</a JR Holmes Oil Company </a Shark Guard Southeast Woods and Whitetail Mayer Insurance Services LLC
Aldeer Classifieds
Looking for Lowrance Ghost or 24v Ultrex
by bradbathome. 03/28/24 08:17 PM
Turkey loads/decoy
by Rem870s2. 03/28/24 04:41 PM
Wtb Browning 300 Mag
by desertdog. 03/28/24 03:36 PM
WTB Chevy 1500
by Okalona. 03/28/24 07:44 AM
Iso ruger american ranch
by AustinC. 03/27/24 08:20 PM
Serious Deer Talk
The Hollywood Buck.
by Mbrock. 03/28/24 08:56 PM
For the Don’t Shoot Does Crowd
by SEWoodsWhitetail. 03/28/24 10:45 AM
High Fencing
by RareBreed. 03/26/24 10:45 PM
Who's got the best deer hunting in AL
by TensawRiver. 03/26/24 01:26 PM
What makes you happy?
by Fishduck. 03/26/24 10:25 AM
March
S M T W T F S
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
31
Land, Leases, Hunting Clubs
West Jefferson County hunting club
by Jmfire722. 03/18/24 08:36 AM
Western Ky farm
by todd w. 03/15/24 01:23 PM
Information on bibb county hunting club
by quickshot. 03/10/24 01:46 PM
Hunting Club
by Hibby. 03/08/24 04:34 PM
Mississippi club
by Gobl4me. 03/07/24 09:55 PM
Who's Online Now
109 registered members (ronfromramer, RCHRR, huntndad, BradB, hhsdc78, CAM, bama_earl, CKyleC, twaldrop4, Mbrock, Raven, OldgoatTN68, rrice0725, cdaddy14, Bjoff27, BCLC, hue, trlrdrdave, goodman_hunter, odocoileus, TexasHuntress, ShootemupTex, Whiskey9, outdoorguy88, imslower, DoeMaster, Kicker, 3006bullet, jake44, klay, IDOT, Beer Belly, Mjh97, BhamFred, BayedUp, RobN25, bward85, Tall Dog, AU338MAG, hallb, jdhunter2011, Bandit635, DEDTRKY, ALclearcut, bfoote, cuztoshaw, Shaneomac2, HawkPilot, HBWALKER14, brett.smith, JA, donia, JDW25, ALPatriot15, clayk, gman, Floorman1, Simpleman, SouthBamaSlayer, crocker, joe sixpack, cullbuck, AL18, jwalker77, sethjamtoe, desertdog, CCC, Swamp Monkey, DGAMBLER, Peach, Cuz-Pat, Remington270, Shane99, BrentsFX4, green river 123, Justice, Ridge Life, Squadron77, brokefixer, Jmoore77, Longtine, doghouse, Paxamus, Rem870s2, DEADorALIVE, PourIron12, jaydub12, sw1002, jhardy, JKlep, mathews prostaff, gundoc, Quack Quack Bang, Cjunkin, mossyback, CrappieMan, BamaFan64, Chickenrig, 11 invisible), 587 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 10 1 2 8 9 10
Re: Question Number One [Re: 49er] #382062
08/08/12 10:12 AM
08/08/12 10:12 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
cartervj Offline
Old Mossy Horns
cartervj  Offline
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
Originally Posted By: 49er

The DMAP program of the DCNR prior to buck limits was working because site-specific tracts were physically evaluated by those making the decisions. Tags were not issued equally to individuals. The total number of deer that could be killed was determined by the site-specific conditions, and had nothing to do with rationing that total number of deer to be killed according to the number of hunters on the property.

"Sound biology" got lost in the mix when "biologists" started playing politics and forgot about the science.

Simple mathematics indicates that large tracts of land can sustain more deer being killed.

The "king's deer" mentality that you mentioned involves nothing more than a loss of freedom and liberty that caused our founding father's to cross an ocean and battle native tribes to survive in order to rid themselves of it. I don't care to go back, and I certainly don't want it to follow us here.



that's funny right there


you and jl are promoting large landowners rule

feudalism eh laugh


this buck limit thing is on the verge of being delusional


“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” ― Ronald Reagan
Re: Question Number One [Re: 49er] #382076
08/08/12 10:30 AM
08/08/12 10:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
J
jlccoffee Offline
14 point
jlccoffee  Offline
14 point
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
Do you think the large landowner should be required to allow others to come onto his land and kill the deer? Who do you think should do it? How should it be regulated?

Re: Question Number One [Re: jlccoffee] #382078
08/08/12 10:34 AM
08/08/12 10:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline OP
Booner
49er  Offline OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
I have addressed the issue in another thread.

See "A Buck limit that is legal and makes sense"

Re: Question Number One [Re: jlccoffee] #382082
08/08/12 10:40 AM
08/08/12 10:40 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
cartervj Offline
Old Mossy Horns
cartervj  Offline
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Do you think the large landowner should be required to allow others to come onto his land and kill the deer? Who do you think should do it? How should it be regulated?



absolutely not,


do you think deer stay only on their property?


“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” ― Ronald Reagan
Re: Question Number One [Re: jlccoffee] #382088
08/08/12 10:47 AM
08/08/12 10:47 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
T
truedouble Offline
14 point
truedouble  Offline
14 point
T
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,539
Birmingham
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Originally Posted By: gobbler
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Those that set the 3 buck limit are the ones who determined how many everyone "gets".


Thats correct, everyone gets the same amount of the public wildlife resource. It does not matter how many acres you own, the way it should be.


So a family of 4 that owns 40 acres should kill 12 off that land. The individual that owns 10,000 should kill 3 because that is fair.

Or do you suggest the guy with 10,000 should let the family of 4 come over to his place and kill their deer on his land? Maybe we should make some sort of regulation about that....just to be fair.

I thought the limit had something to do with management. If it's about fairness and equal distribution, then we are going to need a whole new set of regulations.


1. if the family of 4 can kill 12 bucks off of 40 acres, legally, then more power to them. 99% chance that "if" that occurred it would happen in an area with very very very high buck numbers...HOWEVER, according to you, due to education, the family of 4 would not kill 12 bucks. they would evaluate their property, sit down and come up with a management strategy that would insure many more good seasons to come on that 40 acres.

2. to the other "hypothetical situation" of one hunter hunting alone on 10,000 acres (I see a trend here of unrealistic scenarios, but anyway) and "only" being able to kill 3 bucks. Do you think that one person hunting 10000 acres, alone, is going to have that much more of an opportunity to kill more than 3 bucks, than a more realistic situation of 3-4 hunters hunting 3000 acres of family land? At the end of the day one person can't manage 10,000 acres anyway. It would either be a hunting Mecca or overrun with does. Either way the "one hunter" would likely be unaffected by a 3 buck limit, BUT, if they were and x hunter could have killed 3, 3 year olds and 3, 4 year olds (just to spread it around), which is worse, a hunter only being able to kill 3 bucks on 10000 acres or a hunter being able to kill a buck a day on 40 acres? Bottom line both are unrealistic and irrelevant.

3. limits are just that "LIMITS" a max, a number not to exceed. Just limits the "unmanageable" hunters as well as changes hunter mentality and a hunter actions. A means to changing hunter behavior.

Last edited by truedouble; 08/08/12 10:51 AM.
Re: Question Number One [Re: truedouble] #382133
08/08/12 11:30 AM
08/08/12 11:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
J
jlccoffee Offline
14 point
jlccoffee  Offline
14 point
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
Originally Posted By: truedouble
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Originally Posted By: gobbler
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Those that set the 3 buck limit are the ones who determined how many everyone "gets".


Thats correct, everyone gets the same amount of the public wildlife resource. It does not matter how many acres you own, the way it should be.


So a family of 4 that owns 40 acres should kill 12 off that land. The individual that owns 10,000 should kill 3 because that is fair.

Or do you suggest the guy with 10,000 should let the family of 4 come over to his place and kill their deer on his land? Maybe we should make some sort of regulation about that....just to be fair.

I thought the limit had something to do with management. If it's about fairness and equal distribution, then we are going to need a whole new set of regulations.


1. if the family of 4 can kill 12 bucks off of 40 acres, legally, then more power to them. 99% chance that "if" that occurred it would happen in an area with very very very high buck numbers...HOWEVER, according to you, due to education, the family of 4 would not kill 12 bucks. they would evaluate their property, sit down and come up with a management strategy that would insure many more good seasons to come on that 40 acres.



Good grief...you are so blind that now you have to say 12 bucks off 40 acres is OK with you in order to support the limit.

Who is supporting QDM now? I'm the one that doesn't want them to kill 12 bucks off 40 acres...you say more power to them?

Re: Question Number One [Re: 49er] #382138
08/08/12 11:32 AM
08/08/12 11:32 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
cartervj Offline
Old Mossy Horns
cartervj  Offline
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
do you honestly think that 40 acres is supporting 12 bucks

maybe under a fenced operation


“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” ― Ronald Reagan
Re: Question Number One [Re: truedouble] #382139
08/08/12 11:33 AM
08/08/12 11:33 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
J
jlccoffee Offline
14 point
jlccoffee  Offline
14 point
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
Originally Posted By: truedouble
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Originally Posted By: gobbler
Originally Posted By: jlccoffee
Those that set the 3 buck limit are the ones who determined how many everyone "gets".


Thats correct, everyone gets the same amount of the public wildlife resource. It does not matter how many acres you own, the way it should be.


So a family of 4 that owns 40 acres should kill 12 off that land. The individual that owns 10,000 should kill 3 because that is fair.

Or do you suggest the guy with 10,000 should let the family of 4 come over to his place and kill their deer on his land? Maybe we should make some sort of regulation about that....just to be fair.

I thought the limit had something to do with management. If it's about fairness and equal distribution, then we are going to need a whole new set of regulations.




2. to the other "hypothetical situation" of one hunter hunting alone on 10,000 acres (I see a trend here of unrealistic scenarios, but anyway) and "only" being able to kill 3 bucks. Do you think that one person hunting 10000 acres, alone, is going to have that much more of an opportunity to kill more than 3 bucks, than a more realistic situation of 3-4 hunters hunting 3000 acres of family land? At the end of the day one person can't manage 10,000 acres anyway. It would either be a hunting Mecca or overrun with does. Either way the "one hunter" would likely be unaffected by a 3 buck limit, BUT, if they were and x hunter could have killed 3, 3 year olds and 3, 4 year olds (just to spread it around), which is worse, a hunter only being able to kill 3 bucks on 10000 acres or a hunter being able to kill a buck a day on 40 acres? Bottom line both are unrealistic and irrelevant.



So now you tell me that limits on the 10000 acres is irrelevent but we should have one anyway. On the other hand, on 40 acres more power to them if they kill 12.

I am saying each property should manage to its specific local situation.

I guess I really don't get all this QDM stuff because I thought it was about science and doing what is right for your local conditions?

Last edited by jlccoffee; 08/08/12 11:33 AM.
Re: Question Number One [Re: cartervj] #382140
08/08/12 11:34 AM
08/08/12 11:34 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
J
jlccoffee Offline
14 point
jlccoffee  Offline
14 point
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
Originally Posted By: cartervj
do you honestly think that 40 acres is supporting 12 bucks

maybe under a fenced operation


Do you think the deer only stay on the neighbors property? On my small property I have more deer wander through than I think it would be right for me to shoot.

Last edited by jlccoffee; 08/08/12 11:35 AM.
Re: Question Number One [Re: 49er] #382179
08/08/12 12:57 PM
08/08/12 12:57 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
cartervj Offline
Old Mossy Horns
cartervj  Offline
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,778
colbert county
well 40 acres ain't got anything on holding deer, unless you own at least 500 acres you're SOL

after all average home ranges are usually more than 500 acres


“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” ― Ronald Reagan
Re: Question Number One [Re: jlccoffee] #382188
08/08/12 01:21 PM
08/08/12 01:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er Offline OP
Booner
49er  Offline OP
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
jlc,

I think they must be teaching in qdm seminars that small tracts of land with extreme hunting pressure attract every buck from the surrounding area.

I sure hear a lot of qdm'ers that seem to believe that.

Re: Question Number One [Re: 49er] #382196
08/08/12 01:28 PM
08/08/12 01:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,449
A
abolt300 Offline
Booner
abolt300  Offline
Booner
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,449
Let me start by saying I'm a big proponent of QDM but I've also changed my opinion of the three buck limit and feel it should not be on the books. I have a large lease roughly 3000 acres with limited members and what we've been able to accomplish as compared to what we started with is nothing short of amazing. When people want to join my club, I am upfront and tell them that our management style might not be for them. We want to grow and kill big mature bucks and that requires discipline and a lot of restraint. That being said, it's not for everyone and I dont agree with forcing it on everyone. Do I get ticked when a bordering property owner that has 20 acres (doing nothing to grow of hold deer on his property) uses corn and baits some of my young 2 yr olds off and kills them each year, sure I do. I call the GW and report him for hunting over bait (because it is illegal)and sometimes they catch him. Do I have an issue with him killing the young bucks? No not really. That is his perogotive and it is within the law for him to do so. Does he take advantange of my restraint, money and hard work? Yes, he does. Knowing this individual, he will shoot every rack buck that he can get his crosshairs on and brag about how many he kills and what a great hunter he is. The three buck limit is not going to slow him down one bit. Bag limits are needed to regulate the minority percentage of hunters that abuse the resource. Whoever said we needed more wardens was right. We do to need to enforce laws, right or wrong. If we feel the laws or regulations are wrong then we need to elect people that will change them. Just like we need more border patrol agents and we need to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Laws without enforcement leads directly to anarchy. Even though I am for QDM, I dont think that the 3 buck limit was needed or is accomplishing anything. 95% of the people that were killing over 3 bucks a year will continue to do so because there is very little chance them getting caught. I agree that the majority of hunters would probably feel bad about personally killing 10 bucks a year. I know that most of the guys I run with and have been around somewhat regulate themselves and did so before the 3 buck limit. Too many laws and regualtions are just as bad as not having enough. Not enforcing or not being able to enforce (lack of funding, manpower, whatever)what is the current law is where I have a problem. If we dont like the laws, we need to vote in people that will change things to what we want. An elected official selects the CAB members so we need to get an elected official in office that elects people to the CAB that have the wildlife's best interest at heart. We need to all remember that we as a group are "hunters and consumers" of the state's resources. Everyone has just as much right to hunt and fish as the next guy and we need to remember we are all on the same team. Otherwise, the following scenario is going to occur at some point. The big property owner or lessor with the big landholdings and big $ is going to just fence out the 20 and 40 acre landowner thus prohibiting the animals from having access to the small property and all of a sudden, yep, "king's deer". Only this time the kings will be the large landowners and people that can afford the big leases. No one should ever be priced out of being able to exercise their right to enjoy hunting of fishing regardless of their financial situation.

Last edited by abolt300; 08/08/12 01:32 PM.
Re: Question Number One [Re: cartervj] #382197
08/08/12 01:28 PM
08/08/12 01:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
J
jlccoffee Offline
14 point
jlccoffee  Offline
14 point
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
Coffee Co, AL
Originally Posted By: cartervj
well 40 acres ain't got anything on holding deer, unless you own at least 500 acres you're SOL

after all average home ranges are usually more than 500 acres





Exactly...It don't have anything on holding deer and yet the limit is 3 per person for however many people want to hunt it.

Ya'll can call yourself QDM all day long, there sure aren't many of you that believe in site specific management and basing decisions on local conditions.

Re: Question Number One [Re: gobbler] #382234
08/08/12 01:59 PM
08/08/12 01:59 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,855
dothan
eskimo270 Offline
10 point
eskimo270  Offline
10 point
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,855
dothan
Originally Posted By: gobbler
I don't think (and most would agree) that a virtually "no limit" regulation on the harvest of bucks in Alabama is sensible.



BSK, this is why I posed that question about 75 thread pages ago. They cant trust the hunters in the state of Al to be responsible stewards of their resource, they couldnt get the survey numbers to justify a need to reduce the limit, they couldnt sell it for what it is- a first step toward a qdm state and so they say " its not biologically sound to allow someone an oppurtunity to kill 110 buck a season" or as Gobbler says above.


Super Predator
Re: Question Number One [Re: gobbler] #382238
08/08/12 02:10 PM
08/08/12 02:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,855
dothan
eskimo270 Offline
10 point
eskimo270  Offline
10 point
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,855
dothan
Originally Posted By: gobbler
I don't think (and most would agree) that a virtually "no limit" regulation on the harvest of bucks in Alabama is sensible.



Gobbler,

How is one limit sensible and the other not?

If fulfilled wouldnt they both leave us at the same place?

perhaps 200,000 licensed hunters &
perhaps 200,000 unlicensed hunters that can kill
>>>>>>>>>>> x3 bucks a season
>>>>>>>>>_______ wouldnt it
>>>> = 1,200,000 wipe out our buck population?

So, again, wouldnt they leave us at the same place? And if so, then how is one more sensible than the other?

Last edited by eskimo270; 08/08/12 02:17 PM.

Super Predator
Page 10 of 10 1 2 8 9 10

Aldeer.com Copyright 2001-2023 Aldeer LLP.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.090s Queries: 16 (0.040s) Memory: 3.2635 MB (Peak: 3.5588 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2024-03-29 14:27:29 UTC