Numbers.. Ohio's 2011-12 White-tailed Deer Season -8%

[LonewolfNopack]

Heres the way I see it folks.....If you dont think there are enough deer then there is only one thing you can do....STOP SHOOTING THEM! No ifs ands or buts....If ya didnt have extra money would you go buy a new car????? Resorting to shooting button bucks is not a logical practice either....Because then you just took one buck from your herd that could have been your shooter in 3 or 4 more years....

Everyones taste is different..I dont have to see deer every sit...Some do..but what I do know is, if I felt I wasnt seeing the deer I was in the past, I would implement changes to my practices to counter it.

Kaiser, that is good in theory, but it ends there. For most of us who hunt public land or tiny parcels of private land, not shooting a deer would just mean one more for the neighbor to shoot. The only way to rebound the population is to limit the number of deer allowable for our neighbor to shoot, and limit the opportunities they have to shoot those deer. If you have access to many acres , then deer season could be open year round and it would not effect you because you have control over what is killed in your hunting area. For the majority of us living in the real world though, we are sitting here and watching the creature that we have came to love, depleted right before our eyes. The worst part of the whole deal is the DOW is both the coach and the cheerleader for this whole deal, and many of these neighbors buy into the DOW's "Wack a doe" mentality. It just flat sucks. The DOW has done many things right, but they have this dead wrong. I have been preaching it for the past five years, and others thought I was just a bad hunter and a whiner. So glad more people are starting to finally see what is going on here. I have confidence that in the near future the sportsmen and women of Ohio will break through the red tape that has been placed by politics and special interest groups within the ODNR, and responsible management of our resources will once again be ours. Until then it is extremely important that all of us attend the ODNR open house meetings next month, and continually contact authorities of the ODNR. A few voices will just be a whisper, it will take thousands to make a scream.

 

[Jackalope]

Kaiser, that is good in theory, but it ends there. For most of us who hunt public land or tiny parcels of private land, not shooting a deer would just mean one more for the neighbor to shoot. The only way to rebound the population is to limit the number of deer allowable for our neighbor to shoot, and limit the opportunities they have to shoot those deer. If you have access to many acres , then deer season could be open year round and it would not effect you because you have control over what is killed in your hunting area. For the majority of us living in the real world though, we are sitting here and watching the creature that we have came to love, depleted right before our eyes. The worst part of the whole deal is the DOW is both the coach and the cheerleader for this whole deal, and many of these neighbors buy into the DOW's "Wack a doe" mentality. It just flat sucks. The DOW has done many things right, but they have this dead wrong. I have been preaching it for the past five years, and others thought I was just a bad hunter and a whiner. So glad more people are starting to finally see what is going on here. I have confidence that in the near future the sportsmen and women of Ohio will break through the red tape that has been placed by politics and special interest groups within the ODNR, and responsible management of our resources will once again be ours. Until then it is extremely important that all of us attend the ODNR open house meetings next month, and continually contact authorities of the ODNR. A few voices will just be a whisper, it will take thousands to make a scream.

Well said. And welcome to TOO. Thanks for signing up and sharing your input.

 

[LonewolfNopack]

Thanks for the welcome Jackalope.

 

[Jackalope]

Brock,

I think you are right, except I don't know if they increased doe harvest as much as many may think after looking at the button buck data for 2010. That data both surprised and depressed me, although it may have saved 9,758 does for breeding.

2005 - 60,090 - 49.8% anterless
2006- 67,912 - 51.4% anterless
2007 - 78,639 - 57.8% anterless
2008 - 85,856 - 59% anterless
2009 - 91,546 - 58% anterless
2010- 85,012 - 46% does (this was the first year of separating button bucks from the antlerless numbers in the totals, 35,939 bucks, 39,315 does, 9,758 buttons)


No data available on the ODNR website to separate how many of the antlerless in years 2005-2009 were buttons

\

I'm compiling a giant honking spreadsheet that breaks down kills by weapon (crossbow, vertical, shotgun, muzzy) and by sex (antlered vs antlerless) Success rate of permits sold vs used, Button buck harvest data. Deer vehicle accident, and Crop Damage permits... From 2004-present.

 

[Jackalope]

I think I see why Tonk kicked around the Idea of an Early Muzzy season.. Can anyone else figure it out..

I'm still in shock from the Archery numbers.... I need to crunch some more data and get my head around it... Mostly to figure out what the potential impact might be from such a increase.

edit: see next page

 

[RedCloud]

I'm going to guess because of the decline seen in the MZ season totals for doe harvest.

What did I win ?

Can I also add that they moved it into January and NOBODY wants to go out and freeze so now they would like to have an early season to get more people out to kill more does since this would put MZ season in during the reduced cost antlerless tag part of the season lol.

 

[Jackalope]

I'm going to guess because of the decline seen in the MZ season totals for doe harvest.

What did I win ?

Can I also add that they moved it into January and NOBODY wants to go out and freeze so now they would like to have an early season to get more people out to kill more does since this would put MZ season in during the reduced cost antlerless tag part of the season lol.

Correct.. It would appear as though more guys are filling their doe tags in early archery season and not muzzy hunting anymore. It would only make sense to move the season to where the hunters are..

Orrr we could say that bowhunters are knocking the piss out of does now and leaving less alive for muzzy.. I would say the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

[RedCloud]

Correct.. It would appear as though more guys are filling their doe tags in early archery season and not muzzy hunting anymore. It would only make sense to move the season to where the hunters are..

Orrr we could say that bowhunters are knocking the piss out of does now and leaving less alive for muzzy.. I would say the truth lies somewhere between the two.

Has the BB and buck numbers stayed relatively the same during these same times the doe harvest has decreased ? OR have they changed as well ?

 

[Jackalope]

I haven't separated BB harvests out yet.

 

[RedCloud]

I haven't separated BB harvests out yet.

That would be interesting to see as well.

 

[brock ratcliff]

I think it demonstrates there is a rise in the number of antlerless deer harvested using the "extra" tags. In addition, archery hunting has become more popular over the years.

Really, I think the promotion of "take a doe" has had the largest impact - that's why it was implemented. However, I don't think it should have been as widely as it was.

 

[Jackalope]

I think it demonstrates there is a rise in the number of antlerless deer harvested using the "extra" tags. In addition, archery hunting has become more popular over the years.

Really, I think the promotion of "take a doe" has had the largest impact - that's why it was implemented. However, I don't think it should have been as widely as it was.

You're right. Tags sold to tags filled averages around 40% even though there were 515,928 in 2004 and 624,908 tags sold last year it holds in the 38%-41% range year after year. Also I think we have increased bowhunters somewhere in the 50% range over the same period.

 

[jagermeister]

Correct.. It would appear as though more guys are filling their doe tags in early archery season and not muzzy hunting anymore. It would only make sense to move the season to where the hunters are..

Orrr we could say that bowhunters are knocking the piss out of does now and leaving less alive for muzzy.. I would say the truth lies somewhere between the two.

If you look at those numbers, the only significant decrease in harvest totals over the years seems to be in the muzzy seasons. Regular gun totals have remained pretty much the same, and bow kills have gone through the roof. The yearly total, of all weapons, has decreased over the past few years either because A)less guys are hunting with the muzzys, B)there are less deer left by the time muzzy season rolls around, or C)both A & B. Now I see why Tonk's deer hunting survey was set up the way it was. It asks what main counties you hunted in, what seasons you participated in, and whether or not you were in favor of an early muzzy season. If the majority of respondents say they hunted muzzy season hard, it'll be clear that we've put a dent in the population. However, if a bunch of guys respond by saying they hardly hunted during late muzzy season and aren't in favor of early muzzy season, I have a feeling the bag limits aren't going to change much any time soon.

 

[Jackalope]

If you look at those numbers, the only significant decrease in harvest totals over the years seems to be in the muzzy seasons. Regular gun totals have remained pretty much the same, and bow kills have gone through the roof. The yearly total, of all weapons, has decreased over the past few years either because A)less guys are hunting with the muzzys, B)there are less deer left by the time muzzy season rolls around, or C)both A & B. Now I see why Tonk's deer hunting survey was set up the way it was. It asks what main counties you hunted in, what seasons you participated in, and whether or not you were in favor of an early muzzy season. If the majority of respondents say they hunted muzzy season hard, it'll be clear that we've put a dent in the population. However, if a bunch of guys respond by saying they hardly hunted during late muzzy season and aren't in favor of early muzzy season, I have a feeling the bag limits aren't going to change much any time soon.

I see what you are saying. I'm planning on asking nicely for the survey data here soon.. If need be I will FOIA request it. If that doesn't work, it'll be up to the lawyer (and yes Such services have been volunteered pro bono publico by one just as concerned as I about the population numbers.) Let's hope his services aren't needed for some silly numbers though.

See the above data isn't really indicative of population numbers though....... Yet anyway... We have seen an almost across the board reduction in total harvest over the last two years. And if opertunity is not increased I presume we will see the numbers fall for a third year running. For us to be able to show a correlation harvest to population we need to know the average number of days and hours afield over the same time period. One thing is for certain we have about 50% more bowhunters over the last 8 years who are taking about 2.4x the number of does today vs 8 seasons ago. what we don't know is if it's taking them 2.4x the amount of time to do it.

 

[brock ratcliff]

I think the average of tags filled would have shown a decrease in percentage of success had the DOW stuck with the original plan, that being you had to buy all the extra tags you wanted at the same time. If they were still doing that, no way the percentage would be the same imo. Then again, maybe they would, folks just wouldn't bother to tag a "worthless" doe.

At any rate, I think this process should be a learning experience for the DOW...if they actually thought there was something to be learned ( if they felt they may have made a mistake). I just hope they come to the realization that managing a herd from the kill stats does not work...It should be managed from what is still ALIVE!

 

[LonewolfNopack]

Managing the deer population based on what is alive, rather than what is dead?!?! Wait, no way...I mean that couldn't be... Yep I think you are right.

 

[jagermeister]

For us to be able to show a correlation harvest to population we need to know the average number of days and hours afield over the same time period. One thing is for certain we have about 50% more bowhunters over the last 8 years who are taking about 2.4x the number of does today vs 8 seasons ago. what we don't know is if it's taking them 2.4x the amount of time to do it.

At any rate, I think this process should be a learning experience for the DOW...if they actually thought there was something to be learned ( if they felt they may have made a mistake). I just hope they come to the realization that managing a herd from the kill stats does not work...It should be managed from what is still ALIVE!

It's common knowledge here that deer hunters have really changed over the past decade... Hell, the entire whitetail industry is a completely different beast than it was ten years ago. The herd estimate models were developed years and years ago and, while they have traditionally been considered accurate, maybe that's not the case anymore. Perhaps the same variables don't yield the same results now that hunter participation and equipment preferences have evolved. I think the hunter surveys, while short and sweet, are a step in the right direction. The surveys are the only way to really keep track of hunter effort. Perhaps the surveys should have been started years ago? Wildlife management evolves just like hunter participation and equipment preferences... The only problem is, it's not real-time... Management can usually only evolve as a response to the other changes.

 

[RedCloud]

One thing I would like to see done with the survey is to send them out to more hunters. I have been hunting for many years and have yet to get one in the mail. I would say 25+ years of hunting and never being asked my opinion on the game I enjoy is not very good communication with the hunters your working for.

 

[brock ratcliff]

I would think an online survey would be more cost effective and provide more useful infomation from a broader spectrum. Then again, it would be helpful if they receive a good portion of this year's back....send 'em in if you have them!

 

[jagermeister]

I would think an online survey would be more cost effective and provide more useful infomation from a broader spectrum. Then again, it would be helpful if they receive a good portion of this year's back....send 'em in if you have them!

Actually, this year's survey is online. It was very easy and simple... Took me only about 3 minutes to complete and submit.