|
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
|
|
|
68 members (bambam32, Ray_Coon, !shiloh!, courseup, mathews prostaff, Tall Dog, Showout, TurkeyJoe, Pwyse, Daveleeal, S_Dubs, Geeb, Jay512, THIS_BUCKHUNTER, Raspy, Beer Belly, BuckSpear, m97, Ridge Life, oakachoy, rkt, BrentsFX4, Skullworks, IMISSALDEER, wk2hnt, jtillery, NotsoBright, booner, RockFarmer, Irishguy, PossumPecker, gobblebox, PikeRoadHunter, GomerPyle, Mbrock, ultratec00, Bronco 74, Cynical, 7x57_Mauser, hippi, Tracker, johnnyj, TEM, dagwood, Chaser357, UA Hunter, Fattyfireplug, Carp54, Red Fox, ImThere, rrice0725, Canterberry, 4Tigers, AU338MAG, Floorman1, CreekCrosser, M48scout, Bowfish, HappyHunter, mopar, tmhrmh1, SC53, 6 invisible),
929
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,869
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,869 |
You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now? Please post your research findings that support this theory. Thanks.
"The only reason I shoot a 3.5" shell for turkeys is because they don't make a 4" one." - t123winters
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130
Mildly Quirky
|
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130 |
"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: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
You don't think it had an adverse effect on the 27 percent of hunters who you say don't hunt now? Please post your research findings that support this theory. Thanks. Are you asking me or Josh? Do you know the difference in a question and a theory?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,689
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,689 |
Josh, Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit" I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state. If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions. Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics. Well if all we lost were dog hunters than we are better off anyway.  I disagree.
"Any way you look at it, most of the problems facing baboons can be expressed in two words: other baboons" -
D.L. Cheney and R.M. Seyfarth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Clem, *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130
Mildly Quirky
|
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,130 |
Get over it. Just because you're ignoring people does NOT mean they have to quit posting on your threads.
"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: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,377 |
Josh, Deer hunter numbers nationwide are on the decrease. Economy is a big contributor to this. You cannot prove that is the reason for the 27% drop and honestly if someone decides to quit hunting because they can only kill 3 bucks instead of 5,10,15 then we as hunters should be better off without them. If someone really quit for that reason then they are either uneducated or childish. "I can't have it my way so I quit" I don't know if you followed the buck limit/antler restriction controversy thru the CAB meetings during 2004-2007 or not. If you did, you would understand that qdm was having a parallel adverse affect on hunting that probably is reflected in the significant decrease in the number of hunters in our state. If you really want to understand what took place, go back and read the minutes from 2004 thru 2007. You will find that the dog hunting issue was being debated before a pro-qdm Advisory Board along with the qdm restrictions. Many of the complainers were qdm'ers who hated dog hunters and worked as hard to get dog hunting banned as they did to get their buck limits/antler restrictions. Dirty linen is hard to sort out sometimes, and there's plenty of it in Alabama's hunting politics. Well if all we lost were dog hunters than we are better off anyway. I disagree. Thats cool we all can not agree on everything. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
wmd,
I think you may see the intolerant attitude I have been referring to.
It's dividing our state's hunters and making us vulnerable to attacks from all sorts of other anti-hunting groups... not just QDMA, AWF and ALFA, but some that want to destroy our right to hunt with one blow instead of a little bit at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375 |
Here are the numbers going back to 1985. I added trend lines to make it easier. As you can see the total number of hunters has been trending downward since 1999 (not just since the dog hunting and 3 buck limit issues). Total number of deer killed has been trending down since 2003-2004. Total number of bucks killed per hunter has been trending down since 2000 (again not since the 3 buck limit although there was a decrease that year. The doe harvest peaked in 2005-2006 but look at the trend BEFORE QDM became more prevalent. 49r this goes completely against what you have said about QDM being about shooting every doe. If that was the case you would have seen a HUGE increase in 2008. I also found it interesting that the larger drops in harvest numbers coincided with the economic issues that have effected 90% of us. Did the 3 buck limit affect buck harvest per person? YES but I believe economic conditions played a part as well. Since 2008 the trend on buck harvest is moving back up so the next two years will tell us if it has had a long term impact on shooting bucks in general. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 5,254
12 point
|
|
12 point
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 5,254 |
Get over it. Just because you're ignoring people does NOT mean they have to quit posting on your threads.
I find it hilarious  He asks a question then continues to post Quote: *** You are ignoring this user *** Toggle the display of this post everytime someone he "doesn't like" posts something! Everyone on his ignore list: post as much as possible on his threads! His replys will look like this: coldtrail, *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post I swear I think he's 8
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,028
6 point
|
|
6 point
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,028 |
49er,
Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly because I believe I agree with you. Decisions to limit the amount of bucks killed per hunter was made to provide for a healthier herd ie, age structure and buck/doe ratio etc. etc. and the state could not provide any sound scientific data that it even knew what the age structure and buck/doe ratios were.
I agree, how can a department impose regulations to achieve their so called goal and they have no idea what their starting point is.
It's not the strongest species to survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Swamper, I guess I understood this wrong then because it sounds like Dan agrees with me. If the ratio was as skewed as some would think, there would be no bucks left in February which is obviously not true. Again, I don't think ratios played a part or they shouldn't have anyway. Follow what I said carefully. You will see that Dan Moultrie was discounting the theories presented earlier in the meeting that our sex ratios were badly skewed on the side of does. His calculations revealed that even a 4:1 ratio would have been impossible to exist at the time because we were killing more bucks than was mathematically possible with a 4:1 ratio. Earlier discussions in the meeting had defininately included buck/doe ratios as one of the factors to be addressed by the proposed buck restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
49er,
Let me make sure I am understanding you correctly because I believe I agree with you. Decisions to limit the amount of bucks killed per hunter was made to provide for a healthier herd ie, age structure and buck/doe ratio etc. etc. and the state could not provide any sound scientific data that it even knew what the age structure and buck/doe ratios were.
I agree, how can a department impose regulations to achieve their so called goal and they have no idea what their starting point is. You are understanding me correctly. Neither the deer study committee nor the leaders of the WFF Div. could provide that information. The WFF leaders did not want the restrictions. Review the minutes of the May, 2007 CAB meeting, and you will see that neither Steve Ditchkoff or Gary Moody could tell the board members what the estimated buck/doe ratio or male age structure was at the time of the meeting when they were asked. page 60
10 MR. HARBIN: What is the state
11 wide buck/doe ratio?
12 MR. DITCHKOFF: Couldn't tell
13 you.
page 61
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the
6 current buck/doe ratio estimate in the
7 entire state of Alabama?
8 MR. MOODY: We do not know.
Age structure: page 58
13 DR. STRICKLAND: One other
14 question. Let's say that the buck
15 limit is passed, how many years do you
16 think it would take to see a change in
17 the age structure, buck to doe ratio
18 in the state of Alabama? Is that a --
19 MR. DITCHKOFF: Data out of
20 Arkansas has indicated that when you
21 protect an age class of deer, when you
22 protect one-half-year old bucks,
23 essentially what you do is you move
1 that harvest to two and a half year
2 olds. ...
...13 DR. STRICKLAND: You feel within
14 five years you would definitely see a
15 big improvement?
16 A. I would hope so. But remember
17 once again that depends on how you
18 measure improvement. There are
19 multiple things. One, is there are
20 biological benefits. Two, there is
21 the age structure and the positive
22 dynamics within the state which is
23 very difficult to evaluate, very
1 difficult to evaluate ... [no answer given about Alabama's current age structure] The meeting was long and it takes time, but here's the link if you want to read it for yourself: Minutes May, 2007 Here's part of what Gary Mood said: page 73 6 I don't agree that we need to
7 make a decision that said we are going
8 have a three-buck limit when in fact
9 we don't know that that's going to
10 reduce the harvest, and we don't have
11 a harvest figure that we are shooting
12 for. There is not a target. Until we
13 have a target and somebody has been
14 able to biologically say this is the
15 figure that we are shooting for, and
16 for these reason and we can tell the
17 hunters of the state what benefits
18 they are going to get by doing that,
19 you know, we are not going to be -- I
20 don't think it is the thing to do,
21 plus just having a limit does not in
22 any way alter age structure. It's
23 just too complicated to say that we
0136
1 are going to have a three-buck limit
2 and all of sudden we are going to see
3 all these deer in an older age
4 category. That is not going to be the
5 case. Gary Moody was right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,255 Likes: 2
12 point
|
|
12 point
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,255 Likes: 2 |
Guys, he already has his opinion made up. Then he tries to set everyone up on what he What he wants to argue about so he can declare himself the winner. I've seen a lot of children do the same thing. One of ya'll can quote all of us he has ignored so he he see our very important opinions. He doesn't like anyone that wins a point against him.
"And the days that I keep my gratitude
Higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days" Ray Wylie Hubbard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,212 |
Swamper, I guess I understood this wrong then because it sounds like Dan agrees with me. If the ratio was as skewed as some would think, there would be no bucks left in February which is obviously not true. Again, I don't think ratios played a part or they shouldn't have anyway. Follow what I said carefully. You will see that Dan Moultrie was discounting the theories presented earlier in the meeting that our sex ratios were badly skewed on the side of does. His calculations revealed that even a 4:1 ratio would have been impossible to exist at the time because we were killing more bucks than was mathematically possible with a 4:1 ratio. Earlier discussions in the meeting had defininately included buck/doe ratios as one of the factors to be addressed by the proposed buck restrictions. Good for Dan. Either way he voted. I don't think ratios should have ever been part of the equation inmho for what it is worth.
BTR Scorer in NW Alabama
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,713
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,713 |
9er, you say the three buck limit has divided up Alabama's hunters. Well, the group of killers you've aligned yourself with is a dying breed. You hate it but conservation, game mgmt, consideration, restraint, discipline, preservation, diversified and broad-based hunting enjoyment (taking pride in the entire aspect of game mgmt and hunting), etc... is gaining momentum.
The hunter who brags that he killed 8-10 bucks last year is now looked upon as a greedy idiot and the hunter who states that he passed up several immature bucks and killed one or two good mature bucks is looked upon with respect. And oh, that same man let his young son shoot a 2.5 yr old 8 pt and celebrated it! But he's slowly starting to teach his young son about conservation and trigger restraint and deer mgmt! And about habitat enhancement and about farming and soil and what he can do individually to make things better for the next generation!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180 |
9er, you say the three buck limit has divided up Alabama's hunters. Well, the group of killers you've aligned yourself with is a dying breed. You hate it but conservation, game mgmt, consideration, restraint, discipline, preservation, diversified and broad-based hunting enjoyment (taking pride in the entire aspect of game mgmt and hunting), etc... is gaining momentum.
The hunter who brags that he killed 8-10 bucks last year is now looked upon as an greedy idiot and the hunter who states that he passed up several immature bucks and killed one or two good mature bucks is looked upon with respect. And oh, that same man let his young son shoot a 2.5 yr old 8 pt and celebrated it! But he's slowly starting to teach his young son about conservation and trigger restraint and deer mgmt! And about habitat enhancement and about farming and soil and what he can do individually to make things better for the next generation! Once again...I haven't seen 49er say anything about killing all the deer. He says it should be site specific. I don't know why you keep saying such nonsense. Secondly, what you just said about management and trigger restraint is exactly what I have been saying and 49er too. All that was taking place before a 3 buck limit and is continuing now. All the limit did was place an arbitrary limit that is too much for some instances and too little for others. What you just said is exactly why a 3 buck limit was not and is not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180 |
Well, the group of killers you've aligned yourself with is a dying breed. I can't understand why you keep saying this. QDM is supposed to be about site specific management decisions. 49er is simply asking for maximum freedom to make those decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,375 |
The perception though is that anyone who is against the 3 buck limit were the same ones that shot 10 bucks a year. Just out of curiosity jlccoffee how many did you kill before the 3 buck limit was put into place. I haven't killed 10 bucks in the past 10 years, never had an opportunity to shoot more than one good buck per year either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,180 |
The most I ever killed in Alabama in one year was 3 and I only did that one year. Most years I kill one or two here and maybe one in Georgia.
|
|
|
|
|
