When I look at hunter density we are much closer to PA and MN. It is no wonder KY has big bucks - they have like 7-8 hunters per sq mile - where we have have closer to 14-15 hunters per sq mile. PA is like 17 and MN and NY are like 13 hunters. PA and NY finally showed improvement with AR's. I just finished reading an article written by WV's own DR. Dave stating that one and done did not work in PA because of hunter density - well we are in double digit figures with them instead of single digit like KY.
I have read several articles now that pretty much state that a 1 buck limit does nothing to improve the deer herd with such a high number of hunters.
Then you have states such as WI, MO, IA, and Il that have multiple buck limits and have bigger bucks.
The other reason is most of their bowhunters don't even bothering picking up their bow unless it's a 130 or better.
I'm not saying that's the only thing but that are a few things that has to be taken into consideration.
I may be wrong but I think PA started giving out more doe tags also which probably helped some also.
Every state is different and what works in one may not work in another and visa-versa . But what, at least is clear to me is what we are doing now is not working and changes need to occur in some fashion .
The last time our buck kill was around 37,000 was back in the mid 80's, and I think at that time 1 buck or 1 doe was allowed with a bow, 1 buck with a rifle, and doe tags were by application only in a handful of counties like Hardy and Hampsshire. There were no RB, RRB , or multiple N tags available.
However, if you could get a petition with 50,000 signatures they would almost be obligated to at least consider it.
[February 11, 2014 By Dr. Dave Samuel
Andy M. from Indiana writes to ask about one buck limits. “Since we implemented a one buck rule in Indiana, the quality of our buck hunting has improved dramatically. Will this rule do the same in other states, and why don’t more states implement a one buck rule?”
Dr. Dave Samuel Good questions, Andy. Let’s tackle the first question. One buck rules work in some states, but not in others. Take Pennsylvania for example. They’ve always had a one buck rule, but quality bucks were/are hard to find. That’s because they have many hunters and killed around 90 percent of all harvestable bucks every fall. That didn’t leave many bucks to mature.
So, the number of hunters is an issue. When Pennsylvania implemented antler restrictions, the mature buck harvest increased significantly, and the smile on most hunters’ faces also increased. Minnesota has 500,000 hunters and a one buck rule, but with that many hunters, around 70 percent of their buck kill is yearlings. Kentucky is another state with a one buck rule and it is working really well to improve buck quality.
States with very long hunting seasons will also have trouble improving buck quality.]
Again when you look at hunter numbers and size of state Wv numbers are much closer to PA than KY- so again I ask why do we want to follow KY completely?
Quite a few think we should go to just one and done - because we will be exactly like KY and OH - but hunter density makes the difference and when you look at the numbers we resemble PA more than we are like KY.
So yes lets just implement one and done for several years and see no results instead of being creative and do something that will really work.
I think if we need to start decreasing the deer kill lets do it first with controlling the number of non-resident hunters. I cannot prove this but I would think the non-resident hunters would be ones who are better(more Successful hunters) and would have a high success rate.
Then trim down some of antlerless season time and establish a crossbow license (short season or with muzzleloader) - gobbler has informed us how we get more money from the feds by increasing license sales.
Then before placing this next step in to place - educate our state how implementing a landowner tag fee would get us more funding from Fed's. Make it as minimal as you can but still be able to get the funds. then have that money go into a special account for deer management or something. LOL Gobbler you finally convince me on a small fee for the landowner. My only doubt about this is how many landowners still buy a license? I know I do - I checked both deer in so far this year as landowner but I have a lifetime license and still buy the RB tags, so i doubt that I would end up buying a landowner tag since I have a license.
Another thing would be to forget bow hunting in September when it is too darn hot and extend it a week into January and have a 1 day doe rifle season or a 5 day turkey season the first week of January - the reason for this is would be to get a majority of hunters to buy licenses the first of the year instead of waiting until September or October to buy license. Get the money in and maybe invest some of it or something - I have always heard the majority of licenses are sold in the Fall. So you would be getting a majority of the funds 9 months earlier than before.
There are creative ways to get funding that are pretty darn easy.
And all I say is lets have something that is well thought out before implementing 1 and done. Lets consider everything - health of herd being number 1, but you also have to look at economics, hunting opportunity, and how many resident hunters will go to other states for second buck instead of doe hunting... I think 1 and done would have terrible effects for us - that is my major concern about it and not because I am selfish and want to shoot 3 spikes....
Another thing people always talk about Ohio dnr comparison well Ohio has crossbows in archery season. So why would you not want it in archery season here also. I mean it must work fine because there bucks are much bigger than ours. That's what I always hear anyway.
Their is no way that going from three to two or one will not be beneficial. Your argument that we have too many hunters to support a one buck limit fails when we have the same amount of hunters supporting a three buck limit via populations. If three bucks a year doesn't eliminate bucks how will a one buck limit do that? How will a one or two buck limit not protect bucks?
gobbler's Link
Look at Wisconsin, it has a higher amount of hunters than WV, and unless I'm wrong it pumps out more P&Y and B&C bucks than any other state.
Sunday - I am just stating what some of the professionals say about 1 and done - it does not work in areas with high number of hunters by itself. So why say my argument fails when the pro's say that is what happens. And yes most of the time most of the one and doners use OH, KY or IN as your reason why we should switch to one and done - and you throw out other factors. You one and doners need to stop going with your emotions and look at the whole picture.
And again you explain to me why one and done did not work in PA or MN? We are a little state with a lot of hunters - more needs to be done instead of just a one buck limit.
I have heard on here and others forums about how hunters from KY or OH laugh at WV or TN but yet they come here to kill more deer - so put us in a one buck limit and now we have hunters who instead of spending money and time here will go to another state. I read an article about 1 and done limit in MN has almost crippled some businesses there - can you guarantee the same won't happen here??????
There has got to be an equation where limiting buck kill (maybe it is 2 and maybe it is 1), AR's - maybe throw a few sanctuary areas or bow only areas into the mix and we would all be happy - just don't tell me that 1 and done will most certainly work in WV - when one and done has been proven not to work in some areas.
You know I always hear from the common denominator is limit the number of buck tags per hunter - maybe the common denominator is to limit the number of hunters if you want to have bigger bucks and a healthier herd.
In regards one and done, we will never know if we don't try. It worked in some states and not others, but we will never if we don't start somewhere. I really don't care if we start with AR or #'s. But we can not keep going at this rate.
gobbler's Link
It looks like PA has twice the amount of hunters that WV has.
It dosen't give an exact # for KY other than 5-8. If it's 5 then we have twice the #, if it's 8, then it's not too far behind us.
gobbler's Link
KY has 7 WV has 10.3 PA has 20.5
It looks to me like WV is closer to KY than it is to PA, so at least in my mind a 1 buck limit would come closer to looking like what it did for KY, than what it did in PA?
Maybe you can answer this Gobbler because I do not know - does the number of hunters in WV include landowners? Because I believe PA does when I have looked at license sales for PA and they have a landowner's fee in there - and I have no idea about KY numbers....
I don't believe WV has any idea how many people hunt on landowner tags. The only thing they could know is based on the number of SUCCESSFUL landowners that checked deer as a landowner, but it gives no idea on the number of UNSUCCESSFUL landowners.
I do think that in some states like KY and IOWA the APR sort of takes care of itself after a while. Why would someone shoot a 4 point when their neighbors are killing 130-150 bucks?
Right now, I think APR and a 1 buck limit are not on the table to be discussed, unless we could come up with a petition of over 50,000 people.
I do think a 2 buck limit is definately obtainable if we can get 5-10 thousand petition signatures and 25-30 people at the Commission meeting asking for it.
Will we have 150 bucks overnight? No, but I think it is a good start. I think it will save some bucks. People will start being a little more reluctant to shoot the first buck they see.
Also, and perhaps more important it will show to the hunters that the DNR and Commission are listening to us and that it isn't just about the money. If the sportsmen see that they are working with us, then more sportsmen will buy into the philosophy that buck management is more about us-us-us rather than about me-me-me.
As a sports analogy, the best and most successful teams play as a TEAM and the teams that have players that only think of themselves and nobody else on the team usually don't do as well.
For the record, I am in favor of a two buck limit with an apr on a second buck as a compromise. In a perfect world I would want a one buck with an apr. However, to appease the majority of people, my feeling is two bucks with an apr. I think it works the best for the most amount of hunters.
For the record, I can tell you that many no votes for SUnday hunting participated in SUnday hunting this fall. They found out that the sky wasn't falling and it was of benefit to them.
I firmly believe the same would happen with better buck management.
On an internet board it is too easy to know/assume what others are thinking.
JayD, one and done would make a major difference in WV. Your argument is that a buck un-killed by a previously successful hunter will be killed by another previously unsuccessful hunter. If that argument were true, then ALL legal bucks in WV would be killed every year....there would never be any carryover....330,000 (number the DNR uses) hunters would kill 3 bucks....or at least up to the point that the last buck standing was killed.
One and done would have tremendous impact....almost immediately (meaning 1 year). Much the same way that most of us are looking forward to next year because of the reduced buck kill this year.
Buck harvest during gun season in 2013 was 56,523 with a three buck limit in place. Do you believe that the same amount of bucks would have been killed in 2013 if one buck limit was in place? I got to believe it would have been significantly less.
I understand you are pointing to some states' history with one and done and saying it didn't work. What is the definition of it not working? Is the definition that these states weren't in the top 10 B&C producing states within 5 years?...Or is the definition that the same number of bucks were killed regardless of buck limit?
I seriously doubt one buck limit will be put into place....so this is all fun imaginary speculation. From the sounds of a few of you, it looks like the DNR is considering two and through. In that case I agree there probably will be no statistically proven change between buck limits of 3 and 2.....but I will take the 2 over the current 3 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I hear on here all the time where someone says they passed on a young buck just to have it walk by someone else and they shoot it 10 minutes later. But some of you think you wave the 1 and done magic wand and now those other hunters won't shoot.
Wvm&m show me the facts where one and done will work in wv - please convince me???? I am not telling you simply my opinion - heck even posted an article saying one buck limit doesn't work very well in states with high number of hunters or a long gun season.
Again if I look at numbers it shows wv closer to pa then what it is ky. Now gobbler showed an article that stated differently. Again if you go by that article numbers say we only have about 250000 hunters in wv - I hear and read differently on the number. When I look up the size of each state wv, ky and pa and then look up the numbers that each dnr has given to the number of hunters ky was 6-7 hunters per Sq mile , wv was 14-15 and PA was 17-18.
And if you don't think when guys like Dr dave say that states with high number of hunters with long seasons does mean that buck passed over by some will get killed by others then I don't know how to respond to your way of thinking. Again studies showed that states with a 1 buck limit- the majority of bucks killed were young bucks so how will it be different here? I keep asking and no one answers - convince me you are right and we will be like ky and not like pa. Just don't give me your opinion though I want to see some research. Part of that would be to convince me we are more like ky and less like pa. Again I want to see something done too - I just want to see a good game plan put it place. I just don't see much of a difference happening if limiting buck tags is game plan. AR's need to be included and if you limit AR's to just 2nd buck that won't make much difference either - it needs to be even with buck number 1.
But I think with AR's we could possibly have a 2 buck limit for residents and still have some good results. And if not then keep the AR's and drop it to one and done.
But again - I just want to see a good game plan. And I don't know if our DNR can create a good game plan with the limitations placed upon them with all the politics involve. Our dnr is stuck between a rock and hard place between lawmakers and sportsmen - hard to please either one.
What works in one state may or may not work in another. I think a 1 buck limit with APR would produce results the quickest, I also think that won't happen here overnight. I don't think the DNR and the public would go for that drastic of a change all at once.
The only way to get data is to try something, give it a while and see what happens. Try a 2 buck limit for a few years, then see if anything changes? It may or may not. No one knows because it hasn't been tried before. If it makes a difference then great, if it doesn't then try something else to see if it works.
That is the only way we are going to know what works in a WV.
The other option is to do nothing, but we all know already that approach isn't working.
wvm&m: I totally agree I think common sense approach is always the best way to go. I think realizing that one and done has benefited some states but has not done very well in other states must be looked at. Research it - make your best assumptions and then develop a plan.
Again there has to be an equation where things will balance out. And I know you cannot make everyone happy.
I know some of you disagree with me - but with the length of hunting season and the number of hunters that we have - we are still going to have a large number of young bucks killed with a one and done limit too and I just don't think we will see that great of results to our herd and plus I think there will be some huge negative effects with it.
I don't want to see my hunting opportunity decreased! Some will say well you are limiting my choice to shoot the type of buck I want with AR's - yep for one year! The next year there will be a ton of 2.5 year old bucks running around and the same for each year after that. With one and done you limit me for every year now - so what has more effect on hunters: one and done or AR's? 1 year of AR's without more 2.5's running around or a 1 buck limit for a long time because once it changes it is gonna be for sure darn hard to get it changed back!
YOU ARE CORRECT! However, we cannot do study after study and wait and wait without doing anything. We have to implement something before we can see if it works. WV is its own state and will have its own results.
I equate a lower buck limit with the acceptance of Sunday hunting. I know people who voted no for Sunday hunting and are REALLY loving Sunday hunting now. These people that are against lowering the buck limit will be REALLY loving it when they see better bucks.
Sunday- I am not saying we need more studies - I am saying put a well thought out plan together and then educate the public about it. Plus, set out a clear set of goals and if goals are not met then readjust the plan. But from the sounds of it that won't happen here because of the way the system is setup. I just feel that if we have experts in the dnr then maybe the dnr should have some free range to set the the dates and/or limits without lawmaker approval.
http://community.deergear.com/Article/200AcrePotential
Can't figure out how to make the link clickable on my iPhone?