Archery only counties 3rd and 5th
West Virginia
Wyoming County is third in the state in archery harvest. Logan is fifth in the state. Purely playing devils advocate, but if nobody kills a second or even a third buck and it doesn't hurt the population, then maybe they are ready for a gun season. After all, we can't live without the additional buck stamp and its must needed revenue. We are talking about jobs here.
What do you think? If less than five percent are harvesting a second buck, what can it hurt?
I take the opposite approach. Maybe a number of other counties are ready for archery only. When you look at the total kill and see 900-1000 vs 2000-3000 in nearby counties, it doesn't look like as big of a kill. I think the achery totals in many other counties would be higher if they didn't have firearm seasons. Hunters would have more time to bow hunt and most likely would be more successful.
Guys we need dead deer. The DNR needs the money. More archery only counties can't happen. It will reduce the number of deer killed and the money the DNR needs. Besides we have too many deer Collisions with cars.,
Nobody said anything about more deer in many parts of the state, but a better ratio would be nice north of Flatwoods.
However, more deer in cranberry and certain other locations would be nice. IMO, cranberry probably has less deer PSm than many square miles in the bow hunting counties
What I was trying to explain was that even though Wyoming and Logan counties are 3rd and 5th for archery, they are 48 and 52 for total harvest. I don't think you can compare archery haevest in an archery only county to counties with firearm seasons and determine that a firearm season would be warranted. Not saying the population would be higher or needs to be, just that the archery kill would be higher if that was your only weapon choice.
I agree with you. I'm being the devils advocate.
However, I promise you harvest numbers would be far greater with a gun season. And even though hunters don't kill a second buck and they should be the managers and not the state, the bow hunting counties would be the exact same as any other of the 51 counties after they had a few gun seasons.
I think woodstick has a good grasp on the realities. The rest of this thread is pure poppy-cock, so much so I can't even take the comments seriously.
I'm not sure why we'd want them to be them same as the other 51 counties. I'm in favor of bettering the rest of the state vs worsening the bow only counties if they need to be equal.
Exactly. Thank you. One can't say that lowering the buck limit won't help 51 counties but raising it in four will hurt the four counties.
I remember when Sunday hunting wasn't to be taken seriously. Times have changed.
I support a gun season and crossbow season in the 4 counties they should have the same opportunities as the rest of the state! Quit showing favoritism. I've signed petitions already momentum is building.
I agree gobbler but the DNR wants and needs the money. They need to sell tags.
Call it poppey cock all you want. I say there will be no more bow only counties. Care to bet?
I doubt many more licenses would be sold by eliminating the bow only counties. It probably would cost money when you consider the nonresidents attracted by a 1900 square mile archery only trophy deer area. The only difference with licensed resident hunters would be a lot of people changing which counties they hunt in. It wouldn't gain any revenue and would destroy a resource in a couple years. The only gain would be a couple years where bigger bucks could be killed with guns and crossbows.
You are correct, raising the buck limit would destroy it. It is where it is because of bow hunting only, a low buck limit, and a social belief in waiting for a larger deer because it is known they are out there.
LET ME MAKE THIS STATEMENT, I do not wish for any bow hunting only county to be open to gun hunting. However, I do wish for th rest of the state to be treated more like the bow hunting only counties in a focus of better buck hunting.
I'm just trying to make the point that the DNR cannot say that lowering the buck limit will not do anything to improve wv, then say that raising a buck limit would destroy four counties. Can't have both ways, and it is a fact that lowering the buck limit would help the majority of wv.
The bow only counties are not going anywhere either. You guys worry too much. LOl
you are right Sunday but remember that just a few weeks ago there was a post on here where a DNR guy said that they wouldn't lower the buck limit because it was a money maker. I have been saying that all along. And you are also right. I am just a dumb ole boy but if you reduce the number of bucks take like in the bow only areas the bucks will get bigger. But again that won't happen. I have decided to just do what gobbler does and try to improve the deer hunting on my land. It is all I can control
Nobody wants to screw it up, but others do want a slice of the deer management pie.
You can't keep crossbows out of four counties, introduce elk, and slack in the mamnagemaent of 51 other counties and not create a little envy.
Why are crossbows kept out of the counties. They are calling them a bow. As for the elk, that will be on a draw so it will be open statewide. The only problem is not many will draw. I do not have a problem with bow only down there or even the introduction of elk. I assume the elk draw will be bow only also. I do have a problem with crossbows. If they are a bow and allowed in the other counties then they should be able to use them down there. If they are considered a gun then they should not be allowed to in the other counties during our bow season. You can not have it both ways.
the bow hunting counties are here to stay. i would like to see more on public land ,but after 40 yr of writing to the powers, they have no idea what to do or courage to do it i have a my own poll on want people want. i just wish there where places to hunt in the state where quality matters how to get there is maybe a spread limit like stonewall jackson lake , all of our wilderness areas need that now! maybe if you build it they will come?? lets do something different.....
Tell it to the commissioners. We can't lose money forever and expect to stay solvent.
As for elk, I'm fine with them being down there but it's one more piece of management the rest of wv doesn't have. Not saying the rest of wv needs elk, but the rest of wv needs progressive management.
yea lets get the word out and get some outfitters in that area offering some hunts for big bucks. That will boost the economy.
While it may bring some money to those southern counties, it will also drive up land and lease prices. Making an already hard to find place to hunt even harder....
Careful what we wish for.
What area of Mingo would this be on? Is this private property or leased land that would be hunted?
Yea a good outfitter will lease land from the big companies that own it. Competition is good anyway., whoever pays the most will lease the land. Capitalism
The property we lease in Mingo states that we cant guide or outfit on it
I was at the commission meeting at Flatwoods years ago when some national group ( seems like NRA) tried to present to commisioners to open the bow counties to rifle hunting ...u should have seen the people that showed up by charter bus loads from Wyoming ,Mcdowell county in opposition to guns down there...it was such a large standing room only mad group that the presenter never got up to speak....hopefully we keep our national gem...if open to guns for one season it would end up like rest of state
Just bowhunting only., the outfitters can guide Bowhunters.,
The bow hunting only counties do not benefit me a bit but I think they are a great thing for our state and we cannot lose them. It is not all me, me, me. I am happy for those that are close to those counties. Try thinking about someone but yourself for a change.
I enjoy the bow hunting counties. I have hunted there off and on since the early 90s. I think it is a valuable resource.
As a Commissioner that sits and listens to the public, and I realize this may offend some people but I usually try to look at things with an open mind. But I must admit that in my opinion I find it a bit hypocritical when some(not all) hunters that live there will defend keeping it the way it is (and I don't blame them for that) but then fight against other counties wanting to make changes. They want to be able to hunt mature deer where they live then go to other counties and fill their tags with immature bucks. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too.
They like what they have( and again, I don't blame them) but seem unwilling to let other counties have it too. In my mind that is fundamentally wrong. What's good for the goose is also what's good for the gander.
I think the bow only counties are just for the rich that can afford to go there. Not all people can afford to go there so we should do away with them. Lol . Jk. I agree. I don't hunt there but I think it's great we have those bow only counties. I also agree it would be nice to be able to hunt big bucks statewide but I also know that can't happen.
My favorite irony is a commissioner from a one buck county, finding hunters from one buck counties, to speak out against one buck limits.
JR - look up the definition of elitist - nothing in it about being rich. Rofl And again - keep the one buck limit there but allow crossbows or guns - bet you see a change. Keep it bow only and allow two buck limit and I bet you don't see hardly a change at all.
Again , I have hunted down there for over 25 years and know a lot of people down there and would be willing to bet that if the idea of increasing the buck limit was floated around there would be a major uproar. And for good reason .
Gobbler - I am not saying to change it but there are some on here who think the main reason for big bucks there is because it is a one buck limit (not saying you are one of those people) but you can't take those 4 counties being bow only and the terrain out of the equation.
And again answer the question - if you left those counties bow only but allowed for a 2buck limit or kept it 1 buck limit but allowed crossbows and guns - which would have the bigger impact?
Must admit I have heard more people say they would be upset if they did not keep the counties bow only then what I have heard say keep one buck limit. Guess they follow the numbers that the DNR put out that says very few kill multiple bucks.
There is no doubt that being archery only helps a great deal. I will counter that with my experience in KY this year. 1 hr from WV border during rifle season. 3 hrs into the first day of my first time hunting KY I had a 10 pt on the ground significantly bigger than any deer I have killed with a rifle in WV in my 59 years. Maybe it was a fluke, but I think not.
Well I'm just a dumb old boy but crossbows and guns won't be allowed there. And I'm not that great at math but if a person is allowed to kill 2 bucks there would have to be more deer killed. And I don't care what elitist means. How does going to another state to hunt make you an elitist? I don't know anyone that hunts out of state that thinks they are an elitist. Maybe it's the people that don't hunt out of state that think us out of state hunters are elitists. I have been fortunate enough to kill 18 Pope and young deer over the years. Of those only 6 were over 150. And not one of them was killed in Wv. In fact not many people hunt bowhunt more than me and I have only seen 2 in WV. I saw 8 in one field a few years ago in Montana.,just a different ballgame. And I don't care what size deer people kill. I kill the small ones here too. Big bucks grow where they don't get pounded. That's where I hunt em.
JR - I just heard rumor yesterday that one of the commissioners is proposing for a lottery type gun season in the 4 bow counties. If that were to come - I doubt that crossbows won't be far from it as well.... I hope they remain bow only!
I heard a rumor that the moon is made of cheese yesterday. I guess it must be true
i said a rumor didn't say it was fact - but I do hope they remain bow only that is true statement
Won't ever happen. Neither will the reduction in buck numbers. Simply can't happen. Our state needs the money.
Actually I do remember an idea like that floating around a couple of years ago. A drawing of 10 tags for a special 4-5 day rifle hunt. 20 dollars to apply and 10 dollars for a bonus point. 8 resident tags and 2 NR tags.
At that time it would have been 0.5% of buck harvest and have no statistical significance to the harvest. Money earned was to be earmarked for additional NRP officers for those counties to give the deer and the elk that was going to be stocked more protection.
I thought it wasn't an unreasonable idea but haven't heard anymore about it till today.
Bad idea, when guns are introduced it will snowball and set us back 40 years.
Gobbler you have some bad ideas, any kind of gun season in the bow only counties would open pandoras box. Then we lose what we have worked for 40years. If you would have lived here in 1970 you would have other ideas.
I did live in Mercer county in 1970. We didn't have a season until 1974 and I've been hunting the bow counties since early 90s I've been driving to farm and thinking about this. Any law would have to be in code that only 0.5% of resource could be used.
If I had a deal that 0.5% of a renewable resource could be used and that it would double the protection of that resource (doubling the # of wardens in each county) as well as doubling the protection of a fledgling elk restoration effort I would look very hard at that . It would be 10 tags spread out over 4 counties. Doubling the game officers would prevent way more than that that are being killed illegally now with rifles.
Other states figured it out decades ago that using limited entry draws significantly increased revenue while at the same time having minimal effect on the resource.
Much like WV had all its eggs in a bucket with coal and now that coal is almost gone we find ourselves in a half billion dollar budget deficit . The DNR has all its eggs in deer tags. And as most of us know due to a number of reasons we have about half the deer statewide that we did 10-15 yrs ago. That affects revenue. Also, now that the 8 yr. bonanza of Federal PR money is probably going to take a nose dive now that Obama is out of office I foresee that having a big impact to revenue.
Look, nobody likes and respects the bow counties more than I do but if the DNR could get hundreds of thousands in revenue by using 0.5% of a resource and doubling the protection of that resource maybe it's time to think about it? Maybe not?
The same thing will be done with elk and there will be people elk hunting with rifles much like there are people bear hunting with rifles now . It would be nice to know that there would be double the # of officers in the woods.
It might also help prevent poaching by people thinking if they apply for a few years they may draw a legal tag. That might just keep some from rifle poaching?
Also, it would be an effective weapon from preventing the NRA from attacking it in the future like they did before.
Poachers are going to poach. No reasoning in it for them other than to kill a big buck.
The 4 counties are being rifle hunted to death right now. 10 more wont hurt it but, the dnr has no intention of polluting their brag of the largest bow only hunting area in the lower 48. Besides, with a half a billion deficit, the first time the dnr has an excess of money, it will be allotted to another department. Mostly the retirement board and, teachers union. God Bless men
By Federal statures any money associated with licences has to stay with the DNR. If it was appropriated anywhere else they would be in violation of Federal statutes and risk all Federal money to the DNR. The Legislature knows they can't do that, some don't like it, but know they can't do it. Otherwise the Wildlife Endowment Fund would have been raided years ago.
Knowing how other States set it up I would be willing to bet they would make more money on application fees and bonus points in one year than they do in NR license sales for those 4 counties now.
I found out that on a Facebook group that I have made a request to the DNR to do this.
That was a surprise to me. Anyone that knows how the system works knows any request like that has to be made officially during a Commission meeting. I challenge anyone to go back thru meeting minutes and find any mention of that.
It was 2 years ago that I remember anyone talking about this and now I find out that I've requested the DNR to do it? LOL
Do I think it would be a good idea? IDK, I would have to have a lot more details and see how it would be written into law.
But to clear the air I have not made a request for the DNR to do it. I have no plans at this time to do it. I do remember talking about it a couple of years and it was in a conversation about setting up the draw system and bonus point system for elk but had basically forgotten about it until this weekend when somebody posted that I had already done it. My best guess is that it's somebody trying to stir up trouble.
Do you think they rifle hunt in the bow only counties? LOL. I say have a lottery to allow rifle hunting in the bow only counties and then don't pick any hunters to hunt. No one will know it and the state makes all the money and no deer are killed.
State game and fish divisions make a ton of money off of limited permit hunts. Finally this year after buying points in Colorado for 20 years we have enough points to draw a top 3 elk unit. That's 20 years of giving Colorado Game and Fish department money each year. Last year with 19 points we applied for their top deer unit and didn't have enough points to draw last year. There are tens of thousands of people that buy points or apply each year.
The unit in AZ that I killed my big elk with my bow they give out about 300 total archery permits a year along with about 10 rifle tags during the rut right after the bow season and it has no effect on the quality of bulls there.
I hear ya. We are hoping to get drawn in AZ
I do, I have several friends down there. I have hunted most every year down there in all 4 counties for over 25 years . It is one of the highlights of my year .
I know not everyone does it. If I lived down there I would probably never leave to go deer hunting unless it was out of state. But I have heard people get up and say don't touch our hunting but leave open the chance for me to leave during rifle season and go to another county so I have a chance to kill 2 bucks with my rifle . Is it a big problem? Probably not, but it does happen .
What you have is hunters in 51 counties wanting the opportunities found in four counties.
But they can go hunt those 4 counties.
What if they don't bowhunt? What if they live 4-5 hours away and due to work or family responsibilities they only have 1 day a week or maybe a couple of afternoons a week they are able to hunt?
Then the government should have a program where they have a bus that picks them up and takes them down there and gets them a place to stay and pays their wages while they are off from work.,oh and hangs their treestand for them
If they don't bowhunt, they can hunt somewhere else. There are people who don't ride horses or walk more than a few hundred yards. Should we open the wilderness areas out west to atvs so everybody can elk hunt there? Would it have any effect on the quality of the hunting in the more remote areas?
Yes it would . But that's apples and oranges. I'm talking about the average guy that may have 2-3 hours to hunt on their back 40 or a neighbors farm or has one day a weekend and doesn't have the time to make an 8 hr round trip. IDK what that has to do with opening wilderness to ATVs out west or in WV for that matter .
I don't understand that if they don't bowhunt they can hunt somewhere else ? If an average man can't get enough time off work to drive to bowhunting counties to hunt a few days how is he going to get the time to take off to Illinois or Kansas? Most people I talk to just want the opportunity to see and maybe harvest a mature buck every 2-3 years . They want that opportunity in their own home county.
JR, that is a great idea. Is there a website for the application forms?
Well here is the deal. If a hunter wants a good chance to take a mature deer then he will have to go to one of the bow only areas or go out of state. There is just not enough of them to reliably hunt elswhere. Oh yea there are a few taken elswhere but not like in the bow only counties. Our state has made it abundantly clear that our deer herd will be managed for quantity only. And with the state of our economy being what it is I don't see it getting any better. I'm going to just wait until Trump signs legislature for the gubment program I spoke about earlier.
My point was, you can't please everyone everywhere. You have places out west where you can drive a truck and places where you can't. We have places here where you can use a rifle and places where you cant. You have to decide whats important to you and make choices. I live in a bow only county, but we eat more than 2 deer a year and I like to hunt with a muzzle loader. I have to use my Saturdays when the season is in and travel to a county that has more deer so I can get an extra doe or 2. I don't mind the drive and enjoy a change of scenery. I understand it's not easy to find a place to hunt here unless you're willing to hunt public land, but there are still places where the average guy can come and hunt with a bow. The obvious answer is to create opportunities around the state for people to hunt quality bucks. That can be through weapon restrictions or buck limits. It can be on public land so people don't feel like they're losing rights on their own land. It seems to be working on the properties that have AR, we just need more locations.
Gobbler, I think you and I were talking about 2 different things. I guess you were talking about improving the quality in the rest of the state and I was talking about not destroying the quality in a small section of the state. I agree with improving it statewide, but too many people just want to kill any buck. It starts with each hunter deciding whats best for them. If everybody says "if I don't shoot it, the next guy will", you'll never know.
Yes, I think we were talking about 2 different things. I was talking about improving things statewide. I don't want to ruin what we have in the bowhunting counties . It has a special place in my heart and it's something that is to be proud of. I've hunted there for over 25 years and hope to be able to hunt there many more years.
I don't think you can appease every hunter in every situation that arises, how much time a person has to hunt, how far away he lives, etc., but we must keep the 4 bow only counties that way. It is a unique situation that we can all be proud of.
I see the bow only area to be similar to catch and release fishing areas. They both provide opportunities that you can't get everywhere. And if those aren't things you're into, you have everywhere else in the state to enjoy as you like. I would love to see more of the state improve the age class off deer. I haven't shot a buck with a rifle since 1995. It been my choice not to shoot smaller bucks when does are available. I respect other hunters whose chose otherwise, that's their choice. We're very defensive of what we have in our end of the state. I was at a few of the regional meetings in the late 80s and early 90s when the rifle/muzzy topic came up. Those were heated to say the least. I know sound, biological practices have to be balanced with tradition and finances for the management of the statewide deer herd, but it would be nice to see some middle ground on quantity vs quality. I wouldn't mind a short survey when licence purchases are made.
Yes, a survey with realistic, fair questions would help.
It could be similar to the hip survey for migratory birds. Do you plan to hunt deer in 2017? Did you hunt deer in 2016? How many does did you harvest in 2016? How many bucks did you harvest in 2016? Do you prefer to see more deer or have the opportunity to see more mature deer? Would you hunt in an area with reduced bag limits or older age restrictions?
I understand you can't regulate hunting based solely on public opinion, but it would be a tool to check people's temerature on important issues. Once every five years may be enough. You could also exclude hunters who don't plan to hunt deer. You probably don't want to ask a guy who only hunts rabbits or geese how to manage deer.
But now that information is all computerized and the results don't matter anyway. Surveys like that are outdated and our state is too poor to pay someone to compile the results. We talk about this every year and its a waste of our breath. Our state is in debt real bad. They can not and will not reduce any money they make selling deer tags just because some of us hunters want bigger bucks.
They know now exactly who killed deer and how many.
Or the question could be would you enjoy a lower limit if it didn't help anything. Or something like that.
make all wilderness areas ,spread limit areas its all public good place to start beta test
