Why do you need a permit?



How does this affect those permits?

Constitution of Alabama 1901






Why not just call a nuisance species a nuisance instead of game?

The running down of our State Agency is meeting all new lows. These folks work very hard trying to manage these great resources for you but all you folks seem to care about is how they are not doing the job like you think it should be done or that they are against you. Bull crap!!!

Get off your soap box and get a life... or do you feel entitled to give them a hard time over every decision that the DCNR makes. Find something else to get on this one is getting old.

Wait, lets post pictures of the Director and AG shooting something at night and discuss how they are above the law...and conception data is useless...hunting night is wrong...

This crap makes me

It's not their job to manage game for me. That's the whole point. Their job is conservation of the species.

It is their job to administer the law, not make up their own.

It's not their job to manage game for me. That's the whole point. Their job is conservation of the various species of wildlife... not nuisance or invasive species.

It is their job to administer and abide by the law, not make up their own.

Conservation includes management.

Conservation includes management.

Conservation: 1939 – 2006
- Antlered bucks one per day entire season most years / limited or no antlerless seasons and bag limits.
- Successful restoration of the species from approx. 3000 members to 1.5 - 2 million.

Conservation + management: 2007 - present
- Three antlered bucks per hunter per season with antler restrictions and recording
- Unknown effects other than decreased hunting license sales and more government rules

Get over it. The large majority of hunters want qaulity since we have sucessfully restored quantity.

Other than more "rules", are there really any negatives to the three buck rule?

Also, we do work under a permit no different than a depredation permit issued to landowners to kill deer at night on their own property, except we are gaining very valuable reproduction data that you can not get by asking hunters. Asking 10 hunters when peak breeding occurs in an area is about useless. You'll get 7 different answers, maybe more.

Thank you Matt for all of the hard work y'all do for the betterment of the STATES deer population.

The reason an employee continues to work beyond his shift is immaterial; if the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employee continues to work, the additional hours must be counted. Id.

In all such cases it is the duty of the management to exercise its control and see that the work is not performed if it does not want it to be performed. It cannot sit back and accept the benefits without compensating for them. The mere promulgation of a rule against such work is not enough. Management has the power to enforce the rule and must make every effort to do so.

29 C.F.R. § 785.13. ...

... If from no other source, the Department had actual knowledge through the 1987 AMIP study that unreported overtime during deer hunting season continued to be a substantial problem despite the Department's 1985 written policy prohibiting all such work. The study also revealed that supervisory personnel had failed to fulfill the 1985 directive to monitor the officers' hours closely to insure compliance. The district court found that the hunting activity that traditionally caused deer season to be such a busy period of time continued after 1985, and that there was no fundamental change at any pertinent point in the amount of work to be performed by the officers. Complaints about the forty-hour rule were common and the subject came up frequently during the district meetings.

In the face of the continued peak activity during deer hunting season and its specific knowledge that the 1985 policy against overtime was not being followed, the Department had a duty to do more than to simply continue to apprise the officers of the policy. The Department had an obligation to "exercise its control and see that the work [was] not performed if it [did] not want it to be performed." 29 C.F.R. § 785.13. The fact that some officers were able to comply with the forty-hour rule did not relieve the Department of its responsibility to ensure that the remaining officers did not violate the rule. We therefore conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law by finding that the promulgation of the forty-hour policy, coupled with the ability of some officers to comply, insulated the Department from liability.

In addition, the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to impute to the Department knowledge of the inconsistencies contained in the weekly and arrest reports, which revealed that certain officers were not reporting the total number of hours they actually worked during the 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 hunting seasons. The fact that the captains made only cursory examinations of these reports because of their own lack of time for review does not excuse them from being charged with constructive notice of the information contained in the documents. As noted earlier, an employer is not relieved of the duty to inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business "`because the extent of the business may preclude his personal supervision, and compel reliance on subordinates.'" Gulf King Shrimp. Co., 407 F.2d at 512 (quoting People ex rel. Price, 121 N.E. at 474). This is especially so where, as here, the Department specifically instructed its supervisors to closely monitor the officers' hours to ensure compliance with the 1985 policy and knew, through the 1987 AMIP study, that such monitoring was not being accomplished. ...

X2! And the same goes for all the other DCNR hard working men and women!

X3

x4

Conservation: 1939 – 2006
- Antlered bucks one per day entire season most years / limited or no antlerless seasons and bag limits.
- Successful restoration of the species from approx. 3000 members to 1.5 - 2 million.

Eddie, you believe management had no any role whatsoever during this period? You believe conservation is possible without management?

Eddie, you believe management had no any role whatsoever during this period? You believe conservation is possible without management?

Why not help get rid of a lot of unnecessary rules so our state biologists will have more time for science instead of spending their time filling in as enforcement officers?

That's likely what they want as well. They are trained and hired as biologists, and that should be what they are allowed to be.

I've asked again for the reports Clem and I were discussing earlier. I've also found a bit of case law that offers some insight into what DCNR employee have to put up with from the leadership at the Dept.

It's not so much the employees who are the problem... its the bosses who assign them their duties.


Take a look at this:

Secretary of Labor v Alabama Dept. of Conservation *** click here ***




We would all like to think that those who have been delegated authority can be trusted to tell the truth. Looks like many of the men who were making arrests and were giving their sworn testimony in court as evidence were not as honest as we might expect them to be.

The courts found evidence of official time-keeping documents being falsified by enforcement officers in order to please DCNR leaders.

Makes you wonder what other false testimony they were willing to give, doesn't it?