Opinion on decline of state deer harvest last 8 years.

According to the Alabama hunter survey the total number of deer harvested in Alabama since 2004-2005 season has been on a steady decline. From a record high of 499,000 in 2004-2005 to 255,000 in 2011-012.

What about license sales for the same time period? Or the method in which those harvest numbers were obtained? Without all of the data an opinion someone gives you is nothing more than BS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 3 buck limit had a little to do with that...

It's 2 deer a day.

Number of hunters also declined from 334,000 to 232,000. So number of hunters declined 30%. While deer harvest went down 49%. So that leaves a 19% or a decline of 95,000 that can not be attributed to fewer hunters.

Over 100,000 less hunters! You think that could have anything to do with crazy high lease prices?

When did the all season doe blasting go into effect?? How many people stopped shooting every deer they see because of the hassle and cost of processing?? How many leases went to self imposed limits because they were not seeing 30 does on the foodplots anymore?? How much property has been taken off the hunting market because of development or incorporation?? Are there fewer man-days being hunted on private lands?? Are there more or less man-days being hunted on the public lands? Have more restrictions been placed on number of deer that can be harvested, 3 buck rule comes to mind? In the highest figure of kills, how many were bucks, how many were does? If there was a high number of does killed and they are no being killed now and the number of bucks went down from one a day to 3 per season, wouldn't that reduce the number of deer killed?? If there are fewer hunters in the woods there is more space for the deer to be without being seen, which one would think would cause less deer to be shot.

Numbers don't mean squat if there is no information regarding the variables to back up the OPINIONS.

I know how we can find out what the "real numbers are", all the State has to do is FORCE all hunters under penalty of law to register their deer, yeah, that's the ticket (figuratively and literally)!!

Looks like a person would have a lot of homework to do before they could form an opinion regarding the harvest numbers Statewide.

Just my opinion but I have seen a major decline in deer numbers since doe days went season long.

Y'all. We gotta shoot dem does. As many as possible. That's what I hear all the time.

CAB Meeting
May, 2007

Report of the Deer Study Committee


Page 60

MR. DITCHKOFF
7 I honestly don't think you can
8 kill too many does on a piece of
9 property.

Yep that's how you get more deer you kill all the baby makers! Lol..

The season long doe days and 2 doe a day limit was SUPPOSED to reduce deer numbers! What do you think they implemented it for?

That is not a correction.

There is a SEASON LIMIT on BUCKS 3 as stated. That started in 2007, thus that has to have accounted for some reduction of Total harvest numbers.

yep, ya'll killed the deer making machines.

It is OK.

The areas in the state that were over populated now have deer that have migrated to those areas that were under populated and there is now a balance of deer with their habitat.

There is also a balance of does and bucks everywhere throughout the state and the age structure of bucks is in balance now.

The deer study committee has had it all under control since 2007, so we can rest assured everything is now alright with our deer herd.

Just continue to do whatever they tell you, no matter how much trouble it may be, and don't worry about anything.

The deer study committee has spoken. Nothing else matters.

hey don't forget Alfa cause they really have the "hunters" interests @ heart! Lmao

Most all those questions can be answered by reading the reports

2 deer a day is still 2 deer a day, regardless of the sex of the deer.

I am sure they can without any assumption being made or numbers made up and all variables taken into account. Finite data with assumptions does not take into account of infinite variables. Even the Biologist say the make up numbers on deer populations, that gives me confidence in the numbers. On WMA's they keep better records and can provide a glimpse of accuracy of maybe 75% for gun hunts for who checks in and out and at best 50% for bowhunts for the impact that occurs on a finite amount of property. Do you think Statewide is even remotely close to that??

I think what they may be surmising is, since the limit was imposed, once a hunter got his or her 3 bucks they were done. They may have in the past been killing 6 or 8 or 10 etc.

Some have comprehension skills....

Nevermind........

Let me see if I've got this straight. The state wants me to believe that there are fewer people hunting, less available hunting properties, seeing less deer in a state that has increased it's deer herd.

X 1000

That's right. Kill too many deer, you don't have many deer. This concept is hard to imagine for many of you, but when you live in an area with a small deer population to start with, it doesn't take much to upset the balance.

Our numbers are down from the past three years.

That's why when Jimmy has a lot of deer on his place and Joe don't then Jimmy don't give a damn if Joe has deer but when Jimmy is in Joes predicament then he is concerned.

Its not one size fits all anymore in this state and its about time.

You really think a form that they can create, stops them from killing what they want? It's not about comprehension, it's about not agreeing with you.

How accurate are those numbers? No one ever asks me how many I harvested....

So have you hired the State to manage the land that you hunt on? If not, why not? One size fits all does not mean that you have to kill 2 deer per day, or that you have to kill any deer.

The State has set some general guidelines and YOU are free to be as restrictive as you want on YOUR property. Hence, they do NOT force a landowner to allow hunting on their property to keep the prescribed age, sex ratio, antler mass, etc of the herd in check so the neighbor has good hunting.

MICRO-MANAGING from the top NEVER works! If it does name a single instance?

All it says is standard error 4%. So I guess they presume it to be within 4%

Standard error of 4% is acceptable if you are working from known numbers, but when they are guessing at best (per biologist admission) 4% could mean 40%, 50%, or, we just have no idea but our guess is within 4% of our earlier guess. We call that a WAG (wild $%^ guess) where I come from.

One other thing, I received a harvest survey at my house for the previous owner (I purchased the house from him 25 years ago this November). So, yeah I am impressed by the State's ability to guesstimate within 4% of their earlier guess!

Maybe I am seeing why the State has to FORCE compliance under penalty of law when bureaucratic incompetence is alive and well!

My opinion is it was a combination of the liberal doe season that was put in place to reduce deer numbers. The problem is it was applied to the entire state instead of only the areas where the population needed to be reduced. Along with the rise of the coyote population that exploded about that same time. The explosion in the coyote population was probably unforeseen at that time. I just hope they don't wait to long until they decide we have reduced the herd enough is most places that doe season needs reduced. Or 8-10 years from now we will be talking about how good it use to be before the herd was reduced to the point it couldn't recover due to increased coyote population which must be factored in to the doe harvest going forward.

In my opinion, the deer numbers aren't down that much if at all statewide. I certainly believe they're down in isolated areas, but not statewide.

Much like the state's figures, mine are not based on anything but a wild guess. Actually, mine are based on personal observations of hunting all over the south 2/3 of the state over the last 20 years compared to my experiences hunting 30 years ago.

Other than sitting on the porch in the evenings and counting rifle shots, what method do you know of that the state was using to estimate the number of deer killed statewide over the last 10, 20, or 30 years?

Agreed ....
I hate to hear hunters come in at the end of a days hunt and complain about not seeing any deer, but they did see 2 coyotes walk by.... AND THEY DIDNT KILL THE BASTARDS. Hello guys, these are the things that are eating your next years trophy deer.

I know all about what the state has to offer seeing how I work for them.

I haven't killed a deer the past two seasons due to our numbers being down. I've had the opportunity but I chose not too.

I DON'T NEED any body to micro manage anything for me because I thank God he gave me enough sense to do it for myself.

Also common sense tells me that what is good for my place may not be the same a hundred miles north. IMO

So should the State micro-manage everybody else's property? I am not following the logic that you don't need the State micro-managing your property, but think the State should micro-manage all other property because one size doesn't fit all anymore?

Sounds to me like you are doing what the State intended by allowing you to be more restrictive because you know what is happening on your property better than them. Is everybody else different and can't figure it out on their own so it would be better for the State to micro-manage their properties?

I never said the state should micro manage anybody's property. All I said was that what is good for one region of the state may not be for another.
Like the extended season. I now have an opportunity to hunt the start of the rut in Monroe county. Maybe some day we will get to hunt the full rut like other parts of the state get to. And yes I would be willing to start the season later to be able to do this so it is fair for everyone.

On the same note of people saying deer numbers are down......What % of carrying capacity are you trying to manage for? When you saw a lot of deer, were deer verging on 100% of carrying capacity for your property? What is the current carrying capacity of your land or in other words how many deer can it hold?

What % of carrying capacity is the state trying to manage for?.....50% ???, 75% ???? Do we have a goal?

I think at least 70% of hunters will follow the 3 buck limit, maybe more...so yea, I agree the 3 buck limit could/ should/ has had an impact on number of bucks killed since 07...people will generally kill same number of does every year, given the limit doesn't change so I don't see the 2 does a day as a factor in decline of deer killed (assuming the state's numbers are even close to being correct).

The number of deer taken is a guess at best. The only number that could be anywhere close to accurate is the license sales. So, hunting numbers are down. We've been told over the last few years that the youth days has recruited so many more hunters. These youth days have been going on long enough that those hunters would be buying licenses by now. Where are they?

Hunter numbers are down nation wide. Economy, loss of land, cost too much just ain't cool no more.. Who knows what it is. I can only speak for land I've hunted but coyotes are the biggest problem as far as deer numbers go. I was in a club that used to see 20+ deer on a hunt and they'd kill 120+ a year. They don't shoot does. U go there now and you will be lucky to see 20 deer in a month. 20 years ago they had big hardwood timber and no coyotes.. Now they got mostly pines and ate up with coyotes.. They are lucky to kill 60.

How many acres were y'all killing 120+ deer on?

8k

So, they killed 120+ bucks a year on 8k acres? I think the mismanagement and the thicker cover would translate to the decrease in kills.

[/quote]


We've been told over the last few years that the youth days has recruited so many more hunters. These youth days have been going on long enough that those hunters would be buying licenses by now. Where are they? [/quote]

This would happen if we as hunters were recruiting new hunters. I never see many folks(including myself) taking kids from the neighborhood out hunting. I carry my son all the time but never any of his buddies. That is on me not the state. Personally I would be fine if in addition to the early youth season they restricted the last two weekends in December as youth only. Let the kids hunt while they are out of school for Christmas.

A lot of people take the week between Christmas and New Year holidays as vacation, and a long one if those dates fall nicely between weekends.

Telling adults who take a week or more vacation they cannot hunt during that time would never fly. The kids already can hunt when they're out of school.

Back in the day they had some guys that killed 20-30 per year. Club is 75 years old. Mismanagement or not. They just started seeing a decline in the last few years. Some of their kill numbers in 50-60's are incredible

In the area that we hunt, Sumter County, there has been less does killed since allowing does to be harvested all season long. When you had a doe season people knew that they had a limited time to harvest a doe for meat in their freezer. Now that people can shoot a doe anytime they have the perception of I will just wait I have all season and then they never have the opportunity to kill another doe again.

I have seen this first hand from working at a deer processor for 6 six years.

Something else that I have not seen anyone mention is the economy. That is playing a big part in people joining a club and having a place to hunt. You think about it $1000-$2000 to join club. Then add up all the fuel you will burn to go back and forth. Just a thought.

Have heard more than one wildlife official and/or biologist say this same thing.

The shorter "doe days" was the carrot dangling on the string in front of hunters. When the all-season ability was put in, that carrot disappeared and there was no rush or urgency to hunt those few 'doe days.'

It's not just something that happened in Alabama, either.

2000-2001 season was the first season more does than bucks were killed in the state. Since 2003-2004 season it has been above 50% every year. Ranging between 51% and 58%.

I agree....the numbers don't back up the idea that fewer does are being killed.

To be honest, i think horn porn has got a lot to do with less deer being killed. Everybody's waiting on that monster buck to appear, and a lot of people just don't care anything about shooting doe's. 1 guy i know, used to shoot doe's when it was illegal, now he wont shoot one. Processing fee's have gotten out of hand, most people dont want to fool with cutting up a deer. I had to bite my lip, when i saw a man drop off a 35lb doe at a processor. He might have got a walmart sack of meat back, but it still cost him $60.

The number on does killed has went down but as a percentage of total harvest they have not went down Total deer killed went up a lot in 2000-2001 the increase was almost all a result of the increase of doe harvest. The total harvest along with number of doe killed increased until about 2004-2005 then started a slow decline in total harvest but percentage harvest made of doe has not went down. 2011-2012 season was lowest number of bucks killed in at least the last 28 years.

When I look at the The Final 2013-2014 Schedule I see that (in Jackson Co) there are only 2 weeks during which gun hunters can kill does on PUBLIC land... Dec 15 - Jan 1. It's Nov 23-Jan 31 for PRIVATE land

This was a huge impetus for me to buy a bow this season instead of waiting until next season. Being my first deer season ever, I plan on taking 2 does and putting them into my deep freezers every single day I can hunt

How is it we know the kills and ratio in this State and still not know the population? This is what the Game Check is suppose to do.

Umm damn don't no about that "carrot" "logic" I've seen many people take advantage of shooting 2 deer per day!

Obviously

Dang!!!

Trying to read those piled up posts is about as bad as trying to read piled up hunting rules.

Quit it!!!

BDhunts,


We've been scolded on the way we post by 49er. We've finally made it. Haha

Just cut and paste. It's much easier to read.

At my house in Randolph County people are killing way to many does, even in Chambers County where I hunt the deer numbers where down the last two years. People need to use some common sense just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it. The biggest problem around my place is retards around here get a hunting magazine or see it on the web or T.V. Some big D.A. starts hollering management, and they start killing every doe they see and scrub bucks thinking that will grow a 150" buck through the deer season, when in reality around my house It just isn't gonna happen. About a 125 inch buck is as big as you gonna find on average and that is a mature 5 year old, it's been like this for the last 35 years. Matter of fact they was bigger deer killed back when they run dogs. Sure them big deer are still here like they have been, but you cant make them move.

WooHoo!!

Now maybe we can get one of those customized tags under our screenname.....

I don't believe any of us know whether the population is down or not, you can't base it on sightings. Once you start to hammer does, they become a lot harder to see. People freak out and think, Oh my god, we've killed too many. Think about it. On a 400 acre lease, if you have 20 doe's, and they have twin fawns, and half of those are bucks, then you will need to kill 10 to just keep the numbers the same. The reason they say you cant kill too many, is because they will become nocturnal just like bucks, once you start slaughtering them. People overhunt stands, and see diminished sightings. People shoot a bunch of does off of food plots, and all of a sudden nobody is seeing any deer on plots and freak out. Its all about pressure. Night time camera surveys are one of the only ways to do a population survey of your property. Sightings are the least reliable, because lets face it, some people have a hard time seeing deer at the zoo.

Other than some weak areas in the northern part of the state, I think you've hit the nail square on the head.

How is nighttime camera "surveys" anymore reliable when the majority of the time your getting pics of the same deer over & over & over?

Let's not forget natural predation in the form of the ever expanding COYOTE. New studies are proving what we've all suspected for years that they are major fawn killers. When they went to the open doe season, at least on the two places I hunt, the coyote population was no where near what it is now. Sure back then you'd see some tracks and occasional scat but you rarely heard them howling. Now, around dark thirty, you'd better put in earplugs so they dont rupture your eardrums. I think they have played a bigger role in this than they are given credit for.

[quote=james]How is nighttime camera "surveys" anymore reliable when the majority of the time your getting pics of the same deer over & over & over? [/quote
Some deer are nocturnal, thats the only time you'll get them on camera. I'm no expert on camera surveys, but there's plenty of info out there to properly conduct one.

You count the number of unique bucks that you get pictures of and compare that to the total number of buck pics you get. So lets say we get 10 unique bucks and there are a total of 100 pics of the bucks. That gives us a 1:10 ratio. You then use that ratio to estimate how many individual does came into the camera. Lets say we had a total of 200 doe pics. We use our 1:10 ratio to estimate that we had 20 individual does

Here is a good reference. It is old but the main points still stand true. The math is on page 4

Camera Survey Research

Here is a great book on the subject as well. I have this book myself and would recommend it to everyone who uses trail cams. Its loaded with lots of info and its very well illustrated too. It has a whole section of the book dedicated to properly conducting camera surveys.

http://www.qdma.com/shop/deer-cameras-the-science-of-scouting-by-qdma

I honestly have no idea how you came to 10. It's probably my lack in math skills.

Ha, you are correct - you would have to kill 20 does a year in that scenario to stay the same. However, it is unrealistic. Fawns die and are killed, surviving twin fawns are not the norm and dropping twins is also not the norm. Maybe one surviving fawn per 2 does in hunting season. Maybe 50-60% of the does with fawns and an average of 1 fawn would yield 10 fawns, 1/2 of which are bucks, therefore 5 does killed per year would keep same ##'s. It is still not that simple though!

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


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

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

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

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

1. Need for Buck Limits

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

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

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

2. Recommended Limit

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

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

3. Necessary Research

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

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

4. Implementation of the Program

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

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

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

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

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

You are spot on according to a study I read a while back can't remember who conducted it but it was done in 2010 and it said that average fawn recruitment rate in the southeast was .60 To me this is one of the most important numbers to deer management. But most places won't take the time necessary to get a good estimate and just assume almost every doe will raise two fawns each year. Which is far from accurate most anywhere.

I've noticed the twinning rates fluctuate on our place. The more deer will kill, the more our twinning and triplet rates went up. Quit shooting deer a few years and the opposite is true. This is just what I've noticed, but it's basic carrying capacity logic.

kinda like how other states have a very short gun season and they kill as many deer in a week as we do in 2 1/2 months

Deer are a lot easier to kill in those states at least the ones I have hunted in. In 2 1/2 months with with a gun I think we could have killed them all. But I think some of that may be because there season is only cpl weeks. And the rest is because they just don't have as many places to hide.

Two words Coyote and blue tongue Down here in the lower part of ala we have seen the blue tongue to be a factor. Last season it really hit the mature bucks more so than does . I'm a taxidermist down here and have heard of several occurences last season. So far it does not seem to b a factor this year though. Maybe due to rainy summer . Anyway we r also eat up with coyotes . Rumor has it Fort Rucker Al conducted a survey last year I believe. They took 9 bread does inserted a micro chip into the fetus of the doe . When the fawns were born ; within 48 hours 7 of the 9 does had lost their fawns due to coyotes. Long and short coyotes are our bigest problem. That's the reason the numbers are down in our area in pike county. I can remember back 20 years ago we would see tons of deer. Wherever u went tons of deer. Now we still see plenty of deer but the fawns seem to b missing hmmm! What could b causing that . Coyotes that's what! Now I'm not saying we don't have plenty of deer . We r simply talking numbers. I believe our quality is improving over all state wide but we need to really consider the fact that coyotes r detrimental to the deer . When you factor that in and the fact you can kill two does per day of season then maybe we should re evaluate. Last thing ill say is for a fact our numbers in the taxidermy studio have been on a steady downhill fall for the last four years. Our numbers are presently about 50 percent off from where they allways have been for 16 years. May also b the economy as a factor as well

Not sure about "disease" but I have some friends with land close to gastonburg, & they've found some big deer dead in the past year & a half?

Yea I think every so often there seems to b an occurence of blue tongue . They say its caused from the midge knatt. Usually those deer will go to water to die.

EHD. Epizootic Hemorragic Disease. Caused from parasite

Come to think of it they mentioned something about them bugs.. I know they were disappointed about how many deer they were finding dead & its like no one wants to talk about it....

Yea it's been around a while. And when u figure in what the coyotes are doing as well then it can affect certain areas bad in some years and other areas another year. It kinda gets hard to pin point every year on whether its disease or coyotes or both causing the issues. We still have plenty of deer but how many are we loosing to disease and coyotes. The coyotes get the young and disease gets all ages. Then we filter hunting pressure.

Well at least i know someone is reading my post, great catch! Yes 20 does would be the correct answer.

Bingo, we have a winner. Coyotes follow the game, and do the job that we don't do. As deer numbers drop, so do coyote numbers. It's nature, it doesn't need us, it works out its problems. Some years i see twin fawns, some years i don't.

I read ur posts & I have to say I disagree on the coyotes population numbers dropping because of one species.. Coyotes are scavengers & movers...I've already heard this excuse no one wants to admit when their "wrong" I've read several articles where this is mainly being blamed on the predators now..And has nothing to do with the season long doe season Well that's bull chit & I think they are insulting our intelligence.

CNC is correct on how the numbers are calculated in a photo census. The photo census technique is one of the most valuable techniques available for determining many aspects of a local deer population. If the survey is done correctly, it can provide accurate information on fawn production and survival rates (recruitment rate), adult sex ratio, buck age structure, and the number of unique bucks that visit a given area over the course of the census. However, what it CANNOT tell you is the deer density per square mile. Deer move around too much over several weeks' time to produce an actual density number. For example, when censusing a square mile area, the cameras pick up not only deer using that square mile, but most of the deer from all of the 8 surrounding square miles. This produces a highly inflated deer density number.

WMA's around here in the 80's and early 90's had a large hunter turnout during the short 2-3 day deer season every couple of weeks. A lot of deer were killed during that short time.

I'd guess cause so many more hunters were in the woods at the same time, stirring it up so to speak.

BSK, thank you for jumping in. That's good info. There are a lot of us "arm chair quarterbacks" trying to be wildlife biologists on here. I think that's a good thing. Regardless of someone's position, the open minded hunters on this site can always learn useful information from these passionate debates. I would guess the number of open minded hunters to only be about 1 in 10, but every little bit helps. In all seriousness, it is interesting to see so many different viewpoints on these issues and how each one seems to be driven by one's own personal experience in their unique hunting properties.

Predator population rises and falls, just like game populations do. They run in cycles. Thats natures way of keeping a balance.

Correct but u only mentioned whitetail.. I've hunted heavily populated areas with deer & never seen or heard a yote, but totally opposite when hunting an area with a heavy small game population like wabbits...

We have no rabbits, but we sure have a lot of coyotes. I suspect the majority of the coyotes diet is mice, voles, etc. But they will certain eat a bunch of newborn fawns as well.

Oh yea no doubt.. And they've sure got used to our gut piles too! Lol

I grew up in Mobile. I left Mobile at age 19. I just got back. I spent the last 30 years in South Carolina.
I am AMAZED at the changes!!! From the growth of Baldwin County to the rules and regs regarding fish and wildlife.

The cost to lease land - WOW!!!
Who done this? Hunters? Non Hunters?
Land got expensive because hunters were/are willing to pay, so we have to blame ourselves.

One thing I do not (NOT!!) understand is how the state does not know what the deer densities and/or the harvest densities are across the state.
I called and asked. I sent emails. I stopped by a district office and asked.
I did get a good response from someone out of Montgomery, who sent me a density map for deer and turkey from 05 and 06.
Good information! But, hardly up to date.
What about the harvest densities? How many deer are being killed per sq mile, per county?
I see the info on the state's web site, but who in the world measures and records HARVEST info by number of man days spent to kill a deer??? Id rather know how many deer were being killed per sq mile. If hunters knew how many deer their were per sq mile (live) and what the harvest rate was, WE hunters would have a better idea of what WE needed to do, or not do.

I personally dont want emotion, based on what individual hunters want for themself or their hunting club. To manage deer and turkey you have to have hard core factual data, stats and figures. You have to know how many deer you have, and then have a harvest plan to ensure the resource is not taken advantage of, and to keep their number in check (REAL management).
And I am not referring to QDM and/or BIG antlers. States regulate wild game to control populations, not to grow big antlers. I am ALL for a BUCK limit to help manage the deer. When I was a kid here in AL, it was a buck a day, every day, for the entire season - that is CrAzY - that is NOT wildlife management.

Iv read here that some say the state is saying the overall deer herd has grown in AL. I spoke to a regional biologist last week and asked this question: "Would you say that the overall deer density has decreased in Alabama over the last 5-8 years?".
He answered "Yes".
So now I am ...... ??? ??? ???
Both SC and GA have seen a 30% decrease (on avg) in the states overall deer herd in the past decade. Changes in habitat, changes in timber practices, coyotes, QDM (shoot the does, shoot the does, shoot the does ...) have all been contributing factors.
SO, has the overall number of deer in AL increased or decreased in the past 3, 4, 5 years???

Another question ..... Why the BIG difference in the number of days allowed to harvest UNantlered deer between public and private land??????
WOW!! If my math serves me correctly, there is something like 12 days for public land, and 70 for private land. What the ......????
Did I read and count that correctly????

Does the state know what the sex ratio is in the state (LOL!!)???
This could open a can of worms!!
Male to Female Ratio??

Do they know what % of the buck harvest is made up of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 year old bucks? Anyone know? I do not see this info anywhere. Anyone have any ideas?

OH, on avg, the number of hunting license sold in America has been on the decline. I did my own lil research on SC and it declined a few years ago and then has been holding steady for the last 8 or so years.
Something that really stood out was the age of hunters in SC was increasing. It would be GOOD news to hear that the avg age of hunters (in any state) is 18, but that is not the case.
In SC it is around age 50. Fewer folks hunting and the age of those hunting is increasing in age.

Financial situation of our nation has had a BIG impact on outdoor recreational activities. Fewer and fewer folks have the ability to but boats, guns, GAS ..... so they do without. This is a FACT!!
Get with your local game warden and ask him if he is seeing fewer folks in the woods and on the water then years gone by.

CPiper,

Why do you need all that information you are claiming that it is ridiculous for the DCNR not to have?

Good posts CPiper. Every state SHOULD know how many deer are being killed per county, and the age structure of bucks being killed. However, that requires data collection, and unfortunately, hunters in AL (at least those on this site) appear to be dead set against providing that information.

As for deer density, sex ratio, etc. most states have some rough estimates of that region by region of their state, but the method they use to estimate those numbers require harvest data. As far as I know, TN is the only state that is attempting to actually MEASURE deer density by region (and that is amazing time consuming and somewhat expensive).

A lot of things have been on decline since Obama & his liberal army took over..Hunting has got expensive, people have to take care of their top priorities...

Nationwide, hunter numbers have been declining for a long time. But in the "deer hunting belt" of the Southeast, hunter numbers have not been declining much, if at all.

Surely you don't think it's only gotten bad since Obama's administration got into office six years ago. It's been expensive and regulatory far longer than that.

I'm talking mainly in part people that have lost their jobs & who can't afford the high price of hunting these days..I'm seeing more & more people who've lost their hunting properties because of the high price of hunting land..Hey we lost 1000@cres this year because Peavy out bidded us!!!!!!

Without question, having access to the best hunting land can be expensive. No doubt about it. But what recreational pass-time doesn't improve with money spent?

Well most of these high lease prices is because of people cutting each others throats!..Alot of people i know are getting sick of it, & their spending their time fishing..I'd like for somebody to check the stats on fishing licenses to see if its increased or declined?...

if you really look into the data (survey) , the numbers "mostly" is due to loses in small game hunters . like you said big game aint much if any , any where

BSK: Thanks. Are you the same BSK I used to internet chat with elsewheres?

49er: Because I can. Because I want to. I am an informed and educated hunter, conservationist, naturalist, and I genuinely care about the natural renewable resources of our Great Nation. I do not sit around and wait for deer season to roll around. I am involved in deer and deer hunting year round. I feed on information, data, statistics regarding deer and deer hunting.
I do not owe you and answer, but, maybe my answer will rub off on you and assist you in becoming a better CONSERVATIONIST.

I am NOT knocking the State of Alabama. I just want to know, am curious. I want to know. Knowing herd densities and harvest rates and all that stuff that folks like 49er think (feel) and unimportant.
Where and how does the state get the number for the umber of man days spent to kill a deer or hog. Where do these numbers come from? Is there a mail survey?
Do I really care about the number of man days? Yes - it helps me measure pressure. But, on the other hand, I am going hunting, and it won't/dont matter if it takes me 1 day, 1 hour or a week to kill a deer, that is not the main thing.
How do they arrive at 16 deer being killed on a specific WMA in southern Mobile County? How did they arrive at that specific number of deer? Anyone able to tell me?

Land Prices - again, it is OUR fault. HUNTERS.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
I am also in shock at the land costs down here in AL. I thought $14 was high in SC, but that is about only average in AL - WOW, OUCH!!
There is a club in SC - www.piedmonthuntclub - look it up. Look at the number of acres and dues. Then come back to AL and see if you can find a club with that LOW cost of dues for that amount of land.
Somehow and someway, HUNTERS have set the gauge for the cost of land here in Alabama. And the 2nd sad part of that is the amount of pressure WMA land now receives.

There are more folks fishing than hunting. NON hunters will fish. ANTI hunters will fish.
The cost of gas, insurance, taxes has put a dent in boat ownership the last few years with the overall health of our nation's economy.

A few quick google searches will let you see the data and info first handed.

I think one of the unintended consequences of very liberal harvest regulations is high lease prices. Think about it, if our state had hunting laws like some states, properties with in the same area would all be equal, assuming everyone obeyed the law. Unfortunately you have 2000 acres that was brown it's down for 25 years and then down the road you have a club that's been on QDM for 25 years...which one do you think is going to be able to charge more? go to Illinois and the public land is just as good a private property...why? cause the state has done a better job of managing... in other words there are way less variables in most other states.

CPiper,


For an informed and educated hunter, you've sure got a lot of questions about the reports you scanned over.

If you take time to actually read those reports, most of your questions about where the numbers they use come from will be answered ... but then you probably already know that being educated and informed like you are.

Probably. I don't know anyone else using that username, and I've used it for 15 or so years.

Unless I said something really awful. Then, no, it wasn't me.

I would tend to disagree with those statements. IL doesn't manage at all. Their hunting is great because they're lucky enough to have the best soils and habitat in the nation. You can get away with a lot of mismanagement when you're carrying capacity is unlimited and food sources the best anywhere.

Southeastern states HAVE to manage well to see any results at all. Midwestern states can have a vacant Game Agency building and still grow world record bucks.

Welcome to aldeer Cpiper. I have enjoyed reading you post on this topic but unfortunately I don't have any answers to your questions.

OK 49er, I will bite this one time. I am dumb. I am stupid. I am asking YOU to enlighten me, to educate me.
Questions #1. How does the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources gather the info to determine the number of man days it requires to harvest a deer, hog or turkey on WMA land?
Question #2. What is the deer density of .... (pick a county) ... Clarke County, Alabama?
Question #3. What is the harvest rate of .... (pick a county) .... Clarke County, Alabama.
Question #4. What is the sex ratio of Alabama's deer herd?
Question #5. What did the 300 pound canary say to the cat?
And, a person becomes educated and informed by asking questions. DUH!

BSK: I am pretty sure that is you. Iv used mine for 15 years too. You remember?

States do not manage deer to produce B&C deer, or trophy deer, or to help land owners increase value of their land. States manage deer for 1 reason - population control. By hunter's opinion, some states do a better job of managing deer than others. Anything hunters get in the way of BIG antlers is The Cherry On Top!
Every talks about how well Iowa manages their deer. Iowa manages their deer for population control, just like Alabama, or Georgia.
Id say the only state that does not fit this to a T is Texas. The land owners manage the deer in many places, so it is not apples to apples.
But as BSK pointed out, the MidWest has things the SouthEast does not; VERY fertile soil, SHORT gun seasons, SMALL buck limits, a Gazillion Million tons of nutrition that is grown in that VERY fertile soil, a different subspecies of deer then what we have in the SouthEast ...... and more.
I am GLAD to see Alabama went to a 3 buck limit. Buck Deer are not an infinite resource. All natural renewable resources have to be managed to ensure their future. The deer cant do it, they just aint smart enough. But, the deer are the easy part to manage. The human-beans are the tough ones to manage!

TrueDouble: Liberal Limits and Long Gun Seasons do help drive lease costs. But from my experience the biggest driving force is BIG antlers.
For Example: South Carolina has a gun season that is 4.5 months long. NO limit on bucks. Bait is legal. Dogs are legal. Antler restrictions apply per the state on only a few state lands. They are multiple ways to harvest doe deer (ADQP, Doe Days, Individual Doe Tags). You do not have to wear orange. Almost anything and everything is legal on private land. But, the cost of leases are half of what Alabama's is. $14 is high. $24 an acres would cause state wide panic!
Alabama does not have as long a season. Limit of bucks is 3. There are state mandated antler restrictions in place. Blah Blah Blah .... and the cost to lease land in Alabama is "outrageous"!!! Thanks to the TV shows and DVD hunting movies, the cost to tag a BIG set of antlers is what has driven the cost up.
This is all anyone ever talks about anymore .... Booner Bucks, Stud Bucks, Swamp Donkey, Cactus Donkey, GIANT.

After hunting deer for almost 40 years I have arrived at this ....... When I have 5 minutes of life left in me, I will NOT be worried about who killed a button buck, or a jake turkey, or who killed the most or the biggest, or what the cost of gas r land is. What I will be thinking about is this - I wish I had more time to spend with my family and friends to go hunting and fishing.

Wow! ^^^^
Welcome , I think you're going to fit right in.

Manage our resources Cpiper is exactly what some people on this forum don't understand. Be ready to be called a liberal, micro manager, socialist, extremist, UN American and down right dumb ass for thinking that way.

I understand. I used to be one of the hunters whos only care and concern was "when does deer start and how many do I get to kill".
Then I grew up, Mentally and Emotionally. It took me a few years but I have grown to grasp that it is not all about me me me and what I want.

I shot my first deer at age 10 in Clarke County Alabama. I am stand up and show it off proud of that moment. It was not a giant buck. It was a buck, as in a male deer, but it did not have antlers. It was a button buck.
We were on a drive hunt and my dad was the next stander. He says he saw the deer coming and let it come on by him to give me a chance. I dont know if he did or not.
I remember seeing the deer. It was tip toeing along. I raised my Remington 870 Wingmaster. I had a 2 .75" shell it in loaded with 00buck. Next thing I knew the deer was on the ground kicking. I do not remember aiming. I do not remember the gun going off.
I start towards my first deer. I trip on a vine and fall. I look up at my prized kill and see it kicking and thrashing on the ground. The words of the "Old Timers" back at camp came to mind ..... "if it's still moving, get it another load of that buckshot". SO, laying there on my belly, I aim and fire another round. That load of buckshot hit all up in it's gut. I did not care. I had turned into a Deer Killer. No longer just a hunter, I was a killer.
We were hunting a piece of land right across the road from the camp. I drug the deer all the way back to camp all by myself. I hung it up. I skinned and gutted it, all by myself.
It was a BUCK deer. No antlers, but it was a MALE deer - BUCK. I was happy. I was proud. All of the folks in camp came around to pat me on the back and tell me words of "Good Going Son", or "Congratulations".
That was a great day. I remember all of the emotions from that day, and I can still feel them. That one single harvest fueled an already burning fire that rages out of control today, 39 years later.
Imagine that! All the time, money, energy, time, money, energy .... and over and over and over again, I have spent on deer and deer hunting stuff and things, started with the killing of a Button Buck!!

Last year, 2012, I overheard a man at the hunt club I was in say the following;
"Shooting a button buck is unethical"
WOW!!
What is next? Immoral?
The not so funny answer to that question is .... someone has probably already said that very thing.
What are WE HUNTERS coming to?? We fuss and fight over someone asking a question on an internet site?
I would think we hunters should be tripping over ourselves to help one another, find the answers to each other's questions, support and encourage one another.
Two rude and crude things have crept into Sport Hunting - Greed, Jealousy.
Selfish hunters who only know how to take more then they give. I think and feel the tide is turning, a little bit. If someone mentions taking a youth, female, or military person hunting, then YEHAW, YAHOO, we all fall in line and support that! But what about the common ole you and me? What about US? Why cant WE support each other?

Is the deer harvest declining because the deer population is declining?
Is the deer harvest declining because folks are practicing trigger restraint?
Surely, going to a 3 buck limit has not had that big of an impact on a 30%+ decline in the overall harvest has it?
Think about it folks, harvest trends typically follow population trends. Populations go up, harvests go up. Populations go down, harvests go down. Typically, On Average.

SO, why come no one answered my questions in my original post? No one has the answers? No one wants to know the answers?

Yep it will not be long before he is on 49er's ignore list too!

What I can't understand is why 49er isn't on everybody else's ignore list!

Well said. And in my opinion--and I realize everyone is getting tired of hearing this from me--the cause of this is the unrealistic expectations and false information being pounded into hunters heads by "Monster Buck" hunting shows on TV and the internet.

BSK........When we gather this statewide data....do we still need to know fawn recruitment rates? Will we measure that on a statewide or county wide level? It seems like with coyotes being such a big concern today that fawn recruitment would be one of the most important data points for us to know.....correct?

True, but there are still major differences (historically) b/w Al. and even Illinois...In Illinois
1. they have tags and out of state hunters have to put their name in to be drawn for a tag (never heard of a hunter not getting drawn, but it requires planning, money and time)
2. they can't hunt with rifles
3. archery tackle only during the rut, etc., etc.

My point is if Illinois had previously allowed a buck per day for 30+ years I don't think their hunting would be as good as it is today in areas where the state or private land owners didn't enforce their own regs. Imagine where their public land would be if you could have shot a buck per day. A buck limit sets a trend and mind set to let bucks walk and to be more choosy about what you kill. A buck a day sets the opposite mind set...no need to be choosy and if you don't kill your neighbors will, etc., etc.

Since Al. established this mind set for so long there are properties that were and still are pretty much ruined. They can come back and I believe our limit is going to help A LOT, but it will take time, especially for those places where clubs were killing anything with horns. All this leads to having major differences between two similar properties with in the same county and area. If the land owner never got involved and let the club follow state regs. and the club never cared enough to manage the land then land owner A is going to get $8 per acre while land owner B who enforced QDM will get $12 per acre, or more.

Just my opinion based on what I've seen in our area and even on my family's over the past 20 years.

good post...my theory is based on Alabama's regs. up until a few years ago, when a buck a day was allowed. I'm not saying that the states "previous" almost complete non involvement in managing the the land is the main reason for such a diversity in lease prices but it's just general economics/ supply and demand. If the entire state had been under a 3 buck limit there would potentially be more good areas to hunt thus lowering the price over all. When supply goes up prices usually go down, unless demand continues to go up, which could be the case...then my theory doesn't make sense

No arguments with your points above truedouble. But my view of "management" is ACTIVE choices in rules and regulations with the INTENT of producing a specific outcome. IL has the rules and regs they have out of tradition, not out of a choice to produce large, healthy deer. Even BAD management choices will still produce trophy deer in IL, IA, MO, etc. For example, who hasn't heard of the monster bucks Ohio produces? Yet Ohio has rules that still allow mass slaughter of yearling bucks--far higher than any Southeastern state. Ohio produces monster bucks despite their management, and because of their naturally superior soil/habitat conditions.

Everything involved with reproduction and mortality is an important number. Many of these numbers are still not completely understood when it comes to white-tailed deer, yet the more we know about these numbers, the better management decisions that can be made.

I've often wondered about AL's incredibly high lease process. Yes, lease prices in IL and KY have gone way up too, but considering the difference in antler quality between IL-KY and AL, I just don't understand equal prices between the areas.

Does anyone have any idea how many deer hunters AL has? How much huntable land? Is there that many more deer hunters in AL than TN, and/or less huntable land in AL than TN? TN's lease prices have gone up over the last decade, but they're definitely not what AL is seeing, and honestly, TN generally grows better bucks than AL. So why haven't lease prices gone through the roof in TN?

BSK, maybe your landowners are just a little slower than our's. We are talking Tenn.LOL. I've been fortunant, with the land that we lease from Alabama power. It's only $7/acre and locked in for 5 years. The lease is up next year, i'm hoping for the best.

global warming

That must be it. We sure as heck don't know how to play football!

truly mind boggling what some people will lease average (at best) land for in Alabama. $15 per acre for land that hasn't produced a buck over 140 in 10 years and the avg. buck taken is probably 100"? Just doesn't makes sense. Or land that leases for $20 per acre because it's in Alabama's "famous black belt region" when actually it's not in the black belt...even more crazy. Good for the land owners though...

My guess is Al. got a lot of publicity back in the 80's when there was a lot of ag in the blackbelt. A lot of really good bucks were killed and a buck a day reg. with a long season and late rate was probably attractive to out of state hunters. But now that the "good ol days" in "most" of AL. are long gone and pine trees are the cash crop I don't see how it's still leasing for what land goes for in the MW...

You keep asking questions and a certain specific someone is gonna come down like a thunderstorm on your head! HAHA!!
AND
This is exactly THE point. Not all of us hunters are certified wildlife biologists or foresters. So, we ask, and ask, and ask. We become informed, WELL informed. We L.E.A.R.N. I know it is a fairly new concept for us hunters, but we can do it.

I spent alot of time phone calling, emailing and even face-to-face with SC's deer and turkey project supervisor. The information and data and stats he could spit out, with TRUTH and FACT was amazing!! All of a sudden a hunter finds out how much he does NOT know about deer. And it awakens a hunger and thirst for more info, more data, to learn more.

Check this out!
Too Many Deer, Not Enough Hunters ….. In Japan.

CPiper,


It's one thing to educate yourself on matters of deer management on YOUR property and implemented through YOUR decisions. It's an entirely different matter when you begin to discuss and support mandatory statewide management of deer by our state government that affect MY decisions on MY land or lease.

I suggest you educate and inform yourself on Alabama's state constitution and Alabama's code of laws before you involve yourself too deeply in support of mandated statewide deer management and data collection rules that involve fines and jail sentences. This ain't South Carolina.


Constitutution of Alabama 1901 *** click here ****


Code of Alabama 1975 *** click here ***

Looks like 9ers got a new target in his sights, he's doping his scope.

That's interesting, maybe we can talk them into coming and getting some of our Yotes.

We all knew it was just a matter of time before he scanned this thread for misconduct.

We could receive some collateral damage you know.

Who's he after now?

Lookin' like CPiper.

Unfortunately for forty whiner this guy knows how to shoot back very well.

He's a good guy.

LOL at 49er!!
Really, I did Laugh Out Loud.
Are you serious? Really, are you serious? I dont have a clue what you are referring to .... "I suggest you educate and inform yourself on Alabama's state constitution and Alabama's code of laws before you involve yourself too deeply in support of mandated statewide deer management and data collection rules that involve fines and jail sentences".
What The Hey in the world are you talking about? Are you delirious? Paranoid? BOTH!!!
Am I suppose to care what you think? Am I suppose to give a darn about how you feel about what I post on here?
It is obvious you do not care what I post, so turn around is fair play. This is the Soverign State of Alabama, which is in the Soverign United States of America, and I have a GOD given RIGHT to say what I want, or write what I want.
I have no violated any site rules. I have not posted anything illegal, immoral or unethical, so why grind the axe on me Old Man?

The point is not if this is or is not South Carolina or New Mexico, or if it is The Soverign State of Alabama. The point is The future of Sport Hunting AND the future of our Natural Renewable Resources.

The point is not if this is Arizona, Vermont or The Soverign State of Alabama. The point is, hunters need to become better informed, more educated, have a drive to learn about the wildlife, habitat, being a conservationist.

I understand Property Owner's Rights, but that is not what I am referring to.

The State of Alabama, STATE, has a obligation, duty, job, responsibility to protect, preserve and conserve the natural renewable resources of this state for ALL people of this state, NOT just for you and your land, or the deer and turkeys on your land.
Do not take it out on me if you are upset and disillusioned with the politics in The Soverign State of Alabama.

One of The Best!!!!
Iv never met a state employee (of any state) that was more willing to stop what he was doing to talk to someone. He is a GEM of a Human-Being! Smart. Kind. Very willing to share his wealth of knowledge with a plain ole common hunter.

Shock and awe. I do believe that's the best rebuttal to a 49er cut-n-paste rant I've ever seen on here.
But he'll keep coming and wear you down.

Back to the original topic .....

Harvest rates go down when population numbers are down.
Harvest rates go up when population numbers go up.
Correct? Wrong?
Do live density rates and harvest rates have any relationship?

I bet 49er can not answer any real deer biology questions. Take a swing at it 49er, I dare you.
I dare you, triple dog dare you, to actually deal with the nuts and bolts of deer and deer hunting without jumping on someone's case about what they posted and/or bringing The Soverign State of Alabama or Alabama's Constitution into the conversation. I bet you cant do it!! LOL!!!

Not really. It depends a lot on the type of habitat being hunted as well as the amount of available food for a given year.

Cleetus: Hey Bubba! I heard you went deer huntin this morning, did ya get one?

Bubba: Hey Cleetus! Yep sir, I did. I got a good-un. It weighted 197 pounds, had 17 points and a 22" spread.

Cleetus: WOW, that IS a good-un ..... where did you .......

Interrupted by 49er: Hey! Hey! I am here now, so ya'll will have to shut up about that stuff. I dont like it. Have you read the State's Constitution to see what The Commissioner said at the last Board Meeting?

Cleetus: Who the ......?

Bubba: What the .....?

49er: It is Me. The Almighty One who tells you what you can and cant say, write, post on the internet, text or even think when it comes to anything in the Soverign State of Alabama, but particularly, when it comes to MY deer. Did one of ya'll shoot my deer? ALL of the deer in The Soverign State of Alabama are my deer, so hands off.

Cleetus: What the ..... ?

Bubba: Who the .... ?

49er: Here, hold this (hand each a piece of paper). This is a manuscript of the States Constitution, and what was said at the last meeting between someone I dont like and someone else. Read It. Study It. Until you understand it as well as I do, AND interpret it JUST like I do, you cannot go hunting, talk about hunting, or even think about hunting.

Bubba: Well, I guess so, Yes Sir .... What the ...... ?

Cleetus: Ah, Yes Sir, what he said ..... Who the ..... ?

Welcome aboard CPiper!!

I'm speechless, cause I'm too busy laughin'.

CPiper,

Well, we did like this in South Carolina so we need to do it here.

Warren Strickland: No we need to do it like we did in Arkansas.

M dotted letter crooked letter .... ect.: Well, we do it like this in Missi..... whatever, so we need to do it like that here.

Joe Blow: We always did like this up in Ohio, so what's the big deal??

Ditchkof: You can't kill too many does.

Lawley: Write it down, stick it in your pocket and everything will be alright.

Guy: Noooooo!!! We need you to write it down, then call it in. THEN it will be alright... unless you wait more than 24 hours.

CPiper: Yeah. I like it. We had to do that in South Carolina. I'm informed and educated. I talked to a guy at the game office.

Cleetus: Who the ......?

Bubba: What the .....?

49er: What about our own constitution and our own laws?

Lawley: What the .....?

Guy: What the ....? If we give ya'll more days somebody else will complain.

Cleetus: Who the ......?

Bubba: What the .....?

CPiper: What the ....?

2Dogs: What the ... ?

But it's in 49er's job description...

I'll take that job. Any helpers available?

Notice that 49er did not attempt to answer the questions concerning deer harvests and deer populations.

Tell us 49er, I mean type it out, without the personal jabs - what relationship do harvest rates and populations have?

Tell us 49er, I mean, really type it out, without the silly goofy remarks that have nothing to do with anything - the deer and turkey in the Soverign State of Alabama belong to who? The Land Owner? The State? The People, ALL of the people, of the Soverign State of Alabama?

And while we are at it, where have I suggested that The Soverign State of Alabama needed to mandate anything? Reply with a quote.

I dare you, double dog dare you, triple toad dare you, to answer these questions. Id bet the farm you can NOT do it.

BTW, take none of this personal. It is not. It is just fun to jab at someone who likes to jab. I can dish it out, and I can take it. Hope you can!

Question: Opinion on decline of state deer harvest last 8 years.




I guess maybe my attempts went right over your informed and educated head. [I edited the personal jabs out, OK?]

The answer to the original question in this thread is quite obvious. The decline in the state deer harvest is due in large part to protection of coyotes and hogs as protected animals while prohibiting dog hunting and non-qdm hunting.

The restrictions that were added during the past 8 years are destroying what we spent 75 years building.

There's no simple answer to your question. It's very site specific... near impossible if not impossible on a statewide basis.

On a given tract, all the numerous variables would have to be KNOWN and taken into consideration in order to determine exactly what the true relationship the number of deer killed has to the overall population.

I do believe 9er is making a case for "the state" to gather data so the question may be answered.

There we go! Great!

So, you are a dog hunting proponent??

Are you opposed to QDM? A state mandated QDM harvest policy?
For the record, FYI, I too am against a state mandated QDM or TROPHY or ANTLER RESTRICTION rules and regs.
I can understand the need for the state to regulate dates and limits, and do not have a problem with this, but to tell me the only buck(s) I can shoot have to be 150 pounds and/or have a 15" spread, Bah-Hum-Bug!

Im not sure I follow you, but I am trying. So, the HARVEST has declined because hogs and coyotes are protected? How are they protected? How does protecting those 2 species impact hunters killing deer?
I am being serious, not being funny. I don't follow..

I can understand that some sorts of QDM restrictions, antler restrictions, lower buck limit, lower buck limit with antler restrictions, and such can influence harvest rates, but decrease it 30%+ is drastic!

Could there simply be fewer deer?

God gave game and fish to every human He created.[See Genesis Chapters 1 and 9] That includes me. That's why the people of our state recognizes hunting and fishing as a God-given right that is protected in our state constitution. The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller indicated that hunting is a part of our right to bear arms that is protected in the 2nd Amendment to our federal constitution.

The Code of Alabama 1975 declares that the game and fish of our state is held in trust for the people of this state. Every single citizen in Alabama holds title to the game and fish here. The state holds title for the purpose of regulating




Who is THE STATE:

Constitution of Alabama 1901

The State could not micro manage deer, and they dont attempt to. Harvest and population number are calculated in "trends", not down the itty bitty specific nano-number.
These "trends" can be calculated on a county by county level, without too much difficulty.
I did some more reading. I found the answer to one of my questions - mail surveys. I understand and trust them. SO, AL is gathering some info, SO, AL could put this info together to figure harvest TRENDS would help determine population trends.

I know all of that.
I knew all of that.
Just wanted to make sure for my sake you were aware.
I could not tell if you were one of those "The deer on my land are my deer" types.

Im off to bed. 4am comes too early.
WIll pick this up again tomorrow eve. Looking forward to chattin with you 49er!

I interpreted your words to suggest that you support a mandated check system for all hunters statewide. Here's your quote:

Page 4 of this thread:

Just send me the title to the farm. That's as personal as I will let it get.

You didn't read the report of the deer study committee that got us a 98 percent reduction in bucks per year with an added antler restriction then, did you?

Nor did you go back and read the minutes to the CAB meetings from 2004-07 containing the discussions about adjusting our sex ratios and male age structure statewide.

You need to be informed and educated to understand how deeply deer politics in Alabama has sunken into this crap.

Well, one more reply .... I do not understand, no I do not. This does not mean I support every suggestion someone in some state agency makes.
I understand the real need for rules and regs, and can appreciate the need for GOOD changes, but, there is a limit.
The BEST of all worlds coming together, is
1. Doing what is best for the source (wildlife and habitat)
2. Hunters, Politicians, Non Hunters, Anti hunters putting differences aside and working together with the habitat and wildlife's best interest in mind

This wont happen.
Politicians wont give up power/authority.
Non hunters care, but dont get involved.
Anti hunters are PsYcHo!
Hunters are selfish and greedy.

This is what I am trying to do. DUH!! My original post admits I am amazed at the changes. I am overwhelmed, seriously. It is way too complicated and costly.

I have learned to not ask anyone within one certain state agency for help or assistance. It is as if this agency does not want to share information, keep things a secret. I have become very frustrated in a short time, and gave up just Monday.
I am encouraged though. Met a fella that goes by 49er on an internet site. I think he will learn me up quickly on who does what, and how things are done, what the pecking order is in Alabama deer, turkey and hog politics and such.

I do believe I'm making a case for site-specific management as long as it is chosen for a given tract by the landowner or leaseholder.

You know ... the philosophy that is reflected in the words of our own state legislature that created the DCNR:

What does crop damage permits have to do with it? So you want everyone to hunt year round now?

Read it again.

There is nothing in the law about permits for crop damage. The commissioner made that crap up all by himself, and you just brought that subject up on your own.... not me.

I don't think antlerless deer seasons should be closed in "any county or area" where depredation permits are being used to kill deer. There's no way the season has been closed because "... it is found necessary to the conservation and perpetuation of such species" in such areas. [See: C.O.A., Section 9-2-7b(7)] Our legislature passed Section 9-11-240 to authorize the commissioner to handle crop damage problems by opening the antlerless season.

There is nothing in my post about opening deer season year round. That was your idea. The commissioner might open antlerless deer season year round statewide, but it would only be open on a particular parcel of land if the owner or leasholder consented to it being open there. The commissioner could then close it when it became necessary for the protection and perpetuation of the species. I don't have a problem with that. That's what the law requires.



There is a provision in the law for antlerless season to be opened for "biological reasons" provided this meets with the approval of the landowner or leaseholder.

Goodmorning 49er how are you doing on this beautiful morning?

Over the last decade or so the trend has been that many hunters have become more selective about what they harvest. What if harvest numbers go down but it’s a reflection of hunters becoming more selective rather than them having less success? How would you know by just looking at the number of deer harvested? According to your logic of just looking at harvest trends then we should assume that deer harvests have decreased due to a decline in the deer population when in this scenario the deer herd would likely be on the increase. But then again, maybe it’s not on the increase. Maybe the coyote population is taking care of any extra created from the hunter becoming more selective. How would you know? How much does only counting dead deer really tell you?

But it seems you want NO regulation what so ever, what do you want? Do you know?

I don't have time for this today, gotta go do some QDM deer gardening.

Yep I am still on his ignore list I was just making sure......

CNC,

You are asking all of the right questions, and pointing out the limitations of a using a SINGLE data source for acquiring all of the answers. And you are dead on the money, JUST harvest data will NOT tell you everything you need to know. All of the questions you asked are valid and the reasons harvest data will not provide all of the answers--rising or falling harvest numbers can mean many things. However, just because harvest data doesn't give you all the answers isn't reason not to collect it. Harvest data is the core of all other data collection. It serves as the "red flag" for further investigation. Without being able to see upwards or downwards trends in harvest numbers, the state isn't aware that "something" is changing and realize further investigation--using other data--is needed.

I think a bi-product of harvest data (over time) is increased hunter awareness and long term satisfaction due to being able to implement realistic goals, which could even arguably increase hunter numbers, license sales, etc., etc. In general people like to know "where they stand". Unreasonable expectations, misrepresentation of deer numbers, buck to doe ratio's, etc. all lead to unhappy hunters most of the time.

As scientists, I can't understand why biologists are trying to get a 100% survey of harvest data. A statistically significant survey is just that...statistically significant. There is no reason to spend resources on a larger survey to get the same information.

Actually, I have no problem with that at all. I would RATHER have a full accounting, but I could live with valid sample data.

That's what I don't like about the mandatory reporting. We already had a valid sample. If they are worried about the validity, increase the sample size of the survey.

the limit on does is just crazy. that is an attempt to sell more licenses. The deer population is down because people are shooting all the does. that there is crazy.

Why is it crazy to believe that the deer population is declining in some areas because too many does are being killed?

Do you believe you can't kill too many does?

do numerous variables among those surveyed impact the accuracy of the results?

What is crazy?
That there is a limit on doe deer?
That people are shooting all the does?
That the population is down because people are shooting all the does?
Getting folks to shoot more doe deer as a means to generate revenue?
All of the above?

You don't think there needs to be a limit on doe deer?

How do we know there is a decline?

No...that is accounted for in figuring out what sample size you need.

get to hear people say they don't see any deer then tell you about the ones they've seen in their gardens and such

Is this site specific?
Are there acreage limitation? As in, if I owned or leased ONE acre, I would have the same voice as a owner or leaser or 1000 acres?
What if 2 land owners disagree that have land the butts up to each other, who wins there? Each land owner does does their own thing, with no regard for the other, and no regard to the rights of the PEOPLE of the sate of Alabama who own the wildlife?

CPiper,



It sure is.






Did you see anything in the words of the law about size of the land? If it's not already there, don't try to read something into the law that isn't there.






Here's how the PEOPLE of our state who own wildlife defined the purpose of government:




Constitution of Alabama 1901

AL already has a statistically valid harvest census? I was unaware of that.

AL already has a harvest survey. If it isn't statistically valid they just need to increase the sample size to a level that is statistically valid.....which is nowhere near the level of a mandatory reporting system.

OK, don't have a statistically valid survey YET. Gotcha...

How do we know that deer numbers are on a decline, i can't tell it where i hunt? As i've said before, when you start putting pressure on the doe's, they'll be harder to see, just like bucks. Just because sightings have went down, doesn't mean that there is less deer. Some places in Alabama are so thick, you cant see a deer unless it crosses a firelane, or comes out into a plot. If everytime a deer does this, someone shoots them, before long, they wont walk out into a firelane or food plot until dark. One way to know if you have less deer, is by monitoring exclusion cages thru the years. If the food outside the cages, starts catching up with the food inside the cages, then your numbers could be down. Notice i said could be. When the acorns go to falling, deer abandone plots, keep that in mind, as well as lack of moisture.

Deer numbers are definitly down in my area, but I am sure there are areas that are still loaded with deer. That is one of the reasons I can not understand why hunters have a problem with reporting what they kill(unless they are not following existing laws already) to help the state get accurate harvest numbers across the state. This way they can investigate more accurately when an area is showing something out of line for the rest of the state. I just do not get all the crying about making a phone call because everybody I know can not wait to call all their friends and family to tell them about the deer they just killed! So what's one more call?

What is far more important than whether you believe the deer population is up or down is…. How is the deer population in relation to the habitat at this current time? It doesn’t really matter if we had twice as many deer back when the black belt was agriculture…etc…etc. What matters are the conditions now. What type of habitat is present and how much of that habitat is available? What type of condition is that habitat in? Is the deer herd currently in balance with that habitat? Many deer managers and biologists recommend keeping the deer herd at around 50% of carrying capacity in order to maintain a healthy deer herd that produces adequate yields as well as maintaining a healthy habitat.

One thing you have to consider when folks want to see lots and lots of deer is that the habitat pays a price for a supporting a high deer population. Property that is not managed to meet the needs of a large deer population can quickly become degraded and void of many key species that should normally be found. Even high quality habitat can be degraded if game populations are not kept in check. Look at the mess Pennsylvania has went through because deer populations got so high that forests were not able to properly regenerate. Now in many areas deer populations have been greatly reduced to try and allow the habitat to recover. Deer populations are driven by the habitat.

Coyotes moving into the southeast was probably a good thing for most of us. Before they really took hold, several areas of Alabama were verging on overpopulation issues. Looking back on it we were not managing the deer herd as we probably should have been because of lack of doe harvesting and coyotes moved in to fill that niche. Hunters and deer mangers must now learn to live with the coyote and adjust our doe harvests accordingly when needed.

CNC ,,, you were doing pretty good up to the part of living with coyotes . lol

it's mandatory , useless and uses funds that would better spent else where . plus it's added work for our GW's

you got that right, I damn sure don't want any help from a coyote "managing" my deer herd. they are not very selective in taking out fawns and grown deer.

I understand it is mandatory..... probably because hardly anyone would partcipate in the voluntary one that has been around for a while. As far as useless....how so? From what I have read not one biologist has said it would be useless data just some hunters. I can not argue that there may be better places to spend the money but heck that goes for the majority of money the Gov. spends. How is it added work for the GW?

X2

The problem is that we do not really have a choice about living with the coyote. We are just pounding sand to try and fight it. You’ll not get rid of coyotes. Can you trap and have some effect on fawn recruitment?…..sure…..but it’s a very expensive, labor intensive method that only produces short term results. Without continual, intense trapping….predator populations will moderate right back out in balance with the prey populations and may even rebound to much higher levels than what was originally found. This is due to the fact that because we have eliminated a key predator, then many of the small game populations will increase and set the table with a food supply capable of supporting many more coyotes than when game populations were moderated. By eliminating the predators we set the table for a possible boom and bust.



There are better long term solutions to dealing with coyotes rather than trapping. For those that are in the position to do so……adding adequate fawning cover to your property is a much better solution. Game populations are directly tied to the habitat that supports them. Instead of trying to eliminate a part of the food chain that you will never get rid of…..instead, increase the capacity of the whole food chain. The driving force for the whole process is the habitat. Use your time, effort and resources to improve the habitat instead of battling coyotes.

Another solution to look to as well before trapping is to reduce doe harvests to help counter fawn mortality. Its much easier to not pull the trigger than it is to run a bunch of trap lines.

thanks for asking...I sure thought coffee was making the point that sense we already have a valid harvest survey we don't need to do anything else...also behind my question about variables among those surveyed. From what I've heard, read and seen I didn't think enough hunters were being surveyed to get an accurate result, especially considering all the variable with in a state like Al.

You think maybe there's not enough deer being surveyed since that's what we're supposed to be conserving?

Surveying dead deer and hunters to determine how many deer we have??? Why?

it's another rule that will have to enforce as if they don't have enough .


the data they collect will be simply of DEAD deer . this will not tell the age , general health of the deer .

just knowing how many buck or does where killed will really tell you nothing more than just that . from this you could not relie on it to help with buck/doe ratio . as for trying to set seasons or bag limits from it would be useless and no better off than we are now , a guessing game .

i have for years now entered every deer i killed on line . if i thought it would help the management and well being of the herds i'd say ok .

i don't see any thing good going from this . mark my words on this , this data will come back to haunt some lease holders .


the main reason i don't like is the reason that 49'er keeps bringing up . the dcnr is over reaching it's power's .

well they'll know how many are dead . knowing many and what is alive is where the problem comes in . lol

Poison. Back in the 80's we had deer and no coyotes. Now we have coyotes and not as many deer. Seems simple.

It just is not worth the time and energy to chit-chat on these forums. Too many closed minds, too many folk that want to jump on someone's butt when someone does not agree, too much misinformation, too much stupid information ....... dumb dumb me thought I could come on here and learn something about the deer and deer hunting situation in Alabama. Turns out it boils down to just about the same condition as most states in the Southeast.
The REAL deer managers will tell you the easy part of managing deer is the deer, and the HARD part is managing the hunters.
Where does the future of Sport Hunting lie if HUNTERS cant agree on a couple of important issues?
Where does the future of our wildlife lie if HUNTERS cant agree on what is best for the wildlife?

When was the last time YOU stopped an asked "what is best for the deer?"?
Why does it always boil down to "what is best for ME ME ME?"?

Iv asked my last question.
Iv put in my last input.
I am going to shut up and just go spend time in the woods.

Hunt Safe.
Hunt Legal.
Hunt Fun.
HUNT.

Ya'll carry on. Keep banging your heads together. Good Luck!

Ding ding ding!!!!!!!!! Obviously, the best way to get any information is managing by coercion and FORCE by the government. Otherwise, if you disagree you are stupid!

Have fun in the woods CPiper and don't forget to record every waking moment and share your time in the woods with the Government I am sure they would love to get your insight on the state of hunting statewide in Alabama!

The last thing I want when I go hunting is to be "managed".


When I'm in the woods, it's time for me and my Father to spend some time together alone while I enjoy His Creation.

That's called freedom and liberty. You know... words like you'll find if you ever take the time to read about our constitutions.

We've seen what unmanaged looks like, pretty sure they closed the season for a few decades while restocking was being done.

I didn't know the deer were almost extinct in Alabama and that restocking was needed. Thanks, now that I have been enlightened by all means use the FORCE of the government to cause COMPLIANCE and get the data from DEAD deer necessary to see if in fact extinction is near!

Two things jump out at me .....
1. Seems some folks would not be able to enjoy God's Creation because they are so worried, hyper concerned, on what the government is, or is not, doing. Why go hunting if all you can do it think and worry about the law, and rules and regs and being managed and governed?
2. There is always some % of the population that rebels against anything and everything. From speed limit laws, to game limits, to seat belts and helmets. These folks do not want the government to be involved in anyone's life in any shape or form. These folks fail to realize that we have to, MUST, have laws and rules to help govern our society. Without the Government we would not have roads, schools, hospitals. Without laws and rules we have would have utter choas and out of control conflict.

If ALL of us did whatever we wanted with the deer, turkey, fish, with little to no regard for our fellow man, or the wildlife, we would have a mess! Very few hunters and/or land owners have the skills, knowledge, wisdom, education, experience to manage fish and wildlife. Most of what people want on THEIR land is something that fits THEM (ME ME ME), as in some sort of selfish greedy motive.

I agree that I want the Government, local/state/federal, out of MY life as much as possible. There are areas that government has no business being in. I can take better care of me than the government can. I get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also agree that our Constitutions are a life and death importance!!!!!!! I get it!!!!!!! But, if everyone one of us went and did our own thing just because we owned or leased land, this would NOT ensure the future of the habitat or wildlife. Some of us would make a mess!
I have seen this first handed! Some fella gets the notion that since he is a LAND OWNER and he does not want the GOVERNMENT to tell him what he can and cannot do on his land, he decides to bring deer into the state to put on his commercial hunt operation. Turns out he got deer from a ranch in Ohio that had confirmed cases of CWD.
He then erects a HUGE fancy network of fences around his land, complete with moats on both sides of his fence. These fences were death traps. Deer trying to get in, and out of his land became trapped in this fence and died horrible deaths.
To stave off a outbreak of CWD, state and federal agencies had to step in with their BIG resources and MANAGE the deer in this area. Over 200 deer were shot in a matter of 2-3 weeks.
How was this fair to us other hunters and land owners in that area?? All and just because "I dont want the government telling me what I can and cant do with my land, or the deer on my land".

Stupid!
Idiotic!
Selfish & Greedy is what it boils down to!

History of deer in Alabam

Funny! Most hunters are not aware that deer were hunted to the edge of extinction in the entire nation.

"Deer were rare in most of Alabama until recent years. In the early 1900s, it was estimated only about 2,000 deer existed in the entire state. After decades of restocking and management efforts, Alabama’s deer population was estimated at 1.75 million animals in 2000."

Clarification, not "hunted" to near extinction, "MARKET" hunted to near extinction, just a smidge of difference.

You must love what the Feds did with waterfowl then

Wow, this is so wrong I could write a book on it! You don't think our society could exist without the government telling us not to speed, to wear our seatbelts and helmets. You don't think that the private sector does a better job with roads, schools and/or hospitals and they should all be government run and employed? Yea, big government, aka mommy needs to tell us what and where to do everything since they know so much better!

Heck I grew up in vehicles without seatbelts, car seats and riding bicycles without helmets, then the nanny State showed up because there is apparently a large segment of society that cannot protect their self from their self.

I didn't say that because I don't know if it is statistically valid or not....I didn't design the survey and haven't looked at the statistics.

What I am saying is the the survey is already a mechanism in place to get the same information they are trying to get with the check system. There is no need for a check system when a valid survey is sufficient. To do more is a waste of effort and resources if what they want is harvest data.

I agree with you to a point coffee...with the new law the "information" that is required is still simple info. Doe or buck and probably county where it was killed. This is why I wish we would go the next step to check in stations like Tn. has. No way the avg. hunter is going to be able to score a buck or tell it's age. That's what I'd personally like to get to...county by county info. where we know numbers, ages, size, sex, etc. I'm sure this isn't something you want and I respect that. To each his own, but you are probably correct about just increasing survey numbers instead of requiring hunters to call in, although I'm all about doing what ever it takes to help put our state in a position to where it can make decisions based on sound info. not "swag" numbers.

I don't know that survey numbers need to increase. Like I said, I don't know if the survey is statistically valid or not. May be for all I know.

If AL's harvest survey isn't statistically significant, they need to make it so, pronto.

The data TN collected from physical checks stations has been invaluable, especially the age data for all deer and antler data from bucks. However, they've been moving away from collecting that data at the check station and towards collecting that data at processors. At first, I was deeply opposed to that move, as I feared the data at processors would be skewed by hunter decisions whether to take deer to a processor by age or sex. But the wildlife agency tested the processor collected data against check station data in the same area and found the two data sets were statistically comparable, hence I'm no longer concerned about the processor collected data.

That is not what you wrote. Don't make up a "OH, that is some sort of difference" excuse. The fact is, there were not many deer in Alabama, or the entire country. The reason boils down to Unregulated, Uncontrolled harvest.
JohnBoy, Bubba and Earl were shooting deer (KILLING deer) at whatever rate fancied them and their wallet.
Had it not been for the Government stepping in and putting regulations and control measures in place, JohnBoy, Bubba and Earl would have shot the Whitetail Deer into the History Books.
Had it not been for a Government Agency becoming involved and setting limits and season dates and restocking efforts, YOU/ME/US would not have the deer in Alabama and the entire nation as we do now.

And the real funny thing is, it was hunters who asked the government to step in and regulate hunting!

Not wearing seat belts is a bad idea. You would be a fool not to wear one while out on todays highways. Not wearing seat belts, not wearing cycle helmets, not obeying the speed limit, texting while driving, drinking alcohol then driving things every person with a nano-ounce of common sense should know, BUT, our society does not want to be told what to do and/or ignores the law.
And it does impact all of us in increase in health care costs. It costs in in added risks of human life of first responders. And the list is endless.
Would it be GREAT of the Government did not have to be involved? Yes!!!!! I am 1st in line to decrease the size and involvement of Government.
BUT, without Government, we have no rules, no laws, and then we have a society out of control and total utter chaos.
I for one don't want JohnBoy, Bubba and Earl as my neighbor if the law allowed land owners to do whatever they please with the deer and turkey.

Depredation Permits? Why have them???
Are they not suppose to be for a BIOLOGICAL reason? Instead they are for a FINANCIAL reason - cutting into the farmers wallet. I dont blame the farmer for not wanting to loose his income. But, I do fault the farmer who obtains permits, BUT, wont allow hunting on his property during hunting season. Its kinda twisted isnt it. Complain about the deer eating his crops BUT wont allow all legal means to decrease the deer's pressure on his crops.

Funny thing .... the one person that touts the Constitution to loudly, is also one who touts not wanting the Government being involved. Funny!

Yep.

It is called "Pick and Choose to Whatever Suits ME ME ME Best".

Politics in Alabama Deer & Deer Hunting??? And WHO or WHAT is a MAJOR factor in these politics?? HUNTERS!!! They whine, complain, manipulate, demand, coerce, that their elected officials do what they want, when they want, how they want.

Why did you say "they" instead of "us"?

Do you hunt? Do you whine? Do you complain? Do you manipulate? Do you demand? Do you coerce?

What is your point? Are you just whining, complaining ... etc. etc.?

Money

I believe we have been well educated to your love of all things government and force! Do you believe there is ANY way that the State could get the information that they are wanting through a voluntary basis? Have they tried and exhausted all options before using FORCE?

Not funny at all! The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to people. It does not tell us what the government CAN do but what it CANNOT do, hence LIMITED government. Try and read it!



Also true - at the REQUEST of the sportsmen and organizations. In Alabama, groups like Alabama Wildlife Federation were HEAVILY involved in both regulation and restocking.

I think everyone who has posted in the thread should take a few minutes and read the reports:

http://www.outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/publications/Compiled%202011-2012%20Mail%20Survey.pdf

A little copy and pasting for those who don't wanta click on the link:

>>>>Each year since 1963, the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries has conducted
a sample survey of licensed Alabama hunters to obtain information in the form of estimates for
the number of hunters, man-days of hunting, and harvest levels for each of the game species.
This year, survey forms were mailed to a stratified random sample of 8,930 drawn from the
249,686 Alabama hunting licensees. Of the 8,930 survey forms mailed, 720 were returned
undeliverable. A total of 3,097 completed survey forms were returned (34.7%) (37.7% of those
delivered). A sample is used because it is not practical to contact all hunters each year.
Because of this and other factors it is impossible to determine values that would be entirely free
of error. <<<

>>>Beginning with the survey for the 2002-2003
hunting season, the data has been analyzed by personnel with Auburn University’s School of
Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. The results of this and all past surveys are statistically valid and
of more value in defining trends over multiple hunting seasons rather than comparison of one
hunting season to another.<<<


A 1.2% sample is miles bigger than numbers used for things like presidential elections, and most folks seem to accept them. Their standard error for the statewide legal deer harvest by licensed hunters is 4.1%. When I was a graduate assistant at Auburn, the folks in charge of every study I worked on would have done cartwheels if they got 4.1%. I've always thought it was plenty good for estimating trends on statewide harvest, and the surveys say what all the hunters on here are saying - deer harvest is down.

If you don't believe the Hunter Survey can possibly be accurate with a 1.2% sample, then please don't even consider wasting your time on a soil test. Can you imagine how small your sample size is compared to the amount of soil in the entire field?

But for sure, the state's harvest estimation is not a "made up" number. Some form of random sampling is at the heart of almost every branch of science.