The other thread about how many deer one man killed this year got me to thinking how many people I know that haven't reported to Game Check? Post if you know of any deer. Be curious to get a count.
14 deer that I can think of between 4 hunters.
Hunter 1, 8 Bucks
Hunter 2, 4 Bucks
Hunter 3, 1 Buck
Hunter 4 1 Doe

I have reported 100% of the deer I've killed.....all 0 of them

I have asked some people did you game check your deer and gotten a look like what the hell are you talking about

You know a guy that has killed 8 bucks?

i have reported both of mine, one buck and one doe

It's interesting how many people think people in Alabama are so different from other states. Isn't Kentucky's system the same call-in type system? At some point you have to use the data, or quit requiring people report it.

If he reported them, POSSIBLY could be perfectly legal. If only 3 had antlers and the other 5 were spotted fawns....

How many people really know the reason for the recording system, not game check. The recording system came about around 2007 when Ditchkoff and a committee were charged with looking at buck limits. The idea was to get a better ratio of older bucks in the herd in the state. Ditchkoff pushed for a recording system to aid in keeping hunters honest. All sounds good to this point. Then comes a recording system where buck fawns do not count against the buck limit. Now, I'm no biologist but I know if you are trying to get older bucks, killing them at 3 months of age and not counting them ain't gonna get you there. That dead 3 month old will never reach maturity. Totally defeats the purpose of having the limit.

Other states use a similar and/or same system. I've checked deer in Ohio, Kansas and Oklahoma with similar phone-check systems. It's easy when it works correctly and there are no bugs, hacks or problems.

The issue is a generational shift of going from "we trust you to do the right thing" to a mandated "do this, we know what's best, we need data for management, do this now." Combining that with the typical distrust for "government" along with the ease of skirting the check system and some other things that have transpired in the last 8-10 years, it's not a suprise that deer and turkeys aren't being reported.

Here's another thing: few people here fear the repercussions of getting caught not reporting a deer or turkey. The penalties don't hurt enough.

I think it's in Idaho or Washington where response to the post-season survey is mandatory to be able to purchase your license and tags for the next season. Kentucky is that way with its sandhill crane post-survey. Either respond or you don't get to play next season.

It's not that difficult in today's electronic era, or shouldn't be. Send the survey. Make it clear that if you don't respond, you're flagged and don't get to purchase a license for the next season. I think Idaho even includes a fine if you don't respond.

It should not have to be that way. But that's where we are for some things now.

Yes I do and is taking a week vacation next week so will likely add to that total.

alabama could of made a much easier way to do a "game check", but chose to do it the least effective way.

I have never game checked one.

X2. Had to explain it to a few.

Probably know of 5. 3 bucks and 2 does (3 people).

Lectrode and Klay - what were the (roughly) ages of the people who didn't k now about GameCheck? Older? Younger?

I have a feeling that most people age 50 or 55 and older who grew up hunting maybe are the ones who don't know.

If so, that's again a generational thing that was not, or is not being, adequately addressed, and saying "We've put up posters, sent emails, don't know what else we can do!" clearly isn't enough.

Game what?

It's usually the older guys that don't know what it is but most of the ones who blatantly refuse to do it are younger to middle age.

Interesting.


I go back to fines for speeding tickets. The last one I got, I think the fine was $140 or $180. Thankfully, it's been long enough that I don't remember.

But I remember that neither of those were enough to make me slow down and even $250 wouldn't be enough. But $350 might. Maybe.

Penalties have to hurt. Otherwise they're just window dressing and no one respects them.

Needs his head split

Well I personally wouldn't go that far. These are men that fall in that 50-55 age class that Clem describes that doesn't give a rip about Game Check. I will personally abide by the Law and if they choose not to, that is on them.

Over 60