After seeing pictures of the deer taken on the lease in Wyoming county, it has me thinking. Can that be replicated outside of the bow only counties with simply letting the deer age?
My new motto is
The pressure on the trigger or release is directly proportional to the number of tags in your pocket
It could improve the buck quality if your area is truly being shot out of the younger age structure. But, it isn't the cure all save all some here want you to believe. Let's look into this based on what we know as a whole
Kill statistics and, age statistical data conducted by by our own DNR statewide, say that we are only killing 35% 1.5 year old buck deer. The bulk of the harvest is comprised of 2.5 year old deer. 25% of deer harvested and aged by our own DNR was 3.5 years of age and older. Once again, this is not a guess. It is REAL, FACTUAL DATA we do have. With that said, one has to ask how much will this truly mater to the average deer hunter?
With 330,000 licenses sold last year, and 50,000 bucks killed, it would seem to me the average deer hunter isn't killing two bucks a year. Regardless of who claims they are. But, that isn't just last year either. It has been that way for a long time.
It should be noted that there really is no way to figure how many who bought a license actually deer hunted but, lets just say half. That's roughly .33 deer per hunter. A 1/3 of licensed hunters that deer hunt equals .50 deer killed per hunter. A 1/4 says about .72 deer killed per hunter. Anyway you want to spin it, it appears to me by the REAL data we do have and, age data the DNR sampled in the field, proves that the average deer hunter doesn't even kill a buck deer under current regulations. Much less two.
To further enforce that notion, it is important to understand that this translates into a deer harvest that is 65% composed of 2.5 year old's and better. A deer harvest that is composed of 25% mature deer. And, that we are only killing 5000 or so more 1.5 year old's versus Mature deer. That's good numbers for statewide hunters that kill many of those deer on small private parcels with many different owners and, public land hunters. Basically, these numbers speak of a very healthy buck herd. Not a mismanaged herd that needs a different approach, based on biological principles.
Yet, you hear story upon top of story here from a lot of guys that say everyone they know does kill two or three bucks a year. Somebody is lying is all I can conclude from it. I doubt the DNR is. I'm not so sure about all these people saying everyone they know is killing two or three bucks though. However, more importantly, it brings back up the question of how effective would lowering the buck limit really be? Given these numbers seem to conclude the management that we currently have, produces a good age structure in our current buck herd. What gives?
Do we try and strive to get 50% or, 75% of the harvest of bucks to 3.5 years of age and better? Well, I'm not aware of any state in the land that can make that brag. It'd be cool but, is it possible? I don't know everything but, I do know a bit about this and, no where, not one biologist that works for a state agency that regulates game management of deer statewide, will you get a yes on that one. Too many variables that kill deer besides legal hunters is why.
Nutrition is a big variable in growing these big horned deer. While most will say they are about the biology of a herd with an increased age structure, let's be real about it. We all want to kill bigger horned deer. So, that is what it is about. Not a better aged herd. Mature deer are harder to kill. Everyone wants to kill a big horned trophy. But, few want to set from daylight to dark for 10 days to do so. Which s more the norm when older deer are involved. So, it isn't about biology. It is about horn size.
So, nutrition has to be available. A lot of that can be achieved naturally if the habitat is managed for it. But, statewide deer regulations don't do that. They give that responsibility to the landowners. They just base the regulations on the trends of the landowners and hunters that are setting the table so to speak. Meaning, if you don't have the proper habitat in a certain water shed because the timber is to mature, no amount of regulations will change that and, produce bigger deer. Only the landowners can change that.
So, once again, will the buck limit being reduced, make a difference statewide, in a herd that has unbiased data that suggest's the harvest is already composed of older deer in good levels? Well, that is to be seen if we ever get to it. One thing is for certain, this new system should be able to give the people in charge of this, better info for better decisions in the future. It'd be a shame if politics got involved and, ruined what the DNR has done so well at up to this point.
Regardless of what is said after this post, I'm not against doing it if it is justified. I just want to make sure it is the right thing to do biologically. From what I read of the facts, it isn't. I'm not special and, have the same reading skills as everyone else. So, I must conclude that anyone that disagrees with the FACTS is doing so based solely on their own opinion and their own desires. Instead of basing their opinion on the FACTS as we know them. That is kinda weird to me since we are talking about the greatest good for the greatest number. But, I've been called a lot worse than weird for feeling this way too. God Bless
FWIW, it was being used for the same topic as here. I can go get the links if need be for all this data. But, I've posted it here before too. So, I'm tired and sleepy, over all tired of doing it, and just basically getting wore out pointing the obvious out to those that think they know better.l than facts. But, if you'd like, I will post links to it one more time jay d. It is just going to be a day or so. Thanks and God Bless
The 250,000 to 350,000 number of hunters has always been an estimate because landowners never had to register.
This year the DNR will have a better estimate on the total number of hunters, it will be an estimate but the best estimate they have ever had.
The simple question is if we had a 3 buck limit when we were killing 100,000 bucks in the late 90s and early 2000s, why is it still 3 when the buck harvest has dropped close to 2/3rds???
To be 100% honest, I have questions about the age statistics which I have addressed with a few of the top biologists, one of which was not even aware of that number, he thought it was 40-45%. And we had an hour long discussion about aging methods and reliability of data. Deer tend to be brought in at mid day and again at dark in BUNCHES and has to be done quick. I'm not saying there is but on average (whatever someone is doing, when there is a rush, mistakes can happen). I'm not saying there is, but it would be easier to do in a less rushed situation if 5 deer per hour were brought in during a 12 hour period instead of bunching them up into a couple of 1 hr. Periods. These aging stations are set up at random places throughout the state. Last year it indicated that only 27% of bucks killed during rifle season was 1.5 yrs old. With the new e-check the DNR is going to have more and more difficulty doing the aging of deer. They are looking at different ways to do it and are checking with other states with e-check to see how they are getting their age data. This may be an issue with getting good reliable age data going forward???
I personally have trouble believing that 27% number. The best states and provinces in North America with the best age structure rarely dip below 35-40%. 1.5 yr old. At our local check station in Monroe county for every 8-10 pt checked in(which are probably at least 2.5) there are 5-8 spikes thru 6 pts (prob.,1.5 yr old) checked in. Even with a 5-1 ratio of 1.5yr to 2.5 yr, I can't see where the 27% came from.
I must admit I have trouble believing that and I also completely don't believe the percentage of 1.5 year olds making up the kill.
Gobbler - with you being in the position you are in and I see where you question the percentage of 1.5 year olds also - these figures have a bunch of people shaking there head. I am like you though and I think the new system will help get a better handle on all of this, but I do think the DNR needs to get a better handle on these estimates!
It's going to be more difficult getting age information going forward with e-check but DNR is working on alternative methods.
PA uses deer butchering shops, but there are questions if that is 100% reliable because lots of people including real hunters, farmers, etc. butcher their own deer. More urban people probably use butchers than rural people do. That brings up another question, is a person that lives in a city and has limited time to hunt more likely to take the first legal buck they see than a hunter that lives in a rural area and has more time to hunt???
Taxidermy shops was another option, but that is obviously going to be skewed toward bigger and older bucks.
The WV DNR is actively looking at multiple options and it may take a year or two to come up with the right answer. It may include a combination of ways thru butcher shops, checking stations that are still open . Another remote possibility, since most people have smart phones that they are checking deer in with and a good picture of the lower teeth could be sent to the DNR. That's only 1 idea. Anyway, they are working on it.
What isn't false or opinionated is the message it tells or, the 50,000 harvest number being a good representative. Both have been derived from data that totally contradicts many opinions on why reducing the harvest is a good thing.
As far as the estimated numbers of license's being sold, I think I said that it was unknown and only estimated. False number? Maybe. I don't know. Hopefully they will. So we can all quit guessing on the science on just how many hunters do kill more than one buck.
As far as the 27% number, I don't know what to say. Being a statistical nut myself that depends on them, it'd be nice to know the accepted deviation to be expected. It'd be nice to have ever single deer aged when we had check stations. That wasn't feasible or possible. Statistics are extremely accurate when these parameters are met. The question that remains is were they met.
I understand you second guessing the 27% number though. I really do. But, you are basing it on Monroe County, by your own admission. One of the leading harvest counties in this state for a long, long, long time. That speaks of a big pressure on the deer resource. And, it leads it's district in harvest numbers yearly by a long shot. You are going to get that opinion when using it as your guideline for determining if the numbers are correct. Even though it is far from it's surrounding neighbors in total numbers killed. So, It goes without saying that trying to base the rest of the state on your local experience is not correct. I'm really not saying that you suggested it was. Just saying the obvious.
As far as killing less bucks with the same limit, we both know why that is. There are simply a lot less deer in comparison. With REPORTED doe harvest alone well over a million in the last 20 years, with many more bears, yotes, etc..., deer numbers are down. This alone is the biggest contributing variable in why we are killing less buck deer.
Add in an increased age structure that the data says we have and, we are hunting older deer too. Making it harder to kill them in a state with tough terrain. I do choose to believe that is part of the equation of why the kill is dropping. When you look at social media that people report on, the pics of these deer support the DNR data. And, it isn't just this year. They have been showing big deer and, a lot of them killed statewide for years. I know you tend to dismiss that when it gets pointed out but, I don't because it goes right along with what the dnr numbers we do have are saying.
As far as reducing the quota number based on less buck kills now: Why? If that is a concern why not reduce doe harvests to gain more deer? Buck numbers don't control populations. What is to gain besides more deer. Which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't the intended goal or, the right direction in a lot of areas in this state.
I guess what it boils down to is this. We can choose to ascertain what the statewide agency that conducts these studies says or, we can choose to base everything on what we see and the opinion we derive from it. I realize what we see determines which way we go with that but, I also know that in order to get it right, we have to be willing to get out of our own box when forming our opinions on which is right.
We need to get it right. Not base it on our desires or wants. God Bless
I was simply wondering, for those that have "managed" property (150+ acres) before, were bigger deer harvested by simply letting smaller deer walk? Or is it possible to grow deer like the ones in the bow only counties in other parts of the state?
As far as food plots, That depends on the habitat too. Food plots can help but, in my experience, natural food is always preferred except winter time.
This is coming from managing 590 acres with AR's and a 2 buck limit at the same time. Surrounding properties shot the heck out of everything with a horn. This went on for 10 years. We never killed over two bucks off of it in one season. We did see an increase in antler growth though. We shot does like it was our job too.
I give heavy tribute to the increase in size due to the timber being harvested on a stump diameter set to each species. And, the regulations. You put the two together and you get what you want full bore. You don't, you will likely not see any difference. Food plots? Not so good in great habitat. Can a 150 acres make a difference? Yes. Will it be the difference to mimck coal field deer, while standing on it's own? Nope. Good luck and God bless
Where I think we disagree is if Lowering the buck limit will help increase the number of mature bucks. If I'm correct, you think no?? And please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think it will. Am I right??? IDK, and the only way to find out is to do it for at least a 5 yr. period and find out. At the end of 5 yrs. if it isn't helping I will stand up like a man and say I was wrong.
Concord Prof, I think it depends a lot on your neighbors, and what you do to your property as far as timber management, food plots , feeding, sanctuaries, AND hunting pressure.
I have a little more land at 560 acres and some neighbors that think like me and some that don't which is probably typical for WV. Now it's taken a while but I went from being lucky to see a 6 pt. to where I have a small handful of PY bucks HIDING(LOL) around. But we only usually kill a couple of bucks a year . 0 bucks the last 2 seasons. We usually take or have taken 10-15 does per year .
I guess it boils down to why for me concerning lowering the kills or, restricting it with AR's. I'm just Not sure either are going to have the effect desired. Because I'm not real sure age is the limiting factor in a lot of areas. It all comes down to whether you believe the numbers we do have. I base a lot of my opinions on that. Mostly because they support them.
JR, it isn't that simple. There are several states that have tried it in areas, as simply as you say and, the antler size is not one bit bigger today than before. It is in the details. Mississippi being one of them. God Bless
One farm in Calhoun County produced the fifth and third biggest bucks in the state in consecutive years. I believe it is roughly 300 acres. They wouldn't kill a buck when it was an eighteen inch eight or ten point and would give it another year or two. Apparently, it worked. I know of similar results in Lewis and Gilmer County as well.
I would suggest you try to get adjacent landowners to buy into what you want to do. It will help in the long run.
Good luck. It can happen anywhere.
In 2009,2010, and 2012 the WVDNR does not submit info to the QDMA on age class of harvest. In 2012, they go back and submit harvest data for 2009. Not only do they submit harvest data from 09 four years later but the harvest data shows only two states in the nation are killing less 1.5 year olds than we did in 09. In 09 we killed more 3.5 year olds than Ohio with a one buck limit and one week gun season and we killealmost half as many 1.5 year olds as Pennsylvania with a one buck limit and aprs. Wv 27% to Penns. 49%.
In 2013 they submit info for 2011 and we have a greater 3.5 percentage than Ohio or Indiana. Once again, we are waaaay better than Penn with a one buck limit and a p r's.
In 2015, they submit info for 2013.
Also, the info is derived from the first three days of buck season at various check in locations.
Btw, according to qdm, estimated buck harvest in 2010 was 58k 2011. Was 78k 2012 was 71k 2013 was 75k
Shouldn't use buck gun harvest numbers to decide who is killing two bucks a year. Must use numbers submitted to QDMA by our very own dnr to have a better estimate.
So from 2010 to 2013 wvmountaineer uses 215k bucks when the state uses282k bucks, an increased amount of 67 k in bow and muzzleloader seasons for those years. I do not have the info for 2014 so I didn't include that year, but it's easy to see close to 80k bucks are missing during those years. We are harvesting more bucks than one thinks.
Let me ask one question: if they split up the four counties to two counties of bow only but a 2 buck limit and 2 counties with a one buck limit but you could use either gun or bow - which 2 counties do you think would produce better bucks??? In my opinion it would be the bow only counties and not the 1 buck limit counties.
If you want to discuss this I guess I can start another thread.
You can improve your 150 acres but it will be hard to produce what happens in the bow only counties. Work on improving food, water, and cover - and biggest thing try to make at least 40 to 50 acres of it as a sanctuary - no access for any reason.
