right now we can kill three antlered deer , AT LEAST ONE MUST BE A 8 POINT OR BETTER.

just how will the tags hold us to this rule . how will having tags keep the honest hunter honest , TO THE REGULATION ?

now before you think this is just a stupid question , you need to think about the regulation .

i don't see having tags being all that easy of a thing . lol

What says one must be an 8 pt or better?

But, if it did, you could be given two any buck tags and one buck tag that specifies the deer must be 8 pts. or better. That way it couldn't go on a smaller buck.

I am going to try sit this one out.

i should have read all of the other post before posting this . i see it's being discussed in another place .

It wouldn't be that hard......for hunters or LEO.

It doesn't matter what tags are for until the State starts requiring tags to be checked in, manually at check stations or by phone.

I thought it was; one must have at least 4pts (1") on one side?

Tags are not gonna make the ones that kill more than three bucks, stop killing more than three.

Might not in many cases, but it would make it alot easier to catch them.

Other States have been using the system for years. Jawbone is right. It would help LEO's catch the violators.You can use the honor system with hunters that have no honor.

I've lived in states that did tags and tags will not be the fix-all. However, for some, alot can happen between driving from the hunting ground and home and being seen with a deer. I'd rather have hunters flag the deer and show that it's tagged, rather than assume it's documented. You buy your license with the tags attached (both have the license number on them). You don't detach it until you put it on the deer. It's not that hard.

What is so complicated about it? Many states do it and it works fine. You get your tags when you buy your license and any buck in your possession must be tagged or you get a ticket. Tags would be hard to duplicate unlike the license we have now. Thus helping to keep the average guy from breaking the law for fear of getting caught and fined while transporting his buck. And yes there are folks out there who will take a chance and try to save there tag for an extra buck but it is much risker to try than cheating under the current system.

Out of curiosity, how many times have you been stopped by the GW between where you shot a deer and your home? My personal experience in 35 years plus hunting of being stopped by the GW when I had a deer or any game for that matter is zero, so the odds of being stopped with a deer that is tagged, is what?

Where can a person find a definition of "average guy", you know the one that has issues with situational honesty? Along that same line who got nominated to come up with the definition "average guy" and who got nominated to assign that label to everybody? Is there as multiple choice test somewhere with a scale that a person can take to verify if they are an "average guy" or an "unapproachable step above everybody else holier than thou honest guy"?

Good response.
Tag system ain't gonna keep the law-breakers from doing it. And the honesty situation already exists with those of us who do NOT break the three buck rule. Why put a bigger burden on the ones that do it right. Find another way that WILL, do some good.

If you are a basically honest person, why would you have a problem with a tag system or anything else that would make it harder on those who break game laws? just my 2 cents...

Why in the world would an ethical hunter be so opposed to a legit tagging system and possibly check in station? A minor inconvenience to likely improve the big picture, why would someone be opposed to that?

And if legit tagging systems don't work then why do other states continue to use them?

Better question: How would these 'tags' be paid for?

Hunters and anglers already scream bloody murder about "taxes" anytime there's a user fee increase. The little zip ties, metal tags or non-tearable Tyvek tags would cost money to purchase and then to distribute and/or mail.

The Game and Fish Division is self-funded and gets no General Fund allocation (despite our hunting/fishing purchase tax money going into the state's General Fund and not being returned, which sucks.)

So are all the pro-tag hunters going to readily and agreeably pony up an extra $10 a year? More? Are all the pro-tag hunters going to easily and agreeably pay their fine - which should be high and penalizing for not having the tag on the buck - even if they "forget" to put one on or don't believe Little Johnny's buck *wink wink* needs one?

Everything costs something.

Not all states are continuing to use them. Georgia used to have tags and stopped using them to go to a system similar to what we have in Alabama.

Im all for a tagging system, I see no bad in it. You no longer have to carry around a stupid ink pen. Harvest could be phoned in, unused tags could be mailed back. The State would now have a good solid harvest record on bucks.