|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117 registered members (Tree Dweller, k bush, BhamFred, biglmbass, sj22, Parker243, Fishduck, BUCK EYES, Standbanger, Wadenthebushes, Ryano, Skillet, mashburn, odocoileus, Shaneomac2, jacannon, twaldrop4, woodduck, Backwards cowboy, outdoorguy88, BCLC, 7PTSPREAD, oldforester, AU coonhunter, CNC, RidgeRanger, Okatuppa, fur_n_feathers, Bandit635, Joe4majors, Rolloverdave, FreeStateHunter, C3SEAST, 44MAG, wareagle22, hallb, USeeMSpurs, bama_earl, pcola4, snakebit, Detroitdan, eclipse829, Richard Cranium, RSF, 3bailey3, hamma, jhardy, Turkeyneck78, 10 POINT, MoeBuck, Beer Belly, AustinC, Stacey, SC53, Swamp Monkey, JA, Goatkiller, blazer625, nomercy, Whild_Bill, johnmcgowan, johnv, hunter84, Reptar, coldtrail, Squadron77, BamaGuitarDude, sumpter_al, HHSyelper, Justice, gatorbait154, Chiller, desertdog, CatfishJunkie, Young20, HSV. HUNTER, deadeye48, DEDTRKY, gman, stl32, Showout, Narrow Gap, Bows4evr, 1bamashooter, blade, jprice, DPD, roll_tide_hunts, HBWALKER14, alhawk, trailertrash, eeua90, Andalusia, Mike59, Boathand, Woody1, zgobbler5, IDOT, riflenut, BamaBoHunter, DryFire, hunterturf, tmhrmh1, rickyh_2, JustHunt, Scout1621, GomerPyle, Big AL 76, Dano, Shmoe, 7 invisible),
542
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: AlabamaSwamper]
#380643
08/06/12 11:45 AM
08/06/12 11:45 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
OP
Booner
|
OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
I don't think the limit had anything to do with ratios. I've seen way to many studies and such to convince me it was ever as bad as most think and I was as hardcore a 25:1 guy as anyone here a few years ago.
... That is my opinion of why, which is all it is. It's a bad opinion. Even Dan Moultrie could see that you were way off base: May, 2007 CAB Minutes 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one
4 question about this just to make sure.
5 Again, we want all the questions to be
6 asked. If we are looking at 2005,
7 2006 harvest, total harvest is close
8 to 441,000; is that correct?
9 MR. MOODY: Yes.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: You are showing
11 280,000 bucks, 236,000 does. That is
12 doe and buck harvest?
13 MR. MOODY: Yes, it's about 47,
14 53, I think.
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: I took a
16 population dynamic, the number that is
17 1,500,000 animals. You said --
18 MR. MOODY: We have used a
19 million seven, a million eight
20 consistently for several years.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for
22 agreement, a million five. We can
23 change that if you want to.
0127
1 And if our buck to doe ratio was
2 one to one -- again, I ask the board
3 to please listen to what Mr. Moody has
4 to say, what Dr. Ditchkoff has to say.
5 This is a critical issue with the
6 state, and so if we have this
7 population dynamic, and we have a one
8 to one buck/doe ratio, we have 750,000
9 does, 750,000 bucks; is that correct?
10 MR. MOODY: Yes. If you had one
11 to one, yeah. But the population
12 dynamic doesn't work that way because
13 of the reproductive rate and the
14 number --
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mortality rate and
16 other things?
17 We are talking about in
18 generality if it was one to one, that
19 would be approximately what it would
20 be.
21 Let's go down to six to one. The
22 problem may be not as bad as it is in
23 some areas, not as good as it is in
0128
1 some areas.
2 If the population dynamic shows a
3 six to one buck to doe ratio, you
4 would have a population of 1,285,715.
5 MR. GOODWYN: Mr. Moultrie, when
6 you turn your head you are missing the
7 microphone.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And on the
9 bucks, we would show a population of
10 214,285. Now, if it was six to one,
11 and again we can use -- we don't have
12 any idea of the buck to doe ratio. If
13 it was six to one which seems to be --
14 you said it was four to one or
15 greater, we just killed every buck in
16 this state, Mr. Moody. We just killed
17 almost every buck in the state because
18 we have got 214,285. Our survey shows
19 that we killed 280,000 bucks.
20 How do we address that?
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380648
08/06/12 11:51 AM
08/06/12 11:51 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
joshm28
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
|
josh28, 49r. Please show me you research that supports the reduction in harvest numbers is due to the 3 buck limits.
The research I have done shows that the number of hunters is on the decline and that is the true reason we are seeing a decline in harvest numbers, both for does and bucks. Josh, I'm not pushing for restrictions that have the force and effect of law on you or anyone else. If I did, I would cetainly have the evidence you ask for supported by "sound biology". It doesn't really matter if fewer hunters are accomplishing the goal of the deer study committee. Since that goal has been reached, the real question is what benefits are we reaping from these restrictions on our right to hunt. It shouldn't be explained in terms of "figuring". It should be explained in terms of "sound biology". Here are some sound numbers I have found. I'll spare the details unless you want to hear them. Here is the estimated number of deer killed per hunter within the state. 02-03 2.23 03-04 2.27 04-05 2.10 05-06 2.15 06-07 2.11 07-08 1.66 08-09 2.00 This shows a 12% reduction (Deer killed/per hunter) in 7 years however the estimated hunters per year dropped 27% over the same period. This proves that the 3 buck limit really has not had an adverse effect on anyone. We still kill roughly the same number of deer per hunter. Harvest numbers are only down because there are less of us in the woods. Can someone point me to the # of hunters for 09-present so I can confirm the trends?
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: joshm28]
#380664
08/06/12 12:08 PM
08/06/12 12:08 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
OP
Booner
|
OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
Josh, ... the estimated hunters per year dropped 27% over the same period. This proves that the 3 buck limit really has not had an adverse effect on anyone. You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now?
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380682
08/06/12 12:33 PM
08/06/12 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
joshm28
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
|
Josh, ... the estimated hunters per year dropped 27% over the same period. This proves that the 3 buck limit really has not had an adverse effect on anyone. You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now? Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit"
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: joshm28]
#380695
08/06/12 12:58 PM
08/06/12 12:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
OP
Booner
|
OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
Josh, Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit" I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state. If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions. Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics.
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380706
08/06/12 01:10 PM
08/06/12 01:10 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
joshm28
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
Jasper, AL
|
Josh, Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit" I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state. If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions. Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics. I understand that the banning of dog hunting probably had some impact on the numbers however, the state has seen a steady decline in hunters since 2003. This was before the dog hunting issues and the 3 buck limit. IF your theory was right you would see reductions in numbers followed by plateaus. That is not the case in this situation as it's a steady decline of about 4-5%/year. You can't argue with the numbers. Hunting in general is on the decline due to many different factors. You're theory isn't supported by these trends. We were trending in that direction before these changes came to light.
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: T-town]
#380719
08/06/12 01:22 PM
08/06/12 01:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
OP
Booner
|
OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
This had nothing to do with Serious Hunting. Moderators please set up a 49er Junk Forum. Thank YOu If you don't think a 98% reduction in the bag limit on hunting bucks with an additional antler restriction thrown in is serious, then what is your definition of serious?
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380733
08/06/12 01:43 PM
08/06/12 01:43 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,493
Millbrook AL
SMB44
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,493
Millbrook AL
|
9er,
What would it take for you to be happy with the game laws?
Playin string music
Hoyt Vector 32
Get Serious Get Hoyt
Alto, la migra means Stop, immigration in Spanish slang. They'll scatter like skittles dropped on a concrete floor. -Furflyin
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: SMB44]
#380738
08/06/12 01:54 PM
08/06/12 01:54 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
OP
Booner
|
OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
9er,
What would it take for you to be happy with the game laws? I'm already happy with most of them. There's a few we don't need any more, but most of them are legit. It's the DCNR's rules that are catering to special interests instead of protecting, conserving and increasing our wildlife. Have you looked thru the Regulation Book lately to see just how many of those rules are actually reasonable and necessary to administer our game and fish laws? Some of them are even in direct conflict with our game and fish laws. I won't be happy until every one of those unnecessary rules are gone. The buck limit/antler restriction needs to go first.
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380740
08/06/12 01:58 PM
08/06/12 01:58 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
bigt
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
|
josh28, 49r. Please show me you research that supports the reduction in harvest numbers is due to the 3 buck limits.
The research I have done shows that the number of hunters is on the decline and that is the true reason we are seeing a decline in harvest numbers, both for does and bucks. Josh, I'm not pushing for restrictions that have the force and effect of law on you or anyone else. If I did, I would cetainly have the evidence you ask for supported by "sound biology". It doesn't really matter if fewer hunters are accomplishing the goal of the deer study committee. Since that goal has been reached, the real question is what benefits are we reaping from these restrictions on our right to hunt. It shouldn't be explained in terms of "figuring". It should be explained in terms of "sound biology". The real question is how has this restricted your rights to hunt? You can kill 3 bucks and just about all the does you can see all season. Is hunting does not hunting?
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380742
08/06/12 01:59 PM
08/06/12 01:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,167
Florence, Al
AlabamaSwamper
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,167
Florence, Al
|
49er,
There is some laws that will cause folks to stop hunting if changed. The 3 buck limit is not one of them.
.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380747
08/06/12 02:01 PM
08/06/12 02:01 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
bigt
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
|
Josh, ... the estimated hunters per year dropped 27% over the same period. This proves that the 3 buck limit really has not had an adverse effect on anyone. You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now? Not at all. I have not heard of anyone that quit hunting because of buck limits.
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380748
08/06/12 02:02 PM
08/06/12 02:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,167
Florence, Al
AlabamaSwamper
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,167
Florence, Al
|
I don't think the limit had anything to do with ratios. I've seen way to many studies and such to convince me it was ever as bad as most think and I was as hardcore a 25:1 guy as anyone here a few years ago.
... That is my opinion of why, which is all it is. It's a bad opinion. Even Dan Moultrie could see that you were way off base: May, 2007 CAB Minutes 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one
4 question about this just to make sure.
5 Again, we want all the questions to be
6 asked. If we are looking at 2005,
7 2006 harvest, total harvest is close
8 to 441,000; is that correct?
9 MR. MOODY: Yes.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: You are showing
11 280,000 bucks, 236,000 does. That is
12 doe and buck harvest?
13 MR. MOODY: Yes, it's about 47,
14 53, I think.
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: I took a
16 population dynamic, the number that is
17 1,500,000 animals. You said --
18 MR. MOODY: We have used a
19 million seven, a million eight
20 consistently for several years.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for
22 agreement, a million five. We can
23 change that if you want to.
0127
1 And if our buck to doe ratio was
2 one to one -- again, I ask the board
3 to please listen to what Mr. Moody has
4 to say, what Dr. Ditchkoff has to say.
5 This is a critical issue with the
6 state, and so if we have this
7 population dynamic, and we have a one
8 to one buck/doe ratio, we have 750,000
9 does, 750,000 bucks; is that correct?
10 MR. MOODY: Yes. If you had one
11 to one, yeah. But the population
12 dynamic doesn't work that way because
13 of the reproductive rate and the
14 number --
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mortality rate and
16 other things?
17 We are talking about in
18 generality if it was one to one, that
19 would be approximately what it would
20 be.
21 Let's go down to six to one. The
22 problem may be not as bad as it is in
23 some areas, not as good as it is in
0128
1 some areas.
2 If the population dynamic shows a
3 six to one buck to doe ratio, you
4 would have a population of 1,285,715.
5 MR. GOODWYN: Mr. Moultrie, when
6 you turn your head you are missing the
7 microphone.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And on the
9 bucks, we would show a population of
10 214,285. Now, if it was six to one,
11 and again we can use -- we don't have
12 any idea of the buck to doe ratio. If
13 it was six to one which seems to be --
14 you said it was four to one or
15 greater, we just killed every buck in
16 this state, Mr. Moody. We just killed
17 almost every buck in the state because
18 we have got 214,285. Our survey shows
19 that we killed 280,000 bucks.
20 How do we address that? I guess I understood this wrong then because it sounds like Dan agrees with me. If the ratio was as skewed as some would think, there would be no bucks left in February which is obviously not true. Again, I don't think ratios played a part or they shouldn't have anyway.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
Re: Question Number One
[Re: 49er]
#380750
08/06/12 02:04 PM
08/06/12 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
bigt
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
Gulfcrest
|
Josh, Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit" I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state. If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions. Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics. Well if all we lost were dog hunters than we are better off anyway. 
|
|
|
|
