Contributors to this thread:
There is no silent majority
Yes there is and they all bowhunt.
ROFL well Jim - for those who would say this was not about bowhunting it is now! Great post gave me my chuckle for the day! And we all know how silent most of us are on here!
I figured it out. The silent majority are the hunters that want a 4 buck limit.
No, the alleged “silent majority” are those WV hunters that want to keep a 3 buck limit, and the majority doesn’t exist.
Here we go again. Another thread where you seem to be the only one privy to some magical info the rest have to guess at.
Are we to take it from the survey results it alleges that the majority wants to keep the current limit? It’s confusing from your statement because then there is a majority that doesn’t exist? Would that be those of you who want the one buck limit? Or is it vice-versa?
I'm assuming in his coy way, the commissioner is referring to the infallible survey results that must have favored his agenda. You know, the one that roughly 2% of license holders were mailed. The one with no representation of how many were actually completed and, mailed back from such a staggering number of applicants. It looks like we will have to wander for awhile.
Remember, "Change is coming!".
I've told you guys for years that the majority do not want a lower limit.,
I don’t know how we can go by the results of the survey if I recall from some people who ought to know - the survey was rigged/stacked from the beginning! LOL
What were the results. I can't find them
Well I assume gobbler knows what the results are since he started this thread. Just made it confusing to understand .....
Apparently, the results aren't public info yet. However, if it is like the results of the "rigged" survey, certain people seems to get inside tips and info. We just aren't any of those people. But, I rest easily knowing the unbiased commissioner is on the job. Change is coming!
So there was a survey about reducing the buck limit and the results are not public?
Results will be released at next Commission meeting
Next meeting is in February?
Well that means my prediction of 3 bucks in 2019 will be true as well. If we don't find out what the hunters voted for until then it will probably not be reduced by next fall because you know they will then have to take a couple years to study it.
Next meeting is end of October.
Babysaph, 2019 was already set and voted upon I believe. So no changes to buck limits unless done by legislation.
Gobbler, I don’t understand why, as a commissioner, you’re involved in all these “secretive “ and confusing posts. It doesn’t look good. That, along with the fact that you openly support several groups while telling us all how you gave up your lifetime membership to another. Again, seems to be some big secret why. Certainly doesn’t look like an unbiased position from the casual observer. Just a thought.
Change will come....Just takes time. For the life of me, we have guys on here in their 40's,50', 60's that have shot tons of bucks, and still support 3 buck limit.....SMH
SMH - now we have to be ashamed of being successful hunters! JR - You don’t have to worry about any type of new futuristic weapons - heck we have people in our own ranks that seem to prefer photography! LOL
Ok well if the vote that early then I'll move my prediction to 2020. I say 3 buck limit then too. Lol
Wait a minute . I thought they wouldnt know the results until the end of Oct. how can they vote on it if the don't even know what the hunters want? Or could it be that the vote was for 3 deer? Or could it be that they dont care about what the hunters want?
Jeff, the only people here making this about bucks is the change crowd. Second, most men in WV don't kill nearly as many bucks as the change crowd claims. PROVEN by harvest data. And, people here that don't favor change are most definitively looking far past the size of the next buck they may kill. They are taking all variables into account.
JR, it appears the additional surveys being sent out upon the commissioners request has the completed surveys tipped in favor of the commissioners agenda. And, in his coy way of equal representation, he had to gloat about it. I do find it more then ironic how the survey that was once claimed as tainted, is now supposed to be correct.
The only things I am currently confused about now is if the survey was tainted by his own admissions, why should it now be spoken as the gospel? And, if the survey was indeed mishandled, how in the world does mailing out such a small amount of additional surveys RANDOMLY, fix that?
It’s ridiculous to think there are enough hunters actually killing 3 bucks a year to adversely effect our herd to begin with. Before I get flogged by some on here, I live in a 1 buck county. I’m fine with it. If I lived in one of the northern counties with a higher number, I’d be fine with that too. Whole lotta fussing about nothing in my opinion. I agree with JR, too much money in all those tags to give them up. Especially when most of them end up tag soup.
Sad part of it is - you could have multiple tags in your one buck county and since it is bow only it would not make much of a difference! Going by last years numbers and this includes counties that allow gun hunting in WV we have one extra buck kill about 2440 acres and a third buck is killed off of about 22,700 acres. Now consider that according to last year numbers that the deer population is around 614,000 in my calculations that is we have 39.6 deer per 1000 acres. So again maybe my calculations are off - I don’t think they are though so the numbers I think are showing from last year that out of 900 deer one hunter kills a third buck! Out of about 100 deer one hunter shoots a second buck! Oh and out of the 39.6 deer per 1000 acres 3.4 are bucks killed from a first tag used by a hunter.
Sportoutfitter , you live in county with one buck limit. if that does not work why does wv dnr do it . if wv dnr wanted to put rifles with 3 buck limit back in bow only counties you would be ok we that correct ?
I am one of the few on this site that practices and believes that a one buck limit would make a difference in this state in a few years . I soon will be 66 years old and have taken my share of spikes and 4 points over time but some where along the line i lost the thrill of shooting just any buck so now days i target a specific buck . But if hunters want to shoot multiple bucks that is their decision i guess . Just no how i hunt anymore
I am going to work on getting the number of bucks killed in the bow only areas and the acreage as well and see if they have the number of deer per acreage as well.
hoppies you got it half right though - allow rifles in those counties and a big difference would be seen.
Hoppies if that is what you want to do more power to you - but to me its like you assume most who want to keep it where we have multiple buck tags - just kill a buck to kill any buck no matter the size. I cannot tell you the last time I killed a spike or 4 point. I target specific bucks as well. I think maybe I have killed 3 few times over very many years as well but the times I do remember doing it - it was because one had a pretty bad injury and I would rather kill one like that then see the coyotes kill it. Maybe I should let mother nature work - and I was pretty certain the buck would die and not recover (they are tough animals). Yes I have killed two bucks in a year quite a few times and again - I cannot tell you the last time I killed a spike or 4 point.
If I recall correctly - last year 683 hunters killed a third buck. Those are legal hunters killing a third buck and something tells me not all of them are killing 3 spikes. Again that is a third buck being killed over about 23000 acres. I know a lot of you say you know of all kinds of people killing 3 spikes every year - I am sure some do but not many are legal hunters doing so - so if you know a bunch who are then they more than likely are poachers and not hunters - so we have a poaching problem and not a buck limit problem. Plain and simple.
JayD. You seem to have a lot of numbers . So let me ask a couple of questions ,how many hunters brought 3 buck tags ? And would you support reducing buck limit down to 2 per season ? Compromise can be a good thing . I know we could ride this horse into the ground , I really think money is the reason we will never see a change in bag limits. of buck deer in WV .
Hoppies - ask gobbler about the debates he and I had and I always said if our biologist deemed it necessary I would be fine with a 2 buck limit and I came up with the slogan 2 and your thru instead of one and done.
I am actually for antler restrictions. I know quite a few say oh it’s bad because people should be able to keep whatever size - well why do we have fish size limits? And yes there are limits of number of fish you can keep but there are similar limits with deer as well. Another reason others are against AR’s is high grading - which to me is a joke - I am taking it you know what high grading is - so here is my problem with that - so first off how many year and 1/2 old deer are 8 or 10 points? The very few that are - under what circumstances will they not get shot? Will a one buck limit save that year and half 8 point? Will AR’s? Let’s face it unless you are on private land with limited number hunters and strict enforcement of antler size - that 8 or 10 point year and half buck is going to get blasted more than likely. If 1/3 of our bucks killed each year are year and half old and most bucks that age in WV are spikes to 5 points - just from last year numbers that would mean with just a 5 point plus minimum AR’s we would save about 16000 to 18,000 bucks each year. Do you think a 2 1/2 year old buck is harder to kill then a 1 1/2? JMO though
Jayd. You throw out all these numbers of deer kill per acre. Where does does a person find these numbers ? Are this state numbers or your numbers ? Are using huntable acreage or acreage in general . In order to get true number your would have to throw out all the area that is not huntable .
You a right JayD very few 1.5 bucks are 8 points and the ones that are very few make it . I would love to see AR . I am for a one buck limit , but that doesnt mean i am against other ways of managing for a better class of bucks in the state . If ar is a way to do it i would be all for it . I think a 2.5 year old may be harder to take with a bow , not so much in rifle season . I know hunters who have killed big deer in rifle season that dont know the difference between rub and a scrape. just sayin
Hoppies if it were up to me I would like to see 1- a simple plan for AR’s such as a legal buck would be anything with 5 plus points. No width or inch requirement. I think this would save quite a few year and half old deer.
2 - earn a buck in every county - that is after your first buck. So you would have to shoot a doe before any additional buck could be taken.
3- and I would like to see button bucks go towards your buck limit for the year. And let’s say someone shoots a button buck during doe season at the end of the year and has already killed his limit of bucks for the year then that button gets add to his limit for the next year. That would keep from someone letting it lay in the woods without reporting it for fear of a fine.
There are a number of things to do - all I see lowering the buck limit is going to do is force me to hunt other states if I want a second buck. JMO
As to the numbers - I am using the number for deer population and harvest numbers from the dnr.
As to acreage I am just using the size of the state of WV and yes it could be more scientific but I don’t know if anyone could give you an accurate number of huntable acres. Just think of all the urban areas you can hunt now. I don’t think the number would drop that drastically. Even if it did it would just mean less acreage and giving us more deer per acres then. So instead of 39.6 deer per 1000 acres in would probably be 40+ deer per 1000 acres. I didnt mean for my numbers to be taken as exact but using the numbers to an average - plus I realize that each county is different as well. It would be interesting to learn the numbers in the bow only counties - is the success rate any different than the rest of the state with only bows being allowed? When I get the chance I would like to look into that! Just think would the success rate of getting a second or third buck be the same in those bow only counties? Not trying to make a point with these questions - I just think it would be interesting to see given the weapon.
I still havn't gotten mine. Doesn't matter anyway because we won't get the limit lowered. We will lose too much money and if the results show that people are not shooting 3 bucks why would the politicians lower it . that is dumb
I still havn't gotten mine. Doesn't matter anyway because we won't get the limit lowered. We will lose too much money and if the results show that people are not shooting 3 bucks why would the politicians lower it . that is dumb
One buck limit would make a difference. It would produce bigger bucks but we can not afford that. Our state is dictated by dollars and not big bucks
I meant I have not gotten my survey. It is pointless guys to argue about it. It really is. we will not get a reduction in the buck limit due to the funds. Most WV hunting laws are for the money. Plain and simple. I know the last time I killed a 4 point in WV. First day of bow season. I also know the next time I will kill a spike or 4 pointer. The next time I see one. Now I am going to Kansas and Missouri this year and I won't kill one there. LOL
Jayd , You have some good ideas. about saving young deer which is basic what i am trying to do on my land just in different way . I do hunt ohio but I cant afford to go running off to Kansas or any other big buck state other than Ohio and paying a outfitter to hang my stands and put me on a older class deer . So i do what i can here on my own land to have older bucks and for me that means shooting doe instead of 2 or 3 , 1.5 or 2.5 year old bucks. But to each his own i guess.
BTW, just for the record I don't do guided hunts for whitetails. All on private ground where I do the scouting and work.. Besides between what I eat and what some of my down and out patients need I need to kill 9-15 deer a year. But I do that in a few neighboring states.
WVMountaineer and sportoutfitter.............What you fail to mention , is how many people kill the first buck they see , knowing they have 1-2 tags left.
Thats the problem........how many people would shoot that 1st buck ?
Again, change is coming....look at how many more mature deer we are killing now vs 10 years ago? 5 years ago.....heck, 2 years ago. But we still have that crowd, some on this post, that like to beat their chest about the 1-2 or 3 immature bucks....Thats fine, but enjoy while you can.
I remember this same bunch saying that Sunday hunting would NEVER, EVER be here........
Change is tough
The only reason Sunday hunting passed is because the legislators thought they could sell a few more licenses and tags. The only way the buck kill would be reduced is if the reduction could be met with more dollars. Maybe creative minds can figure that out. And one other thing. If not many people kill 3 bucks why don't we make the buck limit 5 or 6? That way way we could sell more tags and not effect the buck population. Cha Ching.
Its all about the mighty dollar..........but with more people now going to places like ohio , KY and PA, WV will have to step up their game....or lose even more $$$
Yep. Sell more tags. 10 buck limit
Hoppies, I think you missed my point. No I wouldn’t support a gun season. Why would I. No guns and tough hunting terrain is why we have big bucks, not the one buck limit. WV DNR takes pride in the bow onlies, so I prey it never changes. Big Otis, I do realize that gives people the option to kill the first buck they see. And I’m sure some do. But at the end of the day how many of those guys are actually punching 3 tags. I would guess that the guy that shoots the first thing he sees is probably not a hardcore hunter and what’s the chance he’s actually dropping 3. Even if he does, the numbers are so low, what’s really affected? I hope you weren’t including me in “ the bunch” on Sunday hunting. May wanna go back and look at the threads.
So Sportoutfitter, Why does dnr keep it a 1 buck in bow only counties if it does not have an effect? REALLY !!! So you would be in favor of raising the buck limit to 3 in bow only counties ? The dnr has a few wma where they have a one buck limit. I wonder what their reason is for that ? My guess is they would like a have older class bucks on these WMA.
So lets see here - things are better than just 10 years ago, 5 years ago and even 2 years. Plus it is looking like this is going to be a banner year, but yet some give our DNR a failing grade??? How can that be? Like I have stated off and on through out this debate - for the longest time in WV most hunters thought throwing a bag of corn out for deer was helping deer management and sad to say some here still feel that way. I do feel we have lagged behind in this area but now things are getting better in WV with land and timber management, plus a lot of hunters are deciding on their own to hold out for a more mature buck and shooting does. Guess what - we will continue to see improvement like this over the next 2, 5 and 10 years without lowering the buck limit just as it was stated earlier by a one and done advocate!
Hoppies I would like to know why the DNR keeps it a one buck limit as well because all that is needed is to keep it bow only and the topography does the rest. Plus - I would bet the success rate there is lower than what it is throughout the rest of the state where guns are allowed as well. My guess on the 1 buck limit is that it will helps to calm those who are pushing for a 1 buck limit as they can say well we have given you these areas already.
Overall through out WV - the buck success rate for one hunter killing one buck is somewhere around 14-18 % of all hunters. About 1.9 to 2.6% of all hunters kill two bucks and it is well below 1 percent of all hunters who kill 3 bucks. That is according to last years harvest numbers. The reason I have a range of percentages is because the DNR told me last year we have at least 330,000 deer hunters but others say it is more like 250,000 so I used both of those to come up with percentages.
Jeff, I assume having the option of shooting the first buck does cause that to happen. Yet, with so few killing a second or third buck, the theory doesn’t really apply. Does it? Unless it forced the guy just wanting to kill a deer, into being choosy. That won’t happen. If he’s just killing he is doing so for the meat. Mission accomplished whether he is a die hard or not.
There was no one I’m aware of for keeping things the same, that said Sunday hunting wouldn’t happen.
I would think it’s quite obvious Hoppies, we don’t have the number of deer the the 3 buck counties have. You’ve never once heard me advocate for a 3 buck limit. Don’t know where you get that. Actually, if it came to my vote counting, I’d go to one. We can’t afford it! What I said was, that I don’t feel the 3 buck limit is utilized by enough hunters in this state, regardless of co, to make a big difference. Don’t put your thoughts into my posts.
Looks like the temps is finally going to cool , So it time for me to start sitting in a stand , and less time in this computer chair. We may disagree on some things about management. However In the end we are all whitetail hunters , So i will say this , Be safe and good luck to all .
I will also state that a one buck limit will make some guys think if they would rather shoot a buck or not. So lets say you get a certain number of that 14 to 18% of successful hunters to pass on a young buck (if I recall correctly I think out of all of our harvest it is somewhere around 30% are year and half old bucks) - what is keeping that 86 to 82% of hunters who have not filled their tag not to shoot him when he walks by them? What are the chance that young buck will walk by one of them ? I have asked several biologist this very question and all of them say yes that will happen but they cannot give a specific number on it.
Then you look a acreage of landownership - here in the Eastern panhandle there are very few that are over a couple hundred acres - most are just a fraction of an acre to several acres. Some of us are lucky enough to have a couple hundred acres but there are not many - I would say it is safe to assume it is the same in the Northern Panhandle. So the deer here travel through out many different parcels of land. I know of one small farm of 42 acres that borders a 200 acre piece of land that allows no hunting. There are 35 guys who have hunting rights to the 42 acres and that doesn't count the farmers relatives! There is an 18 acre parcel just 2 properties down from me that has 8 guys that hunt it. It is like that all over here - a one buck limit will not work here just like it did not work in PA for all those years it was in place before AR's were installed. It is sort of a known fact as you go west the average size of landowner parcel increases. So landowners can control the number of hunters much easier. Plus when you look at the amount of agriculture land in states west of us compared to WV being mostly timber - things like that make the difference not so much buck limits. That is why there are other midwest states with multiple buck limits that have numbers just as good as the one buck states. Plus why are both PA and KY mulling around the idea of increasing their limits now? Here is another idea - how about we have a reciprocal agreement with those one buck states - where they can only kill one buck if they come here to hunt.
JR here is a prediction from me - I bet once again WV will be ranked higher in out of state license sales than each of our surrounding states once again! So everyone can complain here about how they are taking their money elsewhere to hunt while residents of the other states come here to spend their money. Heck we are half the size or less than these other states - if it was so great there would they not be out selling WV???
Good luck to you Hoppies. Be safe
Good luck! it is still hot and humid here in the panhandle.... Waiting on my hauler to deliver me some topdressing sand so just sitting here in the rain but hoping this cooler weather gets here soon. I hope to get in a tree with this weekend but not looking good.
JayD, where are you getting your info that KY and PA are mulling increasing the buck limits? My KY and PA contacts that work daily with game and fish divisions with deer management have not heard a peep about it.
Out of state hunters come here to kill deer. I've heard them say that. They just want a deer.
Gobbler - I added a link of an article talking about the proposal from last year. If I recall correctly they were talking about a tag that would cost $120 or something like that. Then at the Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg there was a slew of PA DNR officials there and that was the conversation amongst them the entire time. From what I could tell all of them were for it for the revenue and didn’t think it would hurt the buck population much at all. None of them thought it would pass at this time though and they were for a proposal for giving all hunters a chance at a second tag not just a limited number. One of them asked me about our extra tag and how you had to buy it before the season instead of buying it after you first buck.
Kentucky - if I recall I watched a podcast of a seminar or something and a retired biologist who was like the father of the deer program in KY was talking about how he thought it would be perfectly fine to raise the buck limit at this time and that there was a movement for looking into it because of the additional revenue as well. I will see if I can find it sometime - I am about ready to head out the door now though to pick our daughter up at Morgantown- they have a short Fall break at this weekend. Also a former hospital administrator where my wife works keeps in close touch with her - he lived in some city in Kentucky until here recently when he was hired at a hospital in Casper, Wyoming. He is big into hunting and he was telling me either last year or the year before about either an article or editorial in the paper there about how the author talked about now is the time to start thinking about increasing the buck limit to two and how it would not effect the population much and how it would bring in much needed revenue. My wife’s former boss just called her several weeks ago to offer her the director of nursing position there in Wyoming - he sent her several pictures ( of elk and pronghorns) for me to maybe persuade her into taking it. Even offered to get me on as head pro at a golf course there! LOL it was very tempting!
Also my sister and brother-in-law had issues with a large bear tearing up their chicken coop and several other buildings - my BIL’s family has several large farms in PA - the 2 DNR personell who set the trap up - I was fortunate to talk to them a bit. they were in agreement that even though the effort did not pass this time they felt it would in the future. Wanted to at least show you the article so that you could see the stuff is actually happening - since your sources for some reason didn’t know anything about it. Also I am pretty sure it was a hot topic on the PA bowsite if I remember correctly. Hey gobbler go check out the cwd thread and tell me what you think of that seminar. Some interesting stuff there - I know you have looked into this quite a bit and would like to hear your take on it.
The reason out of state non-resident hunters come here is simple..........They can kill 2-3 small bucks and several does for chump change and go back home and hunt mature bucks.........Thats a fact
I’ll believe it when I see it. I was told by another Commissioner 3 years ago that OH was going to increase their buck limit the next year and yet they still have a 1 buck limit. They did raise the license fee however because they knew people will pay for quality.
BIG Otis - you are absolutely correct they do come so they can shoot 2 or 3 bucks and a Doe or 2 - you are right that probably is fact - they spend all that money for tags - but you left out part of it - fact is that around 2 percent of all hunters in WV kill 2 bucks and well less than 1 percent kill a third buck!
Gobbler - how else will you try to spin it? I agree it has not happen but the fact of the matter is they are talking about doing it! It raises revenue and does not effect the buck population that much.... I will go with the rest of ya - change is happening! LOL
I’m not spinning anything. I simply said I will believe it when I see it. I think that’s rather clear.
If one person talks about something it doesnt mean THEY are talking about it.
Fact is, a two buck or a one buck limit will help West Virginia.
And I still dont understand why the wvdnr lowers doe limits the year following a low kill because it adds numbers to the herd by having less does killed in a specific county. However lowering a buck limit simply won't work.
"And I still dont understand why the wvdnr lowers doe limits the year following a low kill because it adds numbers to the herd by having less does killed in a specific county. However lowering a buck limit simply won't work."
This is an Internet forum. You can't make reasoned and logical posts like that.
OMG you guys are hilarious. First off - yes Gobbler you did spin it a certain way. I said that PA and KY are mulling over the idea. I didn't say they were going to do it but hey JR has started something here on the site with predictions so I may just join in - I bet within the next 5 years one of them will add some extra tags - the additional revenue is hard to turn down. Now back to the spinning - lets face it your first comment that ended with you saying your sources had not heard a peep about it (lets face it that was making the statement that I was just throwing something out there without any evidence). Well guess those sources don't hearing everything because the proposal stirred up quite a hot pot there and I backed that part up with an article. You know it is not like I claimed it was rigged or something and then didn't back it up! LOL As to KY I will see if I can find that podcast again its been at least a year since I heard it maybe even 2 years. But just like your CERTAIN group is pushing for a 1 buck limit don't you think those people have the right to push their cause? Oh - again did you listen to the link I posted on the CWD thread - I really would like your take on it - I think with your background you could provide some insight on it.
Now Sunday glad you chimed in - so because one person talked about it doesn't mean THEY talked it - I believe it was quite a bit more than one person. Making that statement would be like someone asking you to prove the legitimacy of all the members in your group. Now as to it being fact that a two or one buck limit would help WV - ummm where is your research on that? I mean I guess you could say a 2 buck limit would have saved the 683 bucks that were the 3rd bucks of someone who killed a third buck - you know that fraction of 1% of all deer hunters in WV who killed a third buck (pretty sure that is FACT as well). What would be the chance that some of the 683 bucks would have possibly been killed by one of the 82 to 86% of hunters who had not kill a buck yet? What about one of the hunters who did not fill their second tag - could one of those 683 bucks walked in front of them as well? So maybe a 2 buck limit would have saved 683 bucks and then again maybe not - so would it really be fact that those 683 would be saved? Now lets talk about some facts - fact is I bet the money obtained from those extra tags goes towards helping our DNR improve our natural resources - I BET THAT IS FACT!
I still prefer improving our land and timber management practices, earn a buck laws and I sure would like to see all male deer (button and broken horn) counted towards one's buck limit. Now I think those are a few things that factually would improve things here in WV.
Oh - if a farmer wants to increase his herd - is he going to increase the amount cows he has or go out and get more bulls? I don't know seems logical to me if you want to increase your herd you would get more females - does that seem logical to you JIM? Haven't seen a male yet to push out any offspring. Pretty sure a few males can supply enough sperm for quite a few females - has biology changed? Now if we are going to talk about the health and size of the animals - well then lets look at ALL OF THE FACTORS that go into making that happen.
Just look at the talk in PA of what they would charge for the second tag - pretty sure it was $120 or more. That is one of the reason why I am so proud and thankful of the men and women in our DNR because they continue to think of the sportsman of WV and keep hunting and fishing at an affordable price for all! Once something is gone - we will then have to pay a much higher price to obtained it back - that is FACT!
Only 1,545 does were killed in the state of West Virginia as a third doe. That's half a percent of hunters in WV killed a third doe, based upon 300,000 hunters in the state. Not that long ago the limit was more than 3 class N tags a year and the buck limit was five. Since no one is killing 3 surely no one killed four or five does or bucks a year. However, both limits were reduced and it has helped. WVDNR regularly lowers doe harvest in certain counties. And we are not talking about bulls or cows but DEER LIMITS and if MANIPULATION OF DEER LIMITS WORK. Does lowering a limit from 3 to 2 work to lesson the harvest? If not, then I'm not sure why the wvdnr does it for does. If it does, then why is the wvdnr telling us it won't work for bucks?
Jads, I can't show you a study where going from 3 to 2 is proven but you can't show me a study where 3 is better than two or even one. Common sense had to play into the equation on that one.
Ok so you say 1545 doe are killed with a third class N tag. We know that 683 bucks were killed by a hunter as a third buck on RB or RG tags that I am pretty sure they can be used to kill either sex. So pretty good chance that on these tags a few more does could have been killed as well as a third doe - wouldn't you agree?
So when it comes to third tags: 1545 doe(don't forget this number could be higher because you said it was off of a N tag not the rb or rg tags) plus 683 bucks comes to a total of 2228 deer that were killed on a third tag. So according to these numbers 69% of deer killed off of a third deer tag are doe and 31% are bucks! Well heck I say great job WVDNR - mission accomplished! And heck the percentage could be even higher for doe kill and lower for buck kill if any of the third deer kill on a rb or rg tag were does!
Thank you Sunday for giving me that info! Heck JR is right maybe we need to sell more tags like 10 or so and many more does will be harvested since it seems like the successful hunters are the ones killing on the correct ratio! One more question for you when the DNR lowers the doe harvest - does that just mean we will have more does for the future - by chance do a few doe that are not harvested offspring any bucks? Again it is biology that needs to be thought about just not peoples opinions which may be right or maybe wrong. You know I would love for someone to do a study on wild deer not captive deer - perfect place would be our bow only counties - keep 2 of them one buck only and then make the others a 2 or 3 buck limit. Lets see the results - my bet is there would not be much of difference - very low percentage of extra bucks would be tagged just as it is in the rest of state - then maybe you would realize that there are other factors involved! Hey remember previously in this post one of your own just said things are better than 10, 5 and even just 2 years ago but yet you still gave our DNR a failing grade...... LOL
You are absolutely correct you cannot show me a study where the buck limit makes a tremendous difference. When you look at the numbers it shows a second or third tag does not make a much of a difference in harvest numbers but that revenue from those extra tags does make a difference - and again you are right - common sense should be used regarding this matter!
You cannot kill a doe on a rg tag. And yearly wv hunters kill more bucks than does so don't go trumpeting mission accomplished when we havent killed more does than bucks in something like 26 years. Don't go trumpeting mission accomplished when counties that can only support a doe harvest of one still have a three buck limit. Give any bowhunting only county a multiple buck limit and see what happens.
And no I cannot show you a study comparing buck limits but I can sure my.show you states and the differences created by buck limits and the social aspects it creates in hunters.
Please show me all you can I would love to see the info on the opinions some author has and how that has made you say that a hunter success rate of 14% for deer hunters killing one buck and the rate of 1.9% on killing a second buck and a rate of 2/10th of 1 percent killing a third buck is so detrimental to our herd. Good gracious we could cut out the extra tags and if there is one perfect year of weather and mast crops where the success rate raises 3% to 17% - heck we may wipe out the whole herd!
From your view point - sounds like we all should sell our hunting equipment and go to Best Buy and purchase cameras!
And again I would think the bow hunter success rate in bow only areas is lower than that with counties where guns and bows are combine with it. On a second and third buck should even be lower yet - so please tell me how that would be so terrible? Again I would love for a study to be done like that ! And are you sure about the RG tag - it states it is a extra deer tag not an extra buck tag. I may be wrong - I don’t get one because I really don’t gun much anymore.
Big Otis you are right. So what is the buck limit in Kentucky and Pa?
If I remember correctly my ole buddy Jimmy Casto came up with one and done. How about 2 ur through, 3 for me, 4 or more, 5 and thrive, 6 ur pick, 7 in heaven, 8 be great, 9 is fine, 10 no sin. Lol. Couldn’t resist a lil fun.
JayD, The only states I can quote as moving to a one buck limit in the last thirty years are Indiana and Kentucky. I'm not sure if they experienced any positive effects or not. Lol
JR you are stepping on my shoes - I came up with 2 and ur thru! LOL
Sunday - I have no clue about Indiana- so I won’t comment. As to Kentucky - I have heard many reasons for what has happened there- not just the one and done dance routine.
So again I ask you why did one and done not work in PA all those years it was in place? They did not see improvements until they put AR’s in place. Again I ask you you to show me the research which says a one buck limit is the key! I don’t want opinions - I want the research. show me the research and you might convince me to join your side on this and I will go buy that camera! Because right now we have about a 16% success rate of hunters killing bucks (that includes extra bucks). what’s next - do we start limiting the number of hunters who can hunt here? Which I don’t understand that because you said we are losing hunters that we need to get back but yet we are killing too many bucks???? So when all these monster buck magically appear and more hunters come to hunt them - won’t that mean more bucks will be killed??? It’s just so confusing......
I still say if you want one and done practice it and let those who don't practice their two of three. The deer herd is there you just have to hunt for them not stay within 150 yards of your parking place. I hunted an area for 30 years that everyone said there are no deer there. I was always successful with my one buck limit ( most times an eight point) and a few does and never had another hunter other than my son and grandson to contend with. It was a hard place to get into and noone wanted to work for their deer. Always saw several deer and always agreed with them that there was no deer in there.
Pennsylvania is a differwnt bird because of hunter density. However, they took a step to lessen the buck kill and it worked. Not exactly sure how a step to lessen the buck kill wouldn't work here.
Im not sure I've ever hunted within 150 yards of my truck.
"if a farmer wants to increase his herd - is he going to increase the amount cows he has or go out and get more bulls? I don't know seems logical to me if you want to increase your herd you would get more females - does that seem logical to you JIM? Haven't seen a male yet to push out any offspring. Pretty sure a few males can supply enough sperm for quite a few females - has biology changed? Now if we are going to talk about the health and size of the animals - well then lets look at ALL OF THE FACTORS that go into making that happen."
Since you directed that to me, I guess I'll try to give you my opinion.
Yes, if a farmer wanted more cattle, he should get more cows. Trouble is, we're not talking about cows and we can't import deer from Michigan to increase the herd; but then, I've never said anything about increasing the deer herd--don't know where you came up with that. I've only suggested (in the past and now with this post) the DNR should attempt to balance the deer herd. If there was no hunting, wouldn't the herd naturally balance at "about" one buck per one doe?
So no, I don't find your question directed to me even remotely logical.
I'm not going to argue, or even discuss a one buck limit with you or anyone else. It does , however, seem logical to me that cutting the buck harvest and increasing the doe harvest will bring the deer herd to a more natural balance and that's what I quipped about.
Sorry for calling you out Jim - I do apologize. I normally will ask a person directly though and not make general accusation about people on an internet forum not being able to reason or be logical. I guess I am not quite as sophisticated as some are on here - where you can just make that type of general accusation and then feel you are not part of the discussion and no one should then ask you a question. Again I apologize.
I don't want to argue with you as well, however it seemed to me that Sunday was not talking about a balanced herd but he was trying to understand why the DNR will lower the doe limits in certain counties after a low kill from the previous year but they do not do the same for bucks. So I guess you and I will both just have to agree that the other's opinion is not logical.
Oh and Sunday this may surprise you - I would not have a problem if the DNR lowered the buck limit for a county if the buck harvest from the previous year was lower than what they wanted and deemed it necessary to do so. I went hunting this evening and saw just as many bucks as I did doe - I just don't think my county needs to be one where the limit needs to be lowered. It was an hour long hunt because I got home late and I saw 6 bucks. Sad part of it was - I saw 5 coyotes right at the best time. Of course I would also feel bad for those private land owners - who manage their own property and have good numbers for the lower limit to effect them.
What I read was, lowering the doe harvest will increase the number of does, ergo, lowering the buck harvest will increase the number of bucks.
What county do you hunt JAYD ? WOW 6 bucks in 1 hour. Not that i havent had days like that but not in this time of year I went last 2 evenings and only saw 4 doe and a fawn . Maybe i am hunting to close to my truck . lol
Berkeley county - Hoppies - all of them were either in my foods plots or coming into them - until the coyotes showed up. One was a pretty decent buck from what I saw but all the deer got edgy when the yotes showed up. I am hoping to get a few does here soon - it will have to be a real nice buck for me to shoot right now - because here the brutes don’t show up until November.
Where I hunt there are no brutes. I did see a 6 inch spike this evening. Let him walk
Still baffles me..........Simple math....less bucks killed this year, equals more carry over bucks and older bucks next year....add in more does killed than bucks = Better herd health, bigger deer killed.
Simple math..........099 math
It is not simple math! You go to a hot dog stand where you have always bought 2 hot dogs for lunch - one day you finally go and just buy one hot dog - by the end of the day you think there is a possibility that someone else might buy that hot dog when there are about 280,000 guys looking for a hot dog? What about you go to that hot dog stand and say "you know something I am only allowed one hot dog and hot dog season is in for two weeks so think I will wait to get a bigger one" but again there are 280,000 guys who haven't gotten their hot dog yet as well - something tells me one of them might just buy that hot dog you passed up instead of passing on it and waiting for a bigger and better offer. Oh and I know that hot dogs are different then deer - mainly using this to show human behavior and then with using cattle I was just trying to show something about biology and not comparing deer to cows - I know some have trouble with that sort of stuff.
There are many reasons why certain states have trophies that you would like to see here in your area but they are not here to be had. So once again I will ask why are there some Midwest states that have similar numbers to KY and OH but they allow multiple buck tags to a hunter? Once again it is very hard for most hunters to kill just one buck - that is why the percentages are so darn low for killing a 2nd buck and almost non-existent on killing a 3rd buck!
According to numbers from WVDNR last year deer hunters were somewhere around 14 to 16% successful in killing a buck. so that means somewhere around 280,000 hunters were not successful - what might be the chances that one of them will get the buck/bucks that you passed up? And again I am not saying that maybe a few bucks/hot dogs that were passed over might get away but don't you think some might not? There is nothing simple about this at all - there are many factors or reasons or whatever you want to call it.
And in all of the articles I have read where the author has said a one buck limit will actually allow for more hunting time or it will cause hunters to pass on smaller bucks. How many times will someone answer a question one way but will actually do something total different when it happens in real time? How many were hunters who just stated that yea they passed on a young buck but actually didn't see a young buck so they thought that answer made them look better in the eyes of the person asking the question? Big-Otis you already said things were better than 10, 5 and even just 2 years ago - so the DNR must be doing something right - wouldn't you say? Plus, you know what happened in PA when they had a 1deer limit - hunters started going to other states to hunt not killing the does in their state and the deer population sky-rocketed. They did not have much of a balanced herd.
One buck limit scenario one. Hunter A passes a buck and neighbor shoots it and his season is over. Scenario 2, 2 buck limit Hunter A passes on his second buck and neighbor shoots it for his second buck of year.
Scenario 3, 3 buck limit Hunter A passes on his third buck of year and neighbor shoots it for his third buck of year.
Geez. I think everyone needs to go get some treestand therapy time and stop worrying about all of this stuff.
As long as people are hunting within the laws and regulations that are in place, don’t let it ruin your experience.
Have fun and enjoy the experience.
I agree. I am getting old and am about to retire and go bowhunting and flyfishing.,I don't care about the laws anymore. I'll shoot deer for meat here and fill my trophy room with deer from the Midwest.,it is what it is here.,
I agree. I am getting old and am about to retire and go bowhunting and flyfishing.,I don't care about the laws anymore. I'll shoot deer for meat here and fill my trophy room with deer from the Midwest.,it is what it is here.,
JR - I thought you were starting to see some decent results from your plots and other management practices - hope you are not giving up on it!
Sunday - the only thing about your scenarios is: the second one happens 1.9% times, scenario 3 happens 2/10 of 1% times - basically almost non-existent. Now the only scenario that may happen occasionally is scenario 1, but even it is not certain how many hunters will pass on a young buck and how many won't? Then lets go to the next level - how many bucks passed by one hunter will not get shot when it passes by some of the 280,000 hunter who have not harvested a buck?
I am a numbers guy and listening to some of members on here with their statements just confuses me:
Too many guys are shooting 3 spikes because of the 3 buck limit - well that is not an accurate statement - again 2 tenths of 1% of hunters in WV shoot a third buck. And I really doubt that of those very few hunters who do shoot 3 bucks all 3 will be spikes! Something tells me maybe 1 might be spike but not the second or third.
Next statement - out-staters shoot a trophy in their state and come here and kill 2 or 3 little bucks and go home. Again that is not accurate - 1.9 % get 2 bucks and .002% get a third buck. Plus, I would like to know the percentage of hunters in KY or OH who every year nail a trophy and then come here and shoot 3 spikes? Anyone have a figure?
Next Statement - WV is losing so much money to the other states - well again not completely accurate there again. WV ranks higher in non-resident license sales than all the states surrounding us - even though the states are much bigger and more populated than WV. And has licenses sale dropped in WV - pretty sure they have - pretty sure they are dropping in a lot of states - but isn't it amazing that little old WV has been one of the top non-resident license sellers for several years - I say isn't it about time some of neighboring states caught up to us? Plus - all this tells me is we should have a reciprocal agreement - where if a state allows someone from WV to kill only one buck - then if one of their residents comes to WV they can only kill 1 buck.
Jay D, the FACTS you just pointed out and, so many here claim to be common sense and reality, doesn't fit the better buck narrative they talk about. Someone will once again be along to recite their mantra regardless of REALITY. If not here, soon enough in the next thread. Bubba's are the problem killing 3 spikes. Or, the non residents that would rather hunt the big buck states, come and shoot 2 or 3 bucks here. And, WV is only loosing nonresident revenue based on our management scheme.
On a serious note, I wish everyone here the buck of their dreams. I really do. I just can't relate to what is being claimed. And, have pointed it out for 6 years. In order to do so, there has to be something besides an opinion when our statistics say different. The numbers we have to assess this subject isn't a survey mailed to roughly 2% of deer hunters and gloated about. This has several hundred thousand piece's of data EVERY YEAR to comprise its results. And, it contradicts most claims here about our deer herd.
Yes I am seeing bigger buck on the bigger tract of land that I don't kill bucks on. The caretaker and his family kill does. I'm waiting a few years to kill bucks on that. My other smaller pieces of land I just shoot deer.
Not sure if this will work or not but saw this on FB and is exactly why restrictions should not be imposed on someone. Feel free to set your own restrictions but don’t force them on someone else.
I second that Little Bear.
Can't argue with that. Congrats.
I know the family in that pic. He got down really quick. Her brother, my friend, carried his dad to the car and drove him to the hospital. I won't share his trial other then to say, he had major surgery. The kind where a slip means paralysis. It took him quite a while to recover to this point and, he is back as what he loves. Good story
Little Bear is right. One and done with no restrictions is the way to go.
I wasn't actually advocating one and done either. I'll practice 2 and I'm thru but that's a personal choice and normally the 2nd and many times the 1st tag is never used. Many that advocate the one and done cut their teeth on killing multiple bucks of all sizes and now want to limit others. I say let them shoot what they want so they enjoy their time in the woods and keep hunting. We don't need to run off more hunters due to unrealistic expectations. Just glad to see we can have different opinions and still be friends and fellow sportsmen.
^^^^exactly what Little Bear said.
Boom. (Insert the sound of the mic dropping)
Well then some people will want to kill 4. Let's all practice what we want.,I've personally decided it is best to let the individual hunter decide what is best for his situation., If the DNR allowed only one or two deer this hunter could have still killed his buck.
I have changed my opinion on reducing the buck limits in WV. I have said this before it is obvious that most of the hunters in WV do not want reduced buck limits. I think the majority should rule. And I'm a deer hunter anyway. I enjoy hunting deer with my recurve. If I want to kill bigger deer I'll practice the reduced limits on my property. I will go out of state to kill bigger deer. And for the record I am not for antler restrictions. Otherwise this hunter could have not killed his spike.
I do agree with Little Bear on this one. Our state needs the money from those buck tags and it is unrealistic to think we can reduce the buck limit.
So, if the limit was decreased to 2 how many hunters would be run off ? How many people on here would say. That’s it, the buck limit has been reduced from 3 to 2, I’m never hunting in WV again. How many NR would say i’m Never going to WV again because I can only shoot 2 bucks ?
The DNR survey that was done 2 years ago showed that the older hunters , 50+, and likely the group that has killed the most deer are percentage wise, the ones most reluctant to a decrease in the limit. While the age group that had the highest approval (a little over 50%) of a reduction of buck limit was the less than 20 age group. Which, by the way, are the hunters which will be buying licenses for the next 40-50 years.
Anyone can contact the DNR and get a copy of the survey if they so desire . It’s younger hunters (percentage wise) that are wanting a change, st least according to the survey 2 years ago. The results of the most recent survey will be released at next Commission meeting.
I don't know the answer to that question but I do recognize that people speak with their wallets and there are thousands and thousands of hunters buying lots of extra tags and as mentioned above, by I think JayD, a very small percentage of them actually use the tag(s), so I don't see a 3 buck limit hurting anything. Those extra tags provide additional recreation time outdoors and help fund many good DNR projects. I would say if antler restrictions were put in place it would significantly reduce participation as novice hunters would get frustrated and abandon the sport for NASCAR and college football and sportsmen numbers would decline even more a trend that needs to be reversed not perpetuated.
There are a lot of counties where doe harvest objectives are not met every year because hunters “have to get their buck or bucks”. I will agree that opening antlerless season during traditional buck season has helped a lot but yet after many years of that we still have overpopulated counties every year even with the earn a buck criteria for counties. Myself and the Director feel that a large part of that is allowing 3 bucks on a base license and having to pay more to take a doe during buck season or for that matter Rifle antlerless season. He has a plan for change and I agree with his plan. I also think it makes no sense to have to pay more to shoot a doe with a bow than it does with a rifle. IMO, a buck tag should be a buck tag and a doe tag should be a doe tag regardless of weapon. I also don’t think antler restrictions should apply to any hunter on at the minimum their first buck.
What it is hurting is the deer herd itself, the habitat , farmers fields, oak and other tree regeneration, game and other non game species from chronic overpopulation in those counties.
The Director is a smart businessman and is trying to do his best to sustain and increase business for the DNR so it can make it and compete in the long term.
This thread cracks me up everytime....
JayD---It is simple math....You need to compare apple to apples...And your numbers in 2nd and 3rd bucks killed is , again, flawed....Whats the number of people who kill their 1st buck knowing that they have that 2-3rd tag? That's the stat we need...
If no one shoots 2nd and 3rd bucks........The state should sell unlimited tags,,,,LOL
Lets try it for 5 years, with a liberal doe season set up county to county or create zones...I think the numbers of mature deer, and the buck to doe ratio, and rut would astound you all that think its a crazy idea...
Gobbler hit a great point above...3 bucks on a base license and then have to pay for does....Should be the other way around....Doe tags on base license , then buy the buck tag(s). Universal for any weapon.
They might now be run off but the extra tag sales will decline by the amount of people that buy their 3rd tag. The DNR knows that amount and apparently has agreed tey can't lose the money.
It is a predicament trying to make money. Guys won't kill a doe because they don't want to pay more money.
In all seriousness, with pride and preference left at the door, we have addressed this in the past. The DNR needs the revenue of the second firearms buck tag. They need the revenue of the second and third bow tags. Which is why I buy them every year. But the wildlife of this state is managed for EVERY person in this state by the DNR. And, while I suspect license fees could increase marginally, many people simply will stop buying them if tag opportunity's are cut, and price is increased. That is a no go. The DNR isn't for it nor, are many hunters I'd suggest.
SO why in the world do we keep beating this around the block with the same old arguments and disagreements? I said it before and, I'l say it again. With the current data, I am all FOR a 2 buck limit. There is no reason not to be. The decrease will not AFFECT many people. For sure, not in the degree to deter their participation. But, in order to do that, we must generate the revenue lost. So, why doesn't the DNR propose a .01 to .02 sales tax to legislature on ALL purchased goods, to be allotted for the DNR? It will keep costs low for EVERYONE and will provide enough revenue to more then support the DNR.
That proposition has been called dumb, stupid, not worthy, etc.... by some here. But, it is a heck of a lot better idea then to keep beating our heads against the wall. Every citizen has a interest in wildlife management. So, every citizen should have to pay for it. Problem solved. Every crowd gets a little of what they want with no adverse affect on the deer herd. And, the DNR is not placed into the bankrupt bracket. Why is this such a dumb idea?
I think we've talked about the edit button. You can make edits and add to a previous post by simply hitting that edit button.
Big Otis - your simple math is based on assumptions that some hunters will not shoot a young buck in hopes of a bigger buck. Again as I stated and even one of your leaders (Sunday) has agreed upon - there is no research to back up this claim! Now I will agree that some hunters may not shoot a young buck and hold out for a more mature buck - your assumption is that they won’t still be successful! You do know some will be successful don’t you? And once again all the young bucks passed over by a hunter who wants a more mature buck - any chance at all they may walk passed one of the 280,000 hunters who have not gotten their buck and still keep walking? Are you saying there is research out there that shows that? Because Sunday nor I have seen it - please tell us where to look?
I am Posting a link to an article by Dr Kroll that talks about AR’s and something that actually has research behind it ( and I am not saying we need to put in AR’s at this time just showing the article). Oh and he is one of the top and most called upon deer biologist in the country - he works in Texas - multiple buck limit state, he works in Wisconsin again multiple buck tags, talks about Georgia guess what multiple tags, Mississippi yep guess what they Allow? LOL one state he did talk about was PA and we have talked about them before they had nothing to show with one deer limit - but AR’s worked for them though! So why does he not mention lowering the buck limit but states the great benefits of AR’s? Good gracious if you all want something done at least have something done that has some research and success behind it!
Show me the money oops I mean research! LOL
JayD, WI has 1 buck limit with archery and 1 buck with gun. Big difference than 2 with guns. GA has 2 buck limit with AR on second. Multiple counties have AR on both. MS has 3 buck limit but annual kill is almost 3x our annual kill. TX is 99% private land and kill is for the most part determined by landowner , plus you’re talking ranches in the 10s of thousands acres versus 100 acre farms in WV. TX is where some of the founding principles of QDMA were developed.
If you’re throwing WI and GA out as examples either one is good with me . 1 buck archery and 1 buck gun or 1 Any size buck with AR on 2nd.
Alabama went from a buck a day limit for the whole season to a 3 buck limit with AR on 3rd buck and the DNR didn’t implode. Some people in WV is predicting doom and bankruptcy of the DNR for decreasing buck limit by 1. Bama decreased their limit by about 97 and they are doing fine.
Mountaineer, every state is dealing with same issue. License buying hunters, fishermen, and trappers are footing the bill for all other nonconsumptive outdoor users. I don’t believe anyone has found a way to deal with that yet. I wish they would.
Hey gobbler where is your research on a one buck limit? Why did Kroll talk about the benefits of AR’s and not lowering the limit?
Hey do you think any of those hunters who pass on a young buck will still be successful? What do you think the chances are that a young buck that was passed by another hunter will be shot by any of the 280000 hunters who haven’t harvested a buck?
That doesn't mean we have to here. I'm not being a wise guy here but, you were the biggest detractor from this idea before. So, I'm unsure if there Is there anything a commissioner could do to try and bring it to life here or, if it was disagreement that was driving your response about it? I truly am in the unknown.
Mountaineer. The legislators will not tax people that are not hunting. They simply won't do it. I have been saying for years we need to make more money. We do seem to beat a dead horse. We can't do AR's here too discriminating. If we did that then guys like Little Bear was telling us about world not be able to kill a buck.
J.R., the government taxes hunters and non hunters indiscriminately alike, on all government services besides wildlife management. Why it’s taboo to remove that from the table as an option makes no sense to me.
I’m not saying it’s going to be poplar. I’m not saying it’s going to happen. I’m saying it wasn’t that long ago that Sunday hunting wasn’t something nohinters would stand for. And, because of a dedicated, concerted effort by just a few men, that is no longer the case.
Why a state that is so hunter friendly can’t at least consider it, makes no sense to me. It’s one thing to tell a guy he’s gonna spend $40 dollars more to kill less deer. It’s another for him to pay $2.70 for a gallon of milk, instead of $2.68, if he knows it’s helping wildlife management goals.
I'm not saying I'm against it I'm just saying the legislators won't do it
JayD, I don’t have nor have the time to look, but there must be something there. In the last 15 or so years multiple states are decreasing limits and/or adding ARs. IDK of a single state that are raising buck limits. TN is one of the latest ones to go from 3-2.
I don’t like the idea of AR on a first buck. I think hunters should be able to take what they want on first buck. I think it may be reasonable on 2nd buck. That seems to be what a number of states are going to.
Mountaineer, you’re idea seems reasonable to me but as JR said I don’t think the Legislature would do it either. BTW, from my stand On the food plot I have a feeder about 400 yds to the east of me and one about 300 yds to the north of me and one about 600 yds to SW of me. Bear was 200 yds to west of me moving NW to SE when I first saw it so I don’t think he was traveling from a feeder or to a feeder. But IDK where he had been before I saw him nor any idea where he would have headed had I not shot him.
Doesn't matter. I once had a conservation officer tell me that all the bears have corn in their stomach from one source or another.
I love bowhunting and I feel lucky to be able to do so. So many other countries are not allowing hunting. Every day that I am in the woods I thank God to still be able to walk and get around to do the things I do. At my age it could all end at any time so much of this controversy does not matter to me. God bless all my friends on this site and good luck hunting this year. Be careful getting in and out of stands.
Greg, lets just get this over with and done. It really is no surprise that we don't care much for one another. You don't really care for me and, I truly don't care for you. I wish you no harm nor, any hardship. I just don't care for men that act the way you do. You might be a good guy in person. But, on here you are belligerent, coy with assertions of unwarranted claims, and enjoy being able to act like this from a computer. All because some people disagree with you. There is a difference being blunt and to the point versus the actions you exhibit. We all know them and no one is confused about the behavior you showcase. You simply don't play well when you don't get your way. And, that is not only my sole perception.
Honestly, my feelings have nothing to do with disagreement. I respect Jim Casto Jr, Cory, JR, and others even though I disagree with them. It does however have everything to do with what I said. For whatever reason, you obviously feel the same. I'm comfortable in knowing that and can live with it. Even with my personal feelings, I try my best to be presentable. All I expect is the same in return.
Now that is out of the way, I want to clarify something for you. I never questioned your bear harvest. In one single way until you pulled that stunt. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In honesty, I cared less how far they were. I truly did. But, I know what the law says. And, when you try and use the law against someone who never broke it, expect the same behavior to haunt you in return. Because, Like I said, what is fair for me is fair for you.
I am mature enough to act accordingly in discourse. And, expect the same in return. I'm sure you'll agree.
God Bless men
Hookman buddy you are right.
Well said , Hookman , i dont know your age, but I am few months short of 66 , and still get around fairly well . I dont climb as high or go as far from my truck but i am still hunting and thankful that i can still enjoy the outdoors . Good luck to you also
Now, since you brought it up, Did the stand you were setting have a feeder on it? If not, how close was the feeders to this? You forgot to answer that earlier I assume. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Wouldn't you say?
“I never questioned your bear harvest.” In the post above is a copy and paste from the thread where that was discussed. Sure sounds like a question to me but that is just my opinion. If you don’t like me that’s fine. I can’t say if I like you or not because I’ve never met you. I know we’ve butted heads a few times and we have agreed a few times.
Hey bud, don’t be plain ignorant or play dumb. Those assertions came only after your typical behavior. As I’ve always said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Surely you understand that.
I would have fought the bear with my bare hands and kept him in a chokehold until he spit out any corn he might have eaten.
Or maybe not.
From: WV Mountaineer22-Sep-18Private Reply Is Jay D high in the DNR? Or carry special rights we don't know about? Did he stop an investigation of you? This whole thread and, the accusations made in it are so confusing. I'm simply so confused. Are you saying Jay D hurt or helped you? Why do you think he should have agreed with his "buddy's". Are they CO's? Remember, you have been operating through out this thread on information only a few seem to have. And, when you say things like you did concerning how Jay D should act, it is even more confusing as to what you mean.
That is a copy and paste from your comments on a conversation between JayD and I when he said he talked some guys out of reporting me for killing a bear. I told JayD that if guys wanted to report me then go for it. You inserted yourself into the conversation, which of course is your right. But since you opted to insert yourself into the conservation then I opted to respond. As I said then I’ll say again , if anyone believes someone broke a game law then it should be reported no matter who it is.
If you had not elected to insert yourself with a comment we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. I think it’s fine for anyone to comment at anytime about anything , but it’s unreasonable to expect people not to respond to someone’s comment.
You’re upset that I ask you about getting cited for a bear violation. I only found out about that after someone messaged me about it. You said you were later found not guilty and I accept that and am happy for you . I still don’t understand about an eye tooth ( which is a canine tooth) being too small? I haven’t seen anything in chapter 20 code about teeth being too small nor have any officer I’ve asked knows anything about a tooth being too small. The only reference is the DNR is requiring a premolar tooth behind the upper or lower canine to be submitted so they can obtain better age data on our bear population but nothing about the size of the tooth. But you said if was thrown out so I guess it’s water under the bridge
Greg, I don't confront things like you by hiding behind my intent with smug insinuations. I inserted myself in the conversation well before that. Was apart of the thread and, was awaiting the promised explanation you kept alluding to concerning a stacked deck. So, when I watched you blow up out of no where with that charge and ridiculous claim, I went from confused to truly not understanding why you were mad at him. He was defending you. We went from a stacked deck to that out of no where. I'd done the same with any person who you would have addressed that to had it played out like that. There was no attack on you. Nor did anything posted warrant the question you asked me. You clarified that in your last explanation.
As far as the citation, you better believe I was and still am very upset about that. It took my money, my time, my stress, and my effort to beat the ridiculous charge. You are also correct there is nothing in the code book about a tooth being too short. That is PRECISELY why I'm so upset. The bear was of legal weight, was not a sow with cubs, and since it was killed on 5400 acres of private land with restricted access, I can 100% guarantee it was killed miles from anything that represented baiting. End results was I get a ticket on a baseless charge, was forced to spend my resources to prove my innocence, and you get to gloat about it on the world wide web.
You also keep saying its water under the bridge. No it isn't. Do you know what it feels like to be railroaded like that? And, to have you playing part in it now stirs emotions in me I cannot put into type. There is no reason to be trying to dig up dirt with your CO friends either. As proven by their answer, the charge was so ludicrous the law doesn't even claim to know what happened. Yet, you get to keep on gloating about it in true character. Yeah, to say I'm upset is definitely an under statement.
If there was something you wanted to know about the citation, you should have asked me. I've told the story here numerous times. I have nothing to hide. I did nothing wrong. Which is why I take your actions of insinuation so seriously. Tell your PM buddy to message me. Instead of attempting to dig up dirt to further try and smear me with it. I'll give him the info so he can pass it on like we did in the 3rd grade. Don't bother denying it the intent of the question. you;ve already confirmed that with your own words.
So, in true fashion of whats good for the goose is good for the gander, I'm going to continue to return the favor. You killed a bear basically in what you described at best, as a 14 acre area, with three deer feeders in it , and are trying to now play dumb to the effect it had on influencing the bear. That's a feeder for every 4.6 acres.
Hoppies56 I am going on 67 in about 6 months and have plenty of aches and pains. I also live in Point Pleasant, same as you.
I will be 62 in December. I remember my dad complaining about the aches and pains. I have prostate cancer and arthritis but this torn rotator cuff is kicking my butt. I ordered a set of 40 lb limbs but weighed them on my scale and they are lighter than that. I killed a deer opening day so I know they will work but I have to keep the shots close. I am ok with that. I sit in the woods and realize how lucky I truly am. I'm embarrassed to complain after seeing what some people go through. I've argued back and forth on here and realize it is pointless. And guess what? It doesn't matter. We are lucky to live in a state with ample opportunities to hunt and fish,. . I like to hunt deer. Any deer. So good luck to you guys.
Man... there sure is a bunch of geezers on here. :^)
Oh... and btw... I've officially become a geezer myself. I got my Medicare card in the mail a couple weeks ago. lol
JR you are absolutely correct we are fortunate to live in WV that has ample hunting opportunities! As to the shoulder what can you expect after putting the round ball thru the net so many times! Something has to wear out a little bit!
Actually this injury was from a fall at my cabin a month ago.
Mountaineer, I’m sorry you got a citation that you feel was inappropriate . You could make a formal complaint.
IDK where u come up with 14 acres??? You make it sound like a 14 acre high fenced area with 3 feeders on it and the bear was living in it. I own 560 acres and bear, deer , turkey and whatever else come and go as they please. By road it’s over 2 miles from the south end to the north end . DNR LE is in a position they have to make judgement calls because feeders for deer are ok but not for bear. The prevailing thought on that is if it’s close enough for the effective range for the weapon that person is using. I was on the ground several hundreds of yards from the nearest feeder. I think that’s beyond my effective range with my bow .
You said u didn’t like me. Lets just go with that . I won’t respond to your comments and you don’t respond to mine and end the disagreement .
You aren't sorry about anything. And, not hardly.
Your opinion and interpretation of the law is convenient for you. Buy, the law says area. Not weapons range, weapons effective range, not anything other then area. The regulations don't list a distance and, surely didn't say they define it by your "prevailing" definition. The law says area for a reason.
ar·e·a /?er??/Submit noun 1. a region or part of a town, a country, or the world. "rural areas of New Jersey" synonyms: district, region, zone, sector, quarter, precinct; locality, locale, neighborhood, parish
AS defined by the Websters dictionary. The definition and synonyms of the word clearly means its substantially bigger then anything you described as the area you shot your bear with the three feeders in it. And, its decades larger then the definition you and your buddy M.P. suggest. Which means by definition alone, you broke the law shooting that bear. Because, it couldn't have been several hundreds of yards from a feeder if the distances you listed are anywhere near correct. You described a triangle and its obvious your Geometry is weak.
Like you asked me in the survey thread, word for word, "have you ever had a bear hunting violation? I haven’t had a bear or any other game or fish violation in WV, any other state, or internationally."
What say Game Commissioner? You ever broke a game law before?
600 yds is about 1/3 mile , 400 yds is about 1/4 mile.
I have had many conversations with Col. Jenkins who is head of DNR LE and he has stated the effective range of the weapon many times to me as the guide they use to determine if it is hunting over bait.
So, no, I didn’t violate a game law .
I assume the laws are stated in the DNR book. Any lawyer worth his salt would not allow a CO to make the call. That would be too easy to railroad someone. All us hunters have to go by is the written DNR books. Now if a CO wants to let a violation slide that is one thing but he can't arrest anyone based on his opinion. The laws are black and white. Niw if it comes to a husband word against the hunters well then....
They are. Plainly stated. However, it is all based on interpretation concerning baiting. We gotta hope the CO we'd deal with see's it the same if there is a corn feeder somewhere in the area. I somehow believe though, most of us wouldn't fair so well in such a small area surrounded by feeders. At least the stories I have heard leads me to believe that. It would be a good idea to use this thread as reference if you ever found yourself in a similar situation.
Greg, the area of a Triangle is 1/2 base X height. Keep your units in yards. Divide the answer of the formula by the square yards/acre. Which is 4840. Draw a line though the middle creating the hypotenuse. It comes out to 15 acres per right triangle. I wasn't winging it for affect when I said it earlier.
Mountaineer, I took trigonometry in college also. As well as calculas , and algebra . BS divided by 2 where (n=x) always ends up with some portion of the answer still BS.
You can do your Trigonomrtry , I’ll listen to the chief of DNR LE and use his information regarding the effective range of the weapon the hunter is using around feeder or obvious bear trail leading to feeder.
It sounds like you are practicing Greganometry. FWIW, I'm not doubting or arguing with the Chief of the DNR. So, quit making it out that way. I'm pointing out that your self gloating about being such a law abiding hunter, isn't as clear as you implied earlier. Because, from the stories I have heard, there are CO's that would have fried your butt. I really have no idea if the story's I have heard are correct or not. I've just heard enough of them from unrelated, unknown sources to the other, that state their experiences being far different then yours.
Well heck I'm good to go. I can place a feeder every 40 yards using this 35 lb slushomatic bow I'm shooting now. I suggest they put that in the booklet the hunters get about bear baiting. I'm not sure they could use that against you if it wasn't in the book. Kind of like leaving out that you should stop at red stop signs but leaving that out of the drivers manual and then arresting someone for not stopping. I think they leave it vague for a reason. And I am an attorney just don't practice law. Lol
I’m along the same lines of thought J.R.
WV Mountaineer said- ""So, quit making it out that way. I'm pointing out that your self gloating about being such a law abiding hunter, isn't as clear as you implied earlier. Because, from the stories I have heard, there are CO's that would have fried your butt. I really have no idea if the story's I have heard are correct or not. I've just heard enough of them from unrelated, unknown sources to the other, that state their experiences being far different then yours.""
So you post from the stories you have "Heard from some people and CO's that would have fried your butt" ..? Come on man,,,,,If you are gonna try and damage a mans reputation, have the testicular fortitude to lay it out , who, what , when ,where and how..... I find it hard to believe that several CO's would know about multiple violations and do nothing.....1 maybe , several? Nope...If they wanted to and had him, they would have.
And i would say this same thing ,if anyone else said it against you or anyone else on here....Baseless accusations...
Jeff, what part of this are you not understanding? My whole gripe is when a person tries to ruin someone without having all the facts. I plainly stated that I didn't know for sure that those were the facts concerning the other accounts. Why would I come on the world wide web and mention where, what, who, and when about anything I heard concerning such a damaging subject, without being sure it was the facts? That would be hypocritical.
Concerning Greg, we know the facts as he stated them. I'm not trying to ruin anyone. Only pointing out his judgement concerning his actions versus other people's actions, which may or may not have been less or more guilty then himself. That's what happens with hearsay if you sell out on it. Sooner or later you get it wrong. Greg is a big boy; he can live with the responsibility of his own actions. As he told me once, in a non verbatim quote, "When a man admits his mistake, I have no problems with that.".
Yourself and Greg are trying to make this as I have a problem with the CO's. Not a all. Anybody that slows down long enough and reads, will see that.