Members of the Alabama Legislative CouncilMembers of the Advisory Board of ConservationCommissioner of the Department of Conservation and Natural ResourcesDepartment Leaders:

Isn’t it time to admit your current 3 buck limit/antler restriction for antlered deer is based purely on political purposes and not biological?  You have shared no credibleproof that your goals have been successfully accomplished with your 98 percent reduction in the bag limits of antlered deer with an added antler restriction.

Code of Alabama 1975Section 9-2-2Powers and duties generally.The general functions and duties of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources shall be as follows:(1) To protect, conserve, and increase the wildlife of the state and to administer all laws relating to wildlife and the protection, conservation, and increase thereof.

Constitution of Alabama 1901AMENDMENT 597 RATIFIEDSportsperson's Bill of Rights.(a) All persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with law and regulations.(b) This amendment shall be known as the "Sportsperson's Bill of Rights."

" …State action that limits a fundamental right is generally subject to strict scrutiny. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 80, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988) ("[C]lassifications affecting fundamental rights ... are given the most exacting scrutiny."); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) ("It is enough to say that the classification involved... was subjected to strict scrutiny under the compelling state interest test... because it impinged upon the fundamental right of interstate movement."). Strict scrutiny generally requires that the state show a compelling interest, advanced by the least restrictive means. As the United States Supreme Court said in the context of the First Amendment: "The Government may, however, [limit a fundamental right] in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. . . . It is not enough to show that the Government's ends are compelling; the means must be carefully tailored to achieve those ends." Sable Commc'ns of California, Inc.

v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989).

The nature of a compelling interest varies based on the circumstances, but it is a very stringent standard; as the United States Supreme Court said in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972): "The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to" a fundamental right. 406 U.S. at 215, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (emphasis added). Therefore, "we must searchingly examine the interests the state seeks to promote." 406 U.S. at 221, 92 S.Ct. 1526..."

Ex parte ERG, 73 So. 3d 634 - Ala: Supreme Court 2011

The spokesperson for your “deer study committee” that recommended the drastic reduction and restriction in the subject bag limit made the following remarks in themeeting before the limits were recommended for approval:

Dr. Steve Ditchkoff deer study committee spokesman, (after recommending 3 buck limit/antler restrictions):

CAB MeetingMay, 2007

Page 60-6122 MR. DITCHKOFF: If you want to23 properly manage deer on a piece of1 property, what you need to do is take2 a look at the condition of those deer3 and you need to take a look at4 actually what the condition of the5 habitat is, whether or not it is being6 overrun.7 I honestly don't think you can8 kill too many does on a piece of9 property.

Since those remarks were made, you have reduced the unantlered deer bag limits by at least 50 percent statewide.The recommendations of the “deer study  committee” were approved over the objections of Department leaders in the

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division of the Department at the time.  Dr. Ditchkoff went on to add:

[ pp. 76-77 Minutes of the CAB Meeting, May, 2007 ]

21 MR. DITCHKOFF: ...

8 Alabama's estimate is currently9 1.8 million. Not to take anything10 away from the number that was just put11 out, they are put in a difficult12 position where they are asked how many13 deer are in the state? What is the14 sex ratio? And they are forced to say15 this is how many deer there are16 because that's their job. I'm going17 to say right now that every state does18 that and every state is essentially19 making up a number. There is no valid 20 way currently to estimate the number21 of deer on a piece of property, piece22 of real estate like we are talking.23 We are struggling to be able to do it1 on 9,000 acres. We are having to do2 it state wide.3 So we are really dealing with4 numbers here, talking about sex5 ratios, talking about hunting and6 harvest. We don't -- need to harvest7 there is not a basis to begin with. I8 know this kind of throws a whole curve9 ball at the committee because you want10 to simplify this process, but we need11 200,000 or 300,000. There is no basis12 to start.13 Even if we do have a number,14 there is no way to estimate what15 carrying capacity is, so you don't16 know where your goal, where are you17 trying to shoot for. It's just not18 that simple.19 I don't know how to put it in20 more clear terms.

After 8 complete hunting seasons with no formal reports of any “compelling state interest” as defined by law being accomplished by your restrictions, I call for them to be repealed.All of you took an oath to support our constitutions, and you should honor your oath to preserve and protect the rights of the citizens you serve that are enumerated in our constitutions.

If you wish to promote wildlife management, do it within the limits of our constitutions and your authority delegated to you by state law.  The current Deer Management Assistance Program fits perfectly within those limits, and it should be promoted and expanded.  Statewide seasons and bag limits should never be set for purposes other than those defined by law.