Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk ALTurkey Talk -- Beards and Spurs Regulations and changes in hunting culture

Regulations on private land do almost nothing to help residents. When a club opening is posted those residents CAN fill it but they don’t! Theres no favoritism to Non residents on clubs and leases, in fact if two call about the membership (1 res and 1 non) I bet most clubs would FAVOR the resident. It’s very simple fact that most residents can’t or don’t feel paying the fees are worth it!

You can try and “think” the dues will come down but they won’t, the memberships at best will just increase per acre (also harming residents) or the clubs could lose the ability to pay for the lease.

I’d be careful what’s wished for there as again it’s very short thinking.

Also, I just got on instagram for business purposes. I’ve never seen so many people proud to kill a Jake. If I shot a jake there ain’t no way I’m posting it and bragging.

On the banning of filming, would that just be for Turkey hunting? Lots of people film and post activities on public lands. From hiking to camping to fishing to bird watching.

What about the large number of people that own significant acreage in Alabama, but for work or family purposes, have to live in other states. They own the land, pay the same taxes on it that every other Alabama resident does, yet still have to have an out of state license. You gonna limit them to 1 bird per year? My neighbor owns 1600 acres that he grew up on, that was willed to him by his parents. He lives in and runs a big insurance business in GA and because that is where he is homesteaded, he is considered a non-resident. I'm not for the state taking away or limiting the hunting rights of any private landowner in the state. If they want to do that on public, fine, but if you own the property, I dont even think that a non-resident license should be required.

One other thing I just looked up. Out of state hunters contribute $11.5 million in out of state licenses annually. If the 315,000 in state hunters all bought licenses (laughable I know) that's only $11 million in resident license sales. Add in all the additional revenue that the out of state hunters bring with them for lodging, leasing, food, etc and they contribute way more to Alabama wildlife than the resident hunters do. They also seem to follow the rules better in my experience. Ive run a lot of big clubs over the years and I'll take out of state members over resident members all day, everyday. Lot less problems and they seem to care more about the wildlife and experience.

Well #1's just silly and asking for more government over-reach on our hunting heritage is crazy. If they were to do something that silly they should shut down ALL NFS lands/Federal lands to EVERYONE incuding AL Residents until the non-res can hunt too. If ya want rules like those listed buy your own land. Silly rules made by hunters against hunters is no better than the anti-hunters BS.

Right on. Idaho and MT make a killing off non-res hunters

Ray Coon’s #1 in his post is a valid point. Yours on the other hand is silly. You can come and enjoy the public land, but you’ll be limited hunting wise as a nonresident. You know, just like about every State out West does it.

Guys, I don’t know the answers. I was just trying to get a discussion going since the season is over. My points were targeting public land more than anything else. I think that public is where it starts.

Not sure how you came up with that nonsense but there are NO STATES banning non-residents from hunting public land. That's probably the dumbest chit I've ever heard of lol. If there are any, please enlighten me... There's a big difference in limited non-res tags and actually banning people from "public land". BTW, I don't need to come hunt the public land in AL, I hunt private land in Marengo, Washington, and Monroe county when I visit

If you can't get drawn to hunt, then you ARE banned from legally hunting.

[/quote]GEEB
If you can't get drawn to hunt, then you ARE banned from legally hunting.[/quote]

Anyone using common sense would know there's a difference in the two. If Alabama did a drawing for tags and an individual failed to draw it would be a different story. Either way it's really not an issue since the state wouldn't do something so ignorant lol.
It's about as dumb as saying charge all Alabama hunters extra when they apply for out of state hunts so I'm surprised individuals that do hunt out of state would promote something like that. Hunters against hunters are just as bad as the anti-hunters!

Alabama already limits opportunities to residents on public land. Just look at the SOA's. I think it enhances the experience for those lucky enough to draw.

This is not going to be a popular statement and it might be one of the most unpopular statements on here. The state has no constitutional obligation to provide, nor has it enshrined any legal requirements to use tax dollars to provide public land for the citizens to hunt or fish on. With the way big govt is today, those of you using the WMA's and state provided resources should probably just be happy to have what you have. Many states have produced and legally enshrined the "right to hunt and fish" within their state constitutions, but none to my knowledge, have in any way legally provided for a state to have an "obligation" to provide land upon which to do either. Everyone complains about welfare; free housing, free medical, free phones and free food, I guess providing public land for hunting is like recreational welfare for those that don't want to have to spend their own money owning or leasing a privately owned place to hunt.

That is spot on, abolt.

Exactly and I guarantee you 99% of the hunters in Alabama and every other state have ever heard of the Robertson Pittman act. Most don’t know that the federal government subsidizes state fish, and wildlife budgets for conservation and other Hunter perks. That’s why I thought it was really funny people were agree with banning other hunters. Like I said in a previous post if they banned non-resident hunters they should shut down all federal lands, including core of engineer, national Forest, etc... It’s not rocket science.

The people of Alabama voted overwhelmingly for the FW act that took a share of the oil and gas royalties and used it to buy land for the public to use, and hunting is one of the uses of those lands. I'm not sure how spelled out the right to hunt was in the legal documents, but hunting was used as a reason to get the people to vote for it. As far as I know, hunting has always been allowed on the national forests, with a few exceptions for various reasons. It would be outrageous imo for the government to take away the right of the public to use public lands.

Most of the WMA and SOA land was already public, and the primary thing I've seen the dcnr doing with it lately is just restricting access. Sykes had a hatred of the public and even said that some of the SOA land was just too good to allow the public to use. That really rubbed me the wrong way and I truly hope the new guy has a different attitude.

I don't see the right of citizens to use public lands as being anything close to welfare. Alabama doesn't have nearly as much as some states, but I'm glad there are still places where anyone can go and enjoy the outdoors.

Imo, a turkey has no match for cell cameras and decoys.

There’s a lot of “public land” around here you aren’t supposed to hunt on.

I found kinterbish wma about 2 and 2/3 years before it was closed. It was somewhere around 3000-3300 acres then best i remember. Years before i ever discovered it - it was like 40,000 acres. My stupid butt put in incredible man hours that 1st year feeling like i had walked 10,000 miles. I got to where i was tagging out on the “bish”

The little morsel that was left that my dumb but thought i could hunt forever was yanked out from us! No more kinterbish wma! At least you got a place if you do hav a WMA
I will never get the Bish back and i still good enough to stackem up like cord wood if i did

Damn right!!