Bowsite.com

Not being funny or a wise guy Just pointing out not everyone drinks the same drink you do. And, doesn't see the QDMA as the authority on broad based whitetail deer management. They are a special interest group for a reason. If not, the QDMA's approach would have been adopted by every game commission in this country.

I dont know what you drink, but whatever it is that makes you think that killing more bucks than does year after year after year helps the herd or the habitat, well, it must come in quart jars.

And to say that the National QDMA is just a special interest group with no science or biologists behind it , is , well, not even close to being accurate

Dr. Craig Harper University of Tennessee Dr Grant Woods Dr. Larry Marchington Dr Karl Miller University of Georgia

Dr. Marcus Lashley Mississippi State University

Just a few University associated PhD professors associated with QDMA who happen to be some of the most respected deer biologists in the nation.

Since 2010 the average buck limit has decreased nationwide from 3 to 2.2 which shows that state game and fish divisions and Commissions are adopting the science. Maybe, just maybe they are right ?

Yes, QDMA is a special interest group. That special interest just happens to be cutting edge scientifically proven and peer reviewed biologically sound deer and habitat management. They are involved with many research oriented Universities and game and fish agencies in the nation. They were one of the first groups to provide research money to WV DNR when CWD was first discovered in WV.

So are you saying that each one of these well known and highly respected biologist are saying the limit needs to be lowered? Or are you just saying they are members of QDMA or just that they provide QDMA articles maybe? I don’t know though and would like to be informed.

And again is this proposal from the DNR?

As to the research money they provided for research into CWD. Providing a pic and let me know if this is what you are talking about: because to me it looks as if Budweiser or Belgium Brewery was the giver of the funds and then it looks like QDMA received $5000 for administrative fees from the grant given to WVDNR for this research. Wouldn’t that sort of mean that WV actually gave QDMA money and not vice-versa? I mean that is how it appears to me.

Also I am really confused is the proposal that of the WV DNR? I thought the director was going to bring up lowering the limit at the request of concerned hunters for better buck management and was doing so at the request of certain legislators because after getting drilled with calls and emails for the legislators to stay the heck out of the decision and let our biologist make the decision. Wow I must be Rip Van Winkle and slept during that and it was a dream - so commissioner - who made the decision for the WVDNR to make this proposal so that you and the other commissioners can vote on it this Summer?

Oh I will do that believe me I will. With your post it seems to me you are implying that these individuals support lowering the buck limit. Just wanted to know how you came to that the conclusion.....

Also if I recall correctly - wasn't QDMA firmly against the new Elk program here? I know you support them just curious to what your thoughts are there - or am I mistaken on that they didn't like the idea?

What’s there to hide? What is so secretive in that you cannot say who told QDMA that this was a WV DNR proposal? Rumor has it that some were not pleased with Kip saying this was a proposal from the DNR. Is this something that you can’t talk of because the director is out again like the rigging episode? So big Otis post this on the sportsman forum - I ask him the same questions so I am the one running on this one to other forums? Mr Preston post about it on the Bowhunting WV Facebook page - I ask him how is this a WVDNR proposal - everyone gets upset that I ask when did this become a proposal of the WVDNR and you all get upset! How did the QDMA and you all come up with this is being proposed now by the WVDNR? Seems pretty simple to me..... but yet I am running here and there posting your dirty little secrets - come on man just answer the questions. Maybe if you stop with the accusations we could have a civil debate or question and answer period as you call it.

Thank you!

Oh, I know. You try to cook the books with a survey, then whine about it because the results don’t match your desires. Then cook the second survey to meet your desires. Then 20,000 or so whiny men get to represent the whole state based on the corruption of one egotistical commissioner and drunk of a director. That about sums it up.

Correct me if any of this is wrong. Please.

It all makes sense now.

I guess its easier for you guys and gals to sit behind the keyboard and tell us how we are doing shady deals, with 0 proof of that....I guess in the world you live in, thats how it works, i dont know.

And as Gobbler said, you have the other one here asking the same 5 questions 25 different ways, just to try and pick apart an answer and use it against him .......Again, everything we do is above board...no sneaky stuff , as i just mentioned from the other side.

JayD - You kept asking for facts or info, and now when presented, its wrong, its fake , its from Russia, i dont know...it just cant be right, well, it is.

I am like the rest on here though, no need to keep beating this up on here, we the hard workers for change will absolutely be all the meetings , doing the leg work........While the rest just complain in here, and we will see who gets results...

And Gobbler---Keep posting facts, as you can see, the only come back is the Director's actions in Fla.......Slight mis-direction, to keep everyone fired up....Because now that we are getting more and more data "Facts" in that support a lower limits, the opposition is getting ansy...

If or when the limits are reduced , and 5 years after that, it will be interesting to see all the people who were against it, bragging and showing off their deer.......Kinda like when Sunday hunting was taboo and nobody was for it...........now look at it.

As to this being a DNR proposal - I have heard differently from quite a few others that it isn’t their proposal and they were shocked when QDMA came out in support of it. Time will tell what the truth is - I am waiting on several responses now from both sides. I think this is why some are getting testy as to why I continued to ask if this really was a proposal from the DNR.

BOJ - no I would not say he was innocent because he supports what I believe! I have stated my opinion on him - quite shocked by it but his resignation should have been accepted or he should have been placed on leave! This isn’t about being proven innocent or not - the man has to complete a batterer’s intervention program and stay out of trouble for 12 months - maybe only 9 if he is good! That should say it all right there!

This response tells me a lot! Like how the director capitalized the would NOT!

As to this being a DNR proposal - I have heard differently from quite a few others that it isn’t their proposal and they were shocked when QDMA came out in support of it. Time will tell what the truth is - I am waiting on several responses now from both sides. I think this is why some are getting testy as to why I continued to ask if this really was a proposal from the DNR.

BOJ - no I would not say he was innocent because he supports what I believe! I have stated my opinion on him - quite shocked by it but his resignation should have been accepted or he should have been placed on leave! This isn’t about being proven innocent or not - the man has to complete a batterer’s intervention program and stay out of trouble for 12 months - maybe only 9 if he is good! That should say it all right there!

This response tells me a lot! Like how the director capitalized the would NOT!

Might I make a request —- has there been any thought into doing a live stream of these meetings? If not maybe there should be - I believe it would only put the issues out there for more to see plus it shouldn’t be that difficult to do - can’t imagine that many of the places where the meetings take place now do not have internet.

Thank you....

I’ve asked Wildlife for several years to provide a breakdown of buck, doe, button buck, shed buck in the big game bulletin but have not seen it. Wildlife has the data on the buck/doe breakdown of the archery, crossbow, and muzzleloader kills but do not provide it to us.

I’ve asked for wildlife to provide the Commission with the results of the spring questionnaire a few days before the meeting so we can have time to review it before meeting but that hadn’t occurred either. We get it at the beginning of the meeting in which we have to vote on it in.

As far as meetings, I've been to one in the past 4 years. Maybe 10 my whole life. Enough to know how they work. And, I must commend the people your group gets to show up and write questions and management topics down for the dnr to consider. I mean that too. No matter how I feel about the topic, at least some of you show up and propose what you think is a better deal. You used the system that others take for granted, to get this where you want it. Bravo for that.

As I said before, I do not know if what I have heard is true. People could be telling me what they think versus what the sentiment truly is concerning you and this matter. However, it is kinda like the case against the director. No one knows for sure but, given the set of circumstances we do know, I find it laughable for you to suggest that you had no hand in this going this way. That its the DNR wanting all this. I might be wrong but, there has never been one action or statement made by you that would change my mind on that. No matter how many times you claim to equally represent the sportsmen of WV.

I'm not trying to be rude. But, you've taken great liberty in the past to slander, belittle, and try to embarrass every one into silence who has disagreed with you on this subject. You truly are doing a thankless thing being a commissioner if your intent is to fairly represent the hunters and fishermen of this state. However, by your words and admission on this forum, that surely does not apply to the work you have completed as a commissioner. So, accept my bluntness as nothing more then being willing to point that out.

That way whether some likes what happens or they don’t like what happens they can see it and understand why.

My unwillingness to accept a 1 or 2 % sample survey and, 20 of the same people attending the regional meetings as what the remainder of the whole state wants as a guideline, has led me to my conclusions. But, like I said earlier, I applaud the conviction that some of your group holds. I'm just not convinced it represents the masses. But, you can't make people participate. No more then you can realistically claim that content hunters attend meetings.

I've been heavy into forest stand statistics for over 20 years now. And, in order to achieve a 95% confidence interval on any average stand of timber, it requires roughly a minimum of a random but, equally spaced plots representing a total of 35% sampling of the entire stand. That demand does decrease with size on paper but, it requires guidance to know when it truly represents an accurate survey. Why that changes with people is beyond me. Perhaps we should ask Hillary's camp how that worked for her. Or, admit when you introduce influence, like guided questions or non random participants, it is easy to get parameters into broad ranges that favor a predetermined outcome.

I appreciate the source. And, I know you are out of your realm and latch on to anything that supports your narrative concerning this. But, that is simply untrue with predictable influences when randomness is not followed. Seems that got threw out when the results didn't favor the outcome. We are talking real life. Not paper theory. And, in no reputable statistical survey, can a 95% confidence interval be predicted with such a small sample of tainted results. If you don't agree, I'll come and put three plots in your 600 acres of timber and, make you an offer on it. Get my drift?

As for my integrity, its crystal clear, everything is above board and clear...Now what you see and think about it/me , may just be cloudy due to what u want........U dont want a 3 buck limit, you arent for a 2 buck limit, so are you for a 1 buck limit?

Thickheaded...yeah , you got me there, its hereditary ...

and what else was there, oh yes, my narrative..well, it hasn't changed, 1 and done would be nice, but 2 buck limit is good.....Whats your choice? You seem to not have one, but are against 1-2 or 3 limit? Do u want it back to 5? So if iam wrong, correct me, whats your narrative? What do you want the limits at? 1-2-3-4 or 5...or 10?

Oh well, guess we will see tomorrow who all shows up...no sneaky behind the scenes , just meeting , open to the public that no one wants to attend, but wants to complain...Live stream would be nice, so you all can see first hand how they work ...until then--come to a meeting...

My opinion is why did they not look at the number of hunters in WV - look at the percentages of who buys and who does't buy the extra tag? then break it down even further as to percentage of who fills an extra tag and who doesn't and send the survey out to whatever number they think is viable(normally way too low in my opinion most of the time)? do it by the percentages. If so many bowhunters buy a license then that should have been the percentage of who was sent a survey and just continued down the list.

I guess my BIGGEST QUESTION is : it sounds like to me from your answers gobbler that whoever in the DNR that you are saying drew up this proposal that they used the survey we are talking about right now (the survey where some were sent out and there was a question as to how random it was so more were sent out upon the Director's orders) to come to specifics in this proposal? Is that correct?

As to going to meetings - as Director McDaniel stated to the legislators back when the bills were not even brought up to vote upon by the main body of legislators. He will not hear from people who are satisfied with the way things are going - he only hears from those with complaints. Again I was told by several legislators that they were hammered with emails and calls for them to stay out of decisions that our DNR should be making and that they don't want a reduction of the buck limit. So it should be interesting to see what happens when more people start to hear about this new proposal.

I'm an American so I can voice my opinion anywhere, about anything I please--thank you.

I used that handle about 15 years ago and just recently brought it back. I've "personally" supported a one-buck limit forever. Don't worry though, I don't go to the meetings, don't belong to the QDMA and have never contacted a legislator about it. It's just my personal little protest.

BK,

I appreciate you qualifying your remarks. I understand; all is good.

First off I was told at today's meeting that the DNR chief said it was not a DNR proposal, which supports the email I received saying it was not a DNR Proposal! I would think the minutes of the meeting will be available soon to confirm this. I did hear that our director spoke up and said that it was his proposal. I also heard that the director was made aware of the fact that the commission cannot vote on restructuring the license. The assumption is that the director did have outside help on drafting this proposal and each of us can make a guess of who or what group gave input on it. I got the impression that with the director's expertise being from the medical field some were not pleased he and others were the makers of the proposal.

I was told several days ago QDMA gave the support to this proposal because they were told it was a proposal of the WVDNR and they wanted to provide support for our DNR. I was also told that they were informed that no it was not proposed by the DNR and that some from our DNR were upset over it. So again time will tell with this - it will be interesting to see if QDMA comes out with another statement.

The reason why in my last post I asked about the survey used to come with this proposal. The director told our legislators and each one of us that another outside group would be doing a survey for the DNR to see what hunters wanted so he could provide our commission with the data. It is my understanding this new survey has not been sent out as of yet. So it may not be finished in time for the August meeting for the commissioners to vote on lowering the limit.

Must admit the info in the paragraph above pisses me off big time! So it was expressed to us by the director that the info received from this outside groups survey would help in determining if we should lower the limit and from my take on how the license would be set up. Seems like he got ahead of things and could care less of what the hunters of WV want since he made this proposal and started drumming up support for it before even getting the results from this new survey! Maybe he is a soothsayer? Also ticks me off that since apparently the info from a soon to be done survey - doesn't mean squat to him and he already has drawn up the proposal before seeing the results - why waste the money to even have it done? I heard that it will be a 6 figure cost to have the survey done!

Just stating what I have heard - I will be anxiously awaiting the minutes to see if I was informed correctly. I guess time will tell. I know I will be emailing the governor to ask for him to stop the survey because it doesn't seem to matter and it would be spending the money foolishly now!

This years result again showed that the majority of hunters wanted to decrease buck limit from 3-2. 70% for reducing the limit, 30% against reducing the limit.

So gobbler think about what the director said - he doesn’t hear from those who think things are fine only those who have a complaint. So even out of all those who complained 30 percent of them don’t want a change in the limit. Ummm bet the percentage of those who think things are fine would be around 90% or more to not change things......

Its really sad that a commission/er charged with unbiased representation of hunters, would help push this through on the down low. With a director of operations on board for such actions as well. SMH. Hey Jeff, tell us again how this as all been on the up and up. Directors ordering surveys with an already determined vote coming in August. I reckon he has someone informing him to cover his bases. And, it sounds like another cooked survey was/is coming. Unbelievable.

At this point, I truly do know how most deer hunters would poll. I believe that most wouldn't want change if given all the info. I could be wrong. But, what is absolutely disgusting and unbelievable is, after the surveys we did have, we can't say one way or the other. Due to the way they were handled. Its like the dang collusion crap. We've got one side accusing the other but, being proven to be the only ones that's done what they are charging the other group with. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

And yes, I realize homeless people probably don’t have a computer and printer but they can go to the local library. The point is each and every one counts

Why present a proposal now before the independent survey has even been sent out? Seems again like big show to me - do a little third party survey and get some data from hunters but oops we put the proposal out before the survey was done! Plus we spend lots of money to do it!

Yes JR I agree our Biologist should have the final say - but to see what WV hunters want would be nice but biological reason should be of most importance.

Biological reason? Same biological reason many of these same biologist oversaw a period of massive deer populations exceeding carrying capacity and giving us an inflated deer herd for the purpose of tag sales.

Sex ratios cannot be applied as harvest ratios. Period. It isnt a formula and a guess. Its numbers provided by the wvdnr. And I dont believe a prehunt sex ratio can be 10 does to one buck.

I find it funny that the only thing the lower limit crowd can cling to now are the regional and sectional meetings - and bravo for you all getting some people to attend. But let’s not fail to mention that our legislators were hammered or bombarded (I heard different legislators use each of those words as a description) with emails and calls to let things be and stay out of it! Seems like a pretty good indicator for what WV hunters want to me! Then let’s not forget about the survey - you said was rigged (the one the director told me was not rigged but you told me he told you differently) out of the four choices - let it stay as it is was the highest voted on! And oh my goodness you equate a question on a survey by the DNR as them making the proposal! That’s rich!

Sorry but I prefer a proposal from the wildlife division of the DNR and not the Medical Division of the DNR.....

So we have you saying legislators were bombarded but no concrete eveidence of anything. We have legislators saying there is trwmwndous support but hey you can email the head of house and senate natural reaourves yourself. Wvmntneer, I'm not cherry picking anything and I'm surely not making assumptions on kill ratios. I assume the info in the wvdnr annual report is from the wvdnr but like Jayd states I might be mistaken. I've posted the info from the wvdnr but you are still saying we dont know it. Its in the annual report on total doe kill ratios. Ita not broken down by archery and muzzleloader but that has also been posted in previous years.

And as to being prone to doing something I just relay info that I am told - I would think if someone didn’t want it told why would they let it out in the first place? I pretty much know who probably told you that and he was upset that I made the statement that there are some with in your group who think our DNR are a laughing stock. I didn’t mention his name though.

I normally will not tell anyone whatever I am trying to keep secret or I will tell the person to keep it between me and them only or something! I just think that is common sense!

Oh I reported the name calling as well - seems some others were kicked off over that stuff.

Come to the Commission meetings, or petition the DNR to live stream the meetings. Go to the regional sectional meetings. Read the big game bulletins and other publications put out by the DNR.

I would love to see all the meetings packed with sportsmen

Don’t rely on 2nd or 3rd hand information and take it as gospel. Remember the old grade school teaching tool. You line up 10 kids and whisper something in the ear of the first kid and have them do the same on down the line. By the time it gets to the last kid it invariably comes out different than what was said initially.

The further down the line either consciously or subconsciously information changes.

Jayd, Name calling? Saying you sharing someone's PRIVATE message is a douche move isn't name calling but feel free to be offended if you choose. Just make sure to know what PRIVATE MESSAGE means. Way to assume and stir.

I must admit your comment made me laugh though - because I wasn’t for sure if I should be offended by it or take it as a badge of honor - we finally found a field that you are a true expert in and can comment on!

It’s like voting for the President . If people won’t exert a little time and effort to vote and then complain about who the President is, well, it just makes me shake my head.

Now someone screenshot this (Jayd)and make Sure to say BBM wants a license increase to buy stamps.

And Cory why with you does everything have to be so secretive? Why don’t you want any of this stuff shown to other hunters - just makes it looks like you have something to hide. And in the bills this past legislation session were there not fee increases? Didn’t I hear several of your members boasting how they helped or even took full claim in writing the bills?

Listen everyone - shh shh all this is a secret - Cory doesn’t want anyone to know..... mum is the word! Is that better?

Ask.the director who helped him write the proposal. Then screenshot it and share it. I have nothing to hide or want to keep anything secretive but I also dont have to cough up answers to 1,457 questions to a guy from Berkeley County. Your McCarthyism insinuations get old.

I think that money could be better utilized elsewhere in the DNR, perhaps on a software update so everyone could get one e-mailed to them.

It also can’t be done a year ahead of time because the proposals at the Feb. meeting are based on the previous falls harvest. Because of that , it’s a short window to tabulate the falls previous harvest then report to Commission in Feb.

Does that make sense ? I think I explained it right

It would be useless and additional expense to attach a survey to regulations that has already been voted on and has no value at that point.

It would be like taking an election ballot to a polling station after the voting had already occurred and someone announced the winner.

And you tell me it’s “Hogwash “. I really have no clue what you are talking about with the blank questionnaire ??? Are u talking about sheets of blank paper attached to the regulations ???

Explain this to me please , how is a blank survey going to be attached to a regulation that goes out to the public in June of one year when the questions on the survey don’t even exist until 7 months later the NEXT year ??

I think there’s a serious disconnect here on how the process works

I printed out an extra copy of it back in February or March and just found it.

You will see the one question about the buck limit being reduced - didn’t see anywhere in the survey about the modifying of the license. Also this sort of goes along with the director’s words that the commissioners at the summer meeting would be asked to vote on lowering the limit. Nothing was said of a proposal - the chief of the dnr said it was not a proposal of theirs. Our director said an outside independent firm would be conducting a survey on this matter - but before any of this was done - presto bingo there is a proposal!

So just remember this new survey which I heard was suppose to cost around $120,000 has not been done - the vote by the commissioners to lower the limit has not been done - our DNR processionals had nothing to do with this proposal.

We can only guess who had a hand in drafting this proposal with the director. Just think of the waste of money for the survey - the waste of time asking the commissioners to even vote on lowering the limit - when the director had already made the decision to promote this proposal without the input of most of the hunters or even the vote of the commissioners. From my understanding there were a little over 300 people who filled out the survey. So 300+ people were the ones who got the director to make this proposal - let that sink in!

Gobbler just the sequence of events if this was something that you were against something tell me you wouldn’t be displeased with the way things have happened over this.

Funny thing is these sectional meetings and survey were once talked of as a joke and a waste by some now who are praising them and the survey. I remember reading post of someone being upset because one of our biologist said of QDMA stood for questionable deer management! Heard one say his name was the only name written down along side of his comment on the board. Remark about how they doubted the survey was used as anything other then TP. Now though it’s a great survey that shows the wants of 253000 hunters in WV! Again I just don’t like the sequence of events - just remember I was one of the first on here to say two and your thru is the way to go.

Does that clear things up for you? Does it confuse you how all these people I use to debate with about it not be reduced to a 1 buck limit and they are now supporting the idea that I use to support - a two buck limit? Does that confuse you?

55 clubs with 7,802 members submitted surveys This shows 323 individuals

The clubs include hunting clubs and sportsmen clubs

Do I wish more sportsmen would get involved ? ABSOLUTELY!! But for the last 10 years it’s run between 250-500

But there were close to 8000 additional responses thru their club affiliation

The same goes for everyone on this site . Come and speak at a commission meeting.

J.R can come and speak both for and against the same subject if he likes.

And again the only people to respond to this are those who normally want change - if people are happy with things they don’t fill it out. The director told us all - this very same thing! Heck you would think that if the majority of people who responded are those for change - I would expect the percentage to be much higher in your favor! Heck like gobbler said some could have cared less about lowering the limit in that they didn’t even answer the question.

All along you all told everyone - too many people are killing 3 bucks and they are normally 3 spikes! Well you were proven wrong in that and now you changed your answer so it’s - well heck no one is using the tag so just get rid of it! Rofl that is simply hilarious! And yes it probably is about the money for some - for others it may just be simply the want for the opportunity to hunt in all three seasons. Whatever the reason is your first thought on this was completely wrong every bubba doesn’t shoot 3 bucks nor do all these NR hunters come here and fill all 3 of their tags and go home and shoot a monster! It just isn’t happening!

Once again it does not bother anyone here that we are wasting $120,000 for an independent survey that was never going to be used for this proposal of the director’s and Whomever helped to prepare it? I thought before a proposal would be made at least our commissioners would have a say with it because they were suppose to vote on it in August but yet here we have a proposal already - apparently their vote doesn’t matter now.

Jayd,

Instead of rewriting history and telling people how they feel or believe, the only thing I believe with the sectional meetings is people have the ability to attend. I believe its a shame that Kenny wilson openly stated he doesnt take them seriously and its just a hoop the legislature has them to jump through. I believe they should be live streamed or some type of interactive online presentation. I believe its a shame sportsmen choose not to attend. Tells me that not many are adamently opposed to a two buck limit.

Yes, Dr. Crum said QDMA is questionable deer management. Of course he holds his hand out and takes the hand out when qdma offers cwd research money. Yes, Keith Krantz wrote my name beside my comments and thats the only time in 20 plus years of meetings where I know that a name was placed by a comment.

How you got my asking people to speak at the commission meeting to a view on the survey is funny but please do not do that again. Do not speak for me . You have it all screwed up. I have spoke at commission meetings , filled out surveys and went to sectional meeting to voice my opinion so I think the Dnr knows how I feel . You should do the same and just speak for you .

You can voice yourself to the commission . Its a very good way to get your point across.

JR, your opinions change from post to post. Your last one would be a good one for the game commission and the public to hear straight from you instead of getting misinformation from others translations .

now sundy. as for your "belligerent ignorance" comment. you don't know me but I've read enough of your post to sum you up as just another one of the boys that want's it his way and no other way deserves any merit.

and hop56. sorry for my confusion. I figured a WV Natural Resources Commissioner and a WV DNR Commissioner were one in the same. Please explain the difference?

and as for the "Commissioner" I'm waiting on a reply as to his responsibility to the people of our state?

Guess what there are so many ways for your voice to be heard - rather it be going to meeting, filling out survey or sending an email to the DNR, the director or even contacting the governor! Guess what I have done all of them as well. Heck I have gotten a few things done just by contacting the Governor with my thoughts on a few issues - didn't need a group of people to do so. So Donnie - don't listen to any of these guys - if you want your voice to be heard now - contact any of those mentioned. In saying that - it would still be good for more people to respond to the Spring survey each year as well. And again it would be nice for new innovative ways for them to let people know when the survey is taking place and when it needs to be and better ways to get access to it (email out to hunters would be great - just like the Gold Rush). Of course just remember the Spring survey or questionaire or whatever it is called - are just recommendations - they may happen they may not - rofl simply hilarious to think people are comparing it to a general election and if you don't take the survey by gosh forget about it - sounds to me its just a way to silence other people's voices.

Donnie the reason why they are making this Spring survey out to be such a big deal right now is that with each step they have failed. They have failed in the past with the commissioners and they failed this past legislative session to get their bills past. So now they need to make a big deal about how this survey that few have responded to is so overwhelmingly in support for lowering the buck limit (plus some threw in the modification of the license as well) - its all a show to try to get a majority of the commissioners to vote for it. From my understanding it still pretty much looks like a no vote by the majority of commissioners.

Hoppies - you better watch what you say sounds like you sort of agree with me there some! And goodness the dirty word you spoke - LANDOWNER - and to say they hunt to! I mean to me it just looked like you said you feel they should be able to have a say in the survey as well! That is a big NO NO with that group!

Enjoy seeing how some of you come on this site and do things that you would kick someone off of your page for doing.......

My voice counts......... Their voice doesn't represent everyone.........

I got a few things done by myself..........

So you feel that you represent me? Is your voice a true reoresentation of 1.8 million peiole of this state? We need to mail them out a survey!

I think every voice should be heard. We are talking about ways how to get your opinion heard with the DNR - its not a general election - there are different avenues to do so - you may not like that but guess what it works that way.

I totally agree more people should mail in the survey.And did I ever say I represent all the people of WV? As of now - I can promise you one thing I would never do anything for you - you can take that to bank.

Your Comment - "I got a few things done by myself" - has me confused and I never said that. I was telling Donnie by using different avenues to share your opinions or thoughts - things can get done. Gave him this EXAMPLE: I have emailed the Governor - told him where some mistakes were being made - his staff looked into them - agreed with me that there was a problem and those issues were fixed. I didn't have to fill out a survey and have others do so to get something done - not saying anything bad about those who go the way of filling out a survey - as I told Donnie there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Now the confusion part of your comments: " I got things done myself" - were you talking about yourself? From what I recall back when sunday hunting was on the ballot in many counties - a lot of people came on here and thanked you for all the work you did - did you ever once say something like - Hey guys I appreciate it - but man it was a team effort - there were others out there working their tails off to get this done - did ya every make a statement like that on here? If ya did I missed it and if ya did I apologize for missing it - just curious......

Does anyone know what the definition is for glory hound? Daughter ask me that the other day and I am sure some on here can help me out in explaining it to her ..... - oh we were practicing with our bows at the time - thought it was funny that she would bring it up at that time. I just told her she should keep her mind clear of such things and just concentrate on the task at hand.

hoppies - once again you are making a statement that I already said - lets see the results of this independent survey and then go from there - but that is not what happen - a proposal has been made by the director and we know or at least I do who has been chewing on his ear for what is in this proposal. (and hey whoever did the chewing - great job because you convinced him into this - because when I first talked to him he was not inclined to do any such thing like this and it was your right to be able to do so - so again good job - just stop getting upset when either I or others work at saying we don't think this is the right thing to do!) I read Chris's article as well - seeing some of the answers in that article sends a message to me that some of the commissioners have questions on lowering the limit and my guess would be they still don't like the idea of lowering the limit. To me it seems like the director and whoever helped draft the proposal already came to the decision on lowering the limit and modifying the licenses without the survey being done - so why waste the money on now? Again it seems to me they are drumming up support to get people to comment certain ways on the survey if or when it is given - why not just have a brief summary with the harvest data and like materials at the beginning of the survey and then let people who are selected - take the survey on the scientific data - instead of them basing their decision on some group - what did you say someone called it the one time Cory - Questionable Deer Management ?

Hoppies - one question for you - if I bring something up you always question me - ask me about my sources and what knot. The other day you ask how I knew about the cost of the survey and who was doing - you said you read the article about it and you see I was correct - but in the past when several on here brought up about the rigging or stacking of the deck - several of us on here ask for the sources to make such a claim - just provide the evidence and I know I would have stood with them in saying it was wrong. From what I recalled you stayed pretty much mum on that - maybe even made a comment that lets move on and get back to hunting - which hey fine and dandy. Why didn't you stand with us then and ask for the source? I ask many times for the source so I could stand with them and say hey no more rigging! Source never came out on here but then someone PM'ed me and told me I would be surprised who the source was. PM'ed me again and told me who the source was - I never asked for them to PM me - I ask openly for it! I then contacted the source and asked what gives - the person told me once again that no rigging of the survey had taken place. You know one thing I got out of all that - don't be so naive as to PM someone info they have asked for in an open forum. Especially don't do it and do not include anything like hey in confidentiality or something.

MP - hey I get ya - its that ole do as I say and not as I do thing attitude with you - good for you - just not going to abide by it. Isn't it nice to be able to come on to a page and express you view without fear of being kicked off or blocked from a page because of something you might do - nothing you did just something you might do! Hey MP - did you see that - I repeated myself again! Are you going to repeat that I should not repeat myself again? ROFL you are too much!

JayD. I have to agree with you on the antics pertaining to the "so called" survey.

and putting this issue in the same sentence with the Presidential Election. give us a break man. you have to be more intelligent than that.

And as far as Sunday hunting I'm probably the most humble person you will ever know. Now I've been painted in a certain light by you and some others. It doesn't matter what I said or didnt say because you have what you want to believe.

Glory hound?

Let’s face it landowners do a ton for all types of wildlife- from improving the habitat- to allowing others to come in and hunt upon their lands! Now there are some who say no no landowners should not be included!

And if you’re one of the crowd that thinks coyotes were “introduced “ into WV please do yourself a favor by researching and reading about the eastward migration of coyotes. It is scientifically well documented in science journals including DNA analysis .

I’m a landowner too but I have a lifetime license. I didn’t used to think so but it has been pointed out to me by some in the DNR that a lot of landowners actually do buy a license or have lifetime licenses. They may not buy additional tags for additional bucks and does. The exact percentage IDK

I saw in Chris’s article where one of the commissioners said something to the affect that landowners should be allowed to vote as well in this new survey or say the previous survey from last year ( the one where surveys were sent out twice - I believe the second time landowners were not included in the director’s order)?

Heck you saw where some of us said we think landowners should be included - after your reply to JR ( oh I am a landowner and have a lifetime license and I still continue to buy an extra tag as well) do you think all landowners should receive these random or independent surveys or should just landowners who buy a license receive and participate in them or should landowners just not participate in this type of survey? I would like to ask as a hunter in this state for you to agree that all landowners be included - if you say know no you won’t hear a beef from me - I am just one voice.

Was a decision made at this weekend’s meeting on landowners being included?

Thank you!!!!

As I understand, the decision was made that the Director was going to talk to Southwick about it.

Dont play innocent.and try to play it off as asking for help with your child in the middle of one of your novels.

and, I'm not the one that said you were appointed by justice. I just commented on what I read about how you got the position. bottom line....somebody "appointed" you. not like you actually went thru a hiring process and gained a job on merit? somebody liked you well enough or you have something to offer in return for an "appointment" to a position. just admit....you kissed @$$ and got a position so you can promote your personal agenda?

Donnie Hunt, 1st....Let me ask you this, where do you live? because in the spring they have multiple placers that they have sectional meetings where you can voice a concern and pick up a questionnaire.....If theres not one close, remind me next year and i will mail u one.....Free of Charge.

As for your post "My right to kill 3 bucks if I so desire has no affect on 99.9% of you as you don't hunt the same area as I do so why punish me if I want to kill more than one buck? " Its everyone's problem, i would hate to be your neighbor. So WVMTNR-- How is BBM playing behind the scenes with the survey that Southwick is gonna do? Last i checked there are what, 6 other Commissioners besides Gobbler, they in on it to? Or just Gobbler, the Director?? Come on man....

Again, as sated 100 times above, get involved, either way you want this to go..........Absolutely no reason for anyone not to be informed or be in attendance of at least 1 meeting....None....to many spread through out the state...

But, to explain my feelings more clearly, As suspected when hired for the position, this director has a goal of reducing the buck kill. That is fine. Everyone has an opinion on it. But, not everyone is setting in a position that requires self monitoring of their opinion on it. In other words, no matter how this goes on the political side, it has to be done correctly. And, I do not like the way things have been handled concerning the procedures needed in order to achieve that goal. Because it has totally dismissed the most important element of a random survey. RANDOMNESS.

As example, Enter more surveys delivered to what amounts to being HANDPICKED recipients. Problem solved for the goal because all of a sudden the survey went from rigged to righteous by the accounts of those in favor of a reduced harvest. These were the same people that was originally saying it was rigged. Are you kidding me? Eliminating randomness is about the only thing that will screw up a RANDOM sample. That is stats 101. Not a 400 class lesson.

Do I believe Gobbler, MP, you, Cory, or anyone else was behind the scenes cooking the results? Not entirely. But, I'm certain that at least one commissioner has a direct line to the director's ear concerning his input on the subject. Which leads back to the fact that it seems unbelievable to me that men who one day say the results aren't valid, are later saying the exact opposite once the participants are hand picked to get the results desired. How is it that? How do you rationally suggest that once randomness is thrown out of a statistical survey, that the results are not tainted?

It literally blows my mind that is being dismissed here. Mainly because I expect more from men who are appointed to represent all hunters and fishermen in this state. IF you were there in Greg's position, you'd be getting the same treatment. It isn't personal. Its just what I've said. The special survey that was done cannot be used to determine accurate results for how the majority of hunters in this state feel. It is tainted.

I have other issues too. As of now, I am not sure if the results of this survey was used as proof to get an outside host or, was used as an example of why an outside host is needed. I truly don't know. But, I'm sure hoping it was the latter. Because if it was the first, this is going to stink to high heavens before its over. Everyone here knows someone in high places.

Since I've already typed a page and, it is obvious that clear communication gets lost in all the emotion, let me clarify this. I'm all for what the DNR says we need biologically. If they come out tomorrow and say we need to reduce buck harvest, count me in. However, up to this point, nothing they have said supports that. Nothing. And, most of what they do release says totally opposite of that. So, I'm in their camp regardless of what I prefer for a buck limit.

My personal feelings are this. As things stand with their data, the only thing holding up a 2 buck limit is money. They've said as much. It will have no affect on me as long as it stays at 2. As long as I can do my wilderness rifle hunt and bow hunt too, I'm a happy camper. I can't do that with a one buck limit if I kill one with a bow. Because where I rifle hunt, there is no doe season concurrent with buck firearm season.

There you go. You asked why I feel how I do. And, concerning the special survey, I'm very inclined to believe my opinion is 100% correct. If by chance I'm wrong, I'll take the correction with open arms. It would definitely expose the hush surrounding this fiasco and get every one on the same page. Instead of having to guess whats going on behind the scenes.

In all honesty, I think it was screwed up from the beginning but wildlife officials said at meeting that results would have came out the same . IDK ?

A random survey does not include making a conscious decision AT THE BEGINNING to only survey people that bought extra deer tags the previous 2 years, and to NOT include ANYONE that didn’t. That was a MAJOR flaw in what was supposed to be a random survey.

By definition, a survey cannot be random if someone arbitrarily picks which groups to include or not include in a survey.

In that case someone in Wildlife decided to only send surveys to people that bought multiple deer tags and to NOT send them to people that only bought a base license.

It that was done in a private sector survey company whoever made that arbitrary decision would most likely lose their job.

Again, like a lot of issues being at a meeting or having access to a live -stream of a meeting would let people see and hear for themselves instead of depending on 2nd hand information or hearing what people want you to hear about what happened in a meeting.

IT Had nothing to do with non-license buying landowners and EVERYTHING to do with hunters that bought a base license but DID NOT purchase additional deer hunting stamps. If a survey was TRULY random they should have been included initially. That’s why a second batch of surveys were sent out so they could be represented also.

Before you say that 65% of hunters are satisfied, It wasn’t included in the picture where the majority of licensed hunters preferred a lower limit. I think we all know how that part came out. A majority of license buying hunters wanted a lower limit. A smaller majority of non license buying hunters wanted to keep it at 3.

As it was stated at our last meeting, it’s the license BUYING hunters that keep the lights on at the DNR.

Technically, , you can mail a second round to a handpicked the percentage of non tag buyers but without the randomness of picking from a huge pool to begin with, it’s just not going to be reliably accurate. Because there are those that but a second tag that want a lower limit. Just as there are those who don’t that want it stay the same. Handpicking recipients takes those impossible to account variables out of the batch.

Someone made a decision to turn a random survey into a non random survey from the beginning. It was not an accident.

Matter of fact - I just listened to a voice mail I received last Fall - where as like in the minutes the director said the reason for the additional surveys was because he wanted to hear from paying customers and landowners were not paying customers.

I am not questioning what you say either - just I never heard a thing about what you posted as to why you felt the survey was rigged. So thanks for keeping us informed!

The picture I posted above is directly from the handout we were given while Wildlife was presenting the survey.

And I agree, something should be done . A lot of time, energy,and money was essentially wasted and a lot of ill-will created on both sides of the issue because someone decided to make a requested random survey into a non random survey.

I don’t care which side of an issue one is on, that should never be done.

I don’t think my personal opinion is a secret to anyone and people can chose to believe me or not believe me but my bottom line is that I expect surveys to be done in a non -biased manner. If it’s supposed to be a random survey it should be a random survey in order for me to be able to make a fair informed decision and/or vote. And that is why I called it out when I did, at that time I had no idea what the results were going to be but I knew there was a big problem with the survey.

FWIW, it might not be open information but, are the questions on the newer survey going to be made public info to everyone? Even if they don’t receive one of the surveys? Be interesting to see how it’s worded.

IDK about second survey yet. It is being done by Southwick which is a highly respected national survey group that specializes it these types of studies and has done similar studies for WV and numerous other state game and fish departments throughout the nation. I suspect it will be done right. Their reputation and future business depends on doing their work right.

As for it being available for people that don’t get a survey IDK . I suspect it will be at some point in time. I figure somebody will post it on SM. I figure people can see it but not be able to comment or reply unless they received it because that would mess up their statistical analysis of survey and data. They have it down to a fine art.