Question Number One

May, 2007


We've done that.

Now the questions remain: Why did we need to do it and what are the benefits we've gained from doing it?

Maybe Joe Hamilton and Brian Murphy who wanted this can answer those questions at the QDMA convention this week.

49r. You can't determine if the reduced harvest numbers are due to the 3 buck limit or not. You have to factor in the number of hunters during the period as well. Find that data and get the ratios. I can only find up to 2008. From 2003 to 2008 the number of hunters dropped significantly thus reducing the harvest numbers. To be quite honest I'm not sure that the 3 buck limit has had any large impact on the numbers of deer shot/year. Bucks or does.

I think reducing the number of bucks harvested was the goal to improve age structures statewide wasn't it? According to that graph, there is around 80,000 bucks moving to the next age class spread around, most being 1.5 I'm sure.

And probably increasing the doe harvest by default which around here would be a good thing although I think most folks still kill what does they want and stop when the freezer is full same as before the buck limits.

Tennessee saw the same effect I think and overall it has worked.

Until Alabama requires check stations and puts bodies at those check stations, you'll never know if it works, except through hunter observations which is what it is.

Sounds like you don't know the answers Josh. Does anyone?

If we didn't have any idea what the age structure was before, how are we supposed to know what it is now and how the restrictions have changed it?

Doe harvest has decreased according to the reports. Isn't that a bad effect since you think it needs to increase?

too many deer in general so doe harvest was increased.

Buck to doe ratio out of whack so buck harvest was limited.

results= smaller over all population with more bucks.

My eight year son could answer that
Next question

9er, why don't you prove the basis of your "deer mgmt foundation" with valid studies? List them all out for everyone to see.

Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio.

How is it fixing the unknown sex ratio if the effect is a decrease in the killing of members both sexes?

How do we know the ratio needed to be fixed in the first place when the chairman of the committee stated he didn't know what the sex ratio was?

Anybody could figure out with the limited doe harvest for years and the liberal buck limit that the sex ratio was out of wack, also all those properties across the state that the State was helping to manage would have provided enough data to know that.

We're not talking about "just figuring". These restrictions were said to be based on "sound biology" and have been given the force and effect of law.


CAB Minutes, May, 2007

coldtrail,


bucktrot,

Why can't people understand, we're just beginning to really learn about deer. Dr.D ,BSK, DR. Woods and others don't have all the answers, they do have more than most of us. It's a puzzle that some pieces change and will never be finished.
Can please some of the people all of the time,all of the people some of the time, and one NONE of the time.

The data from all the properties across the state that the state helped manage would be considered sound biology right?

2dogs,

49r. Please show me you research that supports the reduction in harvest numbers is due to the 3 buck limits.

The research I have done shows that the number of hunters is on the decline and that is the true reason we are seeing a decline in harvest numbers, both for does and bucks.

Play if you like guys......you can't win.

I don't think the limit had anything to do with ratios. I've seen way to many studies and such to convince me it was ever as bad as most think and I was as hardcore a 25:1 guy as anyone here a few years ago.

I think it had all to do with three things.

1: Better buck age structure which it has done obviously by reducing the buck harvest which was made up of 75% or whatever of yearlings.

2: To help by educate hunters (be default) that better buck age structures means better hunting and overall healthier deer. I think TN was a great model for them with this.

3: A growing percentage of deer hunters in the state wanted it and it making good biological sense, the state went forward unlike baiting/feeding and February seasons.

That is my opinion of why, which is all it is.

And to be honest, a 3 buck limit probably only affected about .05% of Alabama deer hunters anyway but with the points rule on one it's almost a 2 buck limit for a lot of folks.

josh28,


Josh,

I'm not pushing for restrictions that have the force and effect of law on you or anyone else. If I did, I would cetainly have the evidence you ask for supported by "sound biology".

It doesn't really matter if fewer hunters are accomplishing the goal of the deer study committee. Since that goal has been reached, the real question is what benefits are we reaping from these restrictions on our right to hunt. It shouldn't be explained in terms of "figuring". It should be explained in terms of "sound biology".

It's a bad opinion. Even Dan Moultrie could see that you were way off base:

May, 2007 CAB Minutes

Here are some sound numbers I have found. I'll spare the details unless you want to hear them. Here is the estimated number of deer killed per hunter within the state.

02-03 2.23
03-04 2.27
04-05 2.10
05-06 2.15
06-07 2.11
07-08 1.66
08-09 2.00

This shows a 12% reduction (Deer killed/per hunter) in 7 years however the estimated hunters per year dropped 27% over the same period. This proves that the 3 buck limit really has not had an adverse effect on anyone. We still kill roughly the same number of deer per hunter. Harvest numbers are only down because there are less of us in the woods.

Can someone point me to the # of hunters for 09-present so I can confirm the trends?

Josh,



You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now?

Not necessarily.

Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit"

Clem,

Josh,


I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state.

If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions.

Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics.

I understand that the banning of dog hunting probably had some impact on the numbers however, the state has seen a steady decline in hunters since 2003. This was before the dog hunting issues and the 3 buck limit. IF your theory was right you would see reductions in numbers followed by plateaus. That is not the case in this situation as it's a steady decline of about 4-5%/year. You can't argue with the numbers. Hunting in general is on the decline due to many different factors. You're theory isn't supported by these trends. We were trending in that direction before these changes came to light.

You can find the surveys here.

http://outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/publications/

This had nothing to do with Serious Hunting. Moderators please set up a 49er Junk Forum. Thank YOu

If you don't think a 98% reduction in the bag limit on hunting bucks with an additional antler restriction thrown in is serious, then what is your definition of serious?

serious

9er,

What would it take for you to be happy with the game laws?

HOw about kill what you need to eat

I'm already happy with most of them. There's a few we don't need any more, but most of them are legit.

It's the DCNR's rules that are catering to special interests instead of protecting, conserving and increasing our wildlife.

Have you looked thru the Regulation Book lately to see just how many of those rules are actually reasonable and necessary to administer our game and fish laws? Some of them are even in direct conflict with our game and fish laws.

I won't be happy until every one of those unnecessary rules are gone. The buck limit/antler restriction needs to go first.

The real question is how has this restricted your rights to hunt? You can kill 3 bucks and just about all the does you can see all season. Is hunting does not hunting?

49er,

There is some laws that will cause folks to stop hunting if changed. The 3 buck limit is not one of them.

.

Not at all. I have not heard of anyone that quit hunting because of buck limits.

I guess I understood this wrong then because it sounds like Dan agrees with me. If the ratio was as skewed as some would think, there would be no bucks left in February which is obviously not true. Again, I don't think ratios played a part or they shouldn't have anyway.

Well if all we lost were dog hunters than we are better off anyway.

Please post your research findings that support this theory. Thanks.

He can't.

Are you asking me or Josh? Do you know the difference in a question and a theory?

I disagree.

Clem,

Get over it. Just because you're ignoring people does NOT mean they have to quit posting on your threads.

Thats cool we all can not agree on everything.

wmd,

I think you may see the intolerant attitude I have been referring to.

It's dividing our state's hunters and making us vulnerable to attacks from all sorts of other anti-hunting groups... not just QDMA, AWF and ALFA, but some that want to destroy our right to hunt with one blow instead of a little bit at a time.

Here are the numbers going back to 1985. I added trend lines to make it easier. As you can see the total number of hunters has been trending downward since 1999 (not just since the dog hunting and 3 buck limit issues). Total number of deer killed has been trending down since 2003-2004. Total number of bucks killed per hunter has been trending down since 2000 (again not since the 3 buck limit although there was a decrease that year. The doe harvest peaked in 2005-2006 but look at the trend BEFORE QDM became more prevalent. 49r this goes completely against what you have said about QDM being about shooting every doe. If that was the case you would have seen a HUGE increase in 2008.

I also found it interesting that the larger drops in harvest numbers coincided with the economic issues that have effected 90% of us. Did the 3 buck limit affect buck harvest per person? YES but I believe economic conditions played a part as well. Since 2008 the trend on buck harvest is moving back up so the next two years will tell us if it has had a long term impact on shooting bucks in general.

I find it hilarious He asks a question then continues to post
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

everytime someone he "doesn't like" posts something! Everyone on his ignore list: post as much as possible on his threads! His replys will look like this:

coldtrail,






















I swear I think he's 8

49er,

Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly because I believe I agree with you. Decisions to limit the amount of bucks killed per hunter was made to provide for a healthier herd ie, age structure and buck/doe ratio etc. etc. and the state could not provide any sound scientific data that it even knew what the age structure and buck/doe ratios were.

I agree, how can a department impose regulations to achieve their so called goal and they have no idea what their starting point is.

Swamper,


Follow what I said carefully. You will see that Dan Moultrie was discounting the theories presented earlier in the meeting that our sex ratios were badly skewed on the side of does.

His calculations revealed that even a 4:1 ratio would have been impossible to exist at the time because we were killing more bucks than was mathematically possible with a 4:1 ratio. Earlier discussions in the meeting had defininately included buck/doe ratios as one of the factors to be addressed by the proposed buck restrictions.

You are understanding me correctly. Neither the deer study committee nor the leaders of the WFF Div. could provide that information. The WFF leaders did not want the restrictions.

Review the minutes of the May, 2007 CAB meeting, and you will see that neither Steve Ditchkoff or Gary Moody could tell the board members what the estimated buck/doe ratio or male age structure was at the time of the meeting when they were asked.



Age structure:

[no answer given about Alabama's current age structure]

The meeting was long and it takes time, but here's the link if you want to read it for yourself:

Minutes May, 2007


Here's part of what Gary Mood said:

page 73


Gary Moody was right.

Guys, he already has his opinion made up. Then he tries to set everyone up on what he What he wants to argue about so he can declare himself the winner. I've seen a lot of children do the same thing. One of ya'll can quote all of us he has ignored so he he see our very important opinions.

He doesn't like anyone that wins a point against him.

Good for Dan. Either way he voted. I don't think ratios should have ever been part of the equation inmho for what it is worth.

9er, you say the three buck limit has divided up Alabama's hunters. Well, the group of killers you've aligned yourself with is a dying breed. You hate it but conservation, game mgmt, consideration, restraint, discipline, preservation, diversified and broad-based hunting enjoyment (taking pride in the entire aspect of game mgmt and hunting), etc... is gaining momentum.

The hunter who brags that he killed 8-10 bucks last year is now looked upon as a greedy idiot and the hunter who states that he passed up several immature bucks and killed one or two good mature bucks is looked upon with respect. And oh, that same man let his young son shoot a 2.5 yr old 8 pt and celebrated it! But he's slowly starting to teach his young son about conservation and trigger restraint and deer mgmt! And about habitat enhancement and about farming and soil and what he can do individually to make things better for the next generation!

Once again...I haven't seen 49er say anything about killing all the deer. He says it should be site specific. I don't know why you keep saying such nonsense.

Secondly, what you just said about management and trigger restraint is exactly what I have been saying and 49er too. All that was taking place before a 3 buck limit and is continuing now. All the limit did was place an arbitrary limit that is too much for some instances and too little for others. What you just said is exactly why a 3 buck limit was not and is not needed.

I can't understand why you keep saying this. QDM is supposed to be about site specific management decisions. 49er is simply asking for maximum freedom to make those decisions.

The perception though is that anyone who is against the 3 buck limit were the same ones that shot 10 bucks a year. Just out of curiosity jlccoffee how many did you kill before the 3 buck limit was put into place. I haven't killed 10 bucks in the past 10 years, never had an opportunity to shoot more than one good buck per year either.

The most I ever killed in Alabama in one year was 3 and I only did that one year. Most years I kill one or two here and maybe one in Georgia.

What percentage of hunters do you think need the ability to shoot more than 3 bucks per year?

Don't know. There are probably a lot more that don't need to shoot the 3 that the limit says is OK. That's why an arbitrary number is not useful.

Where in any of your post does it require governmental intervention? It would appear that the use of peer pressure is a good thing and elitism should be the course of the true hunter. I am fine with you having your opinion, but is governmental invention necessary if the momentum of peer pressure works? Or, should the elitist demad that everyone follow their path?

I believe if you will think about what is being said by 49er that it is the forced govermental requirements based on hunches, guesses (or lack thereof) that is the problem.

I understand to the true hunter that all paths should lead to massive antlers, body weights, a two day rut, and all hunters being happy, but then there is reality.

Wasn't, isn't and not arbitrary.

Really?? Looked on with respect? By whom? Other QDM elitists?

I am glad that I got my start killing deer in an era where the purpose during deer season was to kill deer and not admire my habitat improvements, when my dad did not have to wonder if folks were going to question his deer hunting ethics if he "let" me shoot a 2.5 year old 8 point.

May have reached some goal on a statewide basis, but how is 3 bucks per year not too many in some situations and too limiting in others?

Bucktrot I certainly respect your views,and I do have some of the same beliefs as you,this is not directed toward your views on QDM but what I percieve to be your views of the old timers. Where we differ is I certainly dont think all the hunters who killed 8 or 10 bucks a year in the past were idiots. My dad and grandfather would fit in that categorey in the past. Between those two men lies more knowledge about hunting than your average woodsmen. They were and still are DEER HUNTERS,out to kill the biggest buck they could. Killing big bucks is what deer hunting was about then and now.The difference is back then they told you they were after big bucks,now its "im enhancing habitat" with "to kill big bucks" left out.And yes we enhance habitat and practice trigger control. Times have changed and so have hunters,but the ones who were good enough to kill alot of good bucks were not idiots. If you know some old timers it might pay to spend a little time with them,you csn learn alot from them as I have and I continue to learn more every year.

Many who justified the 3 buck limit did so because in their mind allowing someone to kill 110 bucks a season was not biologically sound.
But with 200,000+ plus licensed hunters and maybe that many more unlicensed who can kill 3 a season,and following their same line of thinking, is this not also biologically unsound?

*************

Smokeandbones, you misread my post, sir. I did not nor never said what you just accused me of. With all due respect to you and any elderly hunter and my hat is always off to old timers. I was very specific with a time period and I did say "is now", as in "this day in time", not looked upon very favorably. I did not mean nor say, "yesteryear". There are things that were practiced years ago that were common and frankly, some (not all things) things were done simply because of "innocent" ignorance. I am SURE there is something I do today that will be looked upon in years to come as ignorant behavior but I do it because I simply don't know any better way. I hope this will always be the case for years to come because if it's not, then we are not learning as a society! I.E. Smoking, seatbelts, lead paint, asbestos, etc...

I can tell you that in any unpressured property, killing a lot of immature bucks (if they exists) is not hard. Killing a lot of mature bucks is much more of a challenge.

On January 12, 1976, my first buck was a spike and dogs were running him and I could not have been happier. My dad used to preach to me about how we need to let the does walk and only kill bucks. At that point, to a degree, he was right. Alabama's deer population was still coming on and letting all does walk and only killing bucks was the right thing to do. We certainly know a lot more about deer management than we used to.

Please don't paint QDM hunters as only interested in HUGE bucks. We preach maturity and trigger restraint. Kids' first buck can be a spike, that's fine. Mature hunters should demonstrate a desire to be educated and show some restraint.

HOWEVER, if your property can absorb the killing of an immature buck, kill it! That's fine. If that same property has approx 1 hunter for every 100 - 150 acres, I don't think the property could stand every hunter taking as many immature bucks as they want.

Just practice responsible deer mgmt. I think the deer herd deserves that.

And of course, I type that with my hat in my hand, sir.

What can be killed, and what actually is killed are often two very different things. TN has 200,000+ hunters also, and a 3 buck limit, yet only 1 in 3 hunters kills even one buck, and only 2-3% kill 3 bucks.

Many TN hunters believe absolutely that everyone but themselves is slaughtering young bucks. But the reality is very different. Our harvested buck age structure keeps slowly improving year after year, and most of that improvement is due to education and voluntary restraint of the hunters, not the buck limit.

Been waiting on someone to make that point,took a guy from Tn. Several keep spouting about loosing the right to kill a buck a day (100+) in Alabama. I know some real killers that got in the twenties but never heard of anyone getting the limit. Some of those twenties guys grew up, a few are still killing them.
Charles Kelly built Alabamas herd on "a buck a day", does are sacred. Time to move on.

Exactly. Same thing is, was, and will continue to happen in Alabama. Exactly why I don't think the 3 buck limit was needed but it will be convenient for those who support it because they will now claim the success that was coming anyway.

eskimo270,


Does the QDMA support buck limits and antler restrictions? You bet they do:

The deer study committee consisted of:

- ALFA representative Steve Guy,

- Wildlife manager Mickey Easley,

- Auburn professor Dr. Steve Ditchkoff,

- Conservation Department deer biologists Bill Gray and Chris Cook,

- Ted DeVos, president, Alabama Wildlife Federation 2005-06

- Former Auburn professor Dr. Keith Causey,

- Quality Deer Management Association executive director Brian Murphy (nonresident of Alabama)

- QDMA founder Joe Hamilton (nonresident of Alabama)


From the minutes of the CAB meeting, May, 2007:
Page 50

Ditchkoff:



- continuing on page 52


The committee recommended buck limits and antler restrictions for Alabama's hunters. A review of earlier CAB meeting minutes will reveal that numerous QDMA members, including branch directors in Alabama were vocal in their support of buck limits and antler restrictions citing membership numbers in Alabama to claim widespread support in their organization.

WinMod70, a branch director of QDMA in Alabama, was an active member on these aldeer forums at the time and was very vocal in his support of the restrictions. He later posted that he wasn't hunting much, an we haven't heard from him in quite a while now.

Ted DeVos was not, is not and never has been an employee of AWF.

WinMod70/Steve miss him not posting on the forum anymore.

It was at my last QDMA meeting as a member in 2004 that I first heard about QDMA's interest in buck limits and antler restrictions. I left the QDMA that day and never returned.

I was not aware that the QDMA leaders were already actively involved in supporting the restrictions at the time of that meeting.

You don't think qdm was a factor in the current buck limit/antler restrictions? Keep reading and notice the terminology:

CAB meeting minutes, March, 2004

The entire QDMA and Board of Directors including its cleaning lady must have been a part of Kentucky's Fish and Game meeting! One buck?!? Of course, I'm being facetious.

9er, here's QDMA's stance:

The QDMA is encouraged by the increasing number of
states implementing strategies to protect yearling bucks. In general, the QDMA prefers the voluntary
passing of yearling bucks to mandatory antler regulations. However, we recognize that antler
restrictions may be justified in some situations to achieve specific deer management objectives. In
the long term, QDMA is optimistic that enough hunters will voluntarily pass young bucks that antler
restrictions will become unnecessary and even cumbersome to more sophisticated management.
Regarding our position on specific antler restriction proposals, QDMA examines each on a caseby-
case basis and applies a three-part test. First, is the restriction biologically sound? Second, is it
supported by a majority of affected hunters and landowners? Finally, will it be objectively monitored
to determine success or failure? Many restrictions fail one or more of these criteria. QDMA
has supported some antler restrictions, opposed others, and taken a neutral stance on still others.
Regardless of strategy used to protect yearling bucks, QDMA recommends that state wildlife agencies
conduct extensive education and outreach programs to inform hunters about the benefits of
protecting yearling bucks and to garner their support for sound deer management in general.

I'm going to put the whole damn bunch of ya'll on ignore....

so go educate them not to kill 3. Simple enough...

I'm still still trying to figure out who is gonna pay for all these site specific limits, that's gonna get expensive

There is a synopsis of The Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek. He was an advisor to Ronald Reagan It's mostly about economics but can be applied to much of government in general. Read it and you will better understand why site specific limits set by the people more intimately involved with the local variables will trump a limit created by central planning.

"and most of that improvement is due to education and voluntary restraint of the hunters, not the buck limit."


You came to the conclusion that I intended by asking the question.

According to Gary Moody, the ALDCNR's chief wildlife official, they began a process years ago of educating AL hunters to practice more trigger restraint with their buck kills and implement a more liberal doe season. Mr. Moody along with much of the Wildlife Section of the DCNR did NOT support any kind of AR's or a change in a season limit because they noticed that the hunters in AL were responding to their subtle message by killing less bucks and more does, and saw no need to make any changes.

In fact, before the new limit, every harvest limit survey concluded that they were right. AL hunters were killing more does than bucks and not only that but they were allowing more bucks to walk. If I remember correctly, an AWF survey concluded that Al hunters killed 1.32 bucks and 3 does per hunter. Now I realize that Im not the sharpest knife, but it appears even a dummy can come to the conclusion that if all of these surveys are accurate, it would not take long for all of our management goals to be realized, no matter how out of whack the buck to doe ratio is.

So, if the surveys dont support a need for a limit change, what is the justification?
The study group pointed out that before the limit only 4% of hunters killed 4 or more bucks a season. Is this justification? to limit a small minority of people? if it is, it is a poor excuse and one that is most futile.

Is it to move us toward being a qdm state? if you ask(or read the other thread) this was not the case either, which for the record, I dont believe one bit.

So what was it? Why did some see a need to change the limit? When I have asked and read some comments by those that made the recommendation, the answer has been "because it is not biologically sound to allow hunters to kill 110 bucks a season"

And so that is why I asked the question:
Many who justified the 3 buck limit did so because in their mind allowing someone to kill 110 bucks a season was not biologically sound.
But with 200,000+ plus licensed hunters and maybe that many more unlicensed who can kill 3 a season,and following their same line of thinking, is this not also biologically unsound?


Again, Im not the sharpest knife, but this argument is ridiculous, since if fulfilled it would have the same end effect as the limit that they are denegrating.

Since it don't affect 96% of hunters as you state....why the pissin and moanin? You one of the 4%?

Alabama too.

Bucktrot
Sorry if I misunderstood you post bud. My intention was not to belittle the QDM practices heck we implement some of the same standards around our place. Times have definatly changed as have the views of many of the hunters of yesteryear. We do have the same core values as yourself when it comes to this great sport that we all live so much. And hope that it pays dividends for you.

I have never killed more than 3 bucks in Alabama but I liked the old limit better.

Many people believe in limited government intervention and that the role of government should be regulation only where necessary and allowing the people to make choices beyond that with their local knowledge.

Others think it is best for the government to supply the answers through regulation and central planning.

You one of those?

I didnt see a need for it. I realize that in Alabama its our opinion that our neighbors are the ones killing all of our deer and ruining our chance at killing a 150"+ each year, but our opinion is not reality.

There are years that I can do nothing right and never pull the trigger on a buck and then there are years that I can do nothing wrong and would fall into that 4%. Most of the time, I fall somewhere in between.

Some places, the opinion neighbors are killing MOST of the younger bucks,IS a reality. IMHO

In a case where a selfish, irresponsible's individual's actions can affect the quality of hunting for many other folks in a given locale, WHILE not affecting the quality of hunting for 96% of licensed hunters....all day and twice on Sunday. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Alabama's deer hunters do not have sole deer hunting rights to hundreds and certainly not thousands of acres. Folks who do are the exception and not the rule (you know that, and I know that, and anybody who is intellectually honest knows that) and as a result, they're situation should not drive subsequent regulation.

As I've said before, I personally would not have a bit of problem if the state exempted individuals from the 3 buck limit if they can prove that doing so will not significantly affect the buck population in an invidual locale (ex. a person who has sole hunting rights on a 1000 acres).

Ya'll continue to act like restricting someone's allowable buck harvest to a "ridiculous" ONLY 3 allowed is on the same infrigement upon individual rights plain as attempts at restricting gun ownership, or further taxation of millions of working Americans, or Obamacare, etc. Ya'll just sound like a bunch of whiney, dramatic women when you make such leaps.

Darn straight it is. Anybody who thinks that it's not possible for an individual to significantly affect a deer herd and the subsequent quality of hunting in a locale is either totally ignorant or is simply being dishonest. I've ashamedly done it myself so I know that of which I speak.

And that's how it starts. Do you also think it is ridiculous to allow clips that hold 30 rounds? Lots of people do. What about 29 rounds, 28 rounds.

The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of people will never find themself in a situation where they need a 30 round magazine. Those few that do should not be the ones to drive regulation should they?

People are quick to give up the liberties of the few when it doesn't effect them. Pretty soon someone wants you to give up something that does effect you.

It's not about deer. It's about a model of government.

Did that change when the law changed? Of those that I know who would have fell into that 4%, only 1 guy has changed and abides by the law.

In that case, you and and a whole bunch of others including myself.....should have raised total hell and rebelled against the government over the fact that we couldn't kill any does whatsoever and only 1 buck per day for all those years. I had to pass a bunch of deer back then and my rights were trampled on as a result. Think I'm gonna sue.

Jughead its not gonna stop there. While I didnt like the process that got the new limit in place to begin with, its done and there is nothing that I can do about it. I made the adjustments that I needed to to ensure that those years when everything goes right, that I dont go over the limit. And if the limit was the end of it, then I would never say another word about it...but its not. You know that there are some who want to place AR's and maybe even reduce the limit further, and in my opinion this could have a detrimental long term effect on hunting.

That's a good point. I've heard a few folks throw out that kind of ridiculous restriction too and even though a different, more stringent restriction STILL wouldn't affect me personally 95% of the time....I can't fathom a reason that the state would want to go further than what has been done and why hunters can't be satisfied with what we currently have. Anybody that pushes for the government to go even further is an idiot....in my humble opinion.

that goes back to my college days

I'm still trying to understand just how in the hell we can regulate deer season at all on a site specific case, that would be extremely expensive, as of right now you can shoot and kill any as you wish under what the establishment has determined

yea that sucks but there has to be some sort of regulation, we've seen what no regulation looked like, closed deer season and reintroductions into areas

I really doubt AL wants to take on a season with varying limits per district or county etc.... just try and figure a way to regulate that

now go back to my comment about cost
at what point are you and most others willing to pay for this kind of situation

Now they could be charged with over the limit, before no limit. Most ya'll have never hunted around a family of 4 that will average 20 apiece, and that's just the bucks! That scum moves to the ajoining property, they "hunt it out" and move on. You're screwed for years!

I really do not understand all this restricting peoples hunting rights. Every species of game animal has some kind of bag limit whats the big deal.I limited out two years ago with a week of deer season left(which could happen any year since I hunt on multiple leases) but did I stop hunting heck no! I just took other people with me. Hunted with my adult daughter, a friend that had never killed a buck and a friend's son so he could hunt by himself. I just do not see the problem......

We all agree with that...ownership always helps people buy in. But once again, there are many people that will not buy in, even if educated...these people are the ones that make pretty much all laws necessary.

And according to 9er hunter numbers are dropping every year b/c 4% of hunters might be effected by a buck limit???...yea, makes a lot of sense...

anybody else feel like pounding there head into a block wall...

don't confuse gun rights with game limits. Either oppose ALL laws or accept that some laws are necessary and some laws might need to be amended due to changes. It's completely acceptable to be ultra conservative, NRA card carrying, Republican, Tea Party member, etc. and still think that a 3 buck limit is a good thing. 9er loves to think otherwise but he even knows he is blowing smoke

I think pretty much everyone knows he's blowin' smoke.

I find that very

As I recall, not killing does went on too long and ended up really messing up the buck to doe ratio according to a lot of people as well as creating a herd that was beyond the appropriate carrying capacity of the land in areas. Maybe if the regulations were less restrictive, people who realized early on that their property was becoming overpopulated could have taken steps to correct the problem? Do you think it worked out better that they had to wait for the government to decide that for them?

We have also seen the population explode under a 1 buck a day limit. The earlier depletion of the resource was a different day and age. If we got back to that point, regulation would be necessary....but we aren't in that day and age.

^^^^^ Jackson Co. only got the first 3 day does season in about '86. We could kill a buck a day though, and the State Biologist would tell us "if you have enough deer to shoot bucks, you have ehough to shoot does" that being prior to '86.

Like I said...it's about a model of government. If anyone wants to know why the country is going down the big government road, just look at these threads. Everyone says they are for small government....unless the government is doing something they want.

I agree that some laws are necessary. I am all for necessary laws but government gets in trouble when it starts going further than necessary. That is what we all claim to be against when we talk about the problems with big government.

So I guess the question is why is a 3 buck limit "necessary"? I don't think it is.

Would ya'll please quit quoting truedouble, buckshot, clem, coldtrail, jughead, gobbler, cartervj and 2dogs in your posts?

I chose to ignore them because of their constant lies about my positon on conservation and hunting. Please accept my own words if you want to know my opinion. You won't get the truth about my opinion listening to those listed above.

When you quote these people in your posts, their lying shows up again, an I'd rather not see it. They will have to answer for it, so I'm content to go my separate way an leave them out of my discussions. Unfortunately, they can't accept that.

I think their intent is for me to waste time discounting their lies about my opinions and actions instead of debating the issues on their merits. That's a good indicator of a weak argument.

I don't intend to go down that road any more. I'm sick of it.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't repeat their lies by quoting them in your posts.

Thanks,
Eddie

*** Tough. ***
Quote whomever you want.
This is an open website.

He's start'in to sweat, Y'all got him on the ropes boys go for the kill!!!!!!!!!!

You must be new around here. We've covered this over and over.

Were you limited in your deer season for lawful reasons?

Rules of the DCNR are only authorized when they are reasonable and necessary for the administration of our game and fish laws. Our game and fish laws do not authorize the setting of seasons and bag limits for wildlife management purposes on privateley owned and leased lands.

I'll be glad to go thru it once more with you if you're genuinely interested in learning why I am concerned about unauthorized restrictions on our hunting rights.


Here's what a federal judge said about one of the DCNR's rules that was being considered in court:


I can't think of a better description of the current buck limit/antler restrictions.

If the bag limit is needed, that's one thing. If it's not, why have it?

I have said before that I think we should do away with squirrel season. Does anyone really think that we need a squirrel season to protect the squirrel population? If we had no squirrel season I bet we would still have squirrels. People just don't hunt them like they once did.

If at some time in the future we determined that we were overharvesting squirrels, at that point we would need to tighten the regulations.

It's the same principle and the same idea of the role of government.

Was it legal to set the bag limit on rabbits and squirrels at 8 a day? Why not 10 a day?

Was it legal to set the bag limit on coons to five per party when they obviously all over this state? Why not five a person?

Why is legal to tell me I can not shoot a black bear when I have almost as many bears as deer on my lease?

How can it possibly be legal to set the limits at what they are when there is no sound reason for it?

bigt,

The DCNR cannot make up it's own authority. Only the legislature can to that.

Here's how the legislature authorized the DCNR to close seasons:



Was it necessary for you to quit hunting early for the conservation and perpetuation of the species? I don't think so.

Somebody's idea of "herd health" was the reason you could not hunt.

I can agree with you on this. I just do not see anybody talking about how it illegal to set squirrels limits or any other limits for that matter when there is obiviously not a population problem. Does anybody not care about the legality of all the limits?

I certainly have maintained that any seasons that are set are to be in compliance with our game and fish laws.

That covers all game and fish species... even hogs and coyotes since the commissioner chooses to classify them as game animals while he calls them nuisance species.

I think people are just more passionate about deer. Like I said, not nearly as many people even hunt squirrels any more as once did.

For my own part, I have brought up squirrel season and rabbit season before both on here and other places.

Florida doesn't have a rabbit season by the way from what I understand. As far as I know, they haven't killed off all their rabbits.

I don't either,but do you think the bag limits on squirrels and coons are necessary for the conservation and perpetuation of the species?

Also I did not stop hunting I just was not the one with the gun.

I believe the bag limit on coons is being dropped as we speak.

If I'm not mistaken, that rule change is currently being made.




Same question. Why couldn't you be the one with the gun?

I don't coon hunt and don't know much about them, but I certainly think we could have much looser restrictions on squirrel hunting and perhaps no restrictions and we still wouldn't make a noticable dent in the squirrel population. What do you think?

Well thats a start but now the more I think about it I am beginning to think a lot of these bag limits have been drawn up using the famous SWAG method and we just need to hit the reset button and rewrite the whole dang thing.

There used to be a lot more small game hunting back before deer hunting became so popular and the deer population made such a comeback. I don't know when those regulations were written, but maybe they were needed at the time....I just don't think they are now.

The Hunter's Digest indicates that the bag limit on coons no longer exists on privately owned and leased lands.

You can probably look for the same in the official publication of the rules sometime after the season is well under way.

If you want a coon you better go get one early. You know how slob hunters are...they are going to wipe out the entire population without someone to tell them when they have killed enough.:)

Not under our current administration. They don't care what the law says about their authority to set seasons and limits, and you and I are excluded from the prosesss completely by law.

We need to get that changed first.

Normally I just read but i'm gonna go out on a limb here and post. Deer hunting in alabama is a business. For the most part the people who are in charge of managing this business, set things up so that the business of deer hunting is increasing in popularity. Managing the state for the growth of larger antlered deer is part of the business model. Deer hunting is a major economy boost for the state and as long as strides are being made to grow bigger deer, alot of dollars will flow in from out of state hunters who may not get the same opportunities at home. The reason for the drop in hunting license sales in alabama is possibly that the business model and popularity of deer hunting in general have made the sport more for the people who can afford the ever rising lease prices, which is becoming a smaller group every year. Unless you own your own place or have close access to public land, deer hunting is quickly becoming out of reach for common folks. Most of the people who influence policy could give less of a damn if you kill fourty squirrels and sixty coons cause squirrel and coon hunting doesn't bring in the cash. But deer are regulated closely because of their value to the state. Many individuals are fine with the way the buck limit is set up because it parallels their mangagement practice/qdm mindset. Some others dislike it because it infringes on their right to hunt as they please. I can see both sides but the people who make decisions on who kills what when will continue to do with the deer herd what will make the state the most dollars, regardless of what any of us think.

Still waters run deep, lota truth in your post. It's a balancing act for DCNR and $ is a big factor. That's why I like seeing Forever Wild Land & WMAs I think everyone that wants to hunt should get a chance. I hope hunting never gets to be have and have nots.

Why don't you just ask them to quit responding to us at all Eddie, Then you can control the whole conversation with people who agree with you

Good to see someone popping in with some actual opinions and ideas of their own instead of lying and making up trash about someone else's opinions.

Let me address one of your thoughts:



May I add that there are many of us who do not fall into either of the categories you described. I have hunted and supported our game and fish laws for more than 50 years. I never saw the seasons and bag limits that were set for genuine conservation purposes as infringements on our right to hunt. Neither did I ever think that hunters should be allowed to do as they please.

There is a category of hunters in our state that believe fully in our game and fish laws, but reject rules implemented soley for qdm and special interest purposes as an abuse of lawful authority. That is the category I find myself in.

I hope so, I know of several places that'll let those slob hunters kill em all

cartervj,


Another member who lies about my opinions to distract from useful discussions of the issues.

Great song!

that's why when the program began I called some Senators I know and voiced my support just as you stated

What also amazes me is his (assuming I am being ignored and "he" isn't reading this) is his ignoring, and therefore alienating, even those who tend to agree with him. Clem said the other day "I tend to agree with 49'r on the limit issue" or something to that effect. I also have said it in regards to regulations in general.

Help me out someone ,anyone, where, what are all these lies 9er keeps refering to?

I tend to agree with him on several things.

I also tend to think some of the things he believes are unrealistic and unattainable. But I respect his passion and determination to fight for what he believes in, and never would argue against his right to express his opinions or beliefs.

give up and have fun, I appreciate his stamina on his beliefs but he's preaching here and going no where

we always need people to question our government, we all know that now

he's reaching these days


I have over 10 years of documentation that shows that QDM works on a 5000 acre tract, he'll never prove to me otherwise

being friends with several biologist and several land owners with larger tracts than I mentioned, one guy has kept data for over 20 years now, all draw the same conclusion about practicing QDM, it works

I still to this day recall when Brian Murphy came over and spoke in Florence, then some guys from Westervelt I believe. the spoke of the problems of leases once members reach 10 plus members. I'm reminded every day here by 49er. Keeps the world spinning and I do appreciate his resolve

Ol' boy does have passion and determination, I'll give him that.

And all he's getting is:

I'd like him to listen to my video post, I thunk he needs it

I don't see anyone disputing that the concepts of QDM work for the most part to achieve the goals many want to achieve. Just because something works doesn't mean it is the role of government to implement it.

I think the problem many of you are having with 49er is that you are assuming he is against QDM. From what I have seen of 49er, I suspect he is practicing QDM in some form himself. He just doesn't believe in big government and doesn't believe implementing QDM is an appropriate role of government. If you ask, most people on here would probably tell you they don't believe in big government....in the next breath, many of them will want more restrictive game laws.

I too don't believe in big government and don't believe implementing QDM is an appropriate role of government. That's why I am and have been opposed to AR's in any form in the State regulations. I am not, however, opposed to sensible numerical limits on the harvest of the States wildlife resources. There is some form of limit on pretty much all wildlife species in the State. As it should be.

Do you think there should be a limit on squirrels? If so, why?

I just read every post and I am exhausted and my stomach is hurting from laughing!

9er, you spelled my name Buckshot! I thought you called me Bucksnot! I accept the IGNORE with pride.

Anyway, you can't say that passion and opinions aren't displayed here!!

cartervj, you're so right!! If you've ever hunted QDM land, you'll never go back! Trigger happy greed is the biggest hurtle to get over.

The Indians tried to get the white men to stop shooting so many buffalos; especially since the white men just let'em lay there and rot! "Ya ain't puttin' limits on me Injun!"

I agree with:

Gobbler
2Dogs
cartervj
Clem
truedouble
bigT
T-town
AlabamaSwamper
Joshm28
Jughead

Dang!! On second thought, I'd saved a lot of typing had I just said that I disagree with:
9er
jlccoffee

If "no limit" is a sensible limit on the harvest of squirrels, I would be fine with it. I don't think (and most would agree) that a virtually "no limit" regulation on the harvest of bucks in Alabama is sensible.

Actually...the government now has limits on the harvest of bison. A very reasonable use of authority.

And again...no one every said that QDM doesn't work....That's the way I hunt too for the most part.

I don't believe in big government. Reducing the limit when the herd had grown and expanded under the previous limit does not rise to the need for government intervention.

he hates QDMA not QDM, besides has the State not always implemented a deer season?


as you mention later squirrels

is there not a difference between small game and big game, like how many times they breed a year or how big a litter they produce


like my post on replacement rates, maybe I should have stated average life spans, big game do tend to live a little longer on average but small game breed way more prolifically

Similar to what BSK said, just because the limit was 1 a day doesn't mean anyone was shooting 1 a day. Wasn't the average number of bucks per hunter less than 2? Weren't most hunters moving toward some sort of QDM on their own? Weren't most hunters limiting themselves and more each year? Why not continue down that road rather than calling for the government to step in if we truly believe in small government?

The move toward QDM in Alabama was an example of exactly how the USA was designed to function. People with freedom gravitate toward the right solution. Not central planning dictating what it thinks is the best solution from the top down.

We aren't disputing the biology. What we are disputing is that the regulations should allow as much freedom as possible while protecting the resource. No one said there should be no deer season...however if the resource could withstand that, why would we need a deer season? Same for other species.

with everything going on, I've become more of a Libertarian, having to vote for a R

I'm very much wanting a smaller Fed Gov, I've seen how rules become so engrossing over a period of time that the fun gets left out of deer hunting. Being a Pres of a club you get to hear all kinds of crap, we went from 1 page to about 12 on our rules, I'd bet that is very common.


Had an hr long talk with a co worker that LIKES to claim himself as an Anarchist, it doesn't work period, never will, cause as he said, people won't allow it cause of greed, so some sort of rule must be in place. But a premise it's a great idea, like socialism he said.

I witnessed the greed thing at our club, it's down right ugly


the only answer to this issue, which I really do not think it is, let our Biologist determine the seasons and limits

so who decides?
the landowner that has 10,000 acres versus the guy like me with 80 acres? or pays to hunt another 400 acres

or the guy that has to hunt WMA's cause of finances

you said you only kill 3 a year at most anyways so what's the problem?

as much as I wanna throw up using this word

since the resource is owned by we the people then it has to be shared but those paying for it, it's only fair

You should really read the road to serfdom.

it has been a while and it was my college years

so are you arguing that 49er is right about how the laws came about? or

the actual law itself


49er and yourself keep mentioning land owners and size of their property

what's that called?

You took care of the greed thing in your club by making rules using your local knowledge. You knew how many members you had. You knew if you had more or less deer than you thought you should have on the property. You knew the goal as far as size you wanted to kill. You knew how many acres you were hunting. You knew what kind of hunting the membership enjoyed. You might have known something about what your neighbors were doing. Did you need to government to write the 12 rules for you or were you capable or handling it for yourself?

Don't keep up with all that 49er says about how the law came about. I just think it was an unnecessary regulation.

I don't believe in anarchy and I know what you are saying about greed. Look at the growth of the deer herd under the buck a day regulation and tell me where greed was limiting the growth of the deer herd. Look at the move toward QDM both before and since the buck limit....we were already moving in the right direction. If we had been wiping out the deer like happened in the market hunting days, sure...we would need a regulation. We weren't even anywhere close to that and in fact people were moving toward better trigger control on their own. Just the way the system is supposed to work.

no the board made rules primarily out of jealousy, I was the tie breaker, never had to vote


once again, just exactly how are you gonna enforce and or regulate what the people of Alabama own, that is law by the way, critter are not owned by the landowner til they put up a high fence

til then all of us own those critters, that is what is getting lost in translation

WE Alabamians OWN the deer, til they are legally killed by a licensed hunter which allows th licensed hunter to claim his or her prize

it has been explained to me by LEOs picking up road killed deer is not legal but overlooked

can't argue against that, but not all hunters feel the same way, there in lies the issue

will we loose our deer herd under buck a day limits, no
did it cause skewed sex ratios, yes

is that good or bad for the health of the herd?

mother nature kicks in when it needs, outbreaks of EHD come about more often or more intense

so in my belief a buck limit as we have helps to force more does shot and a better balanced deer herd, which is as 49er posts if I read correctly is a form of perpetuation of the species

Because we own the deer is why we should decide. Just like your club did by whatever mechanism you had in place (a board in your case).

If we own the deer, why should the management be decided by central planning? Why should a few people in Montgomery decide how they are managed...aren't they our deer? Why should we not use our local knowledge to make decisions?

Again...if we were wiping out the deer or something like that...sure, that is the place for government.

We weren't...people were already making great strides in deer management.

Didn't you see how many people were already moving toward QDM. People already saw the advantages. Did they need the government for that? No.

Look at BSK's post again...I think it was in another thread. The people were doing what needed to be done. All it needed was a little time.

I read his post and I know many good deer hunters that have quit hunting AL and took up deer hunting in TN, several reasons and the biggest thing was soil quality and management, AKA limits



we did decide in a way, a poll was taken and the majority did voice their support for buck limits

we're a Republic and not a Democracy

It seems like you are a fan of regulations allowing those with large landholdings to be given special rights?! So someone with 10,000 acres to hunt by himself gets to shoot 100 bucks and the guy that leases a 40 only gets one every other year?

I digress for now, I don't have the passion for it, I blame WI for that

we will NEVER have their deer, their deer at 2.5 are bigger than most of our mature bucks (4.5 and older)

A poll is actually not how a republic works is it? I didn't get to elect any representative in the Dept of Conservation that I know of?

A three buck limit is not that big a deal in the great scheme of things. Next time the government wants to regulate some other aspect of your life because the majority doesn't like the way you do something....remember where you stood when the shoe was on the other foot.

I'm a new landowner, I see how the Gov is

I owned my own business for 23 years I know how OVER regulation hurts

Nope...never said that. Never said anything about how many anyone "gets"...Those that set the 3 buck limit are the ones who determined how many everyone "gets".

Read the book...There is a little pamphlet synopsis of it.

you and 49er have implied large landowners should be allowed more, you might not have said that out right, not sure but I have read into your post that implication


ok I'll read it again this time paying attention to detail

I still like the 3 buck limit though

Thats correct, everyone gets the same amount of the public wildlife resource. It does not matter how many acres you own, the way it should be.

Buck limits is worse than CRACK

I didn't say they should be allowed more. It just works out that way unless you also want to start regulating who they let hunt on their property too?

Ah yes...Kindof like the King's deer.

So a family of 4 that owns 40 acres should kill 12 off that land. The individual that owns 10,000 should kill 3 because that is fair.

Or do you suggest the guy with 10,000 should let the family of 4 come over to his place and kill their deer on his land? Maybe we should make some sort of regulation about that....just to be fair.

I thought the limit had something to do with management. If it's about fairness and equal distribution, then we are going to need a whole new set of regulations.

The DMAP program of the DCNR prior to buck limits was working because site-specific tracts were physically evaluated by those making the decisions. Tags were not issued equally to individuals. The total number of deer that could be killed was determined by the site-specific conditions, and had nothing to do with rationing that total number of deer to be killed according to the number of hunters on the property.

"Sound biology" got lost in the mix when "biologists" started playing politics and forgot about the science.

Simple mathematics indicates that large tracts of land can sustain more deer being killed.

The "king's deer" mentality that you mentioned involves nothing more than a loss of freedom and liberty that caused our founding father's to cross an ocean and battle native tribes to survive in order to rid themselves of it. I don't care to go back, and I certainly don't want it to follow us here.

that's funny right there


you and jl are promoting large landowners rule

feudalism eh


this buck limit thing is on the verge of being delusional

Do you think the large landowner should be required to allow others to come onto his land and kill the deer? Who do you think should do it? How should it be regulated?

I have addressed the issue in another thread.

See "A Buck limit that is legal and makes sense"

absolutely not,


do you think deer stay only on their property?

1. if the family of 4 can kill 12 bucks off of 40 acres, legally, then more power to them. 99% chance that "if" that occurred it would happen in an area with very very very high buck numbers...HOWEVER, according to you, due to education, the family of 4 would not kill 12 bucks. they would evaluate their property, sit down and come up with a management strategy that would insure many more good seasons to come on that 40 acres.

2. to the other "hypothetical situation" of one hunter hunting alone on 10,000 acres (I see a trend here of unrealistic scenarios, but anyway) and "only" being able to kill 3 bucks. Do you think that one person hunting 10000 acres, alone, is going to have that much more of an opportunity to kill more than 3 bucks, than a more realistic situation of 3-4 hunters hunting 3000 acres of family land? At the end of the day one person can't manage 10,000 acres anyway. It would either be a hunting Mecca or overrun with does. Either way the "one hunter" would likely be unaffected by a 3 buck limit, BUT, if they were and x hunter could have killed 3, 3 year olds and 3, 4 year olds (just to spread it around), which is worse, a hunter only being able to kill 3 bucks on 10000 acres or a hunter being able to kill a buck a day on 40 acres? Bottom line both are unrealistic and irrelevant.

3. limits are just that "LIMITS" a max, a number not to exceed. Just limits the "unmanageable" hunters as well as changes hunter mentality and a hunter actions. A means to changing hunter behavior.

Good grief...you are so blind that now you have to say 12 bucks off 40 acres is OK with you in order to support the limit.

Who is supporting QDM now? I'm the one that doesn't want them to kill 12 bucks off 40 acres...you say more power to them?

do you honestly think that 40 acres is supporting 12 bucks

maybe under a fenced operation

So now you tell me that limits on the 10000 acres is irrelevent but we should have one anyway. On the other hand, on 40 acres more power to them if they kill 12.

I am saying each property should manage to its specific local situation.

I guess I really don't get all this QDM stuff because I thought it was about science and doing what is right for your local conditions?

Do you think the deer only stay on the neighbors property? On my small property I have more deer wander through than I think it would be right for me to shoot.

well 40 acres ain't got anything on holding deer, unless you own at least 500 acres you're SOL

after all average home ranges are usually more than 500 acres

jlc,

I think they must be teaching in qdm seminars that small tracts of land with extreme hunting pressure attract every buck from the surrounding area.

I sure hear a lot of qdm'ers that seem to believe that.

Let me start by saying I'm a big proponent of QDM but I've also changed my opinion of the three buck limit and feel it should not be on the books. I have a large lease roughly 3000 acres with limited members and what we've been able to accomplish as compared to what we started with is nothing short of amazing. When people want to join my club, I am upfront and tell them that our management style might not be for them. We want to grow and kill big mature bucks and that requires discipline and a lot of restraint. That being said, it's not for everyone and I dont agree with forcing it on everyone. Do I get ticked when a bordering property owner that has 20 acres (doing nothing to grow of hold deer on his property) uses corn and baits some of my young 2 yr olds off and kills them each year, sure I do. I call the GW and report him for hunting over bait (because it is illegal)and sometimes they catch him. Do I have an issue with him killing the young bucks? No not really. That is his perogotive and it is within the law for him to do so. Does he take advantange of my restraint, money and hard work? Yes, he does. Knowing this individual, he will shoot every rack buck that he can get his crosshairs on and brag about how many he kills and what a great hunter he is. The three buck limit is not going to slow him down one bit. Bag limits are needed to regulate the minority percentage of hunters that abuse the resource. Whoever said we needed more wardens was right. We do to need to enforce laws, right or wrong. If we feel the laws or regulations are wrong then we need to elect people that will change them. Just like we need more border patrol agents and we need to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Laws without enforcement leads directly to anarchy. Even though I am for QDM, I dont think that the 3 buck limit was needed or is accomplishing anything. 95% of the people that were killing over 3 bucks a year will continue to do so because there is very little chance them getting caught. I agree that the majority of hunters would probably feel bad about personally killing 10 bucks a year. I know that most of the guys I run with and have been around somewhat regulate themselves and did so before the 3 buck limit. Too many laws and regualtions are just as bad as not having enough. Not enforcing or not being able to enforce (lack of funding, manpower, whatever)what is the current law is where I have a problem. If we dont like the laws, we need to vote in people that will change things to what we want. An elected official selects the CAB members so we need to get an elected official in office that elects people to the CAB that have the wildlife's best interest at heart. We need to all remember that we as a group are "hunters and consumers" of the state's resources. Everyone has just as much right to hunt and fish as the next guy and we need to remember we are all on the same team. Otherwise, the following scenario is going to occur at some point. The big property owner or lessor with the big landholdings and big $ is going to just fence out the 20 and 40 acre landowner thus prohibiting the animals from having access to the small property and all of a sudden, yep, "king's deer". Only this time the kings will be the large landowners and people that can afford the big leases. No one should ever be priced out of being able to exercise their right to enjoy hunting of fishing regardless of their financial situation.

Exactly...It don't have anything on holding deer and yet the limit is 3 per person for however many people want to hunt it.

Ya'll can call yourself QDM all day long, there sure aren't many of you that believe in site specific management and basing decisions on local conditions.

BSK, this is why I posed that question about 75 thread pages ago. They cant trust the hunters in the state of Al to be responsible stewards of their resource, they couldnt get the survey numbers to justify a need to reduce the limit, they couldnt sell it for what it is- a first step toward a qdm state and so they say " its not biologically sound to allow someone an oppurtunity to kill 110 buck a season" or as Gobbler says above.

Gobbler,

How is one limit sensible and the other not?

If fulfilled wouldnt they both leave us at the same place?

perhaps 200,000 licensed hunters &
perhaps 200,000 unlicensed hunters that can kill
>>>>>>>>>>> x3 bucks a season
>>>>>>>>>_______ wouldnt it
>>>> = 1,200,000 wipe out our buck population?

So, again, wouldnt they leave us at the same place? And if so, then how is one more sensible than the other?