|
|
|
|
|
|
SPF
by Turkeyneck78 - 05/13/25 05:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
20 members (Bronco 74, RareBreed, Booner Hunter, Safetyman, jawbone, BC_Reb, AMB, TexasHuntress, Frankie, Mulcher, odocoileus, Bamarich2, Tigger85, El_Matador, JSanford1974, paintrock, twaldrop4, Fatalis1, 2 invisible),
1,080
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,239
8 point
|
|
8 point
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,239 |
I've read through the comments on here and think it's a very interesting, yet political topic. I commend those that are suggesting that whatever decisions are made should be based on scientific data. Along these lines, much of this discussion has focused on the reproductive surveys that the state has been conducting since 1995. They have a decent data set, and are working hard to make it even stronger. Hopefully, science will play a role in this decision.
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. I feel that we should be doing two things: (1) Making decisions based on data, and (2) Considering the biological, social, economic, etc. implications for whatever change is proposed. In my opinion, number 2 doesn't seem to be getting much attention.
Does a potential increase in buck harvest concern anyone? Does a potential decrease in the proportion of mature bucks in the herd cause concern? Does a potential shift in sex ratios have implications? These are just a few of the biological effects that could occur. Would they devastating to our deer herd? No. Might they take the deer herd in a direction that is not what we would prefer? Maybe.
I don't know if any of these three (and there are more) would happen, but, I would like to think that the potential for biological effects such as these would be considered during such a debate...in this venue as well as in those where the decision is actually made. I have refrained from discussing the social, economic, and other types of effects that such a change could lead to, because my training is in biology.
I understand the desire of deer hunters in Alabama to hunt the entire pre-rut, rut, and post-rut. I have no problem with opinions that are either for or against such a proposal. I just hope that we all consider the effects that any changes might cause.
I guess I would ask all to just take a few moments to consider both the positive and negative aspects of any proposed changes, and try to consider them from both sides of the argument. I think such an approach would help to generate additional thought-provoking discussions.
***************
Steve Ditchkoff
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment
Auburn University
***************
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494 |
Steve, you are spot on! Decisions based on sound data is a good thing!
"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 11,815 Likes: 1
Doing the best I can.
|
|
Doing the best I can.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 11,815 Likes: 1 |
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. Steve, a few days back I started a thread that simply asked for a biological reason as to why the season should be extended. After several pages of responses, would you care to guess at how many answers I got to my question? ZERO!!! It's kind of like talking to children while they are drooling at the window of the candy store. You can tell them the candy could rot their teeth out down the road but all they care about is the satisfaction of the here and now. They want what tastes good to them now, not what's healthy.
The true mark of a man is not how he conducts himself during times of prosperity, but how he conducts himself during times of adversity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502 |
I've read through the comments on here and think it's a very interesting, yet political topic. I commend those that are suggesting that whatever decisions are made should be based on scientific data. Along these lines, much of this discussion has focused on the reproductive surveys that the state has been conducting since 1995. They have a decent data set, and are working hard to make it even stronger. Hopefully, science will play a role in this decision.
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. I feel that we should be doing two things: (1) Making decisions based on data, and (2) Considering the biological, social, economic, etc. implications for whatever change is proposed. In my opinion, number 2 doesn't seem to be getting much attention.
Does a potential increase in buck harvest concern anyone? Does a potential decrease in the proportion of mature bucks in the herd cause concern? Does a potential shift in sex ratios have implications? These are just a few of the biological effects that could occur. Would they devastating to our deer herd? No. Might they take the deer herd in a direction that is not what we would prefer? Maybe.
I don't know if any of these three (and there are more) would happen, but, I would like to think that the potential for biological effects such as these would be considered during such a debate...in this venue as well as in those where the decision is actually made. I have refrained from discussing the social, economic, and other types of effects that such a change could lead to, because my training is in biology.
I understand the desire of deer hunters in Alabama to hunt the entire pre-rut, rut, and post-rut. I have no problem with opinions that are either for or against such a proposal. I just hope that we all consider the effects that any changes might cause.
I guess I would ask all to just take a few moments to consider both the positive and negative aspects of any proposed changes, and try to consider them from both sides of the argument. I think such an approach would help to generate additional thought-provoking discussions. (1) decisions should be based on scientific data - i agree 100% - 16 years of reproductive data should be more than sufficient to make a 2 week season change - we adopted an open doe season and 3 buck limit with less data than that (2) biological implications - many areas in alabama have a december rut - they've hunted all 3 phases of the rut for years - does our data show that they have taken the deer herd in those areas in an undesireable direction? i have friends that hunt next to the chattahoochee river in barbour, henry and houston counties - their rut peaks in dec - it's still difficult to kill a mature buck, even during the peak - they get to enjoy all phases of the rut and their hunting quality seems unaffected - can't we use the biological data that's been collected in these areas over the years and have a general idea about what would occur given the same senario elsewhere - (3) social implications - if we had a split season - in 7 days at thanksgiving - out until dec 20 - in until feb 15 - more small game hunting would occur in dec, especially duck and dove - more family time before christmas - the quality of hunting would be better during the holiday season because of less pressure and more animals available - this would be a plus for the kids who are out of school during this time - (4) economic impact - increased small game hunting should offset deer hunting revenue during the first 3 weeks of dec - this is typically a lull period in most areas of al for deer hunting anyway - more hunting would occur during 2 weeks in feb than 3 in dec - this in itself should be more than enough to offset any revenue lost in dec - it's time to use the scientific data we have on hand, incorporate public opinion and common sense and start tweeking our regulations to optimize the use of our wildlife resources while still preserving them for future generations - any successful organization, public or private, is constantly changing - adcnr is no exception
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130
Mildly Quirky
|
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130 |
more small game hunting would occur in dec, especially duck and dove Yeah, right. Deer hunters already want small game hunters out of the picture from Oct. 15 to Jan. 31. They won't be encouraging small game hunters to enjoy the "split" because they'd be "making noise and stirring up all the bucks before the rut!" Sounds good in theory. But they don't do it now, and won't do it then.
"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter
"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013
"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502 |
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. Steve, a few days back I started a thread that simply asked for a biological reason as to why the season should be extended. After several pages of responses, would you care to guess at how many answers I got to my question? ZERO!!! It's kind of like talking to children while they are drooling at the window of the candy store. You can tell them the candy could rot their teeth out down the road but all they care about is the satisfaction of the here and now. They want what tastes good to them now, not what's healthy. hunting all phases of the rut has not hurt the deer herd in areas of alabama with a december rut - this was the case even before the 3 buck limit - why would an extended, shorter deer season that includes all phases of the rut have an adverse biological effect 10 miles away? i have yet to see a legitimate biological reason we shouldn't do it
Last edited by slipn; 03/08/11 11:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494 |
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. Steve, a few days back I started a thread that simply asked for a biological reason as to why the season should be extended. After several pages of responses, would you care to guess at how many answers I got to my question? ZERO!!! It's kind of like talking to children while they are drooling at the window of the candy store. You can tell them the candy could rot their teeth out down the road but all they care about is the satisfaction of the here and now. They want what tastes good to them now, not what's healthy. hunting all phases of the rut has not hunrt the deer herd in areas of alabama with a december rut - this was the case even before the 3 buck limit - why would an extended, shorter deer season that includes all phases of the rut have an adverse biological affect 10 miles away? Do you consider the post rut part of "all parts" of the rut? If so, when would you think the post rut to occurs in south AL? Should hunters be able to hunt that period as well when the deer get back to a period when they can be patterned?
"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502 |
more small game hunting would occur in dec, especially duck and dove Yeah, right. Deer hunters already want small game hunters out of the picture from Oct. 15 to Jan. 31. They won't be encouraging small game hunters to enjoy the "split" because they'd be "making noise and stirring up all the bucks before the rut!" Sounds good in theory. But they don't do it now, and won't do it then. clem i guess every area is different - i don't know where you're located but in se al access and availability is not a problem when it comes to duck and dove hunting - timing is usually the issue - a lot of times it's hard to get a shoot together because so many are deer hunting - take deer hunting out of the equation for 3 weeks and you'll have much more duck and dove hunting down here - imo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130
Mildly Quirky
|
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130 |
I'm talking about squirrels and rabbits more than ducks and doves, but I get your point.
"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter
"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013
"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,869
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,869 |
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. Steve, a few days back I started a thread that simply asked for a biological reason as to why the season should be extended. After several pages of responses, would you care to guess at how many answers I got to my question? ZERO!!! It's kind of like talking to children while they are drooling at the window of the candy store. You can tell them the candy could rot their teeth out down the road but all they care about is the satisfaction of the here and now. They want what tastes good to them now, not what's healthy. Darn straight. I think they ought to shorten the season all around the state instead. 
"The only reason I shoot a 3.5" shell for turkeys is because they don't make a 4" one." - t123winters
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,655
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,655 |
Is Matt available to answer how the same changes, made in Mississippi, effected the herd?
Genesis 27:3
Acts 10:11-15
Hunt Long, Hunt Hard and Safe
NRA LIFE MEMBER
"Odocoileus Virginianus"-Mother Nature's original fast food
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180 |
Steve... It is my opinion that saying shifting the season so that there is a break in December and then the season will end in February will result in more bucks being killed and more mature bucks being killed is an overstatement. I realize that you said "could" to each of the social and biological issues but in your discussion you failed to include that the opposites "could" also occur. A few possiblilites are that 1) As hunters are able to hunt into February they will be more comfortable passing a marginal buck in late January as they will not percieve that the marginal buck may be their only chance at a "shooter" for the year. 2) Hunters who are now dissatisfied that they are not getting to hunt into February will be more likely to work at habitat improvement, improving age structure, and other management techniques if they feel like their investment is more likly to pay dividends.. As I am sure you are aware...humans are the most unpredictable animals. To almost any action involving human behavior, there are unintended and unpredicted consequences. To say that shifting the season later will result in a change in age structure or buck harvest is an overstatement unless there is research out there to provide confimation. If there is research on this situation, I'd be interested in reading it. It the research is there though...you probably would have left out the word "could".
Last edited by jlccoffee; 03/08/11 08:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180 |
more small game hunting would occur in dec, especially duck and dove Yeah, right. Deer hunters already want small game hunters out of the picture from Oct. 15 to Jan. 31. They won't be encouraging small game hunters to enjoy the "split" because they'd be "making noise and stirring up all the bucks before the rut!" Sounds good in theory. But they don't do it now, and won't do it then. A break is not a new idea. Georgia had a December break for years and we always hunted small game during that break. I also agree that there are a ton of dove shoots down here in southeast Alabama during deer season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,074
6 point
|
|
6 point
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,074 |
so that we don't end up overharvesting deer in Alabama. Really? We still have a three buck limit... Does man, does! What makes more deer? More days to harvest does, more does WILL be harvested, or should I say killed. Some one here get a bit testy when the word harvest is used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,074
6 point
|
|
6 point
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,074 |
It ain't about science or biology.
All of the incredibly important things our Legislature needs to be thinking about and they're diddling around with feeder permits and deer seasons.
Maybe one of them will have the guts and balls to publicly state that they have other things to take care of and the DCNR needs to handle these matters.
Now this is very true. It is a shame that the DNCR hasn't stepped up on these issues. A fetal survey should have been ordered years ago... Read this, http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/03/alabama_deer_study_leader_skep.htmlFetal surveys have been going on for a number of years, but obviuosly what people see or don't see in the woods should trump the biology. Also, as I recall there was a post on aldeer.com that showed average conception dates from fetal surveys done in NW Florida that did not support February conception dates, so apparently there is some isolated tiny sliver of south Alabama that has a totally separate species of whitetail deer that the biologist can't seem to locate, but warrants an extended season in February for rutting activity that can't be identified. Maybe you should re-read the florida reseach. As you can see, much of the Florida panhande just south of us had mean conception dates in feburary with one area as late as Feburary 17. You either don't understand or haven't read the research. The rutting activity is very well identified. http://www.myfwc.com/media/497717/Deer_MeanConceptionDates.pdf Uh yeah I've read it and gun season in the western panhandle runs through February 15, with muzzleloader and archery through February 28. The season was changed and new regions added as a result of the research so that hunters could hunt the rut in their respective regions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
To those who advocate setting seasons stricly for the biological benefit of wildlife:
What fundamental rights do animals have, if any, that the state has a duty to protect?
Are you, perhaps, a conservative animal rights advocate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Brock
Unregistered
|
|
Matt Brock
Unregistered
|
MS extended the season in only a few counties in the southeastern part of the state, which were biologically proven to have a later rut, extending into February. The season was extended to allow hunters the opportunity afforded by the rest of the state, to hunt the rut of course.
I can potentially see a couple of negatives. Neither of which I have ground to stand on right now. With last year's new regulations allowing primitive weapons on Novemebr 9 until the opening of regular gun season, and the extension into February I can argue the length of time guns are allowed could potentially over-exploit the buck segment of the population. And, south MS has a lower deer density and poorer habitat quality than the rest of the state. Combine those two together and I could see problems at some point.
The hunters sure haven't complained about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494 |
To those who advocate setting seasons stricly for the biological benefit of wildlife:
What fundamental rights do animals have, if any, that the state has a duty to protect?
Are you, perhaps, a conservative animal rights advocate? Seems like a good sound rational to meet the DCNR division of "Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries - The mission of the Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division is to manage, protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife and aquatic resources of Alabama for the sustainable benefit of the people of Alabama."
"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Have any of you guys ever done an internet search for "Animal Bill of Rights" or "Bill of Rights for Animals" to see if any of your ideas match up?
It's important to know where you stand on these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Fun4all,
"Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries - The mission of the Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division is to manage, protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife and aquatic resources of Alabama for the sustainable benefit of the people of Alabama."
That's not what the law says. I won't cut and paste it, but you should read what the law really defines as the functions and duties of the Department.
|
|
|
|
|
