JayD's Link
Genetics? Genetic potential is expressed through age.How can passing a buck up not allow it to grow in age? The majority of our bucks die at 2.5 revealing little about genetics or maturity.
Nutrition? A 3.5 year old with less nutrition will still be larger than a 1.5 year old with adequate nutrition. We have plenty nutrition in our woods on most years, the true variable is deer per square mile that eat the nutrition.
Regionality? It talks about mast crops in different regions but I must admit bucks get larger in the southern part of the state? Is it regional food source and mast crop or is it age?
The article also takes into zero consideration that letting a buck grow makes a smarter, more mature to the woods animal. Hopefully as hunters we enjoy the hunt where we can match wits with an animal on top of his game and not young and dumb.
I guess the fact that in any major down year of harvest we follow up the next year with better antlers and more bucks as a reason why letting them grow doesn't always work?
How many times have you passed a deer up only to have it smaller and dumber the following year? Just wondering?
JayD's Link
All I know I am looking forward to this Fall after the mast crop we had this year.
One thing nice to find out - at least now I see that it is just not WV DNR and the biologist that you think don’t know what they are doing....
Unless there is a severe food shortage during fall and winter or a severe drought in spring and summer the average deer anywhere or in any habitat is going to have a larger set of antlers each additional year of life until he passes his prime.
The article is very poor. You can't be against reasons why a one buck limit works but for reasons why a 2 buck limit works when they are the same reasons just more stringent.
Babysaph, our dn r lets high populations run amuck in some counties. Its not as much about health as selling tags.
Gobbler apparently some hunters don’t know this. And I will disagree with you that each year regardless of mass a buck will be bigger than the previous year. I have seen years around here when soybean has been the dominant crop with more protein for the deer - and I have seen individual older bucks have larger headgear - than the following year when corn is planted. I have seen that quite a few times. I forget which year exactly it’s was - maybe 3 or 4 years ago I killed a 6 point that had been an 8 point the 3 previous years as 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 year old. When he was a 3.5 he had been shot in the right front shoulder and the arrow was lodged in it - he walked with a limp that year and the next. The next year soybean was the main crop - he was bigger even after being injured. The year I shot him the main crop was corn - he was a very nice 6 and was the dominant buck in the area, even though other bucks had larger racks. I think I still have the broadhead that was in his shoulder and he was walking without much of a limp and he sure seemed healthy. And there has been others besides him. All I know is the guy has pretty good credentials and is respected among his peers - just not respected here by some.
But it makes no difference you all have a set way of thinking and heck you think the guy who wrote the article doesn’t know what he is saying even though he has great credentials. So I should know by now whatever i say won’t mean a thing to certain people here as well. I know you all think the WV DNR should have a F for their grade as well as the author of the article - so one question - is there any Wildlife expert that you all hold in any higher esteem?
Nutrition, i mean, the bow only counties really dont have any AG, but produce big deer, bucks and does. What gets them big? age
Now regional, now that may have some merit, but without giving the deer time to age , its kinda a mute point...
At the end of the day it still depneds on the age class of your deer....And any biologist worth their wait will tell you this...and i am sure the gentleman above is well qualified, but i bet you ask him and give him the data from Wv and he would come up with the same......deer need age.
I have a problem with the one or two buck limit. Actually, several problems with it. First, if we cut down on the number of deer we are killing, the population actually grows. That, in turn, leads to a whole host of other problems - more deer-car collisions, higher insurance rates (we already lead the nation in deer-car collisions), carry capacity, starvation, disease spread, etc.
The biggest problem I have with it is the fact that some want to get the legislature involved to further their own agendas. Government involvement, unless supported by the DNR, is not good. In other words, people just want the government to TELL them and worst, everyone, what to do instead of just having the willpower to do it themselves. If a one buck or two buck limit means that much to you, live it. Just do it yourself and be happy. But, they won't stick to their principles when it comes down to it.
Evidence of this can be found in several posts on this site. First, the survey thread about how many had killed a Pope and Young deer. Not many people had, but many said that they had killed several 100+ inch deer. Just think, if those folks would have lived up to their own beliefs, they would have let that deer walk to get bigger for next year.
Another thread was about a group of men who went in together for a lease and implemented better buck management techniques. Then, when the lease came to an end, the pictures showed that the folks forgot their principles and just shot bucks - some were pretty big, some a little smaller - but their principles changed with the situation.
I feel that all this has gotten to be a sad state of affairs. I blame the "horn porn" industry where folks watch these yahoos on the outdoor channels go into these places, with the newest gadgets that guarantees results and bigger deer, etc. and then when they spend a small fortune on the newest seed that will draw deer from several states away, bows that shoot 500 feet per second, and newest "scientific' info and all the rest but don't see those same results they want to lay blame - on their neighbors, rampant poachers, the DNR, and the list just keeps growing.
Why can't people just get away from the "results" way of thinking and start caring about the "experience"? Some can't be happy unless they have a 150 hanging on the wall? Why? Does that make them something more than they were yesterday? Oh well, rant over...
And by going to a 1 and done or an apr on the 2nd, that will get a healthier , more focused rut, which in turn helps out in the fawning season.
Horn porn may come into some of the peoples wants and needs, but science backs it up, you need to kill more does than bucks.....and speaking of horn porn, whats wrong with wanting bigger bucks, would you rather catch a bluegill or a 10 pound bass?
You seem to neglect the fact that mayben100 inch deer can be mature? Of course we are looking for maturity and not inches. You made it about 150 inch deer but it was suggested by you only. Never once did I, or anyone, say a 150 on the wall is the only way to be happy. A mature 100 inch deer is more of the goal than aby buck then hunt for antlers.
Did these people at the end of their lease kill multiple bucks a piece? Did any of them kill 3 bucks? Because that would be going against their principles. Unless you aged the deer and found they were yearlings, your argument is invalid and they are maintaining a goal to kill mature deer. You see, we don't believe 150s are behind every tree or even that all deer can.make that age. However, its the defense argument you must make when you don't have an argument why a 3 buck limit is biologically better than a 2 or even a 1.
Hunters who don't fill tags every year are not driven by "results" as much as the person that starts the season with the desire to fill tags. And my bow is over 10 years old so not sure about gimmicks.
First, I think we all agree with the idea that the does control the population. But, I think what you guys are missing is who is the "average" WV hunter today? This is entirely anecdotal on my part but I believe the "typical" hunter is solely a rifle hunter. The guy who gets maybe the first couple of days of/or Thanksgiving week off. He has bought his tag(s) and can't afford to be real selective based on the limited amount of time he has in the woods, i.e. he'd like to kill a "big un" but its not his first priority. I don't know the answer, maybe someone does, but I would wager this is probably 80% of the hunting population we have in the state. The other 15-18% do both (like me) and can afford to be more selective because of the amount of time we can spend in the woods. The rest are the bowhunters only who can be the most selective. I believe it is the latter 5-10% who are raising the most stink.
Now, as far as killing does, we don't have a "doe" season per se. It won't generate the interest to outweigh the cost- i.e. higher tags. If you go to a one and done the rifle hunters will just kill their one buck and go home. The overpopulation continues.
The idea of an either-sex tag is good but I think you know what most people will do. Roughly half of the first year deer are bucks. Will most rifle hunters pass up a spike to kill a doe? I doubt it...
Next, the idea for "mature" is like a moving goal line. It's not an objective measure. Say you've been watching and feeding this deer for two years now. Its 110 inches. Next year, it'll probably make Pope. You and I are neighbors and the deer comes over on my property and I shoot it because to me he looks like a mature deer. Will you be happy for me or get a little disgusted because this is the 4th year in a row I've done this?
The idea of the 150 inch buck was me being facetious. It goes back to the moving scale argument. The idea of a trophy is in the eye of the beholder. It isn't right for me to dictate what a trophy is for you just as it isn't right for you to dictate it for me. When people get away from the "experience" making the trophy instead of the size of the antlers, I feel we all lose. And, if we are all honest here, that's REALLY what the APR, one and done, etc. arguments are truly about - people wanting to dictate to others THEIR definition of a "mature" deer.
Again, the argument for a 3 buck limit versus a 2 or 1 is easy - there isn't one. Because biologically, a buck is a buck. A buck killed at 5 years old with a huge rack isn't biologically better or worse than a yearling spike - they are the same. It's the value that WE put on them that changes the argument.
Finally, Jeff, would I rather catch a 10 pound bass? Of course! But, if I don't and grumble about it all the time, and try to limit who can fish and what they can catch beyond what the laws say, and can't be happy catching bluegills or even just fishing, well then that's all on ME.
PS: I hope nobody thinks these arguments are attacks on them personally. If it came across that way, then rest assured it wasn't.
For at least the last 6 years we are consistently killing more bucks than does and close to half the counties are not killing their doe harvest objective year after year. What is your solution ?
The idea about the value of a 1.5 yr old vs a 5.5 year old buck is not about what my value on it is, it’s about the value the whole hunting community residents and nonresident hunters put on it. All of our neighboring states have more restrictive limits and/or antler restrictions, yet we are losing license sales at the same time some of those states are seeing increasing license sales or at least not dropping off as fast as we are. I admit, there are multiple reasons for that but the bottom line is the bottom line and we are losing license sales st a higher rate whatever the cause is.
So the question to me is do we keep doing the same thing and continue to lose license sales, continue to not meet antlerless Deer harvest objectives, or do we do something different to try and balance herd and try to decrease the rate of license sales drop off or hopefully increase sales?
gobbler's Link
I do think with improved habitat work it will help.
gobbler's Link
gobbler's Link
This is the major reason for the drop in revenue. We just don't have the population to support the old business revenue model anymore. Our young must move off into the surrounding states to make a living. They hunt there - that's part of the reason the surrounding states are seeing an increase - but they come home for Thanksgiving to rifle hunt with the family. Maybe at Christmas, too. I think that's the reality of the situation and until we fix the business model for how we run our state government ( I don't want to get on a political soapbox) our future generations will continue to do the same. The state will become nothing more than retirement communities and welfare cases.
I saw this weekend an ad I think in Belk where you buy one suit get two more free. Perhaps that could be used - kill a buck get a doe (or two) free - especially in areas of extreme overpopulation. Probably not too feasible for everywhere though...
I think I addressed the decline in license sales in the above post but basically its because the population of the state is dwindling - especially the younger generation. I would be willing to be the average age of the WV hunter is probably approaching 50. There are already rumors that we will lose a Congressional seat after the next census in 2020 due to the amount we have lost. Basically, they have to be here to buy here and sadly they aren't.
Finally, as Babysaph states, the reason for declining license sales isn't because of the quality of deer. That has improved. Trying new things can sometimes be a good thing, but you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. But changes need to show how they will benefit both the deer AND the hunter in ways that people can look at and say, "Yeah, that definitely needs to be done"
Most any business economic plan runs on supply and demand. If you have something people want there will always be a demand. Let me throw Iowa out there. But let me be clear, I am not suggesting in ANYWAY that WV could be like IOWA. But in terms of Deer they can charge what they want and still have a 4 year waiting list of hunters waiting to fork over 800 dollars for an archery buck tag, which includes a 150.00 doe tag that is mandatory. I’d be happy if we could just some of the hunters driving thru WV to get to OH and KY from the east coast. Hunters are going to go where they can get the biggest bang for the buck.(pun intended). But you have to provide what hunters want first.
The other point I wanted to make is that Iowa has PRIME location, but if they changed their business model, ie, going to a 3 buck limit and unlimited NR tags they would kill the goose that lays their golden egg. That’s why I think a smart business plan may trump location. Iowa has both but even in a non prime location with the right business plan you can at least compete. A bad business plan even in a prime location does not guarantee success or even being competitive.
