Down

[brock ratcliff]

I think it would be a good idea to send Ryan's figures to Tonk. It will be interesting to see his reply, and explanation if there are errors.

 

[Lundy]

Huntn2

Great analysis.

The reality of the numbers show how quickly things can be depleated. The good news is that recovery can be just as fast as the decline.

We talk about what the ODNR could or should do but as hunters we can play a large part in the future deer populations even within the current regulation.

I used your data and assumptions but changed the 2008 harvest numbers to reflect a reduction in doe harvest of 20,000 and an increase in the buck harvest of 20,000. Same numbers harvested just a 20,000 variation in buck to doe ratio harvest.

Years 2009 and 2010 I used the actual deer harvest numbers you used with no changes.

If hunters elected to maintain the same harvest levels but harvest an increase in bucks and reduce the doe harvest by 20,000 does for just one year it increases the herd size in your calculations by 94,836 deer in the same 3 year period you used.

Maybe if we don’t get that big buck we need to consider harvesting a small buck instead of a doe. I know it goes against what I have always done but it just might be the right thing to do, at least for a while

Here is your analysis with the harvest number change in 2008.

The herd would be at 520,404 versus your current example of 425,568. Unless my math is wrong which I am sure, and hope, you will check


In 2008 the ODNR estimated the herd at 700,000 deer. Assuming a 50:50 ratio of Buck to Doe at that time, that is 350,000 of each. In 2008, 110,552 bucks were killed, 109,247 doe were killed and 32,217 button bucks were killed. Based on numbers from the ODNR and assuming the 50:50 ratio, that means 207,230 bucks and 240,753 doe remained after deer season. 361,129 fawns would be born in spring of 2009 assuming each of the reaming doe produced 1.5 fawns each. Based on the PA study (less black bear related deaths), fawn mortality would be 41.5% leaving 214,872 surviving fawns. Assuming fawns are born at a ratio of 50:50 buck to doe, 314,666 buck and 348,189 doe were alive for the start of the 2009 season for a total of 662,885 deer.

In 2009, 93,873 bucks were killed, 133,988 doe were killed and 33,399 button bucks were killed. Therefore, after season, 187,394 bucks and 214,201 doe were roaming the state. Again assuming 1.5 fawns per doe meant 321,315 fawns would be born of which only 191,182 would survive (95,591 bucks and doe each). This means 282,985 buck and 309,792 doe would be in the state for the start of the 2010 season for a total of 592,777 deer.

In 2010, 86,046 bucks were killed, 122,815 doe were killed and 30,614 button bucks were killed. Therefore, after season, 166,551 bucks and 186,977 doe were roaming the state. At 1.5 fawns per doe, 280,465 fawns were born of which 166,876 would survive (83,438 bucks and doe each). This means 249,989 bucks and 270,415 doe would be in the state wide herd at the start of the 2011 season for a total of 520,404 deer in the state.

 

[Jackalope]

Huntn2

Great analysis.

The reality of the numbers show how quickly things can be depleated. The good news is that recovery can be just as fast as the decline.

We talk about what the ODNR could or should do but as hunters we can play a large part in the future deer populations even within the current regulation.

I used your data and assumptions but changed the 2008 harvest numbers to reflect a reduction in doe harvest of 20,000 and an increase in the buck harvest of 20,000. Same numbers harvested just a 20,000 variation in buck to doe ratio harvest.

Years 2009 and 2010 I used the actual deer harvest numbers you used with no changes.

If hunters elected to maintain the same harvest levels but harvest an increase in bucks and reduce the doe harvest by 20,000 does for just one year it increases the herd size in your calculations by 94,836 deer in the same 3 year period you used.

Maybe if we don’t get that big buck we need to consider harvesting a small buck instead of a doe. I know it goes against what I have always done but it just might be the right thing to do, at least for a while

Here is your analysis with the harvest number change in 2008.

The herd would be at 520,404 versus your current example of 425,568. Unless my math is wrong which I am sure, and hope, you will check


In 2008 the ODNR estimated the herd at 700,000 deer. Assuming a 50:50 ratio of Buck to Doe at that time, that is 350,000 of each. In 2008, 110,552 bucks were killed, 109,247 doe were killed and 32,217 button bucks were killed. Based on numbers from the ODNR and assuming the 50:50 ratio, that means 207,230 bucks and 240,753 doe remained after deer season. 361,129 fawns would be born in spring of 2009 assuming each of the reaming doe produced 1.5 fawns each. Based on the PA study (less black bear related deaths), fawn mortality would be 41.5% leaving 214,872 surviving fawns. Assuming fawns are born at a ratio of 50:50 buck to doe, 314,666 buck and 348,189 doe were alive for the start of the 2009 season for a total of 662,885 deer.

In 2009, 93,873 bucks were killed, 133,988 doe were killed and 33,399 button bucks were killed. Therefore, after season, 187,394 bucks and 214,201 doe were roaming the state. Again assuming 1.5 fawns per doe meant 321,315 fawns would be born of which only 191,182 would survive (95,591 bucks and doe each). This means 282,985 buck and 309,792 doe would be in the state for the start of the 2010 season for a total of 592,777 deer.

In 2010, 86,046 bucks were killed, 122,815 doe were killed and 30,614 button bucks were killed. Therefore, after season, 166,551 bucks and 186,977 doe were roaming the state. At 1.5 fawns per doe, 280,465 fawns were born of which 166,876 would survive (83,438 bucks and doe each). This means 249,989 bucks and 270,415 doe would be in the state wide herd at the start of the 2011 season for a total of 520,404 deer in the state.

And????? That's still a population reduction of 25.64%


Also... While I understand you'r point, I don't think it's the responsibility of the hunters to "manage" the deer numbers overall by selectively harvesting this or that.. Obviously, hunters do it to some extent, but that is a very small insignificant percent of the hunting population. Hunters have proven that as individuals, they are incapable of managing the wildlife population as a whole on a large scale..... Throughout the 1800s and 1900's we decimated species in Ohio to the point of extinction.. That is what happens when hunters are left to manage population levels themselves... It is for this reason we created such a thing called the DNR.. We expected them to preserve and manage the population. Just as they have the power to preserve and grow the population, So can they use them to lower the population... I am of the belief that if they so choose they could lower them to levels seen in the 70s where a deer sighting was a rare occurrence. The bottom line is, do not cast off this responsibility onto the hunters.. It is not our job as individuals to manage the deer population as a whole to preserve the population.. That is the responsibility of the DNR. It is our Job to kill deer. Period.. We are a tool used to manage levels... It's the DNRs responsibility to tell us how many deer we can kill without causing damage to population levels. It is laughable to throw this back at the hunters and say, "if you think the DNR allows too many tags then don't shoot." While many of us here may do that, the vast majority of hunters don't have the understanding that we do. And it's ludicrous to assume they would ever be capable of such individual management in order to preserve a higher population as a whole.

 

[rgecko23]

Reason I asked because I wanted to know how many tags were sold, how many were checked in and what the sex of the deer was. To me that would tell you if people were actually seeing deer or not. I dont care much for zones, even though I think it would be helpful. But to see how many people bought a tag and didn't use it would be informative as well.

Joe Shmoe bought 1 either sex tag, 2 doe permits. Joe Shmoe checked in 1 doe permit, Zero either sex tag, etc.

You could always argue that with, well what if he didnt check in any deer he shot, or checked in a Buck on a doe tag, or shot a bunuch of deer on a landowner tag whic he doesn't have to tag.

Numbers and formulas can be done all day till you puke, but maybe you could cross reference that data with what they are saying the herd size is??

 

[Carpn]

While I understand you r point, I don't think it's the responsibility of the hunters to "manage" the deer numbers overall.. Or selectively harvest this or that.. Sure hunters do it to some extent but that is a very small insignificant percent of the hunting population. Hunters have proven that as individuals they are incapable of managing the wildlife population as a whole..... Throughout the 1800s and 1900's we descimated species to the point of extinction in Ohio. That is what happens when hunters are left to manage population levels themselves... It is for this reason we created such things as the DNR.. We expected them to preserve and manage the population. Just as their powers of preserving and growing the population can be used.. So can they use them to lower the population... I am of the belief that if they so choose they could lower them to levels seen in the 70s where a deer sighting was a rare occurrence. The bottom line do not cast off this responsibility onto the hunters.. It is not our job as individuals to manage the deer population as a whole to preserve the population.. That is the responsibility of the DNR. It is our Job to kill deer. It's the DNRs responsibility to tell us how many we can kill without causing damage to population levels. It is laughable to throw this back at the hunters and say, "if you think the DNR allows too many tags then don't shoot." While many of us here may do that, the vast majority of hunters don't have the OPINION that we do...

Fixed it for you.

 

[Lundy]

It is not our job as individuals to manage the deer population as a whole to preserve the population.. That is the responsibility of the DNR. It is our Job to kill deer. Period

Of course you are right......:smile:

 

[Jackalope]

Fixed it for you.

How is that fixing anything? How about you speak to the point instead of using the tactic of liberals and picking one insignificant thing to detract from the argument... Pretty much ever damn person I have spoken to has seen the deer numbers in their area decline dramatically. And 9 times out of ten they don't know what's causing it... Their answer is, more bait, maybe some food plots, This guy's an idiot and ran them off, etc... Never have I heard them say "We should really form a county cooperative and set arbitrary harvest limits which are lower than the DNRs... NEVER! Individual hunters manage the deer population.. HA..

 

[Jackalope]

Of course you are right......:smile:

Keyword.. "preserve" of which the definition is not "decimate to half of what it was 4 years ago"..

BTW.. Instead of being a nitpicking smartass shouldn't you be looking at numbers to try and figure out why Ryan just handed it to you?

 

[saddlepants]

Huntn2



We talk about what the ODNR could or should do but as hunters we can play a large part in the future deer populations even within the current regulation.




Maybe if we don't get that big buck we need to consider harvesting a small buck instead of a doe. I know it goes against what I have always done but it just might be the right thing to do, at least for a while

WOW, interesting - I was thinking along these lines myself but didnt want to say anything (dont like the polotics of it) But I was wondering to myself how it would help the gene pool as well if we didnt harvest any bucks wider than their ears for one season and limit the doe take to two. Also remembering we talked once about how its the mature does that produce more bucks as well???

 

[Lundy]

BTW.. Instead of being a nitpicking smartass shouldn't you be looking at numbers to try and figure out why Ryan just handed it to you?

I would expect no less from you :smile:

 

[Jackalope]

I would expect no less from you :smile:

I'm sorry perhaps you thought I cared about your expectations or lack thereof by me.. Feel free to answer the questions and remain thoughtfully engaged in the debate.. However, If all you have left is to nitpick words and be a smartass attempting to detract from the points made, then feel free to go back to the DNR depths from which you came.

 

[Carpn]

I don't dispute that deer numbers are down. They are down as a whole statewide ...thats the point of liberal harvests. My opinion is so what if there are fewer deer? I don't think more is necessarily better.
I was just goofing around with my "fixed it" post...I didn't know it would touch a nerve. I am a perpetual smartass and was trying to add some humor.....I am just trying to add a different opinion to the debate

 

[Lundy]

If all you have left is to nitpick words and be a smartass attempting to detract from the points made, then feel free to go back to the DNR depths from which you came.

You obviously hold yourself in pretty high regard, but seem to be a little sensitive if someone questions (nitpicks;smile your words or offers an opposing view to points you think you have made.

The DNR depths??? I don't think so

 

[Jackalope]

You obviously hold yourself in pretty high regard, but seem to be a little sensitive if someone questions (nitpicks;smile your words or offers an opposing view to points you think you have made.

The DNR depths??? I don't think so

Nope... Ask anyone that knows me I'm pretty down to earth. However I have little tolerance for BS... My opinions and viewpoints were formed after ample investigation, reading, questioning, and reasoning... I have no problems with someone questioning my opinions or viewpoints; however someone will have to lay a pretty convincing argument to me as to why I'm wrong... I can and have changed my opinion before when presented with appropriate logic... Nitpicking a single word in an entire statement and detracting from a point which you chose to ignore, doesn't even begin to accomplish that...

You started this conversation very informed and presenting logical facts and opinions...

 

[Schu72]

I don't dispute that deer numbers are down. They are down as a whole statewide ...thats the point of liberal harvests. My opinion is so what if there are fewer deer? I don't think more is necessarily better.
I was just goofing around with my "fixed it" post...I didn't know it would touch a nerve. I am a perpetual smartass and was trying to add some humor.....I am just trying to add a different opinion to the debate

I think some would agree that the herd doesn't need to be 700K+, but the DNR doesnt' seem to be changing their management plan with the declining numbers and are actually considering adding more firearms seasons. I would not be terribly unhappy if they managed the herd to be maintained at current levels, but I do not support the broad spectrum management plan aimed at reducing the rural herd to 250-400K.

 

[jagermeister]

I think some would agree that the herd doesn't need to be 700K+, but the DNR doesnt' seem to be changing their management plan with the declining numbers and are actually considering adding more firearms seasons. I would not be terribly unhappy if they managed the herd to be maintained at current levels, but I do not support the broad spectrum management plan aimed at reducing the rural herd to 250-400K.

Forgive me, but my short term memory is fuggin terrible... Where again did the talk of the extra muzzy season originate? Was this an announcement by the ODNR or just heresay? I honestly don't remember.

I'd bet the deer population can bounce back faster than it can be decreased, so maybe that's part of the considerations in the management strategy... Take 'em down to where you KNOW the population is at or below goal, then fine tune it from there.

 

[Carpn]

I agree, the addition of more gun days wouldn't be good, specifically the statewide antlerless ML season. I really think the DNR needs to revisit their management plan about NR hunters. Their numbers have exploded in the last 5 yrs. I would like to see NR at least pay tag fees similar to other top tier whitetail states.

 

[Jackalope]

Forgive me, but my short term memory is fuggin terrible... Where again did the talk of the extra muzzy season originate? Was this an announcement by the ODNR or just heresay? I honestly don't remember.

I'd bet the deer population can bounce back faster than it can be decreased, so maybe that's part of the considerations in the management strategy... Take 'em down to where you KNOW the population is at or below goal, then fine tune it from there.

Tonk told Darron that via email.

http://www.theohiooutdoors.com/show...on...could-it-be.....&highlight=october+muzzy

And yes.. It could bounce back very fast if allowed to... However, it will never be allowed to... From what I've seen, I believe we would have to make zone c all zone A for a year or two in order to see 2008 numbers again..... Obviously there will be areas in C that will explode as there are pockets that are doing fine... But te majority would take a year or two.... The problem is the broad management philosophy across a giant geographic area... It has left the heard decimated im many areas with pockets of lightly pressured areas striving.

Is 700,000 an unacceptable number? I don't think so.. Look at areas like here in columbus... Is the DNR trying to tell me that deer density can grow absolutely unchecked to enormous levels in residential neighborhoods... Yet in a rural area that has more woods, corn, beans, habitat, and brows yet somehow can't sustain a simple fraction of the deer found in a suburb? Or a 100% wooded area like most of Zone C in southern ohio with it's browse, oaks, and habitat, etc can't sustain a fraction of the deer that Gahanna Ohio can a heavily populated area of Columbus?

 

[Schu72]

Forgive me, but my short term memory is fuggin terrible... Where again did the talk of the extra muzzy season originate? Was this an announcement by the ODNR or just heresay? I honestly don't remember.

I'd bet the deer population can bounce back faster than it can be decreased, so maybe that's part of the considerations in the management strategy... Take 'em down to where you KNOW the population is at or below goal, then fine tune it from there.

Jim, I read it in a couple of different places. I posted a link about rifles gaining traction a while back, it was in there for sure. I think it was mentioned in Ohio Fish and Game as well. It's something they are considering. Nothing absolute, but it came right from Tonk.

From that link...

"The biologist is in the process of sending out a random survey of all licensed Ohio hunters. One of the questions being asked is whether hunters would support an antlerless-only muzzle-loading season in October."

 

[Beentown]

I also have from Tonk the consideration of an extra week of muzzy. I also just participated in another survey he sent asking about numbers of deer seen, taken, if you would like an extra week, and a couple other things.

The survey seemed set up to fail as it was saying it needed taken asap but were asking questions about the future...did you hunt the extra weekend of gun?....did you hunt muzzleloader?...etc...