Get ready for the tags in a few years.

Hell no. He doesn't have the stones to stand up to the torching he'd get here. The poor biologists from the state can't even make it trying to stand up for the ridiculous decisions he's forcing on us

so ,,,, i gotta ask !!!!!

what percentage of the population was killed .

Ok PCP, deer season is 4 months long 3 bucks and prettt much all the does you care to put in a cooler, where is the issue with government?

That's a fair question; our regulations are not yet nearly as onerous as those of many other states. I was so against the buck limit because it was obviously the first step to the end of the AL system of wildlife management. I would define that system as one in which the state allowed generous seasons and limits in the hope that landowners would have the incentive to truly manage their land for wildlife. It worked extremely well, and we had the largest turkey harvest of any state and a whole lot of deer. Voluntary qdm had already resulted in more does being killed than bucks. There was no good reason to change that system. I remember that BSK said he had some wealthy clients that wanted to buy land in AL because it was the one state that really allowed the landowner to manage the deer on their property.

But we got the limit anyway. One of the committee members said it was a good first step. Voluntary GC was the next step, then mandatory GC. I've never heard our current director even once acknowledge the role of landowners in wildlife management. He seems to see it as a zero sum game where wildlife populations will be the same regardless of the rules, and it's up to him to decide who does what.

We are now about a decade into this change in philosophy and the result is a much smaller deer harvest, and we are once again killing more bucks than does. Who would have favored buck limits if you knew this would be the result?

But as I said earlier, the director's comments concern me far more than his actions. My fear is that we ain't seen nothing yet. Who knows what new regulations he dreams of at night?

That's a fair question; our regulations are not yet nearly as onerous as those of many other states. I was so against the buck limit because it was obviously the first step to the end of the AL system of wildlife management. I would define that system as one in which the state allowed generous seasons and limits in the hope that landowners would have the incentive to truly manage their land for wildlife. It worked extremely well, and we had the largest turkey harvest of any state and a whole lot of deer. Voluntary qdm had already resulted in more does being killed than bucks. There was no good reason to change that system. I remember that BSK said he had some wealthy clients that wanted to buy land in AL because it was the one state that really allowed the landowner to manage the deer on their property.

But we got the limit anyway. One of the committee members said it was a good first step. Voluntary GC was the next step, then mandatory GC. I've never heard our current director even once acknowledge the role of landowners in wildlife management. He seems to see it as a zero sum game where wildlife populations will be the same regardless of the rules, and it's up to him to decide who does what.

We are now about a decade into this change in philosophy and the result is a much smaller deer harvest, and we are once again killing more bucks than does. Who would have favored buck limits if you knew this would be the result?

But as I said earlier, the director's comments concern me far more than his actions. My fear is that we ain't seen nothing yet. Who knows what new regulations he dreams of at night?

A. We manage our shared wildlife resources by individuals. This means backing off all regulations to the bare minimum to sustain some wildlife and letting the individual do whatever they want. My issue with this, is the rich are the only ones that can achieve their personal goals. Hunting will start taking the shape of Western Europe

We basically had this for decades: minimal regulations, landowners/hunters managing within the state's laws/regs/guidelines, and it worked well. People were happy and it worked well for turkeys and deer. Argue about it if you wish, but hunter satisfaction was strong.

Then the Management-Trophy crowd got going stronger and began nonstop with the "that chit's outdated, old, won't work, doesn't work, can't work, man can't run this and the pros need to do it, don't keep doing this, we need bigger deer, need real hunting and management" and they got their people in the right places to get what they wanted and what we have now.

We didn't have hunting anarchy. We didn't have "rich European" hunting.

But we have what we have now, so unless the common man gets changes made (unlikely) then we'll move along with it.

OK. Glad we're progressive now. Everything is rainbows and unicorns, and the Management-Trophy Crowd is in charge. The future will be incredible.

I would guess 20-25 percent of the deer kills was reported. Which is a dang shame. I put those people that didn't report there kills in the same boat as spotlighters, people that kill over 3 bucks. and folks that hunt over corn. They are all against the law. I don't think you should pick and choose which and just follow the ones you like. If it is going to me mandatory then it should be enforced. Game wardens should be at processing places and checking folks when they show up and when They come to pick up there meat.

Game wardens should be at processing places and checking folks when they show up and when They come to pick up there meat.