I don't really thing you are comparing apples with apples. Despite the proximity, people in Kentucky have a much different outlook than West Virginians. They are more likely to let the little ones go. Kentucky has different rules, different lengths of season and a different mentality. If you really want to compare what these counties would be like if you open a gun season, look more towards the neighboring counties of Wayne, Lincoln, or Boone counties, and I think you will have your answer.

Gun hunters want to open these four counties to gun hunting. Of coarse they do. There are big bucks down there. But what they don't realize is that there are only big buck down there BECAUSE it is archery-only. No other reason. If you open a gun season, big bucks will be a thing of the past and those counties will be similar to its neighbors. Gun hunters call bow hunters selfish - that they want to keep those counties to themselves. What everyone is failing to mention is that the gun hunters have the entire rest of the state to do what they want. But that is not enough - they want it all. So I ask you, who is really being the selfish ones here?

The other main argument that I have read above is that the DNR should open gun season in those counties because the population has increased. Yes it has increased, but no where near the level to support a gun season. Currently you can only take 2 deer in these counties, one of which must be a doe. In the neighboring counties, you can take up to 6 deer and as many as 11 in other areas of the state. Yes the population has increased - but it is not there yet.

This thread is really getting away from its intended purpose - to rant against the NRA sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Regardless of whether or not you think there should be a gun season in these counties, it should be left up to the DNR to manage the game, not some outside group that knows nothing of the area.

Thanks for the response, quicksilver. This thread has went down I tangent of bowhunters vs gunhunters that I did not intend. Its funny that the NRA "claims" they are for hunters, but at looking at the numerous posts above, it seems that they are doing more to divide hunters than help them.

Not true at all. I have lived Pike County, I have lived in Mingo, I married a girl from Dingess, I went out with women from Martin, kY, to Logan, to Logan to Matewan, to Gilbert, to Delbartin, to Justice, there is no different mentalitys. What in the freakin world you talking about. All work together, all mine coal together.

You forget Mingo also borders

Not at all. Just you have a nice thing going and want to keep it to yourself. I am mostly a bowhunter. And mostly like traditional. But the bottom line is, gun hunters pay tax just like you. If the area can't substain hunting, then let the population rebound. No matter if you are gun hunter or bow hunter

Here is one of those Mingo/Wyoming county bucks.

He went over 200lbs.

The RIFLEman part of the association's title might give some subtle clue about where their priorities will leanin the course of supporting hunting rights.I would believe that the general opinion is that expanding areas where firearms can be used for hunting is good in terms of both gunrights and promoting hunting.It will likely be considered heresyin this forum, but there is likely a broader opinion thatpromotion ofthose two things ultimately trumpbowhunters' rights to atrophy buck. So, while I am not an NRA member andsometimes find myself rolling my eyes at some of their actions, I think that thiscurrent action is perfectly logical within the framework of their organizational priorites and the priorities of the broader huntingpopulation.

Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I am pretty sure that the bow hunters are allowed in the areas that the gun hunters occupy. So.....using your logic bow hunters have it all, and don't want to give a piece of it to the gun hunters.

The NRA states
"While the NRA is a single issue organization [gun rights], the Instituteis involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. Those involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands...."
So.....of course they are not sticking up for "hunters as a whole". They will intervene on what they perceive to be gun rights issues.

Lastly, since the issue is such a hot topic why don't they just put it to a popular vote? Let the people decide.

Paying taxes should have nothing to do with it, deer populations should. Perhaps bowhunting only is keeping the population at the correct density. Based on your post I quoted above, it sounds like if gun hunters can't hunt then bowhunting should not be allowed either. Hopefully wise decisions will prevail and if gun hunting is warranted in those 4 counties, then it should be allowed. Another scenario is possibly some influential people is the reason the NRA is involved.

Not quite. the place is little different than most. No crops, straight up and down mountains. There is no data showing bowhunting is keeping anything in check there. Like most of WV, you will see much more does than bucks. Unlike most places these days in the states, nature keeps the population at the correct density. No urban spraw. Deer are very hard to hunt there. If they get pressured, they will just go over to the next mountain.

Where here in MD, urban spraw has knocked the deer density out of wack.

One would have to know the place and hunt it to actually understand. But I agree with some of your post. And the bottom line is, the deer need to recover and have for the most part.

Now, here is the kicker. Personally, I would like for it to stay bowhunting only. I would like MD to be bowhunting only. But thats my own selfish desires. I wouldn't mind if all those 4 counties in southern WV was traditional stick only. More selfish desires. But thats not fair or right.