Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum State Wide Deer Harvest

Sometimes perception is different than reality…..Like the perception that Jackson Co is one of the top deer producing counties when its actually more like 20th in line or something. The only way I could see those numbers not being an accurate comparison to the other counties is if you had a significantly higher percentage of hunters not reporting their kills in those 3 counties as compared to the other 64……Keep in mind too that these numbers are county wide averages and nearly every county is gonna have variance within it. Just like Ron mentioned about Montgomery Co……Within the county you probably have the southern part hitting numbers around 100-110 closer in line with what you see in Bullock and Dalls counties while the middle to northern part of the county where it becomes the city probably ranges from 200-250+……The county wide average ends up being a 143……..Its very possible with those southwestern counties that you have higher populations around the river than what the county wide average is showing. As far as the data just being completely way far off wrong though in only those three counties I believe is not very likely to be the case.

Just a thought but what if our climate here in the deep south is more conducive for the spread of CWD and therefore we see a more rapid progression across this part of the country?? Those reduction numbers in the northwest corner are right in line with everything I'm reading on studies estimating the decline caused from CWD.....


https://wyofile.com/study-chronic-w..._rPX_KwGN58FTbDhvqD6YooMZkxoCwHcQAvD_BwE

Fellas, I hope I’m wrong about this but I do believe that change is eminent and on our door step whether we want it or not and no matter how much we do or don’t talk about it. The way I understand things CWD is not just gonna pass by in a wave and that be that…….It’s basically gonna be an additional form of mortality added onto each years kill numbers…..and it would appear that CWD is gonna take at a minimum of 10-15% and possibly as high as 25%.......Now, if this is true and we repeat the same cycle next year that we just had happen in the northwest corner this past season then we will quickly decimate the deer herd in the matter of a few years at this rate. You don’t have 5 years to develop a trend line at that reduction rate.

I don't know, but if our state followed what they are doing, they would eliminate the killing of doe's.

Hopefully they find a cure for it.

Unless they are right on the cusp of discovering one then I believe the time has come that we’re about to have to deal with having it here. I was jokingly thinking to myself that if we just had the bow hunting system in place from the other thread then we wouldn’t have to worry about all of this nearly as much…….which brought something more serious to my attention that may actually be a real factor to consider in what is about to happen…..and that is this……A lot of these other states that have been impacted by CWD up to this point DO have much different management systems in place than what we have here in Alabama. They may be able to absorb the impacts better than what we’re about to. We’re already talking about stressing the limits of the resource in many areas going into this CWD ordeal. Judging the impact by what other states have seen may not be apples to apples. Some hard choices are likely about to have to be made. The next five years should see some interesting discussions occur on here.

Look at the harvest rates for Wilcox, Bullock, and Dallas. Those 3 counties, have some of the best hunting in the state, for both quality and quantity of animals, and every processor in those counties is slap full do the gills every night with floors full of does and yearlings every day of the season, coincidentally have some of the lowest harvest rates. No, you can take that garbage and throw it in the trash. It's not worth the paper it is printed on.

I woldn't be surprised if they opened up the limits as a pre-emptive measure to be honest. I figure our lease will probably include language about mandatory testing for the upcoming season. It would be much easier if they could do it from the processor side of things, and pay them a fee to handle it. I can't see someone who kills a nice buck they want to mount going through all the trouble to submit a head for testing. I submitted 2 but didn't pull the jawbones. Then the last one I did, I pulled a jaw bone.

I think that is what the map conveys. The lower the number, the less acre's needed to kill a deer. At least that was how I read it. So for Bullock, 1 deer was killed for every 100 acre's of land in that county.

Low harvest numbers may or may not correlate to low deer densities. It might on the other hand corelate to higher deer densities due to trigger restraint. Stats can be manipulated to say whatever you want to get from them. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".

I think you’re reading it backwards. Those are the highest harvest rates…….In Bullock Co there is 1 deer killed for every 100 acres of land……In Wilcox there is 1 deer killed for every 150 acres of land……While still in the good zone Wilcox is a lower rate than Bullock. Marshall for example is one of the lowest and has a county average rate for 1 deer being killed for every 379 acres.

On the morning of 2/9, 1 of the larger processors in Camden had taken in 1970 deer for the season.. He expected to break 2000 (highest ever) by the season's end on following night. That entire game check system is garbage

Here's a number I would like to see. How many meat grinders and cubers have been purchased since the latest changes to chuckie check.

You just explained why it is completely worthless. If you are doing a analysis of harvest availability and quality of hunting, each county with significant metropolitan areas, has to have those "city encompassed' acreages removed from the calculations. Most hunting and serious deer killing is done outside the city limits. Just some more worthless data provided by the state. How hard would it be, using GIS, to remove the acreage associated with any city with a population of more than say 5,000 people from the equation. It would be very easy and then it would tell the real story. The reason that Bullock, Wilcox and Dallas are so high is because 90-95% of the land in those counties is 100% rural and huntable. Hell, look at Mobile county. 60% of the total acreage for Mobile County is not even remotely huntable as it is all urban sprawl from Mobile Bay over to the MS line and north to at least Saraland. Almost everything from west of hwy 43 to the river is owned by large corporations and not huntable until you get above Mcintosh. You take that acreage out of the equation and Mobile County's number drops below 150 which is more in line with the rest of the state. As Ron said, Montgomery county is the same way, take the city of Montgomery and surrounding areas out of the equation and the data looks the exact opposite of what it reported. I stand by my claim it is garbage.

I completely agree with you on some of that and I have a very thorough understanding of what things truly look like on the ground around Montgomery Co as well as many of the surrounding ones. You’d actually be surprised at how small the “void” area is for Montgomery Co…..I’ve been called out to track deer for folks in some crazy places. Same goes for Auburn….The city isn’t a complete void area though it will effect the numbers some and should be taken into consideration.

You’re exactly right though in that there is a good amount of variation happening within each county and it shows that the Game Check system has limits on the amount of detail to what it can currently show. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it complete garbage……It’s a very good generalized comparison of each counties output and it also shows sudden changes in kill numbers very well which is really the more concerning part about this current discussion.

I also agree with this. The only reason to use it is if you take your deer to a processor or are worried the game warden will stop you. It was the same before when you had to write down buck kills on your license. Fill it up and then go print a new one and start over.

While most law abiding citizens follow the rules, there are plenty out there that don't.

Sudden change it kill numbers?? Come on CNC. You bother to think that the decrease in kill numbers from last season to this season is almost entirely based upon the fact that most everyone was either not working, working from home, or conveniently out on multiple times during the season for two weeks of "Covid quarantine" vacation, and the truth of the matter is that on average, there were probably 50% more man days spent in the woods last season versus this season. Once again, not worth the paper it is printed on. And this is without even bringing up the lackluster/minimal participation and tens 10's of thousands, maybe even 100,000 deer that are never put into Chuckie check because people simply refuse to participate. It's garbage and statistically irrelevant for any type of analytical use.

Even IF the data is 100% accurate. And all the assumptions and correlations are correct. 2 years of data is not enough to make any conclusions. Come back in about 10 years.

For every 10 Hunters I personally know , I'd say only half of them game check their Kills.. Most are taking beyond the 3 buck limit..

Like I said….If what I see in the numbers and all of this is correct, whether you believe it or not wont really matter in another few years because the reality will be apparent. Choose to bury your head in the sand if you want to.

Add to that list. Crappy weather for much of the season especially the early to mid part. Where I hunt prime time to be in the woods is Christmas to new year and that is also when people are off work to go hunting. That was also the worst hunting weather of the entire season. There will be season to season fluctuations. MANY factors can contribute to this. Making the assumption that one year drop in deer killed is due to any one thing, is ridiculous. One season does not make a trend.