Bowsite.com

Person who emailed the Governor’s office received this from the DNR.

I still put my faith with our biologist.

Still don’t know about the majority - looks like it still the same ole half dozen guys that show up at the commission meetings and voice their opinion.

I don’t know what happened with that Greg - all I know that this is an updated report so for the last what 3 or 4 years the DNR is recommending to leave the limit at 3. Like I said at the Cacapon meeting - I don’t want the DNR run from perception.

JayD, why don’t you request all the spring questionnaires, 2 surveys, and e-mail polling data and look at it. I think you will quickly realize it’s not “just the same ole 6 guys”. The e-Mail comments alone were 1,022 in favor of reducing limit to 2, and 72 to keep it at 3. That’s not even mentioning the thousands that were part of the 2 different surveys or the hundreds from the spring questionnaires. Request all of those, see the results then we can speak again .

What markers are used to determine if manipulation of class N stamps are beneficial, considering so few people kill a second deer it's odd they even mess with changing doe limits? Maybe because it works? Idk??

The habitat improvement that is going on and some of the stuff that is happening with the forest service is going to do wonders!

ABSOLUTELY, NO DISRESPECT TO the biologists but it’s an opinion. There is no data on what would happen if buck limit was reduced from 3-2 in 2022. Hunters are different than they were 27 years ago. Using data from 27 years ago to try and predict what hunters do and want in 2022 is a stretch to far for me.

In the past it was reduced from 5-2 in 1995. 27 years ago when we were killing 80-100 thousand bucks a year and hardly anybody had thought or heard about management. If a buck was seen it was shot or shot at. In 2005 limit was reduced from 5-3, hardly any word about it, but somehow going from 3-2 is going to be the end of hunting ?

With the DNR saying it won’t hurt nor will it help, with the finances being fine, especially better now than even 2-3.years ago with increased license sales, PR money almost doubling from last year and expected to be high for foreseeable future, and Federal laws passed that will increase federal grant money available to DNR. With the majority of the hunting public wanting to decrease limit from 3-2, it’s hard to make a legitimate argument not to reduce the buck limit .

In regards to surrounding states Antlerless/antlered ratio in harvest

< 1 = more bucks than antlerless 1= equal number of antlerless and antlered >1= number of antlerless higher than bucks 2020 data which is latest I could get for surrounding states MD. 1.7 OH. 1.5 KY. 1.0 PA. 1.5 VA. 1.1 WV. 0.8

KY kills equal buck/antlerless All other surrounding states kill more antlerless than buck WV kills more bucks than antlerless

Using 2021 data for WV if I calculated correctly WV was 0.6 . Indicating that the disparity between our neighboring states increased . But that assumption will have to wait until the data for surrounding states come out for 2021. Although it should be mentioned that the disparity has been similar going back several years .

It makes sense because our antlerless harvest was the lowest it’s been in a while AND the archery/crossbow harvest this past year was very buck heavy running around 70% buck and 30% antlerless.

For whatever reason what you posted is missing the advantages of the proposal. Your screenshots only include disadvantages.

Greg as to the doe harvest - I have stated several times before so will make this short - seems to me that the numbers continue to fall well into the formula of 70 does per every 100 bucks to keep the herd stabilized here. I just went down thru the NDA's annual report - i see states such as OH and WI still have percentages of 1.5 year bucks that are over 40% - I see that each of the surrounding states buck harvest where the majority of the harvest is still made up of 1.5 and 2.5 year olds. I think most are somewhere between 68 to 75% - seems to me we fall right in there. I remember listening to a podcast where several biologist who were with QDMA said one of the main objectives to quality deer management was to have 1.5 bucks not make up more than 32 or 33% of the harvest. Again seems like we are doing pretty good there.

Greg - i may be wrong but I don't think I am - I don't think they say lowering the limit won't hurt. I think they list out disadvantages as well. They do say though that it would be misleading to the public that it would make a shift in the age structure. You are correct in saying there is no data on what lowering the limit would do: so do you think it would have any effect in those who do buy the extra tags? I think it would - I think you would see some hunters decide to buy hunting licenses in other states - will those hunters still hunt the same amount of time hunting in WV? Will it effect them in harvesting does? What will it do the economy in the areas they normally hunt?

Again I think WV has done it right - they let the hunter make the choice! Shoot 1 buck, 2 or 3. There are ample areas to hunt through WV that offer trophy hunting opportunities. Heck not only does the state provide areas - there are many clubs that have chosen to set there own rules ob the type or amount of bucks which can be harvested.

I’m not talking about # of 1.5 year old bucks. I’m talking about antlerless/antlered ratio. If your saying a .7 ratio is the right and only way that it works then are all our surrounding states doing it the wrong way ? Or is there something unique about WV that only a .7 ratio works here ?

I’ll tell u the answer, it’s about buck/doe ratio. Having hunted several of the surrounding states

I’ve yet to have someone in WV tell me they saw too many bucks while hunting, but I have heard frequently that they went hunting and only saw does.

I’m not talking about # of 1.5 year old bucks. I’m talking about antlerless/antlered ratio. If your saying a .7 ratio is the right and only way that it works then are all our surrounding states doing it the wrong way ? Or is there something unique about WV that only a .7 ratio works here ?

I’ll tell u the answer, it’s about buck/doe ratio. Having hunted several of the surrounding states

I’ve yet to have someone in WV tell me they saw too many bucks while hunting, but I have heard frequently that they went hunting and only saw does.

It’s America, the public should have a say. If there’s no negative effect to resource and it’s financially doable they deserve input .

Personally, my opinion is that it will make a difference. It won’t be overnight but it will improve the herd over time based on biology and sociology.

It should would be nice to get information on the WMA that have had special regulations for awhile now. People that I know who hunt them say they aren’t that great to hunt anymore.

That makes no sense. We already have people not buying licenses here and going out of state to hunt because where they’re going has a lower buck limit. It’s already happening but for the exact opposite reason you’re claiming that they’ll do it for. I’m sure it isn’t but it seems half the people I know have leases in OH.

I have already heard hunters here say they will start going elsewhere to hunt some - if the limit drops to 2. So your darn right it will effect hunting here.

So why would they go to other states and not the 4 bow only counties? Why are they hunting one of the many WMA areas with restrictions? Why don’t they join a lease here that implements their own limits? Are there some that do that - probably but I don’t think it’s many because they have options to hunt here in WV. Lower the tags and those people who buy them will go else where and I think there will be many more going to other states and it will hurt us here.

Yet you say 1022 people (doesn’t even make up a half of 1 percent of total wv hunters) respond to a comment period that needed to be extended and it speaks for the majority of 225,000 to 250,000 WV hunters?

Wow I am shocked that 90% of hunters in WV hunt on private land! Where is that info located ? I think that really puts an emphasis on landowners and how much they give towards the DNR and hunting community! One of the reasons why there shouldn’t be a landowner tag or license in my opinion.

During the e-mail period, it was advertised multiple times , it was even extended for 2.5 months For around 5 months for everyone to have opportunity to express their opinion . How long would you have it extended? I think 5 months is more than reasonable . If people didn’t do it in 5 months I’m not sure extending it would add much . If people didn’t take advantage in 5 months that doesn’t take away from people that did.

During an election with low turnout the person with the most votes still wins the election. There was ample notice during Commission meeting and across media. People had ample opportunity to express their view .

I may be mistaken but I think the 90% number comes from bowhunter survey .

You said it was advertised multiple times - I don’t get a newspaper and the local stations around my neck of the woods are more from other states than WV - so I only saw it on the WV DNR Facebook site and I only saw it once. Now what I did see was that the director went on another Facebook page that supports lowering the limit - believe it was at least 2 times and he posted to the members about it was important for them to comment. Which I have no problem with him doing - but I didn’t see that happen on other Facebook pages. Then several of the members made a good effort to get the others to comment - again no problem with that as well.

Now I am not on all wv outdoor related Facebook pages so maybe there were others but I didn’t hear of any. I do know that on the one page that supports lowering the limit that they kept a running of tally of those members who made a comment. I have heard that before the period was extended that not quite 200 people had made comments but after the extension and the director’s visit to the one page and the effort put forth by several of the administrators or moderators that the number grew to 1022.

Now I am not going to say that the comment period was staged or rigged but I can see where such events would get the outcome that happened.

I don’t know how reliable the info would be from the bow survey - not many participate - that would be something worthwhile to find out though the percentage of hunters in WV who use public lands.

A lot of this stuff could have been ask for and if certain info came out - heck I may be for lowering the limit if it made a substantial difference.

Heck I told you before - I put out the idea to make a couple counties in each district a 2 buck limit and then after a certain time period look at the results.

I think that would be a much better way to go about instead of with the surveys or comments periods - I just don’t think they are very accurate. JMO

And you see we can agree on something! LOL

I firmly believe the restrictions work. I also firmly believe landowners hunt the edge, probably because of the better opportunity coming from the WMA. Probably not because of the three buck limit on their land.

And in no way do I think population of WV will suffer under a lower limit.

Sort of funny what I have witness on the WMA are the public land hunters normally hunt near the private land boundaries. So you firmly believing doesn’t really sway what I have actually observed what so ever.

Sleepy Creek WMA is getting better but without restrictions but doing so thru habitat improvement projects. Again I think it would be great to get the data from our WMA and compare - I think it could tell us a lot.

I think comparing WMA with restrictions and without would be very interesting as well.

Insert sarcastic emoji with eye roll here

I think I will continue to listen to our trained professional biologist - those biologist that the our former director called some of the best in the world instead of some proclaimed deer experts from Facebook- insert emoji of eyes rolling and bouncing in their sockets……

Same biologist that don't get anywhere near the antlerless kill needed in many counties because people focus on bucks only?

Same biologist that don't get anywhere near the antlerless kill needed in many counties because people focus on bucks only?

Seriously, should I have rolled my eyes every time you talked about how much you liked the previous director even though he thought our deer biologist was a dream team? And you know I Liked the guy too just didn’t agree with everything he did and that should be ok.

No it is not obvious what the results would be if the limit got lowered - it’s all just opinions right now and educated guesses. There are facts out there that support both sides of this issue. And again I will state - I think WV has done the right thing in providing the opportunity for both side of this issue.

Hoppies I know you think it’s all about the money - I don’t completely agree with you but it is somewhat - what do you think the DNR does with that money? I really don’t think they are splitting it up amongst themselves - I think it goes back into the programs to help us the sportsmen and women of WV.

Again I apologize for going down that road again.

Sorry but I will listen to the trained and professional biologist……

Oh and which theory says that harvesting more 2.5 year olds than 1.5 is a bad thing? Gee just looked at the nda numbers so WV has a lower percentage of 1.5 year olds killed than KY, OH, MD, PA , TN and VA - never heard NDA or QDMA say that is a problem. Again have heard them say that there should be no more than like 32 percent of the kill should be 1.5 year olds and we fall way below that.

The reason why I listen to our biologist!

I just find it odd that that you can take something random that I said that had ZERO mention of former director and twist it somehow into implying that I didn’t like the former director and state it as matter of fact . That is not even a logical sequence of pontification .

This is why I quit debating with you JayD and I think I’m done again .

Since you want to make this issue though lets go on and ask - since you don't agree with the deer management strategy that is happening - and correct me if I am wrong several years ago you gave deer management an "F" here in WV. So were you not a little disturbed that the Director came out and said our deer biologist were some of the best in the world and would make up his dream team? Lets face it one person saying the biologist are the best in the world and another saying they deserve an F is pretty much extreme - Its really is ok to say you disagree with someone and still like them. So get off the crap about twisting things because you do it in a sneaky little way all the time. And to be honest with you it is logical to ask a commissioner his thoughts on this since you feel so strongly on how you feel the deer management strategy is so bad here. Again you gave the strategy an "F" grade and the former director called the people running the deer program his dream team!

Corey - I don't even know why I even start with you - you come here and make your statements about oh the biologist that age more 2.5 year old bucks then most other states and the same biologist who don't get the antlerless kill needed - and then think no one should take anything away from it. Heck most on here don't have a clue to anything you say anymore - your talking points change like the wind. LOL first it was oh too many people are shooting 3 bucks - numbers came out showing hardly anyone does and you switch to well no one uses the third tag why have them! LOL then its we kill too many 1.5 year olds - data comes out that no we really don't so now its we lead the nation in percentage of 2.5 year olds killed.

So yea I am going to listen to our professional biologist who still recommend that we DO NOT lower the buck limit from 3 to 2 instead of listening to the deer experts here on social media.

You frame peoples opinion to meet your argument then play the victim.

You didn't post the advantages on your screenshot.

I looked over WV HUNTERS for Better Buck Management with the search engine but couldn't find what you said the director had done. Maybe a screenshot would work?

So I take it you were not a fan of the former director as well since he said they were some of the best biologist in the world and were his dream team?

Once again you two are the ones twisting things - not once did i say - you, Greg, did not like the Director

Might just be semantics but interjecting that someone is not a fan then saying you never said they didn't like the director is kid's play.

Guess you need to look a little harder because his comments were there. I cannot take a screenshot of it for you now because as you know I am not a member of that group. I said the director made two comments on the page saying something like the comment period was extended and that people should comment. I believe I also said above that that was fine and dandy as well. Also said that at least one of your members got a running tally of people commenting going - again I think that was a good call for you all - I believe it might have been BOJ so good job for him.

As normal you are wrong again on the quotes - the first quote was not to Greg it was to you. It should of been pretty easy to figure it out as to the whole post was talking to you and your comments on our biologist. it was asking if that was how you felt about the director - because your answers are always so confusing. It is so hard to figure out what you mean most of the time because you flipflop quite often. I cannot count the number of times I hear you say one thing and then something totally different moments later. Your two sentences about our biologist(2.5 year olds and antlerless harvest) - doesn't sound like you are very impressed with their work at all and you have said many others things to make that point clear as well. Funny thing is that in your opinion to the Charleston Gazette you said -- "Our highly trained wildlife biologists have said that lowering the buck limit will have no negative biological effect." So several things on that statement : first off you really think they are highly trained? That almost seems incredible to hear you say after reading your two comments on them above. Next, that is a hilarious take on them saying that lowering the limit would have no effect on the age structure of our buck population- umm how can you see that as a positive statement on lowering the limit when they say doing that would not perform the outcome you wish to happen!. LOL thats sort of like saying after a bird flies over and takes a dump on you - then singing I have fertilizer for the garden! LOL Just another situation in which who knows how to take what you say. So are they highly trained or are they biologist who allow the most 2.5 year old bucks to be taken and they can't get the antlerless harvest that you desire?

LOL what a hoot - kids play.......

Dear Commissioner - I am so sorry to have offended you once again so sorry to see you go. There are no rolling my eyes as I type this either.....

Here's the advantages you just happened to leave off. Probably easy to miss, idk.

Pay specialty attention to where it says what most hunters want.

Again - I did not leave anything out - when I bring up the page the report is on - the screenshots I post are EXACTLY what I see. I have tried to post the url here but it keeps saying there is some kind of internal error with the site. I will try again and take a screenshot of what I get.

In the updated report it looks like they have left out the advantages - I don’t know if that is an error or they meant to do so. All I know is - our HIGHLY TRAINED biologist are once again recommending to leave the limit at 3.

ROFL seriously you are going to use that quote: attempting to grow deer with large antlers, a trait that most hunters desire! You do know that probably since man has been chasing deer each and every hunter has desired that? Heck I agree with that statement whole-heartedly! And guess what - it sure looks like hunters are doing that all across the state of WV! Just look at all the huge bucks from WV that were posted on the many Facebook pages this year.

Heck - look at what Hoppies has post about a fairly small WMA , McClintic, about how quite a few big bucks are coming off. I believe it’s property that those HIGHLY TRAINED biologist are managing.

I know your next statement will be - yes but McClintic has restrictions- same kind of deer are coming off other WMA in WV that don’t have them. I am Going to post a pic of something one of our biologist said and I agree with him totally! WV is doing it right!

So where you said in your opinion the biologist said there would be no negative effect by lowering the limit to 2 - I would say that hunters having less recreational time, loss revenue and it could lead to poorer habitat and higher deer density resulting in smaller antlers was just overlooked as negative impact?

I don’t understand the greed part though - again don’t you think that money goes back into projects that help us all out? Maybe it helps pay for a few more DNR law enforcement officer. Since very few hunters shoot 3 buck or even 2 what’s the harm? Seriously the extra revenue to the DNR can only be a benefit as the extra revenue the hunters who continue to hunt and put money into the local economy does as well!

Equally absurd is lowering the buck limit from 3 to 2 could potentially lead to higher deer density with poorer antler quality from less nutrition, and habitat degradation.

Since 700-800 third bucks are killed yearly I'm not sure how many of those bucks will be having fawns to create higher deer density.

Such a novel idea, protecting bucks leads to deminished antler quality. Who knew?

And without a doubt there would be more WV hunters that would go to other states to hunt than the supposed hunters who are upset with the limit who go to other states. Why are those hunters not going to the trophy deer areas the state has now? Again it’s just more dreamed up facts that can’t be proven.

Let me tell you if the limit gets lowered you will see prices go up and you will get less product.

More hunters going to other states because we lower our limit? Watch out for the Kool aid. Will they be going to a one buck state, two buck, or desperately yearning for that magical three buck limit state that meant so much to them?

And actually the overall limit will stay the same, so you get the same product unless your only desire is antlers.

I don’t understand why you have a problem with the cost now but would not have a problem with cost if the limit were lowered?

Again Corey your argument doesn’t make any sense - one of the complaints with the status quo is your side says all these hunters have left to hunt other states with all these monster bucks. Don’t they have the option to hunt the Trophy areas in WV instead of going to another state?

I could not say what percentage it would be but when you take recreational time away from a group - you can bet they will goes elsewhere!

So tell me what the number is of these so called wv residents who are not hunting here but go to other states to kill a big buck is? What is there success rate doing that?

Got it.

There will be an actually loss of hunters and not some made up theory that hunters are leaving a state that provides trophy areas to go to other states to kill a big buck.

Other state might be making money, but don't see where WV will lose money. Truly don't get that.

Those guys who are killing 3 or 2 bucks - I would bet kill antlerless deer as well - when you take that opportunity away - heck yes they are going to look elsewhere- when they do fork out the money for out of state license do you really think they won’t cut back on their time hunt here in WV?

Oh and yes I said from the get go that unsuccessful hunters will more than likely kill the buck that another will give a pass too. I thought that would be fairly obvious but it took your side awhile to think it will happen. LOL yea I like how now - your side uses the unique hunter theory. LOL just another exaggerated theory. Guess it’s sort of like a trophy hunting participation award. So if you are agreeing now that more hunters will have the initial success and will kill those bucks that were normally killed by a hunter who kills multiple bucks ummmm - so how will the age structure improve if those bucks are still getting killed? LOL I know I won’t get an answer because you all never do answer. You just throw stuff out and see if it will stick.

Again glad you are on the bandwagon with me saying that those bucks will still probably get killed by that unique hunter. Been saying that would be the only result for years now!

So how are those trophy buck entrees going in TN now? Last time I looked they had dropped since they lowered the limit. LOL too much…..

Again let’s just listen to our: Highly trained Biologist as stated by some or listen to our biologist who are some of the best in the world as stated by the former director or his dream team of deer biologist!

Oh no that is right you would rather have product taken away and be charged more and it would be ok? LOL

I agree

If the dnr data is correct concerning the number of hunters killing three bucks, there is no benefit to dropping the limit.

Are the total buck number s only the select few guide as the gospel including only antlered deer with over three inches of horn? Or, is it counting button bucks too?

We’ve been through this before, buck/doe ratios fix quickly. And unless the deer are dying out, we are growing much older deer. Could we change things and grow more deer to older ages? Yep we could. Should we? Not in my opinion.

The modern qdma practices has already changed hunting dramatically. Look what it’s done promoting leasing. About 50,000 acres in the bow only counties gone to the general public. Poof. Atta boy. That helps the cause. It happens every where qdma has influenced. But, that’s good for hunting. Right?

We’ve got the LARGEST bow only hunting area in the lower 48. The leasing has changed access to the corporate owned lands there. But, there’s pushing 50,000 acres of state wma’s in those areas. Granting you access. I hunted some of the wma areas 20 years ago. I hunt the same areas now.

You know what’s different? Far fewer hunters. Everyone hunting their wood lots or areas of timber complaining about what the neighbors kids are shooting. I’ll take it.

FWIW, commissioners openly guaranteeing a change to buck limits, deals made to gain the vote, and disinformation caused by cherry picking info spread by the cool club, ensures it’s coming. But, I’ll guarantee one thing to everyone reading this. Going to two bucks is not going to show a lot of hunters what they think it is.

So, the push will continue by the same bunch to do something else more restricting. Until they get to define your trophy. And that’s what it is all about. Ensuring your fellow hunter kills what you feel is appropriate. Say it ain’t so and you are lying. It’s the sole reason for AR’s.

Whatever happens, if you fool around and take away opportunity for every license buyer to be a two season hunter, then you’ve failed miserably. Don’t assume that won’t happen either.

Bow only counties already had a one buck limit so lowering the buck limit hasn't caused any lease issues there.

I would argue most leases outside hate bow only are because people want better bucks and it's more attainable with private land.

Button bucks or bucks with less than three inches are antlerless deer. They only count as male when you look at male vs. Female not antlered and antlerless.

Deals made to gain votes? Don't get that one. If you allude to questionable activity may I please remind you of Commissioner Kenny Wilson with Cranberry and numerous other B's

Completely agree with you on the cherry picking of info.

I was sort of surprised when i recently found out that the TN Biologist did not want their limit lowered as well - it was just the commission there that did and from what I read even the majority of the hunters did not want it.

Now when you look at some of the numbers coming from there - I really worry as to what will happen if the limit were to be lowered here. Our biologist here did not say there would be no negative impact if the limit were lowered. They did say it could lead to higher deer densities with poorer antler growth from less nutrition and habitat degradation!

So lets look at what has happened to TN since they lowered their limit - their buck harvest has increased and according to NDA annual report the harvest number of 3.5 year olds has increased and 1.5 years olds has decreased - sounds good doesn't it. Yet the number of their trophy buck entrees has decreased! ummm can we say - higher deer density and poor antler growth maybe??? Now I am not saying that is the case for certain but who can say that hasn't happened as well. Like I have stated before lets do some research before putting something like this in to place.

I really don't understand why we are listening to what is happening in some of these other states anyhow - From some of the stuff I have seen TN before lowering their limit averaged around 40 trophy buck entrees each year after lowering their limit it looks to 30 something a year and from what I was shown the other day for last year it is a whopping 19 so far! WV here recently is pushing 80 entrees per year and we are about half the size of TN.

Lets just listen to our biologist here and let things as they are - you know those biologist some have claimed to be highly trained, a dream team and some of the world best!