West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%

SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Preliminary data collected from game checking stations across the state indicate deer hunters in West Virginia harvested 59,835 bucks during the two-week buck firearms season, which ran from November 21 through December 3, according to Frank Jezioro, Director of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR). The 2011 buck harvest was 38 percent more than the 2010 harvest of 43,461. The top 10 counties for buck harvest were as follows: Preston (2,162), Randolph (2,039), Jackson (1,960), Mason (1,931), Greenbrier (1,803), Roane (1,743), Wood (1,703), Hampshire (1,661), Upshur (1,596) and Hardy (1,574).

This year’s buck harvest is significantly higher than last year, with increases occurring across all DNR districts. The largest percentage increases occurred in the western and southern counties. This year’s preliminary buck harvest remains 3 percent below the previous five-year average of 61,428.

Wildlife biologists and wildlife managers collected age-specific biological information at checking stations in 12 counties this year. Preliminary analysis indicates antler development was good and many hunters harvested older-aged bucks. Other contributing factors such as the exceptional acorn crop in the fall of 2010 and deer densities more in balance with the habitat in many areas combined to make this year’s deer season successful for many hunters.

“White-tailed deer are a product of the environment,” Jezioro said. “Too many deer on a given tract of land will result in loss of body weight, reduction in antler development, decrease in reproduction and sometimes death due to starvation during winter months. Hunters and landowners must continually assess their expectations of the proper number of deer sightings versus the visible impacts deer have on vegetation. We need help managing the state’s deer herd by participating and encouraging antlerless deer harvests where needed to benefit not only the deer herd, but all wildlife dependent on our state’s woodland habitat.”

Wildlife Biologists will analyze data from the combined 2011 deer seasons (i.e., buck, antlerless, archery and muzzleloader) before making appropriate recommendations for next year’s deer seasons. These recommendations will be available for public review at 12 regulations meetings scheduled for March 12 and 13, 2012 (see current 2011 - 2012 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Summary page 5 or visit the WVDNR website at www.wvdnr.gov for scheduled times and places).

Director Jezioro reminds hunters that the traditional six-day antlerless deer season in selected counties on both public and private land ends Saturday, December 10. Muzzleloader deer season begins December 12 and runs through December 17. The Youth and Class Q/QQ antlerless deer season will be open on Monday and Tuesday, December 26 and 27 in any county with a firearms deer season, and will be followed by a four-day reopening of antlerless deer season (December 28 - 31) in 42 counties or portions of counties (see 2011 - 2012 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Summary or visit the DNR Web site at www.wvdnr.gov for county and area listings).

Funny how they know their harvest/kill numbers so close to the season end with no guessing or fudge factor.

My point exactly.

Works much better than over 50% of the hunters not reporting their harvest/kills. No guess work, real numbers. But I don't think our PGC wants that for some reason.

Or using a paper postcard system that is so ripe for abuse over half the hunters that harvest/kill a deer don't even report, beacuse they know there are no consequenses for breaking the law.

Estimating non-compliance rates of reporting is the major issue with the check stations.  Unless you believe that 100% of people report their kills, then it is just a less statistically valid method of calculating total harvest estimates.  And I am not even sure that the check station states even account for non-compliance at this point and actually just report the actual number checked. 

Ohio did away with the check stations for this year and yet somehow they had their preliminary harvest data available immediately following their gun season

The most accurate method(and even it isn't foolproof) is Dardys suggestion of mandatory reporting regardless of kill or not. It may cost a half million or so more as claimed but it would solve the most contensious issue regarding Pa's deer herd.

Telephone or comp reporting, everybody has access to at least one of these.
As stated should be mandatory for all to report.

You haven't reported in by the time new liscenses come out you don't get one.

Not a fan of check stations myself, means hauling deer around and more work and gas.

I will bet there isn't another state in the union that has as low a compliance rate as Penna. That I blame on the PGC for copping out on the enforcement. (Oops my card was lost in the mail).

When I hunted in Idaho, there was mandatory positive or negative reporting within five days of the close of the respective seasons -- elk, deer, etc.  If one did not report, they simply were not permitted to buy a license in that state the next few (three, I think) years.  It was quite an incentive to do report whether or not a harvest was made.  In addiiton, for those that react better to positive reenforcement rather than punative, those that reported were entered into a drawing for a "super tag" which awarded the winners (I don't recall how many there were) a tag, many of which had too be drawn and could take years to get enough points to do so, for each big game species in the state.
 
While the super tag idea really isn't relavant here in PA because of the limited number of species, there is no reason that concept can't still come into play by offering up a number of bull elk tags for the drawing or even the trucks, guns, etc. that the PGC was kicking around using for a buy-a-hunting-license-enter-our-lottery idea.
 
With access to computers and database software, a number of issue oriented questions could also be asked during the reporting process and the data could be compiled within a few hours of the close of the last reporting day for a particular season.
 
Will a few not report and claim they did?  Sure.  Will some innocently make a mistake and not report?  Sure.  But that happens everyday in a variety of instances and the extremly small percentages are completely inconciquential when compared to the greater good gained by the wealth of data.
 
Unless, of course, that data points in a completly different direction than policy.

ORIGINAL: BenC

I think that a chance at an extra-buck tag for the following year, or, free license for the following year could also be good incentives to increase the report rate.

I think it should be mandated as a responsibility of every license holder- without any incentive - whether or not they hunt deer.

3 choices - successful, unsuccessful, did not hunt.

I agree.  I was just tossing out a positive reenforcement incentive to counterbalance the negative, punative one of not being able to buy a license should one not report.

I am pretty sure that it is already mandated that deer harvests be reported, but that is clearly not enough to get accurate data.

If the goal is to increase the reporting then incentives will achieve that.

The most accurate method(and even it isn't foolproof) is Dardys suggestion of mandatory reporting regardless of kill or not. It may cost a half million or so more as claimed but it would solve the most contensious issue regarding Pa's deer herd.

So they just add 75 cents to the license fee. Since it isnt going into the general fund and would be for something that most of us, including pgc claims to want...more accurate data, I dont see the legislators as being unwilling to pass such a deal to allow the funding. They did so for the Pals deal.

Explain to me what is gained from having a person file a negative report? The only advantage I can see is if they ask who didn’t hunt and using that to determine a success rate. Is that little bit of information worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would cost and if so why? If everyone who harvests files a report it is pretty easy to just subtract that from the total number who bought a license to find out how many didn’t harvest. Then you would have just saved several hundred thousand in funds that could be used for better habitat or various other wildlife management projects.
 
I do know that a few of the Commissioners are looking at ways of doing away with the mail in report and going to more computer, phone, etc. reporting methods where the person has to report and record, and perhaps even mark their tag, with a confirmation number. If they do that it should also make it easier for the WCOs to convict the people not reporting, provided the courts do their part and find them guilty after they are charged.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

There is always room for improvement.  The better the available data, the better the decisions will be based on said data. 
  

Last year was down so they probably shot the ones saved last year. Overall the harvest is near the historical average.

     Thats more like it-- 38% seems huge for one year but the fact that it is more of an average or 'normal' number indicates other issues (weather?) having big negative impact in recent past. 
  The 38 looked like a real big deal when it is looked at standing alone however may in fact just be getting back to normal  ??
   They musta had a coupla real poor seasons recently for that to have happened- hey- that puts kinda the opposite spin on it than the initial 38 jump indicated.