Down

[Hunter II]

"estimating the size of a deer population is incredibly difficult for one very important reason - it is based on the REPORTED HARVEST. Period. Without accurate harvest data, we have very little to go on."

If this is so important then why would the state reduce the amount of oversight by allowing telecheck?

 

[jagermeister]

"estimating the size of a deer population is incredibly difficult for one very important reason - it is based on the REPORTED HARVEST. Period. Without accurate harvest data, we have very little to go on."

If this is so important then why would the state reduce the amount of oversight by allowing telecheck?

I don't think telecheck reduces the amount of oversight. The same guys that cheated the system before are going to keep it up. Telecheck is supposed to provided data to the ODNR more quickly... But I think one of the biggest reasons behind it is to save the state some money.

 

[hickslawns]

Indiana issues bonus doe tags on a per county basis. I think that's a lot better than lumping the entire state into 3 zones.

Mike- I realize it is not your job to "speak" for Tonk or even your responsibility to get on here and reply. Your information is appreciated. I think YOU are doing better things for public relations for the ODNR than maybe they are doing for themselves. Maybe they can appoint you as some sort of PR liason? lol

MY solution is not a reality for most. I happen to be fortunate and my hunting partner has deeper pockets than the average person. Our biggest issue on my main property is trespassers and coyotes more than deer numbers. Unfortunately, every other property I hunt is pretty similar to every other local hunter's grounds to hunt. Numbers are down. Frustration is up.

Do you have a viable "solution" which you might recommend? Is there an effective way to communicate the frustrations of the hunters? I fear as the frustrations continue to rise, the tags purchased and hunting monies coming in are going to decrease. While it would be good for a rebound if guys aren't hunting as much, overall, the money brought in for the ODNR would also be reduced. This would negatively effect not only the deer hunters, but many outdoor enthusiasts.

 

[mrex]

"estimating the size of a deer population is incredibly difficult for one very important reason - it is based on the REPORTED HARVEST. Period. Without accurate harvest data, we have very little to go on."

If this is so important then why would the state reduce the amount of oversight by allowing telecheck?

In "theory," if you make something easier, it's more likely to get done. Yes, you make it easier to poach but I don't believe that makes an honest hunter dishonest.

I have lobbied in the past for antlerless only party hunting. Meaning, you have 5 guys in a group and each person has an antlerless tag and it's OK for 1 guy to fill all 5 tags. It's happening now anyway and in "theory," less deer would be carted off to the "back barn" and more deer would be paid for and checked in...making the actual harvest data more accurate.

 

[Curran]

mrex, thanks for your input on this thread... it's nice to know that the concerns from hunters are getting back to the DOW and are being heard.

OK. It seems that most would agree that a micromanagement approach, county by county would be more beneficial than painting the state with a broad brush. This would allow the hunters of each county to take accountability of somewhat manging their local deer herd. With that being the thought process, I went back to the first post in the thread, using only the gun season numbers, and broke things out county by county. The same exercise could be done at the conclusion of the season, but with the largest representative number of deer killed occurring during the week long gun season in Ohio I don’t know that findings would change that dramatically, meaning that the percentages to the total kill would still be roughly the same.

Just giving things a quick once over, and assuming that the number of antlerless permits would likely stay the same by Zone in 2012, the best thing to do would be reassign individual counties to a Zone based on the number of deer killed in 2011 (afterall, the DOW is using harvest numbers for their math too). In this example I made suggested changes based on a county being 20% under the particular "average kill number" for the Zone in which it is currently assigned in 2011. I've also listed changes for counties that exceeded the "average kill number" for the Zone in which it is currently assigned in 2011.

For example the average number of deer killed per county during the gun season week was 505. Any county that has an average kill number under 404 would be moved down into Zone A, effectively making "404" the threshold if you will for Zone A. You can see that 21 counties would now be moved from Zone B & C down to Zone A. 9 counties would be moved down from Zone C to Zone B based on a threshold of "1429" being the minimum kill per county to Zone C qualification. Which would mean that 3 counties would be moved up from Zone B to Zone C based on the "1429" number.

This excercise still paints with a somewhat broad brush, but I think it's getting the state going in a better direction. There would still be many considerations to take into place, and simply having a magic number like "404" or "1429" is only a starting point. Habitat, hunter access, leasing, etc., would all be variables taken into consideration when designating what zone a county is assigned to.

The first number next to the county name is the 2011 deer gun season week total, the second number is the 2010 deer gun season week total, and the letter is the 2012 proposed zone assignment. The data looked alot better in my spreadsheet, but copy & paste just doesn't carry over... oh well, you get the point.

2011 2010 2012 Zone
Zone A: With 12 counties in Zone A, the average number of deer killed per county during the gun season week was 188.

Auglaize 192 245 A
Darke 223 265 A
Erie 137 157 A
Fayette 104 114 A
Mercer 203 248 A
Miami 194 212 A
Montgom 144 117 A
Ottawa 81 88 A
Preble 267 253 A
Sandusk 195 214 A
Shelby 305 376 A
Wood 208 305 A

Total 2253 2594
Average 188 216

Zone B: With 37 counties in Zone B, the average number of deer killed per county during the gun season week was 505.

Williams 787 1,001 B
Fulton 302 438 A
Lucas 129 164 A
Defiance 725 910 B
Henry 279 505 A
Paulding 416 610 B
Putnam 238 364 A
Hancock 402 576 B
Seneca 603 849 B
Huron 925 1,007 A
Logan 760 845 B
Lorain 739 863 B
Cuyaho 37 38 A
Lake 185 178 A
Ashtabu 1,777 2,400 C
Medina 556 663 B
Summit 151 198 A
Geauga 623 738 B
Trumbull 1060 1305 C
Ashland 1096 1350 C
Wayne 644 869 B
Stark 661 744 B
Mahoning 563 672 B
Van Wert194 358 A
Allen 293 440 A
Hardin 354 567 A
Wyandot 661 838 B
Crawford 441 568 B
Marion 320 428 A
Union 354 391 A
Champai 554 613 B
Clark 276 295 A
Madison 167 185 A
Greene 287 293 A
Clinton 373 391 A
Warren 412 451 B
Butler 345 401 A

Total 18689 23,506

Average 505 635

Zone C: With 39 counties in Zone C, the average number of deer killed per county during the gun season week was 1741.

Adams 1727 1639 C
Athens 2059 2147 C
Belmont 2431 2736 C
Brown 1229 1423 B
Carrol 2252 2952 C
Clermont 980 1215 B
Columbi 1738 2391 C
Coshoct 3690 4288 C
Delaware 594 696 B
Fairfield 1152 1258 B
Franklin 170 142 A
Gallia 1844 1899 C
Guernsey 2982 3309 C
Hamilton 298 306 A
Harrison 2772 3547 C
Highland 1432 1527 C
Hocking 2184 2138 C
Holmes 2013 2138 C
Jackson 1515 1742 C
Jefferson 2044 2564 C
Knox 2480 3141 C
Lawrenc 1574 1449 C
Licking 2678 3003 C
Meigs 1974 1941 C
Monroe 1960 2180 C
Morgan 1804 1962 C
Morrow 851 1007 B
Musking 3223 3683 C
Noble 2028 2229 C
Perry 1832 2126 C
Pickaway 466 570 B
Pike 1077 1102 B
Portage 644 740 B
Richland 1714 2169 C
Ross 1723 1792 C
Scioto 1224 1250 B
Shelby 305 376 A
Tuscara 3180 4038 C
Vinton 1577 1579 C
Washing 2225 2555 C

Total 69645 78949

Average 1786 2024

 

[finelyshedded]

The main problem with the "Reported Harvest" being the main player when estimating our Actual Herd Numbers is, far more deer are killed by other means than just hunting and if you are OVER estimating the herd count into the hundreds if not thousands in already decimated areas you are in the predicament we are in today.

Like Joe pointed out earlier that MT estimated the herd being 750K statewide for the past several years. What if it was 450k?

I agree with MR in that they need to micro manage more somehow. Find a better way to count the herd if possible or at least not assume there's more deer than there is.

And another note: EHD wiped out a shit load of deer about 3 to 4 years ago and the ODN fuggin R didn't make any/much restrictions on tags or anything. I think we as hunters are seeing the repercussions.

 

[rossbows]

How do they figure in the deer that get hit on the road that never get reported or the farmers that have permits that shoot deer and never tag them. I have heard a couple farms talk how they gut shoot them so they will run off and die or they just leave them lay. They want them all died. I think the estimates are way off.

 

[hickslawns]

Wow! Impressive thought process there Curran! If anything should be clear to the ODNR, it is the fact that we as hunters are concerned. We are trying to come up with solutions. We are coming up with different thought processes for the ODNR to consider. Hopefully, some of this can be taken into consideration. There are a bunch of passionate/intelligent guys on this site which share the same love of the sport. Not sure it will help to get much acknowledgement from the ODNR, but it couldn't hurt any.

 

[Jackalope]

...and if it was truly a conspiracy, why wouldn't they just lie about the harvest numbers and make us all think the deer are just someplace else?

Uhmmm hello.. That's exactly what he's doing when he says 4 years running that deer numbers are at 750,000.. Then in the next breath giving lame excuses about weather, acorns, hunters inability to adapt to changing food, more people bowhunting etc.. Everything except the truth which is.. "we have mismanaged large sections of ohios huntable land and knocked the piss out of the deer population"

And I agree I think yall are putting way too much emphasis on harvest, and population numbers.... Let me tell you what people care about.. Deer and seeing them while hunting... They don't give two craps about numbers, estimates, fawn mortality.. They just want to hunt deer and actually see one more than once every three hunts... They don't care if tonk says there is 1.5 million or 500,000... Just quit screwing up and destroying the deer population in increasingly larger areas of the state..

So.. Here is the deal... He can make excuses. Spout numbers. And tap dance all he wants.. He's about to hear from as many people that I can muster this summer.. ""we don't have deer. I don't want your excuses. knock it off and fix it"

I find it interesting you say he doesn't read the forums.... Especially considering I see the dnr IP addresses reading these threads.. Not the forums.. Not harvest threads. Not stuff "investigators" would read.. But THIS thread.. Some of the IP addresses even have it bookmarked and visit only this thread. Hmmm. But ok. Whatever. Lol.. You would think he would be interested to see what people think.. You know. Considering he manages the population for ALL... Granted we're only 30-40 people.... Let's see if we can't add a couple thousand voices to this message this summer. There are a bunch of pissed off hunters out there. They just aren't organized.. Let's see what some good ole grass roots community organizing can do. This IS NOT going away and the kitchens about to get a whole lot hotter...

 

[Gern186]

Mike how can we communicate BETTER with ODNR? in an ideal world every county would have a sportsmans group/club but the politics in those microgroups is often more complex than the presidential candidates.. maybe some volunteers within each county? there are ALOT of people running and tracking deer cams now. I would think that the larger look into those numbers may help shed some light on things. I love the concept of micro management but implementing such a task with only 1 game warden per county would be well outside the means of the GW job scope and we would likely need to double the force to even do it justice. I am going to look up what indiana does and how they are successful with it.

Trust me, you don't want to model Indiana's deer regulations......if you think it's bad here then it's 3x worse over there. The average guy can kill 8 or more deer in most of the NE Indiana counties EACH! They are way more liberal on tags than Ohio is......and they don't have near the deer that Ohio has. I have been deer hunting Indiana for 20 years now, and they have made some improvements to their system like a 1 buck rule, but I think they are offering too many chances to kill antlerless deer.

 

[Gern186]

Indiana issues bonus doe tags on a per county basis. I think that's a lot better than lumping the entire state into 3 zones.

Look how many bonus doe tags a guy can buy in some of the counties.......a shit load. I do like the fact that they are managed by a county by county basis.....Ohio could use this model, only keep the numbers of allowable deer tags lower.

 

[Ohiosam]

Mike, thanks for clearing up how the ODNR makes some of it's estimates regarding herd size. I do find it a little confusing that they use harvest results in determining the herd size but when harvests go down (2 years in a row) they don't seem to want to believe that their policies are working as planned, instead they don't seem to believe their own numbers.

And I come from the side that believed the herd size needed trimming and believe I see it working. I'm seeing less deer but I'm also seeing less really little does, 1.5 yo bucks are looking better and I'm seeing more mature bucks.

 

[rgecko23]

Has this been posted yet? I cant remember....

Monday, December 19, 2011

UPDATED: State pleased with on-going reduced deer kill
Ohio’s two-day “bonus” firearms deer hunting season missed the bull’s-eye as much as did the general seven-day gun season and also the first six weeks of the state’s archery season.

The two-day hunt that ran Saturday and Sunday saw a kill that dropped 19 percent from that of 2010.

On Saturday and Sunday, Ohio’s firearms deer hunters killed 16,766 animals. That compares to the 20,916 deer killed during the 2010 two-day season; a drop that is pleasing the state's deer managers.

“Well, the take is that we may have fewer deer - and that’s reason to celebrate because that’s what we’ve been trying to achieve that goal since 2007,” said Mike Tonkovich, the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s deer management administrator. “That was the entire intent of the antlerless-only permit.”

Some of the state’s most fabled deer-hunting counties experienced declines, some by substantial percentages. Ashtabula County recorded a two-day kill of 387 deer this year compared to the 579 animals for the 2010 two-day season. That is a significant 33 percent drop.

Other noteworthy examples: Guernsey County - off 28 percent with 446 deer shot compared to 620 animals in 2010; Harrison County - off 31 percent with 477 deer killed compared to 693 deer shot in 2010; Coshocton - off 36 percent with 593 deer killed on Saturday and Sunday but compared to the 931 animals taken during the 2010 two-day bonus season; Tuscarawas County - down 26 percent, reflected by a kill for this year’s two-day season of 541 deer compared to 740 deer shot during 2010’s two-day bonus hunt.

Tonkovich says also that now that the state’s deer herd continues to show declines some areas may need to see reductions in the liberal hunting regulations.

“If in fact this is an indication that the herd is being reduced then we’ll take a look at adjusting the seasons,” Tonkovich says. "In fact, I’ve all ready begun to start to look at this.”

Likely to be examined closely are Madison, Washington, Vinton, and Lawrence counties. Not on the list, however, are the big deer kill counties like Guernsey, Harrison and Coshocton.

“They aren’t on the list but there’s nothing to say they won’t be looked at,” Tonkovich says. “I don’t want to say that we’re going to see a major overhaul of the deer hunting regulations.”

Tonkovich says as well that the news is good for the deer herd since it has begun to degrade the habitat as well as started to produce bucks with small antler mass.

"We need to restore the balance," he said. "Folks need to understand that is where the rubber meets the road."

A close inspection will be made of the bow-hunter observation survey, which is actually intended more for recording fur-bearers but does double-duty with deer, Tonkovich says.

Nearly 4,000 archers participate and their results provide valuable information on regional trend data, Tonkovich says as well.

Locally, only Geauga County posted a gain: 160 deer this year for the two-day season and compared to the 133 animals shot in 2010 for a 20-percent gain.
Lake County was down 19 percent; 46 deer this year compared to 57 deer last year.

Cuyahoga County doesn’t chip in much. This year’s two-day season saw just two deer killed in Cuyahoga County compared to three deer last year.

In Trumbull County, a 26 percent drop was seen, from 329 animals shot during the 2010 two-day hunt to 242 deer for this year’s two-day bonus season.

Down as well was Lorain County - off 32 percent - with 173 animals shot this year and 255 deer shot last year; Erie County - off 62 percent with just 31 deer killed on Saturday and Sunday compared to the 82 deer shot during last year’s two-day season; Medina County - off 22 percent with 157 deer shot over this past weekend and compared to the 203 deer killed there last two-day season; Sandusky County - off 26 percent with 60 deer shot this year and 82 deer taken last year.

The two-day hunt decline follows on the heels of the general seven-day firearms season drop of 14 percent: 90,282 animals this year and 105,034 deer for the 2010 seven-day gun season.

Likewise, the general season and the two-day bonus season declines are further enhanced by the drop in the deer kill encountered during the first six weeks of Ohio’s archery deer-hunting season. That statistic was represented by the 45,836 animals taken during the first six-week period this year compared to the 51,543 deer taken during 2010’s first six weeks of the archery season.

Only Ohio’s two-day early youth-only hunt has thus far posted a gain. This two-season saw youths shoot 8,681 deer compared to the 8,445 deer taken during
2010’s two-day youth-only hunt.

 

[brock ratcliff]

Finally! A little recognition that they may have reached some goals even though they don't know what they are.

 

[Milo]

Finally! A little recognition that they may have reached some goals even though they don't know what they are.

lmaolmaolmao

 

[Jackalope]

Finally! A little recognition that they may have reached some goals even though they don't know what they are.

Looks like we've moved into phase three...

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Nice to see they're finally starting to even admit there is an issue... Even if they continue to spout that it's a good thing, it's not going to work.. "Like tarp, bank bailouts, and the feds printing money.. They can talk it up all they want.. People will still be pissed and raise a stink.. The dangerous part about even acknowledging this is now people can see what the real problem is... Honestly, hunters don't care what his reasoning is.. They only care that their deer hunting has been jacked up.... So by admitting this, they acknowledge that THEY are the problem.. Nice to see that the heat has forced them to make a statement regarding the lower numbers. It's all downhill from here

 

[rgecko23]

I just want to see the bag limits drop, so we can get some kind of recouperation of deer, not add another weekend

 

[Jackalope]

I just want to see the bag limits drop, so we can get some kind of recouperation of deer, not add another weekend

Don't fall for this logic... A lowering of the bag limits does not necessarily mean the population will increase... If it's low enough a lower bag limit can simply hold it steady... That's not doing you a favor.. That's achieving their goal then maintaining it while trying to tell you they're doing you a favor.... There is an old saying for it.. It's called. "Pissing down your back and telling you it's rain"

 

[Schu72]

"Locally, only Geauga County posted a gain: 160 deer this year for the two-day season and compared to the 133 animals shot in 2010 for a 20-percent gain."

I haven't even seen a deer in Geauga this year. Only 5 sits, but zero sightings and they had a 20 % gain.rotflmao

 

[rgecko23]

Don't fall for this logic... A lowering of the bag limits does not necessarily mean the population will increase... If it's low enough a lower bag limit can simply hold it steady... That's not doing you a favor.. That's achieving their goal then maintaining it while trying to tell you they're doing you a favor.... There is an old saying for it.. It's called. "Pissing down your back and telling you it's rain"

I can't imagine any other way of letting the deer recouperate besides cutting tags out in that zone all together?