|
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
|
|
|
8 members (JBray1985, Dekalb123, Okalona, sw1002, Morris, BigA47, Booner Hunter, 1 invisible),
1,398
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
May, 2007 3 Question Number One, is there a
4 need to limit the number of adult male
5 deer harvested in Alabama? We've done that. Now the questions remain: Why did we need to do it and what are the benefits we've gained from doing it? Maybe Joe Hamilton and Brian Murphy who wanted this can answer those questions at the QDMA convention this week. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375 |
49r. You can't determine if the reduced harvest numbers are due to the 3 buck limit or not. You have to factor in the number of hunters during the period as well. Find that data and get the ratios. I can only find up to 2008. From 2003 to 2008 the number of hunters dropped significantly thus reducing the harvest numbers. To be quite honest I'm not sure that the 3 buck limit has had any large impact on the numbers of deer shot/year. Bucks or does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212 |
I think reducing the number of bucks harvested was the goal to improve age structures statewide wasn't it? According to that graph, there is around 80,000 bucks moving to the next age class spread around, most being 1.5 I'm sure.
And probably increasing the doe harvest by default which around here would be a good thing although I think most folks still kill what does they want and stop when the freezer is full same as before the buck limits.
Tennessee saw the same effect I think and overall it has worked.
Until Alabama requires check stations and puts bodies at those check stations, you'll never know if it works, except through hunter observations which is what it is.
Last edited by AlabamaSwamper; 08/06/12 10:34 AM.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Sounds like you don't know the answers Josh. Does anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
I think reducing the number of bucks harvested was the goal to improve age structures statewide wasn't it?
And probably increasing the doe harvest by default which around here would be a good thing. If we didn't have any idea what the age structure was before, how are we supposed to know what it is now and how the restrictions have changed it? Doe harvest has decreased according to the reports. Isn't that a bad effect since you think it needs to increase?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,253 Likes: 2
12 point
|
|
12 point
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,253 Likes: 2 |
too many deer in general so doe harvest was increased.
Buck to doe ratio out of whack so buck harvest was limited.
results= smaller over all population with more bucks.
My eight year son could answer that
Next question
"And the days that I keep my gratitude
Higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days" Ray Wylie Hubbard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,713
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,713 |
9er, why don't you prove the basis of your "deer mgmt foundation" with valid studies? List them all out for everyone to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377 |
Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio. How is it fixing the unknown sex ratio if the effect is a decrease in the killing of members both sexes? How do we know the ratio needed to be fixed in the first place when the chairman of the committee stated he didn't know what the sex ratio was?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377 |
Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio. How is it fixing the unknown sex ratio if the effect is a decrease in the killing of members both sexes? How do we know the ratio needed to be fixed in the first place when the chairman of the committee stated he didn't know what the sex ratio was? Anybody could figure out with the limited doe harvest for years and the liberal buck limit that the sex ratio was out of wack, also all those properties across the state that the State was helping to manage would have provided enough data to know that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Anybody could figure out with the limited doe harvest for years and the liberal buck limit that the sex ratio was out of wack, also all those properties across the state that the State was helping to manage would have provided enough data to know that. We're not talking about "just figuring". These restrictions were said to be based on "sound biology" and have been given the force and effect of law. CAB Minutes, May, 2007 10 MR. HARBIN: What is the state
11 wide buck/doe ratio?
12 MR. DITCHKOFF: Couldn't tell
13 you.
14 MR. HARBIN: How long would it
15 take this extra -- it would be based
16 on the harvest. How long would it
17 take to catch up with the right -- I
18 guess how many does to a buck?
19 MR. DITCHKOFF: Well, it depends
20 on what the current situation is right
21 now. It depends the effect on, you
22 know, doe population. What happens to
23 doe harvest when you reduce buck
1 limits? It is a very difficult
2 question. It is not one that I can
3 really answer. I think it would be
4 improvement over time. How long does
5 it take to get there, I think that's
6 part of what the monitoring process
7 is.
8 One of the most difficult things
9 to do is actually evaluate what the
10 standard of deer is at any particular
11 time.
12 When you ask me what that is, I
13 think that's a question that would be
14 better directed towards those
15 individuals that manage the deer in
16 this state.
17 MR. HARBIN: How do we know
18 whether we are killing too many does
19 or not if you don't know what the
20 ratio is state wide? I mean, I know
21 it is different in different counties.
22 MR. DITCHKOFF: If you want to
23 properly manage deer on a piece of
1 property, what you need to do is take
2 a look at the condition of those deer
3 and you need to take a look at
4 actually what the condition of the
5 habitat is, whether or not it is being
6 overrun.
7 I honestly don't think you can
8 kill to many does on a piece of
9 property.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
coldtrail, *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post bucktrot, *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,676
Freak of Nature
|
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,676 |
Why can't people understand, we're just beginning to really learn about deer. Dr.D ,BSK, DR. Woods and others don't have all the answers, they do have more than most of us. It's a puzzle that some pieces change and will never be finished.
Can please some of the people all of the time,all of the people some of the time, and one NONE of the time.
Last edited by 2Dogs; 08/06/12 11:27 AM.
"Why do you ask"?
Always vote the slowest path to socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377 |
Anybody could figure out with the limited doe harvest for years and the liberal buck limit that the sex ratio was out of wack, also all those properties across the state that the State was helping to manage would have provided enough data to know that. We're not talking about "just figuring". These restrictions were said to be based on "sound biology" and have been given the force and effect of law. The data from all the properties across the state that the state helped manage would be considered sound biology right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
2dogs, *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375 |
Doe harvest limits were increased to try an improve the sex ratio and herd size( with the thoughts that with the increased doe harvest people would let more bucks walk). After realizing that the sex ratio was not getting any better due to people still shooting the same amount of bucks and the impact was a just a much smaller deer population with the same sex ratio so buck limits were put in to effect to try and fix the ratio. How is it fixing the unknown sex ratio if the effect is a decrease in the killing of members both sexes? How do we know the ratio needed to be fixed in the first place when the chairman of the committee stated he didn't know what the sex ratio was? 49r. Please show me you research that supports the reduction in harvest numbers is due to the 3 buck limits. The research I have done shows that the number of hunters is on the decline and that is the true reason we are seeing a decline in harvest numbers, both for does and bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,676
Freak of Nature
|
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 37,676 |
Play if you like guys......you can't win.
"Why do you ask"?
Always vote the slowest path to socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212 |
I don't think the limit had anything to do with ratios. I've seen way to many studies and such to convince me it was ever as bad as most think and I was as hardcore a 25:1 guy as anyone here a few years ago.
I think it had all to do with three things.
1: Better buck age structure which it has done obviously by reducing the buck harvest which was made up of 75% or whatever of yearlings.
2: To help by educate hunters (be default) that better buck age structures means better hunting and overall healthier deer. I think TN was a great model for them with this.
3: A growing percentage of deer hunters in the state wanted it and it making good biological sense, the state went forward unlike baiting/feeding and February seasons.
That is my opinion of why, which is all it is.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212 |
And to be honest, a 3 buck limit probably only affected about .05% of Alabama deer hunters anyway but with the points rule on one it's almost a 2 buck limit for a lot of folks.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
josh28, 49r. Please show me you research that supports the reduction in harvest numbers is due to the 3 buck limits.
The research I have done shows that the number of hunters is on the decline and that is the true reason we are seeing a decline in harvest numbers, both for does and bucks. Josh, I'm not pushing for restrictions that have the force and effect of law on you or anyone else. If I did, I would cetainly have the evidence you ask for supported by "sound biology". It doesn't really matter if fewer hunters are accomplishing the goal of the deer study committee. Since that goal has been reached, the real question is what benefits are we reaping from these restrictions on our right to hunt. It shouldn't be explained in terms of "figuring". It should be explained in terms of "sound biology".
|
|
|
|
|
