You didn't read the report of the deer study committee that got us a 98 percent reduction in bucks per year with an added antler restriction then, did you?

Nor did you go back and read the minutes to the CAB meetings from 2004-07 containing the discussions about adjusting our sex ratios and male age structure statewide.

You need to be informed and educated to understand how deeply deer politics in Alabama has sunken into this crap.

Well, one more reply .... I do not understand, no I do not. This does not mean I support every suggestion someone in some state agency makes.
I understand the real need for rules and regs, and can appreciate the need for GOOD changes, but, there is a limit.
The BEST of all worlds coming together, is
1. Doing what is best for the source (wildlife and habitat)
2. Hunters, Politicians, Non Hunters, Anti hunters putting differences aside and working together with the habitat and wildlife's best interest in mind

This wont happen.
Politicians wont give up power/authority.
Non hunters care, but dont get involved.
Anti hunters are PsYcHo!
Hunters are selfish and greedy.

This is what I am trying to do. DUH!! My original post admits I am amazed at the changes. I am overwhelmed, seriously. It is way too complicated and costly.

I have learned to not ask anyone within one certain state agency for help or assistance. It is as if this agency does not want to share information, keep things a secret. I have become very frustrated in a short time, and gave up just Monday.
I am encouraged though. Met a fella that goes by 49er on an internet site. I think he will learn me up quickly on who does what, and how things are done, what the pecking order is in Alabama deer, turkey and hog politics and such.

I do believe I'm making a case for site-specific management as long as it is chosen for a given tract by the landowner or leaseholder.

You know ... the philosophy that is reflected in the words of our own state legislature that created the DCNR:

What does crop damage permits have to do with it? So you want everyone to hunt year round now?

Read it again.

There is nothing in the law about permits for crop damage. The commissioner made that crap up all by himself, and you just brought that subject up on your own.... not me.

I don't think antlerless deer seasons should be closed in "any county or area" where depredation permits are being used to kill deer. There's no way the season has been closed because "... it is found necessary to the conservation and perpetuation of such species" in such areas. [See: C.O.A., Section 9-2-7b(7)] Our legislature passed Section 9-11-240 to authorize the commissioner to handle crop damage problems by opening the antlerless season.

There is nothing in my post about opening deer season year round. That was your idea. The commissioner might open antlerless deer season year round statewide, but it would only be open on a particular parcel of land if the owner or leasholder consented to it being open there. The commissioner could then close it when it became necessary for the protection and perpetuation of the species. I don't have a problem with that. That's what the law requires.



There is a provision in the law for antlerless season to be opened for "biological reasons" provided this meets with the approval of the landowner or leaseholder.

Goodmorning 49er how are you doing on this beautiful morning?

Over the last decade or so the trend has been that many hunters have become more selective about what they harvest. What if harvest numbers go down but it’s a reflection of hunters becoming more selective rather than them having less success? How would you know by just looking at the number of deer harvested? According to your logic of just looking at harvest trends then we should assume that deer harvests have decreased due to a decline in the deer population when in this scenario the deer herd would likely be on the increase. But then again, maybe it’s not on the increase. Maybe the coyote population is taking care of any extra created from the hunter becoming more selective. How would you know? How much does only counting dead deer really tell you?

But it seems you want NO regulation what so ever, what do you want? Do you know?

I don't have time for this today, gotta go do some QDM deer gardening.

Yep I am still on his ignore list I was just making sure......

CNC,

You are asking all of the right questions, and pointing out the limitations of a using a SINGLE data source for acquiring all of the answers. And you are dead on the money, JUST harvest data will NOT tell you everything you need to know. All of the questions you asked are valid and the reasons harvest data will not provide all of the answers--rising or falling harvest numbers can mean many things. However, just because harvest data doesn't give you all the answers isn't reason not to collect it. Harvest data is the core of all other data collection. It serves as the "red flag" for further investigation. Without being able to see upwards or downwards trends in harvest numbers, the state isn't aware that "something" is changing and realize further investigation--using other data--is needed.

I think a bi-product of harvest data (over time) is increased hunter awareness and long term satisfaction due to being able to implement realistic goals, which could even arguably increase hunter numbers, license sales, etc., etc. In general people like to know "where they stand". Unreasonable expectations, misrepresentation of deer numbers, buck to doe ratio's, etc. all lead to unhappy hunters most of the time.

As scientists, I can't understand why biologists are trying to get a 100% survey of harvest data. A statistically significant survey is just that...statistically significant. There is no reason to spend resources on a larger survey to get the same information.

Actually, I have no problem with that at all. I would RATHER have a full accounting, but I could live with valid sample data.

That's what I don't like about the mandatory reporting. We already had a valid sample. If they are worried about the validity, increase the sample size of the survey.

the limit on does is just crazy. that is an attempt to sell more licenses. The deer population is down because people are shooting all the does. that there is crazy.

Why is it crazy to believe that the deer population is declining in some areas because too many does are being killed?

Do you believe you can't kill too many does?

do numerous variables among those surveyed impact the accuracy of the results?

What is crazy?
That there is a limit on doe deer?
That people are shooting all the does?
That the population is down because people are shooting all the does?
Getting folks to shoot more doe deer as a means to generate revenue?
All of the above?

You don't think there needs to be a limit on doe deer?

How do we know there is a decline?