After

[jagermeister]

Well I'll be darned.... :smiley_chinrub:




As I mentioned in the other thread before you said that too..

Percent Does killed 2003 compared to 2010 Vertical BOW = +258% (9,537 / 24,615)
Percent Does killed 2003 compared to 2010 CROSSBOW = +193% (12,639 / 24,458)


Lets look at what Tonk said...

2003 DNR Article.. "Approximately 450,000 hunters are expected to participate in this year's statewide deer-gun season that begins Monday, December 1, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife."
Source..

2012 DNR Article.. "Approximately 420,000 hunters are expected to participate in this year’s season, including many out-of-state hunters."
Source.

That's a -7.67% decrease in participation. If we factor in the standard 33% success rate for that lost 30,000, that's 9,900 successful hunters we lost since 2003..

Looking at the harvest numbers for gun.
115,283 in 2003 Seven Day Gun
86,964 in 2012 Seven Day Gun
-28,319 less deer..

9,900 lost successful hunters would not equate to a harvest loss of -28K deer. Unless those hunters all killed 3+ deer in 2003..

Add in Bonus gun and we get closer. It's a loss of 8,264 deer... assuming it's the same participants, or at least those who didn't score during regular gun.

Now we might be on to something and within a margin of error. A loss of 9,900 successful hunters from 2003 could equate to a loss of 8,264 deer a combined gun season. Still down. But not by much. And within what I would expect to see with that loss.

So indeed.. The loss of hunters during gun could very well explain the loss in harvest. However the overall numbers of licensed hunters in general have dropped by about the same amount. I wouldn't say it's because they switched to archery. We just have less hunters. But not much.

But there's a problem, Archery is showing a +26K increase in kills. Almost a 221% increase since 2003.

The data we don't have from 2003 is how many hours is it taking guys to kill a deer? In 2003 it could have taken 8.. In 2012 maybe 16. There in will lay our answer. But in reality we don't need math to know the population is down significantly.. Take a peek at the DNRs Facebook page where they posted the season totals.. About 95% of them are screaming about it being the worst gun season they've ever seen. 4-5 years ago when Brock and I first said this there we're very very few who agreed.. Most laughed.. Now just 4 short years later we have no shortage of company on this side of the fence. Some of them were adamant that we were nuts 4 years ago.. It is an undeniable fact that the population has been reduced in ever expanding areas to where people are getting mad..

I'm with ya, man... But, just sayin here, you're leaving out another variable... 9,900 lost successful hunters very well COULD equate to 28,319 fewer deer killed, when you consider that the other 138,600 successful hunters (33% of 420,000) are spending less total hours pursuing deer in 2012 than they did in 2003.

 

[Jackalope]

Im lost buddy. Lol. Been a long day. How are you figuring that today it takes less hunters less hours to kill less deer though? In order for it to take less hours there would have to be more deer. I am more inclined to believe that there are less hunters spending more time to kill that 1 than in 2003. Either way without knowing what the variable was in 2003 we can only speculate. But I will say this with certainty. Without the extra tags, without the bonus gun, and far far fewer counties in zone C. We still managed to kill more deer then than we are today. Don't forget that back then there were a crap load more counties in zone A and B. with far less opportunity and far more restrictive bag limits we still managed to kill more deer than today. So it does not jive with me to believe that less hunters are spending less time with more opportunity to kill less deer. What makes more sense is that we have less hunters spending more time with increased opportunity and still killing less deer.

 

[bowhunter1023]

Im lost buddy. Lol. Been a long day. How are you figuring that today it takes less hunters less hours to kill less deer though? In order for it to take less hours there would have to be more deer. I am more inclined to believe that there are less hunters spending more time to kill that 1 than in 2003. Either way without knowing what the variable was in 2003 we can only speculate. But I will say this with certainty. Without the extra tags, without the bonus gun, and far far fewer counties in zone C. We still managed to kill more deer then than we are today. Don't forget that back then there were a crap load more counties in zone A and B. with far less opportunity and far more restrictive bag limits we still managed to kill more deer than today. So it does not jive with me to believe that less hunters are spending less time with more opportunity to kill less deer. What makes more sense is that we have less hunters spending more time with increased opportunity and still killing less deer.

:smiley_clap:

 

[jagermeister]

Im lost buddy. Lol. Been a long day. How are you figuring that today it takes less hunters less hours to kill less deer though? In order for it to take less hours there would have to be more deer. I am more inclined to believe that there are less hunters spending more time to kill that 1 than in 2003. Either way without knowing what the variable was in 2003 we can only speculate. But I will say this with certainty. Without the extra tags, without the bonus gun, and far far fewer counties in zone C. We still managed to kill more deer then than we are today. Don't forget that back then there were a crap load more counties in zone A and B. with far less opportunity and far more restrictive bag limits we still managed to kill more deer than today. So it does not jive with me to believe that less hunters are spending less time with more opportunity to kill less deer. What makes more sense is that we have less hunters spending more time with increased opportunity and still killing less deer.

What's so hard to understand about that? lol Less pumpkin people walking into the woods carrying shotguns can, and likely will, result in less deer being killed.

You said the 9900 less successful hunters could not account for the missing 28000 dead deer because that would assume each hunter killed 3 deer. I'm saying yes, your're right about that... BUT, if the guys that ARE hunting are spending LESS time in the woods with a gun, that could account for the other 18000 dead deer missing from the total harvest.

 

[dante322]

After watching this thread for a couple days, I'd like to chime in.

population.

I see all these numbers getting thrown out there and that's all good, but I have a tendency to be a bit more simplistic about how I see things. Biology 101. you take the females out of the equation, you reduce the future population exponentially. Ohio has been targeting does for a few years now. Most hunters dont care enough to join forums like this or pay attention to the statistics. All they know is they can go out and kill as many does as they want, and they can do it cheap in the early season. For every doe we loose, we also loose at least one fawn, possibly 2. the population is going to decrease any way you look at it. There is no way it cant.

Drives.

I have never participated in a drive so i cant really say anything one way or the other. Ethics are a matter of opinion. I do believe there should be more regulation on drives though. If for no other reason than for safety. I feel there should be a permit to conduct a drive. That way, the GW can be made aware of who is going to be participating, are they all legal, (license, permit, permission...) Where this drive will be taking place, what direction will the shooting be, what time will this be happening... this should reduce the number of lead slinging idiots and make sure that the shooting is being done by guys who are allowed to shoot. The dnr will never get rid of drives, they are just too effective at reducing the herd, which is their goal.

Wounded deer, gun vs bow

I would imagine the numbers are actually similar. The question is how many of the wounds are fatal. Seems to me a scalpal sharp broad head will leave a cut that will eventually close and heal if it doesnt hit vitals. a slug hole on the other hand would more than likely lead to an infection that could kill the animal. Also, A true bowhunter will know for sure he hit the animal, and will give every effort to recover it. A guy that flings a slug from a 100 yards out might not even look if the deer runs off, he might be more inclined to think he missed it. After a drive, do you typically look for blood trails from the ones that were hit and kept running? or do you collect the dead from the field and move on to the next area? So wounded animals will be a factor in each argument, but as for FATALLY wounded ones, I think there would be more from gun hunters.

Hunter participation.

The rise in popularity of the crossbow has gotten more gun hunters in the woods during archery season, and given them less reason to take time off during gun week. i also think that the old timers are getting less able to hunt, and the youth are more interested in facebook, and playstation. Both factors would reduce the number of hunters in the woods.

 

[hickslawns]

Good points dante.

Biology 101. you take the females out of the equation, you reduce the future population exponentially. Ohio has been targeting does for a few years now.

I will add something to this which I have not yet read (or remember reading) in any magazine or in any forum. The does have more of a job than producing offspring. They are also the ones teaching the young deer how to survive. How many does are killed leaving one or two yearlings to fend for themselves? Sure, some of these could join up with other doe groups. However, how many are truly ready to venture out without momma in their first winter and actually survive? We all know how satisfying it can be to harvest a mature doe. Unfortunately, with increased opportunity, is it possible there are too many mature does being removed leaving a less educated doe population? If they don't learn from their mother, they are not going to teach their offspring either.

 

[MK111]

No one is putting one method over another. His argument was on large drives consisting of lg quantities of people and just how effective they are.

As for more wounded during archery? Maybe, but archery is in for 4.5 months while gun is in for a total of two weeks counting Muzzy. Yet, I would argue the wounding rates are astonishingly equal.

I have read past articles in Deer and Deer Hunting where research has shown that bow hunting and gun hunting the woundered percentage is about equal.
It's about 50% of deer wounded by either method are never recovered. I believe it goes back to the belief if someone putting a 1/2 or larger hole through a deer and the deer doesn't drop where it's standing they missed it. And there is no real search for the what they thought is a missed deer. We all know that's not how it is. Then there are the deer shooters that have no idea how to search and recover a wounded deer. You will notice I didn't call these deer shooter deer hunters.
I would say the deer hunters here on this forum are so much more advanced than the typical deer shooter in the field. And we don't have this wounding and recovery problem.
Frank

 

[mrex]

Apples to apples we're down about 1% over this time last year.

Some big changes on the horizon in Ohio...I can't say what at this time but all good IMO...but I'm sure somebody somewhere won't like them...

 

[Ohiosam]

.but I'm sure somebody somewhere won't like them...

Guaranteed!