Will hunters ever run out of trophy bucks in Southern West Virginia?
A growing concern among wildlife managers is that antlerless deer might eventually take over the habitat and reduce the numbers of trophy bucks.
Could this become a problem in the bowhunting-only counties of Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo, and Logan?
Purists say no guns are needed, but what are the long-term effects of a growing antlerless deer population and vanishing habitat?
Consider the following items.
Are trophy bucks threatened in the only four counties of the state where firearms hunting is illegal? Are racks getting smaller?
Will the growing antlerless deer populations in the four archery-only deer hunting counties of Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo, and Logan likely jeopardize the available habitat?
Should muzzleloader hunting be introduced in the only counties traditionally off limits to firearms?
Think about it. Good idea?
Especially, if muzzleloader hunting was limited to antlerless deer.
Only for antlerless deer, not the big bucks. Not any bucks.
But why? You want to know.
First, some background. The whitetail populations in the four southern counties of the state are doing quite well.
And if you want a trophy to hang on your wall, those four counties are where you should take your bow.
More trophies are taken in Wyoming, McDowell, Logan, and Mingothan any other areas.
That’s mainly because the bucks have been given a chance to mature and grow antlers. There’s no gun hunting allowed.
But is this wise? After all, there’s only so much food for the deer populations to eat. And deer must eat to flourish.
What would happen if the deer in Southern West Virginia should continue to grow until the natural food supplies are spread among a whitetail population that is more does than bucks?
Would the lawmakers in Charleston be able to react in time to save the trophy whitetail deer in the four counties?
Should thinning out practice be considered soon?
It amounts to heresy, even blasphemy, to mention firearms hunting in Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo, and Logan counties. I’m not saying that all the deer should be reduced, only the antlerless deer that seem to be increasing in numbers throughout the region.
Does this pose a threat to the trophy buck population in the area?
Consider: one of the most pressing wildlife management issues is that of growing deer populations in many parts of the country.
Deer populations have risen nationally from 500,000 at the turn of the century to more than 20 million today.
Some states spend an estimated $30 million annually in deer-related costs.
Wisconsin has an estimated annual cost of nearly $40 million for crop damage alone.
Conservative estimates place auto/deer collisions at 500,000 yearly in the U.S.
At the same time, Lyme’s disease, an infectious disorder that is carried by the deer tick, now trails only Covid-19 as one of the fastest growing infectious disease in the U.S.
Much of the conflict between humans and deer has been caused by people moving into the deer’s forest habitat and developing it for housing.
Modern suburbs sometimes divide the woods into five-acre plots, and after the houses are built, the plots have an area of woods bordering an open meadow like a feeding area.
This is perfect deer habitat.
Due to the proximity of houses in suburbs, most of these areas are off limits to hunters.
And in the past 20 years, there has been a deer population boom, and now deer are eating forests and private shrubbery alike.
One attempt at controlling deer populations has been an intensive study of birth control.
But there are several problems with this method. One is cost—from $500 to $1,000 per deer sterilized per year. To maintain or reduce deer population, 50 percent or more of the does must not give birth.
Another question is whether it is safe for humans to consume deer that have been vaccinated with a contraceptive serum. How would the FDA go about regulating it?
Another concern is that other animals might ingest the contraceptive by preying or scavenging on deer. This is an obvious danger to the ecosystem.
Clearly, the best and most effective solution to controlling deer populations is to stay as close to nature’s ways as possible. Game management by hunting meets this criterion.
The strongest animals have the best chance of escaping the hunters, so natural selection is implemented.
Hunting with guns in the suburbs is impractical and dangerous. Bow hunting is a viable alternative, but it won’t ensure that big bucks are permitted to reach their maximum growth indefinitely.
Of all the methods currently on the table, muzzleloader hunting in Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo, and Logan counties would, in large measure, relieve some of the stress associated with deer overpopulation and habitat loss.
As far as getting rid of the unwanted antlerless deer, it likely holds the most promise.
It is practical, efficient, safe, and humane.
And while the purists may not want to see deer dispatched by firearms in the four southern counties, it is in the long-term interest of the deer population.
In this way, we can keep a heritage alive for generations to come.
—
Top o’ the morning!