of bucks being killed to does. That was the purpose, and it is working.

A direct result of limiting the number of bucks that can be killed is an older age structure, which leads to more bucks with large antlers. That wasn't the reason for the limit, but is anyone complaining about having more 3+ year old deer running around?

Just a side note, some of you are no different than the political appointees who ignore scientific evidence and suggestions from those the people of the state have hired to manage our resources. Someone has to make decisions that will promote the perpetuation of the resource. It has already been proven that standing back and watching unregulated harvests is very very bad. Some of you scream about it being an over reach of government power and stripping of your liberties, yet the whole while complaining about how we've allowed the killing of too many does and must stop it now. I've literally seen both statements in the same post by the same people. You can not have it both ways. Either you entrust the state to make the best decisions from the information we have, or you don't. Hate the government on one hand, and cry for their help on the other.

I can PROMISE you there are knowledgeable, hard working, passionate biologist that work for us that care about the resource, and it being here for a long time, and helping people manage their properties to meet their objectives. If we didn't have the desire to conserve the resource and make it better we would all be doing something else to make a better living. We do what we do because we LOVE it.

When the deer on my property quit crossing the line to your land and vice versa, I'll have no problem with you shooting all you want. Until then we all have to share.

and BOOM!!!

Question for Matt and Nighthunter. Nighthunter, you KNOW where I am going to go already!! IF at all possible (which its not) all fawns could be born the same day, I would assume more would survive predators. How old does a fawn need to be for its BEST chance of survival from predators?

And I really like the 3 buck limit. But hunter education is equally important.

Thanks for your post, Matt!

X2. Hire the right folks then get outta their way.

Matt and Nighthunter, do we have more deer now in Alabama than we did 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Anecdotally, I know how I would answer that, but what say ye biologists?

Great post Matt

I think it really is dependent on habitat but I've personally seen 2-3 fawns that I would estimate were 4-6 weeks old give a coyote the slip. This was in pretty good quality habitat though. I'd venture to say in wide open commercial timberland plantation that fawns don't stand a very good chance, their ability to hide is their best defense. If I had to step out on a limb and estimate I'd say they needed to be 2.5 months old where escape cover was limited.



That question can't be answered with a clear-cut and paintbrush type response. It is different in various locales. Some areas have just as many deer as in the 80's-90's, some have more and some have less. These areas can change very, very quickly too. IMO (not speaking in WFF role), habitat changes, differences in management/hunting practices, human population dynamics, politics, and land ownership/leasing patterns/practices has really created a difficult situation to manage our deer herd in AL. To me it makes much more sense to try and manage on a more local level instead of 2 huge zones but that hasn't occurred so we have to work with what we have. That is why I recommend the DMP for the folks that it fits.

I echo NH on that response. About as good of an answer as can be provided.

The committee met for several YEARS and had a wide variety of members over that time. Both private sector, academia, and State biologists and managers were part of it. They actually recommended a straight 3 buck limit to the CAB with NO antler restrictions with an alternative 2 limit. The CAB decided to do a 3 buck with an antler restriction. I don't recall anyone saying "because the ultimate goal of a 2 buck limit with antler restrictions would be too intrusive for Al hunters as a first step". The CAB did NOT approve this against the wishes of the ALDCNR. Corky and Gary opposed it, maybe a few others. The FAR majority of biologists agreed with it.



While I generally agree with you on this Matt, a lot of this is theoretical. I have yet to see the fawn drop in central AL move to June or get super tight even on low density populations. I have seen it tighten when fixing badly managed properties with drop extending from July to November but never tightened to less than 2-3 months.

The buck/doe ratio in the harvest actually leveled out the year before the limit was implemented, if I remember correctly. Hunters were voluntarily shooting less bucks and more does. I don't have the numbers in front of me and certainly could be wrong, but I think it has been pretty level since.

I would like to see some form of proof that the statement "an older age structure, which leads to more bucks with large antlers" is true in Alabama! Or that there are more 3 year olds roaming the woods.

Seems I remember this being stated, in one of the CAB meetings, either the one Porter went apenuts about with you or another one, and that a 2- and even 1-buck limit was considered by the committee but choosing either would have been too drastic after having a buck-a-day limit for so long.

I agree 100%

What I meant by more deer with larger antlers is more bucks reaching older age classes. The limit itself obviously has not increased antler size per age class, but I'm seeing more deer 3+ years and older than at any time in our recent history. I believe it is due to the limit.

Ted, not sure what you are saying. Wouldn't common sense dictate that if you had more older deer, you would have more big racks?

Gobbler, hold on. I never said you will move the timing or beginning of the breeding dates, but while correcting the sex ratio and age structure you will most certainly shift the average breeding date up by eliminating the second and third estrous cycles. I've seen it show up in DMP and other data collected. Some biologist have suggested that you can move the breeding season ahead by correcting badly skewed ratios, but I'm not one of them. Most of those guys went to Auburn.

In other words you can decrease the range of dates but not shift the breeding period.

Told you!

Easy on the AU remarks... but bingo

it was and can be found in the minutes

Gobbler, that's a broad statement. You said: The buck/doe ratio in the harvest actually leveled out the year before the limit was implemented, if I remember correctly. Hunters were voluntarily shooting less bucks and more does.

Yes, I agree that the practice of shooting as many bucks as possible was on the decline but IMO, way too many immature bucks were being killed up until the point when the limit was passed. "You" may not have seen the bragging of "I killed X bucks last year!!", but you probably run in different circles of the hunting world, as your circles probably manage better than most. That's a compliment to you, btw.

From a biological viewpoint, I was always under the impression that the state wanted a more balanced sex ratio and to understand why, one would need to understand what an out-of-balance sex ratio does to a deer herd. I never thought then nor now that, "It's about antlers!"

I thought the state was attempting to reduce:
Late born fawns. (Not good for many reasons not all hunters understand.) Which has negative residual long-term effects
Bucks (what were left) were running themselves sick (literally) as the rut was drawn out over a long period of time.

To name two reasons.

I support the 3 buck limit and it's not about antlers.

i respectfully disagree. The harvest numbers began to change when the doe harvest was changed, and if you look at the surveys they indicate that more does were being killed than bucks well before the limit for bucks was changed. If i remember an AWF survey indicated that just before the limit Al hunters were killing 3 does to every buck.

Also worth noting, one of the members of the limit committee shared on here that they estimated going with a 3 buck limit would only affect 4% of hunters, so 96% were already killing 3 bucks or less a year. You reckon the new limit changed the minds of the 4%?

I'll look at the data Eskimo. I haven't seen it before my eyes in a while. I could be mistaken, but I thought I remember the buck harvest being more than the antlerless harvest until about the mid 2000s. I do fully agree with Gobbler that a lot of AL hunters had already started limiting buck harvest and correcting some of these problems without government intervention, in some areas. In others, there was, and still is a strong mentality of killing every buck seen while protecting does. A lot if it is an education issue. You can't educate folks unwilling to learn though.

personally i dont doubt any of the biologists motives, i do however, doubt some of the cab members and other influential peoples motives. Speaking of evidence and buck to doe ratios, what are they in alabama, before and after the limit? The only answer ive ever heard is i dont know. Im not even sure that i have heard 2 people employed by the state agree on how many deer that live in Al.

Just a side not on harvest and balance....Law says a hunter can only harvest 3 bucks....om most clubs that is the limit per membership...there is also a limit on does of 1-2 per member. And of course in that membership there are BUCKS ONLY guys...and some of them allow others to shoot their does and some don't.
When the harvest data adds up at the end of the season, it's easy to see why we can't seem to get the herd balanced using that scenario...then add in additional natural buck mortality and where are you?
Carry on...and somebody needs to make some popcorn!!

Yeah I'm just so eager to awake in the morning and see how long it takes to read all the midnight replies.

The question is; will you be able to sleep from all the anticipation?

Yeah. I will sleep just fine.

I just wonder if there is a better age class structure or sex ratio in AL now or is it just speculation? Wish we had the data to know



Same thing. We implemented the limit assuming it would lead to better sex and age structure... no one knows if it did or didn't. I don't know that we have more older deer in Alabama... do you? We both have abundant common sense but I still don't know about that



True, I have occasionally seen some compression of fawn drop when converting from poor to well managed herds. Not as much as one would hope or think though! Shifting the breeding season - That's what they taught us at AU - Gospel by God



Yes, that is correct but you left out an important factor. Those 4% of the hunters were killing 33% of the TOTAL bucks harvested in the State!

We have a 3 buck limit. When did that happen?

my point being, did the new limit change that number? Personally i only know of 2 guys that would have fell in that 4% on some years, before the new limit, that changed the # of bucks they kill each year in Al. The rest still kill as many as they want.


And a tagging system is not the answer. If they are not gonna obey the law then another law certainly isnt going to make them.

Im impressed with your ability to paste several topics in 1 post. You should give some classes on that, i still havent figured it out.

Regarding knowing what biologists know...I guess I subscribe to this: If you know this... and you know that... then acting on "known" facts by implementing a plan is better than doing nothing.

If does aren't bred on their first cycle and they go out of estrus and come back into estrus 28-30 days later, you have to look at why they weren't bred on their first cycle. Availability of bucks? Hmmm... seems like a plausible answer. How many times do does 'conception dates get pushed back by 30 days because there aren't enough bucks to inseminate them?

Wouldn't basic reasoning suggests that if better sex ratios were in place, many does would be bred on their first cycle thus tightening conception dates and cause the fawn drop to occur earlier and compressed? I won't get into why this is a good thing but wouldn't that make sense?

What "makes sense", what is "plausible", what is "suggested", and what is "basic reasoning" is VERY different than what we "know". Do we know that does are not being bred on their first cycle? If so so we know why? Do we know that sex ratios are skewed?

I miss 49r'

I can't speak to an AWF survey because I haven't seen it. I did look at the DCNR survey results yesterday out of curiosity. The data can be found on page 7 of the link below.

Allow me to summarize. The doe harvest first began to exceed the buck harvest with the 2000-2001 hunting season. But 3 seasons since then still estimated a higher buck harvest based on the survey. Most years the harvest was a near 50/50 split. Tallying up the total bucks and does killed since the 2000 hunting season, the harvest of does has exceeded that of bucks by 4.27%. If anyone doubts my math, I'll be happy to copy and paste my spreadsheet that I saved. I'm weird in that I love analyzing data like that.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/20132014HunterHarvestSurvey.pdf

I can add that through DMP data I can track the number of does and 3.5+ bucks being harvested, which should translate into the number of 3.5+ bucks in the breeding population. In the last few years it has increased by a fair percentage across the state. Each club is different as should be expected due to differences in management. Can this be translated to all lands in the state, no. But it does give us a snapshot to look at. DMP clubs get to make their own decisions on how they want to manage, it is not a trophy or QDM program, it is a herd/habitat health and educational program.

I said that to say this. Is the buck limit the best way, possibly, but maybe not. It is what we have and it does seem to be working in areas that we have data on (of course, we work pretty closely with those folks too). IMO this is where Game Check would have been a viable tool for us but we all know how that ended.

But sorry folks...I can't post this data since it belongs to private clubs.

it ended up right where i like it ,,,, voluntary !!!!!!

Most people do but it is why we can't answer specific questions sometimes. So the public is losing out IMO.

Gripe about our data collection methods, gripe about our research, gripe about our management, gripe about can't get help, gripe about not enough enforcement, and then gripe if licence cost goes up $.25 or when we can't answer a question to your liking. We are in a no win situation no matter which way we go. That's why we do our best to keep in mind what is best for the wildlife/habitat first, hunters come second IMO.

Frankie,
Why do you think giving biologists more info to manage a resource is a bad thing?

I personally think it would have been a pretty great system had the check-in been mandatory. Now its too easy to for outlaws to fill-up one card and go print another & start over. Hey I get it, theres not a lot of enforcement.. outlaws gunna outlaw... I got it. But it would have been a step in the right direction.

Spot on Nighthunter.

Remember 50% of the people are of below average intelligence... Its not their fault.

I once worked for a facility that was building a nature museum of sorts. We used a professional that had built exhibits for National Parks and Museums all across America. I'll never forget his statement of "when building exhibits for the general public, you generally build them on a 5th grade level". He wasn't kidding. These are the people we deal with everyday.

Speaking of data - are deer killed on nuisance/depredation permits accounted for in the annual "harvest" numbers? Are the kill numbers tracked at all?

They are tracked but.... we rely on the permit holder to give us accurate #'s and follow the permit. There has been an effort to streamline and better this process for us and the permit holders.

This is the one I adore.

As usual, Alabama hunters/anglers have it made when it comes to the simplicity of paying a minimal amount for a year's worth of hunting/fishing compared to other states where the fee structure is x-amount for the license and then x-amount for every kind of weapon, critter stamp, fish stamp, stream wading stamp, looking at birds stamp, gut a critter stamp, you're on state forest land stamp, Bob ate Twinkies stamps, and so on.

When I'm in other states and they ask how much a resident license costs, they think I'm lying.

This whole subject gives me a headache. I have a hard time believing the above figures. I hunt in a very sparsely populated part of the state (and I would guess one of the poorest). There are people in Sumter county who kill many more than 3 bucks in a year. There is a man up the road a few miles who last year on 2 separate occasions (that I know of) killed 2 bucks and 1 doe and then the next weekend killed 2 more bucks. They were not trophys, but this man is providing for his family and eats everything he kills. He even eats parts of the deer I would not eat. (Eyeballs, brain, intestines, liver)

So it is very hard for me to assume that only 4% are killing more than legal. That number was probably pulled out of mid air, or used to get the result the government wants.

My main problem is the limits set across the state. We have a pretty good deer population in my area and could probably kill more without damaging the population, but in other parts of the state you can hunt all day (or weekend) and not see a deer. Our herd is larger because of the crops in our area and the plantings we and a few other clubs plant. Other areas where there isnt as much cropland will probably have fewer deer. But that can change from year to year. If the farmers in my area stopped planting soybeans and started planting cotton I assume that some of our deer would go somewhere there was more food.

However if they tried to adjust limits based on the constantly changing conditions it would be a nightmare. I dont know of a better solution.

So he killed 4 bucks and 2 does in two sits. Makes perfect sense since he eats them Why couldn't he shoot 5 does and 1 buck? That guy has the desire to shoot more bucks than is legal plain and simple, eat them or not.

Don't forget about how many days one can hunt in Alabama versus those other states .

BS if they aint gonna fill out one thing what makes you thing they would fill out some thing else .


i was against it because it would do nothing but count DEAD DEER . IF the folks that moaned about having the check in mandatory would file all thier kills there would be enough stats to go by .

i don't see where i done any griping but i have my disagreements .

so , if some do not agree with you they are dumb ????

I don't think that's what he meant Frankie. I can tell you from having several public service jobs that the majority of people in this country still have to have some one explain a simple three step process after reading it on paper.

I certainly hope that wasn't meant for you or anyone on here. I disagree with you on this but I don't think your dumb for that. Just difference of opinion. Name calling and personal attacks are usually done by the ones who can't follow along in a discussion.

Didn't necessarily mean you griping here. Just pointing out how it goes in general. Obviously I wasn't calling you dumb either...

yeah , when i work at a rec area for the air force i had people fail the boat safty course with the book in their hand .

no problems here with what you said . i understand you , y'all , they have a tough row to hoe at times .

There is no need for a buck limit or a tagging system if does are limited. Limiting does is the least restrictive way to manage the herd. Don't shoot the does and there will be plenty of bucks to go around

Please explain.

Hawdog, it doesn't work that way. If you limit does and don't limit bucks there would almost certainly be way more bucks killed than does. Bucks have a higher natural mortality. They need more protection.

Haven't we already done this?? '70's?

Frankie,
I wasnt calling you dumb. Thats was directed more at Nighthunter's post about the contradictions of the general public.

You are right. There are plenty of people that report that gives them data.
But the larger the sample size & more accurate, the less the error.

Im not sure why some people are so scared of it. I think is our responsibility as a sportsman to help out. They're our animals and I feel like we should all try our best to take care of them. I dont feel like the state biologists are out to hoodwink us in a demented game of gotcha.

lol ,,,, hey whats wrong with seeing 25 does to 1 buck . . i set in macon county one day and saw about 75 cows come through a little later i saw 32 does come through the same trail all in a line like the cows . when we used to run dogs we had to run some places twice to get all the trash run off to get the bucks up . i remember the first few does days , damn what a slaughter it was .

Actually, I understand what they where doing: Building numbers from a decimated resource. But the lag time in correction seemed too long. But of course it always seems too long because I am an impatient person. While they are collecting data and analyzing it I want something done NOW!!

i asked myself , how would mandatory check in help the health of the herd ? my reply was , it won't . counting dead deer will give you data but does squat for helping herd management .

being scared had nothing to do with being against it . the bad in it out weight the good in it over all . imo

the state will always lag . the hunters know what changes are needed and they should make them and not wait on the state to figure out what they (the hunter) already know .

hell , changing minds is the hardest part . people get set in their ways after awhile . over all i think people are better now with changes than back then and they adjust faster.
before they put in the buck limit i was already seeing a lot of hunters getting picky about what they killed .

Frankie- I agree to an extent. We have some great management practices that will never see the light of day due the same lack of support you saw with Game Check. And I don't just mean with hunters... You'll just have to read between the lines on that one.

Yes, changing minds is very difficult. Maybe with more info gathered would assist them in that. One thing for sure, recording buck harvest info and then throwing it away is absolutely stupid. What purpose does that serve??

Now as far as the hunters knowing faster, I agree...for your area. BUT they are looking at the WHOLE state and trying to give a blanket management approach allowing the hunters some leeway. I see a huge difference from one side of a county to the next, let alone the whole state. I'm no whitetail guru but I'm further along than the average Alabama hunter who hasn't even thought about deer season yet. One of the reasons you saw more picky hunters was education. Another reason was the false allusion that what they saw on TV happens everywhere.

nature of the beast . the government is either a day late and a dollar short or tripping over it's own self . it's meant to be that way .

i think over all the state is doing ok .

Yes it does work that way. It should not need to be explained. When you kill a doe you also kill the bucks that would have come from her. When I hear people say we need to kill more does, I want to ask if they know where babies come from. But since that may be considered derogatory, I wont do that here.

I agree that there is a lag in the laws. We waited to long to allow does to be killed, but now the pendulum has swung to far.
There was a very marked change in the hunting when they opened up does for the whole season. I went from seeing 10-20 deer every weekend to 10-20 a year. The deer where I hunt were never overpopulated. The deer are not bigger now. There are just less of them, a lot less. I am not saying to not kill any does like in the 70's, but it should be limited. We had it as close to right as you can get in the 90's with the doe days. With doe days there is no need for tags. It is legal or it ain't depending on the day. with limited does killed there will also be no need to tag bucks, because there will be more of them. So for those who say we don't want more government intrusion into hunting than is necessary, well this would do it.

The three buck rule is ridiculous. Me for example, I have three properties that I hunt in three different counties. what I kill in one county will have no impact on the other places I hunt. I am not alone. For example if someone wants to hunt public property during bow season and kills three bucks. They would not be able to hunt their own property no matter where in the state it is.

I do appreciate the idea of liberal seasons, which in theory allows each landowner to make their own decisions. But what happens is the neighbors manage for you. I cannot manage a deer population that is no longer there.

Damn right, one of my favorite posts. And I really wish someone would enforce it. Madison county needs much better game wardens.

I have told this before on this site, but I will tell again.
I have one property in that is surrounded by doe killing machines. when I talk to them they only think that we need to kill more. As stated above I may see 10 -20 deer a year there. across the river I have another property. We will kill a few does a year. our neighbors might kill a couple. and we will see deer every time we go. and yes big bucks, wall hanger bucks. these two places are only about a 15 minute drive apart. The only real difference in management is the number of does killed. Unless you are truly overpopulated (very rare), the only thing killing does does is make less deer.

I feel its also up to each club to help enforce buck limits. If a member is killing more than the limits its damaging their club herd. While they may not be able to arrest they can call a gamewarden or kick the member out of the club.

Bingo!

47 has a couple of great wardens. Only problem, there are only two. Those guys go all out. If you need them just make the call. Hat's off to them. They have never failed to come when I call. Most times they beat me to the offenders.
The state is gonna have to 'pony up' for it to get any better, and they ain't. Not in the near future I'm sad to say.

I will relate it to the Red Snapper in the Gulf, started limiting size and season and the fish have gotten bigger as a result

Yeah, because the two we have here are just so horrible, never do anything, sit around eatin' donuts all the time and let the bad guys have the run of the county.