May, 2007


We've done that.

Now the questions remain: Why did we need to do it and what are the benefits we've gained from doing it?

Maybe Joe Hamilton and Brian Murphy who wanted this can answer those questions at the QDMA convention this week.

49r. You can't determine if the reduced harvest numbers are due to the 3 buck limit or not. You have to factor in the number of hunters during the period as well. Find that data and get the ratios. I can only find up to 2008. From 2003 to 2008 the number of hunters dropped significantly thus reducing the harvest numbers. To be quite honest I'm not sure that the 3 buck limit has had any large impact on the numbers of deer shot/year. Bucks or does.

I think reducing the number of bucks harvested was the goal to improve age structures statewide wasn't it? According to that graph, there is around 80,000 bucks moving to the next age class spread around, most being 1.5 I'm sure.

And probably increasing the doe harvest by default which around here would be a good thing although I think most folks still kill what does they want and stop when the freezer is full same as before the buck limits.

Tennessee saw the same effect I think and overall it has worked.

Until Alabama requires check stations and puts bodies at those check stations, you'll never know if it works, except through hunter observations which is what it is.

Sounds like you don't know the answers Josh. Does anyone?

If we didn't have any idea what the age structure was before, how are we supposed to know what it is now and how the restrictions have changed it?

Doe harvest has decreased according to the reports. Isn't that a bad effect since you think it needs to increase?

too many deer in general so doe harvest was increased.

Buck to doe ratio out of whack so buck harvest was limited.

results= smaller over all population with more bucks.

My eight year son could answer that
Next question

9er, why don't you prove the basis of your "deer mgmt foundation" with valid studies? List them all out for everyone to see.

Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio.

How is it fixing the unknown sex ratio if the effect is a decrease in the killing of members both sexes?

How do we know the ratio needed to be fixed in the first place when the chairman of the committee stated he didn't know what the sex ratio was?

Anybody could figure out with the limited doe harvest for years and the liberal buck limit that the sex ratio was out of wack, also all those properties across the state that the State was helping to manage would have provided enough data to know that.

We're not talking about "just figuring". These restrictions were said to be based on "sound biology" and have been given the force and effect of law.


CAB Minutes, May, 2007

coldtrail,


bucktrot,

Why can't people understand, we're just beginning to really learn about deer. Dr.D ,BSK, DR. Woods and others don't have all the answers, they do have more than most of us. It's a puzzle that some pieces change and will never be finished.
Can please some of the people all of the time,all of the people some of the time, and one NONE of the time.

The data from all the properties across the state that the state helped manage would be considered sound biology right?

2dogs,

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.

Play if you like guys......you can't win.

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.

I think it had all to do with three things.

1: Better buck age structure which it has done obviously by reducing the buck harvest which was made up of 75% or whatever of yearlings.

2: To help by educate hunters (be default) that better buck age structures means better hunting and overall healthier deer. I think TN was a great model for them with this.

3: A growing percentage of deer hunters in the state wanted it and it making good biological sense, the state went forward unlike baiting/feeding and February seasons.

That is my opinion of why, which is all it is.

And to be honest, a 3 buck limit probably only affected about .05% of Alabama deer hunters anyway but with the points rule on one it's almost a 2 buck limit for a lot of folks.

josh28,


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".

It's a bad opinion. Even Dan Moultrie could see that you were way off base:

May, 2007 CAB Minutes

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?

Josh,



You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now?

Not necessarily.

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"

Clem,

Josh,


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.

You can find the surveys here.

http://outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/publications/

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?

serious

9er,

What would it take for you to be happy with the game laws?

HOw about kill what you need to eat

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.

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?

49er,

There is some laws that will cause folks to stop hunting if changed. The 3 buck limit is not one of them.

.

Not at all. I have not heard of anyone that quit hunting because of buck limits.

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.

Well if all we lost were dog hunters than we are better off anyway.

Please post your research findings that support this theory. Thanks.

He can't.

Are you asking me or Josh? Do you know the difference in a question and a theory?

I disagree.

Clem,

Get over it. Just because you're ignoring people does NOT mean they have to quit posting on your threads.

Thats cool we all can not agree on everything.

wmd,

I think you may see the intolerant attitude I have been referring to.

It's dividing our state's hunters and making us vulnerable to attacks from all sorts of other anti-hunting groups... not just QDMA, AWF and ALFA, but some that want to destroy our right to hunt with one blow instead of a little bit at a time.

Here are the numbers going back to 1985. I added trend lines to make it easier. As you can see the total number of hunters has been trending downward since 1999 (not just since the dog hunting and 3 buck limit issues). Total number of deer killed has been trending down since 2003-2004. Total number of bucks killed per hunter has been trending down since 2000 (again not since the 3 buck limit although there was a decrease that year. The doe harvest peaked in 2005-2006 but look at the trend BEFORE QDM became more prevalent. 49r this goes completely against what you have said about QDM being about shooting every doe. If that was the case you would have seen a HUGE increase in 2008.

I also found it interesting that the larger drops in harvest numbers coincided with the economic issues that have effected 90% of us. Did the 3 buck limit affect buck harvest per person? YES but I believe economic conditions played a part as well. Since 2008 the trend on buck harvest is moving back up so the next two years will tell us if it has had a long term impact on shooting bucks in general.

I find it hilarious He asks a question then continues to post
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

everytime someone he "doesn't like" posts something! Everyone on his ignore list: post as much as possible on his threads! His replys will look like this:

coldtrail,






















I swear I think he's 8

49er,

Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly because I believe I agree with you. Decisions to limit the amount of bucks killed per hunter was made to provide for a healthier herd ie, age structure and buck/doe ratio etc. etc. and the state could not provide any sound scientific data that it even knew what the age structure and buck/doe ratios were.

I agree, how can a department impose regulations to achieve their so called goal and they have no idea what their starting point is.

Swamper,


Follow what I said carefully. You will see that Dan Moultrie was discounting the theories presented earlier in the meeting that our sex ratios were badly skewed on the side of does.

His calculations revealed that even a 4:1 ratio would have been impossible to exist at the time because we were killing more bucks than was mathematically possible with a 4:1 ratio. Earlier discussions in the meeting had defininately included buck/doe ratios as one of the factors to be addressed by the proposed buck restrictions.

You are understanding me correctly. Neither the deer study committee nor the leaders of the WFF Div. could provide that information. The WFF leaders did not want the restrictions.

Review the minutes of the May, 2007 CAB meeting, and you will see that neither Steve Ditchkoff or Gary Moody could tell the board members what the estimated buck/doe ratio or male age structure was at the time of the meeting when they were asked.



Age structure:

[no answer given about Alabama's current age structure]

The meeting was long and it takes time, but here's the link if you want to read it for yourself:

Minutes May, 2007


Here's part of what Gary Mood said:

page 73


Gary Moody was right.

Guys, he already has his opinion made up. Then he tries to set everyone up on what he What he wants to argue about so he can declare himself the winner. I've seen a lot of children do the same thing. One of ya'll can quote all of us he has ignored so he he see our very important opinions.

He doesn't like anyone that wins a point against him.

Good for Dan. Either way he voted. I don't think ratios should have ever been part of the equation inmho for what it is worth.

9er, you say the three buck limit has divided up Alabama's hunters. Well, the group of killers you've aligned yourself with is a dying breed. You hate it but conservation, game mgmt, consideration, restraint, discipline, preservation, diversified and broad-based hunting enjoyment (taking pride in the entire aspect of game mgmt and hunting), etc... is gaining momentum.

The hunter who brags that he killed 8-10 bucks last year is now looked upon as a greedy idiot and the hunter who states that he passed up several immature bucks and killed one or two good mature bucks is looked upon with respect. And oh, that same man let his young son shoot a 2.5 yr old 8 pt and celebrated it! But he's slowly starting to teach his young son about conservation and trigger restraint and deer mgmt! And about habitat enhancement and about farming and soil and what he can do individually to make things better for the next generation!

Once again...I haven't seen 49er say anything about killing all the deer. He says it should be site specific. I don't know why you keep saying such nonsense.

Secondly, what you just said about management and trigger restraint is exactly what I have been saying and 49er too. All that was taking place before a 3 buck limit and is continuing now. All the limit did was place an arbitrary limit that is too much for some instances and too little for others. What you just said is exactly why a 3 buck limit was not and is not needed.

I can't understand why you keep saying this. QDM is supposed to be about site specific management decisions. 49er is simply asking for maximum freedom to make those decisions.

The perception though is that anyone who is against the 3 buck limit were the same ones that shot 10 bucks a year. Just out of curiosity jlccoffee how many did you kill before the 3 buck limit was put into place. I haven't killed 10 bucks in the past 10 years, never had an opportunity to shoot more than one good buck per year either.

The most I ever killed in Alabama in one year was 3 and I only did that one year. Most years I kill one or two here and maybe one in Georgia.

What percentage of hunters do you think need the ability to shoot more than 3 bucks per year?

Don't know. There are probably a lot more that don't need to shoot the 3 that the limit says is OK. That's why an arbitrary number is not useful.

Where in any of your post does it require governmental intervention? It would appear that the use of peer pressure is a good thing and elitism should be the course of the true hunter. I am fine with you having your opinion, but is governmental invention necessary if the momentum of peer pressure works? Or, should the elitist demad that everyone follow their path?

I believe if you will think about what is being said by 49er that it is the forced govermental requirements based on hunches, guesses (or lack thereof) that is the problem.

I understand to the true hunter that all paths should lead to massive antlers, body weights, a two day rut, and all hunters being happy, but then there is reality.

Wasn't, isn't and not arbitrary.

Really?? Looked on with respect? By whom? Other QDM elitists?

I am glad that I got my start killing deer in an era where the purpose during deer season was to kill deer and not admire my habitat improvements, when my dad did not have to wonder if folks were going to question his deer hunting ethics if he "let" me shoot a 2.5 year old 8 point.

May have reached some goal on a statewide basis, but how is 3 bucks per year not too many in some situations and too limiting in others?

Bucktrot I certainly respect your views,and I do have some of the same beliefs as you,this is not directed toward your views on QDM but what I percieve to be your views of the old timers. Where we differ is I certainly dont think all the hunters who killed 8 or 10 bucks a year in the past were idiots. My dad and grandfather would fit in that categorey in the past. Between those two men lies more knowledge about hunting than your average woodsmen. They were and still are DEER HUNTERS,out to kill the biggest buck they could. Killing big bucks is what deer hunting was about then and now.The difference is back then they told you they were after big bucks,now its "im enhancing habitat" with "to kill big bucks" left out.And yes we enhance habitat and practice trigger control. Times have changed and so have hunters,but the ones who were good enough to kill alot of good bucks were not idiots. If you know some old timers it might pay to spend a little time with them,you csn learn alot from them as I have and I continue to learn more every year.

Many who justified the 3 buck limit did so because in their mind allowing someone to kill 110 bucks a season was not biologically sound.
But with 200,000+ plus licensed hunters and maybe that many more unlicensed who can kill 3 a season,and following their same line of thinking, is this not also biologically unsound?

*************

Smokeandbones, you misread my post, sir. I did not nor never said what you just accused me of. With all due respect to you and any elderly hunter and my hat is always off to old timers. I was very specific with a time period and I did say "is now", as in "this day in time", not looked upon very favorably. I did not mean nor say, "yesteryear". There are things that were practiced years ago that were common and frankly, some (not all things) things were done simply because of "innocent" ignorance. I am SURE there is something I do today that will be looked upon in years to come as ignorant behavior but I do it because I simply don't know any better way. I hope this will always be the case for years to come because if it's not, then we are not learning as a society! I.E. Smoking, seatbelts, lead paint, asbestos, etc...

I can tell you that in any unpressured property, killing a lot of immature bucks (if they exists) is not hard. Killing a lot of mature bucks is much more of a challenge.

On January 12, 1976, my first buck was a spike and dogs were running him and I could not have been happier. My dad used to preach to me about how we need to let the does walk and only kill bucks. At that point, to a degree, he was right. Alabama's deer population was still coming on and letting all does walk and only killing bucks was the right thing to do. We certainly know a lot more about deer management than we used to.

Please don't paint QDM hunters as only interested in HUGE bucks. We preach maturity and trigger restraint. Kids' first buck can be a spike, that's fine. Mature hunters should demonstrate a desire to be educated and show some restraint.

HOWEVER, if your property can absorb the killing of an immature buck, kill it! That's fine. If that same property has approx 1 hunter for every 100 - 150 acres, I don't think the property could stand every hunter taking as many immature bucks as they want.

Just practice responsible deer mgmt. I think the deer herd deserves that.

And of course, I type that with my hat in my hand, sir.

What can be killed, and what actually is killed are often two very different things. TN has 200,000+ hunters also, and a 3 buck limit, yet only 1 in 3 hunters kills even one buck, and only 2-3% kill 3 bucks.

Many TN hunters believe absolutely that everyone but themselves is slaughtering young bucks. But the reality is very different. Our harvested buck age structure keeps slowly improving year after year, and most of that improvement is due to education and voluntary restraint of the hunters, not the buck limit.

Been waiting on someone to make that point,took a guy from Tn. Several keep spouting about loosing the right to kill a buck a day (100+) in Alabama. I know some real killers that got in the twenties but never heard of anyone getting the limit. Some of those twenties guys grew up, a few are still killing them.
Charles Kelly built Alabamas herd on "a buck a day", does are sacred. Time to move on.

Exactly. Same thing is, was, and will continue to happen in Alabama. Exactly why I don't think the 3 buck limit was needed but it will be convenient for those who support it because they will now claim the success that was coming anyway.

eskimo270,


Does the QDMA support buck limits and antler restrictions? You bet they do:

The deer study committee consisted of:

- ALFA representative Steve Guy,

- Wildlife manager Mickey Easley,

- Auburn professor Dr. Steve Ditchkoff,

- Conservation Department deer biologists Bill Gray and Chris Cook,

- Ted DeVos, president, Alabama Wildlife Federation 2005-06

- Former Auburn professor Dr. Keith Causey,

- Quality Deer Management Association executive director Brian Murphy (nonresident of Alabama)

- QDMA founder Joe Hamilton (nonresident of Alabama)


From the minutes of the CAB meeting, May, 2007:
Page 50

Ditchkoff:



- continuing on page 52


The committee recommended buck limits and antler restrictions for Alabama's hunters. A review of earlier CAB meeting minutes will reveal that numerous QDMA members, including branch directors in Alabama were vocal in their support of buck limits and antler restrictions citing membership numbers in Alabama to claim widespread support in their organization.

WinMod70, a branch director of QDMA in Alabama, was an active member on these aldeer forums at the time and was very vocal in his support of the restrictions. He later posted that he wasn't hunting much, an we haven't heard from him in quite a while now.

Ted DeVos was not, is not and never has been an employee of AWF.

WinMod70/Steve miss him not posting on the forum anymore.

It was at my last QDMA meeting as a member in 2004 that I first heard about QDMA's interest in buck limits and antler restrictions. I left the QDMA that day and never returned.

I was not aware that the QDMA leaders were already actively involved in supporting the restrictions at the time of that meeting.

You don't think qdm was a factor in the current buck limit/antler restrictions? Keep reading and notice the terminology:

CAB meeting minutes, March, 2004

The entire QDMA and Board of Directors including its cleaning lady must have been a part of Kentucky's Fish and Game meeting! One buck?!? Of course, I'm being facetious.

9er, here's QDMA's stance:

The QDMA is encouraged by the increasing number of
states implementing strategies to protect yearling bucks. In general, the QDMA prefers the voluntary
passing of yearling bucks to mandatory antler regulations. However, we recognize that antler
restrictions may be justified in some situations to achieve specific deer management objectives. In
the long term, QDMA is optimistic that enough hunters will voluntarily pass young bucks that antler
restrictions will become unnecessary and even cumbersome to more sophisticated management.
Regarding our position on specific antler restriction proposals, QDMA examines each on a caseby-
case basis and applies a three-part test. First, is the restriction biologically sound? Second, is it
supported by a majority of affected hunters and landowners? Finally, will it be objectively monitored
to determine success or failure? Many restrictions fail one or more of these criteria. QDMA
has supported some antler restrictions, opposed others, and taken a neutral stance on still others.
Regardless of strategy used to protect yearling bucks, QDMA recommends that state wildlife agencies
conduct extensive education and outreach programs to inform hunters about the benefits of
protecting yearling bucks and to garner their support for sound deer management in general.

I'm going to put the whole damn bunch of ya'll on ignore....

so go educate them not to kill 3. Simple enough...

I'm still still trying to figure out who is gonna pay for all these site specific limits, that's gonna get expensive

There is a synopsis of The Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek. He was an advisor to Ronald Reagan It's mostly about economics but can be applied to much of government in general. Read it and you will better understand why site specific limits set by the people more intimately involved with the local variables will trump a limit created by central planning.

"and most of that improvement is due to education and voluntary restraint of the hunters, not the buck limit."


You came to the conclusion that I intended by asking the question.

According to Gary Moody, the ALDCNR's chief wildlife official, they began a process years ago of educating AL hunters to practice more trigger restraint with their buck kills and implement a more liberal doe season. Mr. Moody along with much of the Wildlife Section of the DCNR did NOT support any kind of AR's or a change in a season limit because they noticed that the hunters in AL were responding to their subtle message by killing less bucks and more does, and saw no need to make any changes.

In fact, before the new limit, every harvest limit survey concluded that they were right. AL hunters were killing more does than bucks and not only that but they were allowing more bucks to walk. If I remember correctly, an AWF survey concluded that Al hunters killed 1.32 bucks and 3 does per hunter. Now I realize that Im not the sharpest knife, but it appears even a dummy can come to the conclusion that if all of these surveys are accurate, it would not take long for all of our management goals to be realized, no matter how out of whack the buck to doe ratio is.

So, if the surveys dont support a need for a limit change, what is the justification?
The study group pointed out that before the limit only 4% of hunters killed 4 or more bucks a season. Is this justification? to limit a small minority of people? if it is, it is a poor excuse and one that is most futile.

Is it to move us toward being a qdm state? if you ask(or read the other thread) this was not the case either, which for the record, I dont believe one bit.

So what was it? Why did some see a need to change the limit? When I have asked and read some comments by those that made the recommendation, the answer has been "because it is not biologically sound to allow hunters to kill 110 bucks a season"

And so that is why I asked the question:
Many who justified the 3 buck limit did so because in their mind allowing someone to kill 110 bucks a season was not biologically sound.
But with 200,000+ plus licensed hunters and maybe that many more unlicensed who can kill 3 a season,and following their same line of thinking, is this not also biologically unsound?


Again, Im not the sharpest knife, but this argument is ridiculous, since if fulfilled it would have the same end effect as the limit that they are denegrating.

Since it don't affect 96% of hunters as you state....why the pissin and moanin? You one of the 4%?

Alabama too.

Bucktrot
Sorry if I misunderstood you post bud. My intention was not to belittle the QDM practices heck we implement some of the same standards around our place. Times have definatly changed as have the views of many of the hunters of yesteryear. We do have the same core values as yourself when it comes to this great sport that we all live so much. And hope that it pays dividends for you.

I have never killed more than 3 bucks in Alabama but I liked the old limit better.

Many people believe in limited government intervention and that the role of government should be regulation only where necessary and allowing the people to make choices beyond that with their local knowledge.

Others think it is best for the government to supply the answers through regulation and central planning.

You one of those?

I didnt see a need for it. I realize that in Alabama its our opinion that our neighbors are the ones killing all of our deer and ruining our chance at killing a 150"+ each year, but our opinion is not reality.

There are years that I can do nothing right and never pull the trigger on a buck and then there are years that I can do nothing wrong and would fall into that 4%. Most of the time, I fall somewhere in between.

Some places, the opinion neighbors are killing MOST of the younger bucks,IS a reality. IMHO

In a case where a selfish, irresponsible's individual's actions can affect the quality of hunting for many other folks in a given locale, WHILE not affecting the quality of hunting for 96% of licensed hunters....all day and twice on Sunday. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Alabama's deer hunters do not have sole deer hunting rights to hundreds and certainly not thousands of acres. Folks who do are the exception and not the rule (you know that, and I know that, and anybody who is intellectually honest knows that) and as a result, they're situation should not drive subsequent regulation.

As I've said before, I personally would not have a bit of problem if the state exempted individuals from the 3 buck limit if they can prove that doing so will not significantly affect the buck population in an invidual locale (ex. a person who has sole hunting rights on a 1000 acres).

Ya'll continue to act like restricting someone's allowable buck harvest to a "ridiculous" ONLY 3 allowed is on the same infrigement upon individual rights plain as attempts at restricting gun ownership, or further taxation of millions of working Americans, or Obamacare, etc. Ya'll just sound like a bunch of whiney, dramatic women when you make such leaps.

Darn straight it is. Anybody who thinks that it's not possible for an individual to significantly affect a deer herd and the subsequent quality of hunting in a locale is either totally ignorant or is simply being dishonest. I've ashamedly done it myself so I know that of which I speak.

And that's how it starts. Do you also think it is ridiculous to allow clips that hold 30 rounds? Lots of people do. What about 29 rounds, 28 rounds.

The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of people will never find themself in a situation where they need a 30 round magazine. Those few that do should not be the ones to drive regulation should they?

People are quick to give up the liberties of the few when it doesn't effect them. Pretty soon someone wants you to give up something that does effect you.

It's not about deer. It's about a model of government.

Did that change when the law changed? Of those that I know who would have fell into that 4%, only 1 guy has changed and abides by the law.

In that case, you and and a whole bunch of others including myself.....should have raised total hell and rebelled against the government over the fact that we couldn't kill any does whatsoever and only 1 buck per day for all those years. I had to pass a bunch of deer back then and my rights were trampled on as a result. Think I'm gonna sue.

Jughead its not gonna stop there. While I didnt like the process that got the new limit in place to begin with, its done and there is nothing that I can do about it. I made the adjustments that I needed to to ensure that those years when everything goes right, that I dont go over the limit. And if the limit was the end of it, then I would never say another word about it...but its not. You know that there are some who want to place AR's and maybe even reduce the limit further, and in my opinion this could have a detrimental long term effect on hunting.

That's a good point. I've heard a few folks throw out that kind of ridiculous restriction too and even though a different, more stringent restriction STILL wouldn't affect me personally 95% of the time....I can't fathom a reason that the state would want to go further than what has been done and why hunters can't be satisfied with what we currently have. Anybody that pushes for the government to go even further is an idiot....in my humble opinion.

that goes back to my college days

I'm still trying to understand just how in the hell we can regulate deer season at all on a site specific case, that would be extremely expensive, as of right now you can shoot and kill any as you wish under what the establishment has determined

yea that sucks but there has to be some sort of regulation, we've seen what no regulation looked like, closed deer season and reintroductions into areas

I really doubt AL wants to take on a season with varying limits per district or county etc.... just try and figure a way to regulate that

now go back to my comment about cost
at what point are you and most others willing to pay for this kind of situation

Now they could be charged with over the limit, before no limit. Most ya'll have never hunted around a family of 4 that will average 20 apiece, and that's just the bucks! That scum moves to the ajoining property, they "hunt it out" and move on. You're screwed for years!