Article: Deer Vehicle accidents the past 8 years.. Shocking

[Jackalope]

Yeah, 2 years ago....2 of the 4 have to be killed with archery equipment though. I never killed a deer in the county this year...first time ever, somewhat because of fear of what is already starting to happen. There are certain areas with a decent population of deer in this county. I'm not trying to say they are going extinct. The areas that I have hunted in the past have gotten 3x the amount of hunting pressure in the last 3 years and it is having negative consequences. If I wanted to go out and kill 4 does I am positive I could make it happen in a season, no doubt.

Several of us have went to the DNR open houses and voiced our concerns over the liberal bag limits set. I am planning on going again this year to make my voice heard....what else can an individual do?

Community organizing... Educate the public that the reason they are seeing less deer is not because the neighbor has a new feeder and is pulling away the deer.. Educate the hunting public that is pissed off about not seeing deer where the true blame lies.. Once those voices are organized and singing in unison the DNR has no choice but to listen. If 3,000 show up at a DNR town hall saying the same thing you'll get far farther than a small handful that is easily ignored.... The anger is there, the hunters seeing less deer is there, they just need a Chanel and an organized voice backed by data... Wait till spring buddy... Wait till spring... I think It would behoove of the DNR to hire one of those fancy smooth talking PR people... I have a feeling they'll need it.. Get the data, formulate the statement, print the flyers and spend the weekend walking around D&T show educating people, and then Deerassic. Mail them to people to put on the doors of local old check stations and gas stations.... The revolution is near my friend.. THAT is what you as an individual do... Organize the masses that have been lied to or mislead into shooting themselves in the foot..... And if we don't cause massive change in the regs, we will at least make more people stop and think about being personally responsible despite the slaughter orders coming out of the DNR.

We aren't going to go after them like a bunch of whiny kids.. This will be a well organized, data backed, logical approach.. More like how a political Action Committee goes after an opponent. With any luck the buzz will cause papers like Ohio Outdoor News etc to follow the story.. They all love a good dog fight.. And so do readers... From there it's a house of cards buddy.. The data is out there... The statement's are out there... The BS "it's acorns", "weather", and contradicting statements over the last 8 years are there.... They just need to be organized and brought to light in a logical manner. Then the public educated... I'm coming... And hells coming with me...

 

[finelyshedded]

Excellent post Milo!

 

[Jackalope]

it wont matter what the bag limits are, areas are overpopulated for reasons not related to hunting but rather the lack there of. its like taking tylenol for a headache when the real problem is a brain tumor.

But the philosophy is those accidents in areas overpopulated for non hunting reasons are far less expensive than one in vinton county.

For instance if soccer mom hits a deer at 30 MPH in the Columbus suburbs in her Chrysler mini van. The damage will be far less than if someone hits one at 55 mph on a Vinton county backload. Odds are the soccer mom will escape with a thousand dollar or so in damage... The one in vc may lose controll, hit a tree, go off a hill, or hit a ditch and flip... Now we have not only a totaled vehicle but also medical bills and maybe care flight ...... What a difference a different road and 25 MPH makes in the overall cost to an insurance company... It is this reason why I believe they have concentrated on killing the rural deer with a vengeance, while seemingly not caring a bit about increasing opertunity in areas with massive deer populations. Risk mitigation.

 

[Gern186]

Dang Joe you must sit around and think about this all day long.....probably need something to keep your mind off of the wimminz, huh?

That's a good theory.

 

[finelyshedded]

Just wanted to respond to what JD posted earlier. He and others who've taken the necessary steps to gain permission on great hunting land have earned it and deserve it. I am very happy for them. The door knocking, letter writing and time away from the family are also steps I myself have taken over the years. My wife and I TOO have had disagreements on my hunting time,gas money,work schedule/family commitment conflicts and time away from home while she tries to run the house while I'm gone. Been there and done that. My bro and I have lost alot of hunting land over the course of the past 5 years or so mainly due to leasing but who hasn't. This past year we've joined our first lease and have been blessed to belong to a great group of buddies who also see the writing on the wall as to what our most favorite hobby has come down to. Accessibility is the BiGGEST obstacle the majority of us hunters face today and it's only going to get worse. After living in the SWern part of the state for 21 years I've finally been able to find a nice tract of private farmland to which to hunt close to my home. It's been a blessing but the death of the landowner can take it away just like that. Hell, I even have problems getting permission to shed hunt on private land down here! I know most of you have the same problem. Throwing money at landowners seems to be the answer these days and sometimes that won't be enough. Why? Because there are some hunters who have more of it than me and some landowners would just rather say NO and be done with it. Our hunting land is shrinking whilethe popularity of hunting seems to be still going strong......for now. If you have good access, look for more! Cuz sooner or later you'll lose it! That's just the sign of the times we're all in right now. Just my .02.

 

[mrex]

Last time I checked driving was also a privilage.

I'm not saying insurance companies and farmers shouldn't have a vote but where is ours as hunters ? We as hunters bring the state millions of dollars every year but our voice is all to often ignored and we are laughed at. It's time for our side to be heard.

I don't think we're ignored or laughed at Adam. For example, I know that Fayette Co moving from zone B to zone A this year was at least in part, a result of Brock rationally and respectfully expressing his concern about the declining herd in that county. Brock brought it to the forefront and the data supported a change.

 

[tuffshot]

Just wanted to respond to what JD posted earlier. He and others who've taken the necessary steps to gain permission on great hunting land have earned it and deserve it. I am very happy for them. The door knocking, letter writing and time away from the family are also steps I myself have taken over the years. My wife and I TOO have had disagreements on my hunting time,gas money,work schedule/family commitment conflicts and time away from home while she tries to run the house while I'm gone. Been there and done that. My bro and I have lost alot of hunting land over the course of the past 5 years or so mainly due to leasing but who hasn't. This past year we've joined our first lease and have been blessed to belong to a great group of buddies who also see the writing on the wall as to what our most favorite hobby has come down to. Accessibility is the BiGGEST obstacle the majority of us hunters face today and it's only going to get worse. After living in the SWern part of the state for 21 years I've finally been able to find a nice tract of private farmland to which to hunt close to my home. It's been a blessing but the death of the landowner can take it away just like that. Hell, I even have problems getting permission to shed hunt on private land down here! I know most of you have the same problem. Throwing money at landowners seems to be the answer these days and sometimes that won't be enough. Why? Because there are some hunters who have more of it than me and some landowners would just rather say NO and be done with it. Our hunting land is shrinking whilethe popularity of hunting seems to be still going strong......for now. If you have good access, look for more! Cuz sooner or later you'll lose it! That's just the sign of the times we're all in right now. Just my .02.

Good post and very true.
I have also seen land leased out from under a current lease when they find out where a big buck was taken.

 

[Jackalope]

I don't think we're ignored or laughed at Adam. For example, I know that Fayette Co moving from zone B to zone A this year was at least in part, a result of Brock rationally and respectfully expressing his concern about the declining herd in that county. Brock brought it to the forefront and the data supported a change.

Yep. You're right. It only had to get so horrible it wasn't worth hunting anymore before a change was made. Forgive us if we don't want to end up in the sewer before we make a change.

Taking the population to a level where it can be maintained at a lower limit even after reducing tags is not doing anyone a favor. That's acomishing a goal, lower the limits to maintain said goal, then telling people you did them a favor by lowering the limits..... Lowering the limits after the damage is done is of ZERO conselation unless you can show me how it's regrowing the population to levels prior to when the slaughter plan was implemented.

The biggest thing we need to be careful of and see right through here soon is the dnr lowering limits then blowing smoke like they did us a favor. When in reality the lower limits will simply maintain their already accomplished goal.

 

[mrex]

But the philosophy is those accidents in areas overpopulated for non hunting reasons are far less expensive than one in vinton county.

For instance if soccer mom hits a deer at 30 MPH in the Columbus suburbs in her Chrysler mini van. The damage will be far less than if someone hits one at 55 mph on a Vinton county backload. Odds are the soccer mom will escape with a thousand dollar or so in damage... The one in vc may lose controll, hit a tree, go off a hill, or hit a ditch and flip... Now we have not only a totaled vehicle but also medical bills and maybe care flight ...... What a difference a different road and 25 MPH makes in the overall cost to an insurance company... It is this reason why I believe they have concentrated on killing the rural deer with a vengeance, while seemingly not caring a bit about increasing opertunity in areas with massive deer populations. Risk mitigation.

So what is the purpose of the bonus urban tags? What can the DOW do to increase opportunity in the areas with massive deer populations?

 

[mrex]

Yep. You're right. It only had to get so horrible it wasn't worth hunting anymore before a change was made. Forgive us if we don't want to end up in the sewer before we make a change.

Taking the population to a level where it can be maintained at a lower limit even after reducing tags is not doing anyone a favor. That's acomishing a goal, lower the limits to maintain said goal, then telling people you did them a favor by lowering the limits..... Lowering the limits after the damage is done is of ZERO conselation unless you can show me how it's regrowing the population to levels prior to when the slaughter plan was implemented.

The biggest thing we need to be careful of and see right through here soon is the dnr lowering limits then blowing smoke like they did us a favor. When in reality the lower limits will simply maintain their already accomplished goal.

Your loosing me here Joe. If the DOW increases the bag limit, which lowers the population, then decreases the bag, shouldn't the #'s increase? How did the "once upon a time" #'s get to where they were in the first place?

 

[Jackalope]

Your loosing me here Joe. If the DOW increases the bag limit, which lowers the population, then decreases the bag, shouldn't the #'s increase? How did the "once upon a time" #'s get to where they were in the first place?

Not hard to understand man.


For an example with just easy numbers to illustrate a point. Say you have 40,000 deer in a county and your goal is 20,000.... So you make it a 4 deer limit. After a few years you reach your 20,000 deer goal.. Lowering the limit to 2 deer isn't doing anyone a favor. That's simply accomplishing your goal and lowering the limit to either maintain or slow the reduction. The lower the population the lower the limit that's needed to keep it at that level... Say a 1 deer limit grows, a 2 deer limit maintains, and a 3 deer limit reduces, you aren't doing anyone a favor running a 3 deer limit to reach your reduction goal, then lowering it to 2 deer to maintain.... And that is exactly what the dnr will attempt to do once they've reached their goal and lower limits...

So forgive me if I don't see what happened in Fayette as "listening" or "caring" or doing anyone a favor after it was shot to hell... The listening and favor would be "let's stop this now before the plan is complete and the deer are decimated" not after we've reached our goal then we can piss down their back and tell them it's rain when we lower the limit to maintain that crappy level.

 

[mrex]

Not hard to understand man.


For an example with just easy numbers to illustrate a point. Say you have 30,000 deer in a county and your goal is 10,000.... So you make it a 3 deer limit. After a few years you reach your 10,000 deer goal.. Lowering the limit to 1 deer isn't doing anyone a favor. That's simply accomplishing your goal and maintaining it.

So forgive me if I don't see what happened in Fayette as "listening" or "caring" or doing anyone a favor after it was shot to hell... The listening and favor would be "let's stop this now before the plan is complete and the deer are decimated" not after sever reached our goal piss down their back and tell them it's rain.

Very hard to understand...so forgive me for not understanding how the number grew from 0 in 1900 to 30,000 in 2005?

Our states deer population tanked a lot worse than this in the mid 90's. And hunters screamed a lot louder than this and the state backed off. And then the herd grew and grew and grew...

 

[Jackalope]

Very hard to understand...so forgive me for not understanding how the number grew from 0 in 1900 to 30,000 in 2005?

Our states deer population tanked a lot worse than this in the mid 90's. And hunters screamed a lot louder than this and the state backed off. And then the herd grew and grew and grew...

It's not that hard to understand Mike.... When they back off we need to know they are backing off to a limit designed to grow grow grow. Not maintain maintain maintain. "backing off" ie lowering limits doesn't necessarily mean they've done anyone a favor. If you have half the deer you had when you set the limit to 4, then lowering the limit to 2 isn't doing a thing. Half the deer, half the limit. That isn't doing anyone a favor or "backing off"

 

[JD Boyd]

You guys sure put a lot of thought into this...

I'll just try to keep killing a buck a year, let the does get bred and have their fawns the next year so they'll hopefully produce the next buck for me to chase around and the deer #'s will keep growing around the areas I hunt...lol

 

[jagermeister]

That chart says it all, Mike.

 

[Kaiser878]

You guys sure put a lot of thought into this...

I'll just try to keep killing a buck a year, let the does get bred and have their fawns the next year so they'll hopefully produce the next buck for me to chase around and the deer #'s will keep growing around the areas I hunt...lol

yup X2

 

[mrex]

It's not that hard to understand Mike.... When they back off we need to know they are backing off to a limit designed to grow grow grow. Not maintain maintain maintain. "backing off" ie lowering limits doesn't necessarily mean they've done anyone a favor. If you have half the deer you had when you set the limit to 4, then lowering the limit to 2 isn't doing a thing. Half the deer, half the limit. That isn't doing anyone a favor or "backing off"

Ah...I see where you're coming from...now let me explain why you're wrong...

I'll do a little "Ryan"...anywhere in Ohio, you look out into a field in late July and see 20 deer. We know...on average...14 are antlerless, (does and fawns) and 6 are antlered bucks. Of those 14 antlerless, 10 are adult does and 4 are yearling fawns, (2 BB's and 2 does). We kill half of the 20...5 does, 1 BB, 1 yearling doe and 3 bucks. Next year, the adult does average 2 fawns each, (5x2 = 10). The yearling doe fawn has 1, (1) and the 3 bucks are still hanging around plus the 1 BB that survived - 4. Add it all up...5 adult does plus 10 fawns plus the yearling fawn and her off spring (2) and the 4 bucks = 21 deer or a 5% increase.

I know, I know...the coyotes killed some of those fawns. I also know we're not killing off 1/2 the herd each year...in most areas.

...and to add a little more "realism" to this scenario...if half of them are taken by hunters...both BB's are toast and at least 4 of the antlered bucks sleep with the fishes plus the 1 yearling doe. Which leaves 6.5 adult does or a (6.5 x 2 = 13 fawns + 6.5 does + 2 yearling fawn and her offspring + 2 antlered bucks = 23.5) or almost 20% increase.

 

[Jackalope]

You guys sure put a lot of thought into this...

I'll just try to keep killing a buck a year, let the does get bred and have their fawns the next year so they'll hopefully produce the next buck for me to chase around and the deer #'s will keep growing around the areas I hunt...lol

that would be ok but that's you. I think you're forgetting the other 99.99 percent of hunters that want to hunt deer, see deer, and kill deer. And will kill a nice buck if they get the opportunity.

 

[Jackalope]

Ah...I see where you're coming from...now let me explain why you're wrong.:smiley_arrogant:

I'll do a little "Ryan"...anywhere in Ohio, you look out into a field in late July and see 20 deer. We know...on average...14 are antlerless, (does and fawns) and 6 are antlered bucks. Of those 14 antlerless, 10 are adult does and 4 are yearling fawns, (2 BB's and 2 does). We kill half of the 20...5 does, 1 BB, 1 yearling doe and 3 bucks. Next year, the adult does average 2 fawns each, (5x2 = 10). The yearling doe fawn has 1, (1) and the 3 bucks are still hanging around plus the 1 BB that survived - 4. Add it all up...5 adult does plus 10 fawns plus the yearling fawn and her off spring (2) and the 4 bucks = 21 deer or a 5% increase.

I know, I know...the coyotes killed some of those fawns. I also know we're not killing off 1/2 the herd each year...in most areas.

How can I be wrong mike? I'm not talking specific numbers with you. I am simply stating that when they do lower the limits we need to make sure it's a lowering designed to grow the population not maintain the shitty population they created. Are you saying that's impossible? Are you saying that once they achieve this lower population goal that any lowering of the limits will spur rapid population growth. And it's impossible to maintain the low population they create once all is said and done?

 

[finelyshedded]

You guys sure put a lot of thought into this...

I'll just try to keep killing a buck a year, let the does get bred and have their fawns the next year so they'll hopefully produce the next buck for me to chase around and the deer #'s will keep growing around the areas I hunt...lol

That's what I would like to be able to do but liberal tag limits,poaching and a healthy yote population are counterproductive in MY area but you do only what you can control.

In reference to what Mike just posted about the yotes. I know for a fact because of two friends in the AEP area had a TC set up over two different yote dens over either last summer or the one prior and both had over 23 fawns drug into them over a 4-6 week period. Add that and the other deer fatality figures and see what happens. Just saying.