Down

[brock ratcliff]

Joe, there will still be a deer for you to hunt. You may have to travel to find it, or you may have to sit for days to see one, but there will still be some. There is no point in getting mad, especially when the folks pulling your chain arent seeing a big drop just yet. Heck, a 20% drop is hard to see in a counties that kill 5k deer a year. It would be hard to see a drop when you still see 8 deer a day vs 10. No point in getting upset over it. I think we should compile the numbers as Ryan did and go to Tonk with it for his opinion. I've told you I think their method of herd estimation is flawed due to the fact they rely on the kill numbers as a factor vs the survival rate. It isn't whats killed but what's left that matters!

 

[jagermeister]

And? 29k accidents in a year with only 49 deaths in 5 years where a deer was involved is small, very small when considering averages.

51 women in OH a year die giving birth. Lets quit having kids...

Don't mean to seem insensitive but everything has a price/considerations. The amount of damage a deer does compared to other aspects of life are very small.

Wow. A death is a death, dude. I don't care how small the amount is on average, there's no such thing as an insignificant death of a human being. You want to see more deer and don't care whether or not having it your way results in the death of people, even if it's just one person???

 

[brock ratcliff]

This is my problem with the state DNR... The broad brush management of large tracks of land (Counties) instead of breaking them down or limiting the number of tags in counties that should be left alone too the 1 of either sex tags by smaller geographical areas.... It's harder too do but doable if the effort is put into it.... But it's much easier for them too broad brush it and the heard numbers decline and then you have unhappy hunters who just aren't seeing the deer that they have put out good money too harvest.... Lets face it we hunters put Billions and Billions into the economy over the years too enjoy a sport and the state is supposed too manage said heard too both keep the general populace safe and us being able too harvest them.... A balancing act that unfortunatley is tipped too the special interests and not so much us....

I think limiting the days vs the tags available would have the largest imapact on depleted counties.

 

[brock ratcliff]

Wow. A death is a death, dude. I don't care how small the amount is on average, there's no such thing as an insignificant death of a human being. You want to see more deer and don't care whether or not having it your way results in the death of people, even if it's just one person???

This is just getting stupid.

 

[bowhunter1023]

This is just getting stupid.

You took the words out of my mouth...

 

[jagermeister]

This is just getting stupid.

You took the words out of my mouth...

Oh ok... Now my opinion is just stupid. That's nice to know.

 

["J"]

I think limiting the days vs the tags available would have the largest imapact on depleted counties.

Either way Brock I see the same outcome....

 

[bowhunter1023]

Oh ok... Now my opinion is just stupid. That's nice to know.

That ain't it. The fact that we are now getting fired up about hypothetical deer/car collisions and the occasional death plus or minus a death or two. It's getting deep that's all...

 

["J"]

Oh ok... Now my opinion is just stupid. That's nice to know.

Not all of them just that one JB.... :smiley_clap:

 

[Beentown]

Exactly J. But I am done trying to convince others because it has no purpose other to practice conveying it to others with an opened mind on the subject. And I started today passing along thoughts.

It seems to be more polarizing than I expected among our own community. The outliers are few on the subject but still suprising. Ryans numbers would be eye opening for anyone I would think.

 

["J"]

Exactly J. But I am done trying to convince others because it has no purpose other to practice conveying it to others with an opened mind on the subject. And I started today passing along thoughts.

It seems to be more polarizing than I expected among our own community. The outliers are few on the subject but still suprising. Ryans numbers would be eye opening for anyone I would think.

Too a point your right Charles.... But we can all agree on the main point... The deer population is below what we (Hunters) expect but not for the other speacial interests out there.... Some people will not agree because their numbers aren't falling off enough YET.....

 

[jagermeister]

Too a point your right Charles.... But we can all agree on the main point... The deer population is below what we (Hunters) expect but not for the other speacial interests out there.... Some people will not agree because their numbers aren't falling off enough YET.....

And some people, even though they are seeing numbers decline, still won't agree because they know it was part of the plan from the word "go."

 

["J"]

And some people, even though they are seeing numbers decline, still won't agree because they know it was part of the plan from the word "go."

And with that plan in place and we're seeing we don't like it don't we have the right to question/challenge it because it is detrimental too our sport????? If you try something and the results are not too your liking do you continue too do it? Probably not.... The state has a balancing act you should keep that balance to as much as center as possible and tipped the majority time too people who aren't really funding the folks that are in charge of the balance???? If that makes sense.... lol....

 

[bowhunter1023]

And some people, even though they are seeing numbers decline, still won't agree because they know it was part of the plan from the word "go."

So what you are telling me is that if the deer population bottoms out at 100,000 deer statewide, you'll be fine with it because that was all part of the plan from the word "go". I mean, the numbers are obviously all nonsense and arbitrary right? So the baseline number was off a few hundred thousand deer, no biggy right?!?

 

[Jackalope]

And? 29k accidents in a year with only 49 deaths in 5 years where a deer was involved is small, very small when considering averages.

10 x More kids than that died in the us last year from being trapped in a household appliance or toy chest..

Oh my GOD.... Kill all the toy chests and dishwashers! Oh wait...

 

[jagermeister]

So what you are telling me is that if the deer population bottoms out at 100,000 deer statewide, you'll be fine with it because that was all part of the plan from the word "go". I mean, the numbers are obviously all nonsense and arbitrary right? So the baseline number was off a few hundred thousand deer, no biggy right?!?

No, I wouldn't be fine with it... And no, that's not part of the plan. The plan is 500,000 deer. No, the numbers are not arbitrary. And yes, it would be a big deal... but IMO that situation is unlikely. I don't think biologists would hang their hats on numbers that could potentially be wrong by a few hundred thousand, since it impacts a multimillion dollar income.

 

[Jackalope]

No, I wouldn't be fine with it... And no, that's not part of the plan. The plan is 500,000 deer. No, the numbers are not arbitrary. And yes, it would be a big deal... but IMO that situation is unlikely. I don't think biologists would hang their hats on numbers that could potentially be wrong by a few hundred thousand, since it impacts a multimillion dollar income.

So the same 250,000 In Urban areas, and 250,000 for the rest of us... Yayyyyyy.. Sounds fun! Because that's what they're essentially doing with this management plan. They haven't reduced urban deer populations on bit! If anything they continue to grow... But huntable areas will take the hit for every one of those 250,000 missing deer. Sounds like a great plan for one of the most densely populated states in the nation.

 

[Gern186]

(in Mike Ditka voice) C'mon man!

It's a game of compromise man. The DOW is the middleman, trying to make it work for EVERYONE. I highly doubt they would intentionally "screw-over" hunters, who are the people paying the bulk of their salaries. Why was no one bitching in the early to mid-2000s whenever the DOW mentioned wanting to reduce the herd? It's never been hidden... They've been mentioning it as far back as I can remember. But now that guys are actually having to put in some effort to see and kill deer they act like they've been getting lied to all these years.

:smiley_clap:

 

[Ohiosam]

Joe, Mike Rex claimed last year that when the ODNR states the herd size they are only referring the huntable population not those that live in towns, parks etc where they can't be legally hunted. Whether or not you agree with mike he does have insight on the inner workings of the ODNR.

 

[Jackalope]

Joe, Mike Rex claimed last year that when the ODNR states the herd size they are only referring the huntable population not those that live in towns, parks etc where they can't be legally hunted.

Hahahahaha... Sure... Even if so. Wanna come knock on doors this weekend. Let's see what's huntable and what's not when it comes to densely populated rural areas...