Statewide antler restrictions

What does everyone think about the entire state going to this? It's slowly happening on our public land. I think it's just a matter of time before the whole state is that way

Wouldn't really bother me.

Of course it'll happen. Just a matter of time.

Deer hunting used to be fun.

Wouldn't bother me any.

what restrictions?

Everybody I know in MS originally did not like the idea and were not for it when they first went to it, but they now love it and say the hunting is better now than it has ever been. They are seeing more and killing better bucks than ever before. They can also bait deer over there and shoot over feeders. No effect on the health of the herd so far. The antler restrictions definitely have helped the overall age structure of the MS herd according to the guys I talk to over there.

Ha. Yep. They have antler restrictions in MS. But it's stupid because you can still kill most 1.5 year olds. Can't kill spikes, but also can't kill some old deer with real crappy racks. More rules isn't always better.

I thought Mississippi had a main beam length restriction.

I actually like that one and think it will result in shooting more mature deer. (more so than number of points, which is stupid)

Against it.

It was absolutely fun - when you could only kill a doe for about 2 days with a rifle.

I hate to admit that, because I was brainwashed about doe management being a viable option on a statewide level. It doesn’t work for the majority. Maybe for the minority. The entire state had to take on the consequences of unlimited doe harvest to satisfy the “needs” of the minority.

And there will be fractional differences with antler restrictions vs number of buck restrictions. As long as the number of bucks is restricted for the honest man, adding an antler restriction is a waste of energy.

Doesnt really matter what we want.

^^^ This.

I don’t care for a point restriction as a stand alone management tool because to be fully effective it takes more than points. Although I guess some will say it’s better than nothing, which I guess may hold some water. If not done correctly, you still shoot lots of young bucks with tons of potential and will be forced to pass up older bucks that don’t have enough points, but are fully mature. I would rather do an incentive plan of some type to encourage shooting older age class bucks regardless of number of points, maybe earn preference points for SOA areas, bonus rifle hunts on WMAs, etc. Perhaps jawbone aging, unused antler tags, etc. would be means of qualifying for incentive plan. I would think that it’s more the combo of limited “extended range” opportunities (not every day is gun or muzzleloader day) and the points restriction combine to create older age class bucks on the public land resulting in trophy class bucks. After a few big bucks start showing in an area, people become more likely to pass a small shooter in hopes the bigger ones step out, which moves more bucks up an age class the following season. Just my two cents. Not everyone will agree.

Anyone against antler restrictions has not hunted in Barbour County lately.

I hunt small private property, we don't see a lot of larger antlered bucks here so depending on what their restrictions are it could ruin our deer season, so no I'm not for it.

But...but...we have to grow bigger and better bucks because that's what the TV hunters say. It's got to be a monster giant swamp donkey ten point that's a 7 year old.

Hunting like the internet ain't fun anymore.

Totally agree. Chuck Sykes and a few other wealthy black belt landowers with heavily managed property had an overpopulation problem so they opened up unlimited doe killing to the whole state. Any farmer can tell you what happens to a herd after about 5 years if you have a big predator problem and also butcher just as many females as you do males. You won't have a herd after very long. I have yet to see a single place in this state with the so called mythical "browse line" that indicates overpopulation.

They originally started with a point restriction but realized that they were "high grading" their herd and killing off the genetically superior young bucks. They've now gone to one of the two must be met on min spread or beam length. IMO it is protecting the majority of 1 yr old bucks and some of the 2's. There is also an exception for any hunter under 15 yrs of age that allows them to kill any three bucks they want regardless of antler size which I think is a good thing.

If I was in charge we'd have about 8 days selected for doe harvest...opening weekend of rifle season, the Friday, Saturday and Sunday of Thanksgiving and then 3 or 4 days sprinkled in sometime around Christmas.

Personally I like the antler restrictions we have now. 2 bucks of choice and 1 that must have 4 on one beam.

Cut back doe harvest throughout much of the state and you'd see better hunting in a couple of years. Just my opinion...I didn't go to school for deer biology though.

sad but most likley true.

I just think if nobody went over the 3 buck rule we would have plenty of bigger deer. Not for telling people what they can shoot just dont shoot everything that moves and abuse the resource. Greed when it comes to hunting is about the only thing that really aggravates me, grown people that have to kill just to be validated. If a guy wants to kill a 4 point or spike thats his business just dont kill 3 like that in a year, try to kill a better one next. I know some people that will kill more than three small bucks and a bunch of doe every year and they dont even really eat them, will just give them to whoever wants them. I dont understand that.

Just another reason for the govt to write a ticket.

Then you're looking in the wrong places...

Granted those places are fewer today than they were several years ago.

This is how I view our problem:

-In the 80's and early 90's the state had plenty of deer, but not many good bucks because the game laws forced you to kill a buck just to fill the freezer. Doe killing was severely restricted and there were no antler restrictions. So most yearling bucks got shot for meat.

-So to solve that problem and appease wealthy black belt trophy hunters, they did a 360 overreaction by allowing an unlimited rifle doe season statewide and actively encouraged people to kill as many does as they could, claiming it would give the bucks more food and improve their age structure. In reality, all that did for half the state was cause an under-population problem where we still don't see big bucks...we hardly see any deer at all.

So this would be my solution: 6 point antler restriction state wide similar to Barbour County, combined with limiting rifle doe season to 2 or 3 weekends a year. Maybe expand doe season in the few select counties that have a well known overpopulation problem. Sure killings would go down for a year or two but in a few years you would have both larger bucks and higher population.

I'd have no problem with baiting if they had a better way to enforce limits and antler restrictions. We've got to have a way to keep things in check other than Game Check if you are going to allow baiting.

I don't know Chuck and never have met the man but will say this: the doe killing started many years ago and was prompted by MANY people fueled by the "shoot the does!" mentality -- including me, wrongly -- without adding "IF your population needs it."

Blaming Chuck "and a few other wealthy Black Belt landowners" is a load of horsecrap. They weren't the sole reason for the big push at the time to shoot more does and don't deserve to be saddled with the blame for what was a widespread attitude.

Not unless habitat management changed. You can't put more mouths on the landscape without habitat improvement and expect things to improve. They completely contradict one another. Now, if AL hunters decided or even had the ability to improve their habitat, you could feasibly increase numbers and increase quality in places.

This will be my 11th year deer hunting so I don't have a large frame of reference. I believe they should just limit the doe harvest to three per year and keep the buck harvest as it is. Six deer per year is more than enough to feed most families.

I was wondering about that

I was told the reason that oakmulgee went to 3 on one side for the entire management area is that there were 52 spikes checked in year before last on the first gun hunt

"Six deer is more than enough" may work for you. If so, good.

Otherwise, the "No one needs more than ..." should not be a factor. Everyone is different.

Arkansas has had a six point/ two per year restriction on bucks for quite a few years, and it greatly increased the quality of the bucks harvested, especially on well managed private property. I hunted near Camden Arkansas about 15 years ago, and was impressed by both the numbers and racks of bucks I saw.

How is Barbour County doing now? Giant wall-hanger antler restriction monster bucks running around everywhere? It's been, what, 15+ years since that voter-choice regulation went into effect?

Even some of the worst managed properties have much higher carrying capacities than most would lead you to believe. Look at some of these state parks that have limited or no hunting. It's mostly old growth hardwoods with no food plots. And yet there are deer everywhere and seem to be perfectly healthy. They are getting food somewhere. It may not be the perfect, wildlife biologist recommended diet, but they are thriving just fine. I'm not saying property management doesn't share some of the blame, but our underpopulation issues have a lot more to do with predation and doe killing than habitat. Deer are highly adaptable and can thrive almost anywhere.

I wouldn't imagine it changed anything but I'd be curious to know

I am very blessed to have a great lease in Barbour Cty. And it is by far the best place I have ever hunted in Alabama. I have another lease, but just driving through Barbour Cty during the rut you will see rack bucks chasing does in the middle of the day.

The Barbour Cty Management area has better hunting than some of the private land I have hunted.

Sounds like a good deal, aumech2004.

Looks like they rank 18 out of 67 (almost the top 25% of buck harvest) even with the antler restrictions.

https://game.dcnr.alabama.gov/Report/County/Deer

I'm not putting all the blame on Sykes. But I do blame the so called wildlife biologist crowd from Auburn that tried to convince everyone that coyotes don't eat deer and that we could and should kill all the does we can in order to have a healthy herd. I also blame the state legislature for abdicating their legislative responsibility and handing over state game laws to an agency the people have no voice in. It's the same situation that most on here hated Obama for......legislation through unelected and unaccountable agency heads.

Below are the restrictions for where I was raised. If ANYONE here does not believe the difference it makes, you need to make a 45min ride on the backroads in the afternoons during hunting season. Seeing 75-100 deer each ride with some really nice bucks mixed in is common much less the caliber of deer being harvested. To top it off. This is on land with no food plots or ag fields. Natural timber and pasture is all it consist of.

Bag Limit 4 deer, no more than 2 bucks, and no more than 2 antlerless, all seasons combined.
Antler Restrictions Does not apply on properties enrolled in MLDP and for which MLDP buck tags have been issued. For the seasons listed below, a legal buck is a buck deer having at least one unbranched antler, or an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.

Now I agree with that.

they do have another system in mind and its called buying a tag for every buck youre gonna kill. The tag system is very lucrative

I haven't read through all this but I dont expect Statewide AR, other than the one buck that must have 4 on one side, any time soon. Current administration hasn't shown any interests in that and I've had the discussion. The individual WMA ARs came from hunter requests and to improve the age structure of bucks killed on WMAs, hopefully giving hunters an opportunity to hunt higher quality deer. On BlackWarrior hunters have the opportunity to hunt the Zone they choose on designated hunt days depending on what they want. If they want to kill deer, hunt Zone A. If they want to hunt an area with a higher age structure, hunt Zone B.

That's fake news!! Ridiculous.

Where does this stuff come from?

Pull it from their rear end.

A bad case of ehd has my antlers restricted enough. There shouldn't be a deer shot anywhere near my area right now

That sucks Matt. I've heard of couple other areas that really got hammered. Most spots seemed average but some really took a hit.

I'll never understand antler restrictions. Why not age instead?

Really?? Where do you think we're headed with the game check system. It wont work but making everyone buy tags will

Sounds good. But lets see some data. This started the best I remember as a trial. OK. Give us the starting point as an average on body weights, antler size, and deer age. Same at 5 years. Same at 10 years. Same at 15 and so on. There were some BIG deer killed there when I lived there. But that's been a long time and a lot can change. If no data was kept, what was the purpose of the restrictions? That brings us back to what would the goal of antler restrictions be for the whole state? Taking out the biggest 2 year olds and leaving the smallest 4 year olds based on antlers is not a good idea.

We need legal baiting, antler restrictions, and physical tags. And go back to using random survey samples like the rest of the marketing world. Mandatory surveys are flawed. There I said it.

Best way to protect deer on a large scale of a certain age class is with minimum ARs.

I really don't want you to answer this here but in your mind: Has there ever been something put in place you didn't agree with? Has something ever come into being you didn't know was coming? I'm not pretending I have the answers, I don't. But nothing surprises me at this point.

The WMA I hunt on is 10" inside spread or a main beam length of 13" as is the majority of the state except the Delta. I think it's 12 and 15 there

I know we're talking about AL and we're always considered behind but why would we go to a system nearly all other state are getting away from. It is one of the most expensive ways to administrate hunting.

Well I know I represent the agency responsible for such decisions, and physical tags at a higher costs to the hunter are not on the table. They are no more effective than a mandatory reporting system. Hunter compliance has not been found to be any better with tags. GC was implemented to better manage the resource by having better data. All the other reasons mentioned, hypothesized, theorized, conspired etc are simply not true. And guess what? The agency admin is also smart enough(imagine that) to understand it is going to take years worth of data collection and years worth of education to get people to comply, and for the data to mean a thing. No one is going to jump the gun and change anything like so many fear. You've got a biologist in charge down there for once. Let him be a biologist. I'm not taking up for Chuck. He does a fine job at that himself. But these theories and fears people have pop up on here blow my mind. No matter what information is provided, some choose to still adhere to the nonsense.

Its also the most lucrative and it gives the ability to see who's actually hunting legally (more so than game check)

Absolutely. And those disagreements are worked out before the final decisions are put into play. Although I may disagree with a single decision I still support the agencies mission, and will support that decision when it comes out. If I ever get to the point they make a decision I truly can't live with, that I think is more detrimental to the resource than I can support, then I'll find something else to do.

I vehemently opposed Matt's ability to carry a weapon

Do you really think GC gives good data? Especially since 30% or some ridiculous figure was given to justify it. Make no mistake its not a fear that I or anyone has its just seeing where this GC road is taking us. Personally I couldn't care less what system is in place. Like all responsible hunters I'll comply and go on with life

There is decent data coming from GC but once compliance increases, data quality will increase. We can compare GC to other sources as well. The localized data will be great in a few short years.

Barbour County Management area was way better hunting in the 70's and early '80s that the vast majority of public lands and a significant amount of private land in the State at that time. So other than the deer slaughter that took place down there when they started the muzzleloader hunts in the mid '80s and decrease the numbers pretty good it has always had good hunting. So, nothing has really changed.

We have tags here in Louisiana and it's just to keep the honest people honest. There is no where near enough agents to go around checking deer tags with all the duck hunters, salt and freshwater fisherman, commercial fisherman, shrimpers, oystering. You get the picture. There is so much going on here this time of year, no way they can keep up with everything. Not enough agents. I don't know of anyone who has ever been asked to see their tags Around this area. I wish they did because there are lots of deer killed around here that are never tagged.

How will compliance increase without increased enforcement? Have they allocated more monies to the GW's payroll?

Serious questions. I am honestly interested. I think it is a pie in the sky hope that compliance increases without a heavy crackdown of enforcement.

If physical tags were instituted I would hope there would be some sort of requirement for processors to not take in deer without a tag. And fines if they do. It would take 5 minutes for a GW to stroll through a cutting floor of a processor to look for a small blue tag. Can't really do that with a GC #.

YES! No need in shoot young bucks.

I REALLY didn't want you to answer. We know how an answer can snowball for y'all. But since you did, a legitimate question is what is the agencies mission? You will support what decision when it comes out?

I said the same. Apparently that’s really expensive...

An armband like you get going into a bar would work

That would have to be thought through really well. Would we want the GW spending time at the processors? Would we want processors enforcing a tag system? Enforcing a system that is going to cost them $$$? But I understand you saying they could do dozen if not hundreds of checks with one stop. No one has found a perfect system yet.

I hunt exclusively in an area with a high concentration of deer so maybe I'm not the best judge of this, but I am smart enough to realize that I don't know what is going on in other parts of the state and say that what is good for us might not be good elsewhere. Apparently, according to some on Aldeer, trying to manage the population on a statewide basis isn't the wisest thing, although it is the easiest. Regional or Zone management seems to be the way to go but that creates more confusion and would require more biological data. Maybe that will be the end game from game check data.

I also know that the population and carrying capacity can vary greatly from one tract to another within the same county or area. Some sort of system for allowing responsible private management of a herd on a large enough tract would be ideal.

Not no, but NO, nada, neyt.

They definitely wasn't any in Mobile County in the past or present at least not in the last 48 years, but maybe in other parts of the State.

I agree with all of that, but I don’t see how it’s any different than ducks. People travel to better areas to hunt them because they aren’t abundant in their area.

The whole state isn’t going to have great deer hunting. If you want great deer hunting, go to a better area

You are right I have never hunted in Barbour County, but that has nothing to do with my position. We already have a three buck limit and if it's was being strictly enforced there is no need for antler restrictions.

Statewide antler restrictions.........HELL Fn NO!

DCNR, want's to recruit new and young hunters, that's not the way to do it. I guided a young hunter on my place on the youth hunt, he shot his first deer ever, a nice 3 point. To him that was the biggest buck in the state. I doubt there is a more selective hunter than me on this board, but I'm not that selfish. The three buck limit is just right, IMO, if you like him shoot him.

But I'm afraid most decisions like that will be made by folks like high fence owners and big shot back room deal makers. Bout time for Chuck to play, "Let's Make a Deal" again.

I honestly believe the State Biologists thought they were doing the right thing at the time when they put limits in place to allow the wholesale slaughter of the does in this State, but in my humble opinion they were dead wrong and have waited way too long to start backing off of the doe harvests.

Sounds like YOU need to be in charge

^^^^^*Truth

Ducks are very different than deer. Waterfowl need very specific conditions to thrive. Other than very limited areas with no cover, this whole state could support a strong deer population if the game laws would allow the herd to grow and stay at high numbers. Deer can and will live nearly anywhere. I hunt plenty of places with great habitat....thick clearcuts, hardwoods, food plots, ag land, etc that are waaayyyy below carrying capacity.

Might be true in some places , but in Mobile county back in the 80s and 90s when we had way more deer our bucks were just as healthy and antler size in mature bucks averaged the same. The only thing the liberal doe season did down here was reduce the deer population dramatically which dramatically reduced Hunter satisfaction. I know plenty of diehard that if they couldn't afford to move on to greener pastures just basically quit deer hunting and started fishing more.

I agree limits should not be set on individual needs but rather according to herd health combined with Hunter satisfaction as a whole across the State.

What is the difference in why our rifle season is so long?

In comparison to Midwest states with just a few short seasons. If that.

I assume it’s just because that’s how it’s always been, but never heard an explaination

Gamecheck will SAVE THE DAY!!!!!!!!!!

The midwest has deer of course, but they are heavily concentrated into what little cover is available. A long rifle season there would decimate their herd because of the lack of cover and the concentration of the deer. It would be too easy to kill a ton of deer.

Alabama has enough cover and habitat to support a long rifle season. But not a long rifle season, plus a doe a day for the whole season, plus an out of control coyote population feasting on fawns.

If it wasn’t for my boys and turkey season.......

Liberty and freedom are hard. Honestly they are. It’s all fun and games until some guy does something you don’t like and folks cry foul. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have game laws to preserve the resource, but the fact that the states are actually getting involved in antler restriction is pretty crazy when you sit back and look at it. Seems like government officials would have more pressing matters.

I didn't say anything they all don't know or feel too. We all do what we do because of the resource, and it should be obvious. If I wanted wealth or power I'd be doing something else. Nearly everyone I work with feels the same.

In a nutshell, the agencies mission is to conserve our states natural resources and make decisions that will result in their sustainable use.

I would like to see doe harvest the first week of season and in between Christmas & New Year. The rest of that time bucks only, 6 point or better with minimum 13 -14" inside spread. No spikes killed period. off soap box now.

I supported ars over the 3 buck limit. I do not support ars now and I certainly don't support lowering the buck limit from 3 to 2.

I would not have an issue with AR on par with what they have in MS. Won't really bother me either way. But I do believe it would allow for a better age structure of bucks. As it would at least let them bucks get to 2.5 before they were legal to kill. The dumbest animal in the woods is a 1.5 year old buck.

This sounds like a hunter problem, not a game law problem. As I understood the reason behind the liberal doe season, it was allow people to the freedom to manage their property the way the herd in their area needed to be managed. I don't think a doe a day was ever intended to be a goal, but to allow flexibility of when and how many doe needed to be taken. I like the buck limits, because it lets each hunter decide for their self what they enjoy, without overly taxing the resource.

If I were king, bucks would have to be over 5 years old, and doe harvest would be extremely limited. But, I'm not, and not everyone is at the same place in their hunting goals. Simply stated, it ultimately comes down to hunters.

SIMPLY HELL NO!

How will it be enforced?

The problem lies in the hunters. Not so much the current restrictions. Sure there could be improvements but overall it's not bad. Now I do think there could be a little more restriction on for harvests. Like 3FFarns said, I am all for a short doe season. There are tons of hunters complaining about not seeing deer and let alone good bucks. But as soon as the little doe or basket rack 6 comes out they get blasted. Let me go ahead and say it doesn't bother me what other people shoot. But there are so many that complain about not seeing much and yet they don't have the discipline to restrain from pulling the trigger to try and manage and grow the herd.

Couldn't have said it better myself

I think people should make there own decision about what to shoot. Hunt with people who think like you do, in clubs that think that way. Personally, my son and I only want to shoot deer with good racks, preferably 3.5 years old or older, but we'll pull the trigger on any mature deer we see no matter what he has on his head. The woods we hunt are so thick, you have to make a decision in seconds on what to shoot. We don't get 2-3 minutes to age a deer, very often.

Not that y'all give a dang about my opinion but I'll sit this one out. I see both sides and both sides present good arguments.

As far as the doe harvest, we can't paint the whole state with a broad brush. Some need it, some don't. That could go from part of a county to another part of the same county. In the perfect world the limit now enables the hunters to manage as needed. Unfortunantly, this ain't a perfect world.

I once considered moving to Macon County for one reason only. Back in the day Macon County got an incredible approximate 2 weeks of doe days. That was twice the state average.

Do yall realize that there was approximate 100 signatures for AR support in Barbour County originally. That was from many numerous combined stores throughout county. There was no register to sign if you were against it...

I have heard 7 / 10 land owners speak against AR in Barbour County.

^^^^Exactly, most of our largest deer in my area live on TVA RES that you cannot legally hunt and is comprised of mostly privet hedge.

I don't post much here, but this is a nagging question that I have. What tool if any is used to measure hunter compliance to GC? Who's to say that compliance was/is much higher/lower than what is suspected? It is all a WAG at this point.

And for the record, my opinion is that harvest estimates pre GC were grossly inaccurate, therefore any guess as to harvest post GC based off of the already inaccurate pre GC number is totally flawed. I understand that my opinion does not matter, but I just have a hard time believing much if any survey/poll data. The entire process is inherently flawed.

It's the same discussion every year. I happen to hunt a lot in zone c, the most restrictive doe harvest zone. For whatever reason, the area of zone c that I hunt which is large, I'm only 'allowed' two weeks to 'manage my herd'. This area is covered with does, does with twins and triplets, obvious browse lines, 50/50 acorns/pines, 1% agriculture. I'm LUCKY to have such a place.
But the fact of the matter is, and I've said this over and over, every property will NOT support deer population. Some or maybe most properties cannot provide for large populations, specifically these pine plantations with a greenfield here and there. To expect anything different is just not realistic.
And yeah, all the ag field sightings being lower is SPECIFICALLY what the DCNR & ALFA & Farmers wanted and accomplished. The DCNR did it's job and accomplished it's goal IMHO. If you are not seeing any deer where you hunt, go hunt somewhere else. The state or anyone else cannot guarantee that you will see a deer or two every time you go in the woods.

I have hunted Barbour county WMA for 50 years. All the way back to where Billy Sharp was the biologist. I did kill and see larger bucks after QDMA was implemented, but I don't see as many deer as I did before QDMA. I miss being able to climb a tree and count on seeing deer. I also saw a lot more deer before Alabama started slaying doe. Reading some of the university studies the coyote are hurting our deer herd as much as anything. Between coyote's and killing high numbers of doe I think we may be headed for a predator pit that Alabama will be slow recovering from. It is really hard to get a young person interested in hunting when you may climb and sit for a week without seeing a deer.

I asked about the data for Barbour Co. That wasn't a leading question. I would seriously find it interesting the results of a county wide trial. Good or bad doesn't matter to me, just the facts.

Go to the pictures section and take a look at some of the age guesses from guys on this forum. That will tell you why age wouldn't work. A lot of people simply don't have the experience to accurately field judge or age deer. Same with aging deer based on pulled jawbones. You'd have to educate the masses.

And here's the kicker, I'd say that the majority of the guys on this forum hunt more and have more experience than the majority of others hunting AL.

Sign up for DMAP, get doe tags, shoot does all season, problem solved.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

This is extremely hard to do because we don't get that many chances at seeing 4+ year old deer REGULARLY. At least most of us lol.

I hunted as a guest on a farm in TN a couple years ago. Probably the best piece of land I EVER hunted. They killed 150"+ bucks EVERY year. You could only shoot 5+ year old deer and it was nothing to see 130" deer in food plots at 3pm. It was crazy but a HUGE learning experience for me. I never pulled the trigger but my nephew shot a nice little 6 point. (Kids could shoot anything they wanted on certain fields)

Adam Pritchett is the biologist assigned to Barbour County WMA. Bill Gray is the area supervising biologist. Both Adam and Bill are super nice guys that would be willing to talk to you about any actual data from the implementation of QDMA at Barbour. Also, Bill Gray and Ted Cook wrote a book on Whitetail deer in Alabama that is free and worth reading.

And that right there is the quandry. I am 100% for special rules for kids and people that are just starting hunting. I've killed deer by the truckloads but have matured as a hunter and I simply have no interest in killing a buck that's not fully mature or something that I'm going to mount. I'd rather pass that buck and let someone else kill him that has never killed a buck or has never killed one that good before. That's the biggest problem that Matt and Nighthunter and the state faces with regulations. Everyone wants something different. Some guys like me have gotten past the numbers stage, the trophy stage, and just hunt to hunt. I'll kill a good buck if I feel like it but to be honest I pass a lot of deer hoping my boys or my nephews will get the opportunity to kill them. That's just me. Point is, everyone has different expectations and wants when it comes to hunting and where they get their enjoyment from it. It's a balancing act for the State to try to please as many as possible. No matter what they do or decide, there will always be complaining from some.

Fake News!! There are no deer on the TVA reservation, no need to go piddling there!

Ever noticed some areas have more deer than others. WMA's or private land may have one person shooting a lot of bucks instead of letting a few go just because they can go anytime. If there is 50k acres maybe 10k may hold good bucks. Once those few are killed on the hard to access small areas you have none to expand on the other 40k acres. Just a good reason why harvesting every mature buck is just not good management if you are going for more 4-5 year old deer whether on private or public land. Some areas just won't allow it. It is just not by antler restrictions it is individual restraint on the trigger whether by bow or gun.

Had you rather us not change it now? There's plenty on here who would agree that the open season mentality should continue.

The overwhelming majority of 1.5 year old bucks in Alabama will not meet the criteria to be legal in MS. I would bet 95% or better would not.

MS AR protects nearly 100% of 1.5 year old bucks and a substantial amount of 2.5 as well. I've been watching their buck harvest estimates and they generally lead the country on the percentage of 3+ bucks killed each year.

Some of the most heavily populated areas of the state, especially in southwest AL are nothing but vast timber company pine plantations.

Managed pine plantations support higher deer pops than anything in the south.

Antler restrictions are selfish.

You can't over kill mature bucks!!! Shooting mature bucks only is the only way to guarantee that you will always have mature bucks to shoot!

But there lies the problem. Most pine plantations around me owned by individuals are properly managed. But corporate owned plantations are only managed for the trees only, not to include wildlife. Around me, those plantations make up the vast majority of leases. Hunters are very limited in their efforts here.

As a small landowner it would be nice if it was changed so that maybe my grandkids could actually hunt deer with the legitimate hope of seeing deer on the 96 acres I live on, but as a hunter I have given up on the State to make any reasonable limits on does in any reasonable time. Therefore I have managed my lease in my own way and after almost a decade of almost no does being killed we finally are starting to get back to having a decent population, but I started driving almost 8 hours so I could hunt somewhere I could consistently see deer while I hunt. Notice I didn’t say kill because for me actually seeing deer is more important than actually killing deer for me at this stage.

Yea I don't like the idea either

I don’t know how many times this has to be said before people start believing it lol

Agree, I don't know where folks get the idee that Jackson Co. has a bunch of deer, we have hardwoods.

And a bunch of deer.

What restrictions.

That is about what I figured.

I'm against antler restrictions. Let's keep going with what we have now, it's light years ahead of what we once had.

AR's in Texas are interesting
https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/regs/animals/white-tailed-deer

I'm still against ARs for Alabama.

41/2 year old and better statewide or cull bucks! Suit me fine!!!!! Get sick and tired of seeing little young bucks killed. Everyone wants an opportunity at nice deer and get excited when they see others killing good deer. Well most of those consistently killing good deer are more n likely on a good management plan where they hunt. If everyone would get on board statewide, how sweet would that be to see lots of nice bucks on a consistent basis. I just don’t get it !

I hate to keep harping on the doe killing and low numbers, but the bucks are only going to get smaller if the deer numbers stay this low. When you hunt almost every weekend and see 2 or 3 deer in a season, well that hunter is probably going to kill anything he sees, regardless of whether it's a 4 point. The hunters who see 10+ deer every hunt will never understand what the rest of us are talking about.

They won't understand if they have never hunted in those places where there are very few deer. I have hunted in those places. I won't ever do it again, if the only places I could hunt or afford to hunt was those places I would just quit and fish year round.

All good with antler restrictions except for youth/ first time hunters.

X 2. We don't have written restrictions where I hunt. The landowner makes the rules, as he should. The unwritten rules for bucks are if you've never killed a buck before, the first one is your choice, but we encourage it to not be a spike. Not because we have a problem with them killing a spike, but that ruins your shot at a better buck. For experienced guests we say something that you want to mount. For super experienced and knowledgeable guests, and ourselves that regularly hunt it, we can just tell them 3.5-4.5 and older. For those just wanting meat, does are plentiful.

Antler restrictions work. They have for us anyways. I'll let the biologists debate about how well it would work statewide, but I can't see it as a bad thing. How has it worked out in Bullock County? Wasn't that supposed to be the experiment to determine if it should be expanded?

I'm never surprised at the number of "conservatives" who are for more government rules and regulations when it suits them, i.e. for deer hunting so "everyone" can hunt the same way.

"Drain the swamp!" conservatives who supposedly want to live their own lives are happy telling everyone else how to hunt. SMDH

In favor of antler restrictions. No doubt it has helped areas that have implemented. Only exception should be youth hunts, with a recommendation of more youth hunt opportunities. Maybe making it a week or 10 days instead of a weekend.

Well, you do make an interesting point if nothing else.

If you don't want to shoot small bucks or bucks with basket racks or 2-points on one side or whatever, don't do it.

Mandating something so "everyone can shoot a big buck because 'everyone' wants to!" is idiotic, though. And wrong. Prove that biologically in wild herds it is beneficial and that's fine IF that's what the public wants - and not just a tiny fraction of the most squeaky-wheel moneyed connected public.

This is what often is said: "We're hearing from the public that they want more opportunities for mature bucks and so we're implementing this now."

This is what should be said: "We're hearing from a wide range of hunters for and against, but because "mature bucks" generate money, tourism and license sales not to mention sales of gear and "deer corn" and whatnot, we're going to go with the comments of those hunters in favor of more restrictions and QDM mentality over the everyday hunter who isn't "avid" and, well, really isn't part of the equation."

Because that's what the perception is by many.

Agreed

I wish they would restrict it to 4 points 1 inch or longer or even 6 point on all tva and public land. I work my butt off on public land and dont see anything at all hardly. Its terrible. Tons of hunters and hardly no deer i see. It makes me want to shoot small deer cause thats all i see. And that just makes it worse. It would be nice if i just saw deer. Imagine going every trip almost and seeing deer. You would have a good chance on seeing decent bucks after a few years. Not blasting anything you see cause your desperate to get some meat and thinking well if i dont shoot this doe or spike then someone else will. And thats exactly whats happening. Thats why we dont see deer. Cause anyone can shoot whatever is brown. Its just getting worse to me

I had rather go see small deer a lot and not be allowed to shoot them than seeing one every now and then debating about shooting it and feeling stupid. I pass the little one then johhny shoots it. We aint getting amywhere that way. My kid would love to hunt for big ones if he saw small ones every trip. He dont want to hunt all year and not see anything. Atleast if u see the small ones it gives you hope that there are big ones around and thats great motivation and hope. No...well lets go sit all day and not even see one at all. Lots more folks would be buying licences and equipment. Id take the restrictions. Its working at bankhead in zone b. Cause now i see spikes and 4 points. Zone a has no restrictions and out of lots of hunts and years...i have only seen maybe 5 does. And i didnt shoot them. Then i go to check in station and see tiny does that have just lost their spots that grown men have shot. And hey, thats fine cause its legal. But thats why i hunt for years on zone a and dont see anything. You let hundreds of hunters shoot any size deer in a small area and bam, you aint gonna see anything. Then everyone complains, well i dont see nothin. Bankhead sucks. Yeah cause all the yearlings just got wiped out by hundreds of hunters in a few months

Nope youth should be subject to the same laws as me. No exceptions. We don't need antler restrictions.

I think we have a winner!! Give that man a cigar.

Also it increases the price per acre for land. Talk about pricing hunters out.

Impossible. 95% of hunters cannot accurately age deer in the hoof and people will shoot smaller deer and claim it's a "cull" buck.

This has probably already been mentioned - but Alabama already has an antler restriction for the 3rd buck, has to be at least four on one side.

I am happy with the limit of 3 bucks, was long overdue, have no problem with the 3rd buck/4 point one side rule, and IMO all that needs to just stay right where it is.

Actually its one of the 3 bucks has to have 4 points. Not just the 3rd buck of 3 buck limit.. TRUE???

True

You ever work.

It's widely known I don't.

yeah, didn't mean to sound like the 3rd one, but yeah at least one of the three has to meet that minimum.

My personal minimum is 5 on one side and 5 on the other.
Unless it is a 130 inch 4x4.

He hasn't been in office 5 years yet. I agree, hard to blame him for things that happened before he took the job.

Don't know about the spikes, but the Biologist scheduled a meeting with hunters after one of the major gun hunts last year to get the opinion of the group on this topic. About 100 hunters attended and the crowd was overwhelmingly in favor of the restriction.

Couldn't resist Matt - Glad this wasn't posted on the turkey thread I happen to agree with NO changes without Good Data, but sometimes your fears come true