Down

[Milo]

Some tree farm stats.

1,850 woodland owners are tree farmers In ohio.. Those 1,850 people manage 383,647 of Ohio's 8.1 million forested acres. 500 of those people grow Christmas trees.

So when the DNR says """the biggest factor in declining deer harvests appears to be fewer deer, a situation not welcome to every hunter but certainly OK with many of the state’s farmers and tree growers."

The last "farmer attitude survey" was completed over a decade ago in 2002 and they stated they wanted a 15% reduction.... I believe less than 1,000 farmers responded.. So those combined with a maximum 1,850 "tree farmers" are the excuse the dnr uses to decimate 600,000+ hunters deer population.. Nice..

but unmanaged deer nibbling is expensive(so i have been told by country folk)

 

[Jackalope]

but unmanaged deer nibbling is expensive(so i have been told by country folk)

I'm sure it is..

So you want deer killed? Where are your hunters? Oh, you don't allow hunting.. Well, maybe you should.. Have a nice day.

 

[Lundy]

return the deer numbers to what they were around 2007 before they began operation kill.

2007 was the first year for the achery hunters to use the reduced price deer tags. Interesting you would use that year as the benchmark for population levels and the decline from that point on.

The harvest increase is NOT from gun season
If you eliminate the 2 day the you do not realize much reduction in harvest it will just go to the regular gun or the MZ
The ODNR does NOT want to reduce participation or opportunity, they want to expand it further ( 2 day statewide early doe season proposal)




http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub304_08.pdf
Summary of the Ohio Deer Seasons 2007/2008


During the spring of 2005 and summer
of 2006, researchers from The Ohio State
University conducted a deer hunter survey
for the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The
overall goal of the project was to identify
primary barriers to participation. We were
interested in knowing what it would take to
get hunters in the woods more often. We received
a number of responses including more
deer, increased likelihood of success, and
more public hunting areas closer to home.
Aside from a longer deer gun season, more
weekend days to hunt with a firearm received
the greatest amount of support. Nearly 46%
of the respondents indicated that they would
likely participate more if there were more
weekend opportunities to hunt deer with a
gun. As a result of this survey, we added
the 2-day firearms season in mid-December
in 2006-07. Judging from the harvest, the
hunt has been popular with many hunters.
In 2007, we went back to the survey results
to identify other significant barriers to participation
and found that nearly a third of
the hunters surveyed, listed high license
and permit fees as a reason for not hunting
more. Therefore, in an effort to increase
hunter participation - and equally as important
- increase the harvest of antlerless deer
- we offered archers an opportunity to use
a new reduced-cost ($15 vs. $24) antlerlessonly
deer permit during the first half of the
archery seasan
The Urban Deer Permit ($15) was replaced
this year with the Antlerless Deer Permit
($15). In addition to being valid in any
of the 5 Urban Deer units during the entire
2007-08 deer season and during many DOW
special and controlled hunts, the new Antlerless
Permit ($15) was valid statewide during
the first 8 weeks of the archery season.
Hunters were limited to harvesting 1, 2, and
3 additional antlerless deer in Deer Zones A,
B, and C, respectively. The new Antlerless
Permit ($15) essentially doubled the deer
zone bag limit from the archery opener to the
Sunday before the regular gun season. After
this time, hunters were once again limited
to using the Antlerless Permit ($15) in the
Urban Deer units and/or during controlled
hunts. A maximum of 4 deer could be harvested
using Antlerless Deer Permits. Hunters were required to purchase at least one
Special Deer Permit ($24) before purchasing
an Antlerless Permit ($15).

Harvest
A total of 232,854 deer was harvested
this year, a 2% decrease from last season…

Hunters harvested 103,134 deer during
the traditional statewide gun season, 8.1%
less than last year……. . The 2-day bonus gun season in
mid-December may have contributed some
to the decline as well by shifting hunting
pressure………………. Archers reported
harvesting 78,639 deer this year, 15.8% more
than last season This year’s vertical
bow harvest of 36,347 deer represents a
24% increase over last season. For the 8th
consecutive year vertical bow hunters have
set harvest records and the annual increases
have been enough to push the total archery
harvest to record-status each year as well.……... There were 22,055 deer harvested
during the 4‑day statewide muzzleloader
season, December 27‑30 (Table 1). This
year’s harvest was off by just under 4% from
last year. However, this is the second year in
a row that the harvest has dropped, in spite of
average hunting conditions both years. Some
hunters may be opting for the 2-day mid-December
firearms season, during which muzzleloaders
would be legal as well.

 

[Lundy]

AND....I give up, no more from me in this thread.....pummel away

 

[Milo]

so they based this change on 46% of the 1% that actually responded...nice!

 

[Jackalope]

AND....I give up, no more from me in this thread.....pummel away

Good ole lundy. I bet you believe the reason they want to decimate numbers is because less than 1% of the poor poor farmers a decade ago begged them too. Or 1,850 tree farmers in Ohio finally had enough.. lmao... Sure.. They added it to give you extra opportunity.. And they did it because they love you so much.. Aren't you happy ole Mr DNRs got your back. You run along now and enjoy your extra opportunity. don't piss about a decimated population.. We did this for you.. You have more days to hunt now. Pay no attention to the insurance man behind the curtain. Run along now and be happy sitting in an empty woods with your gun for 2 more days. If you're good and play nice we might even give you more days. Now won't that be fun. More days to sit in the woods with a gun and see less deer. Laughable..

 

[brock ratcliff]

Lundy, the DOW was begging for answers on how to get people in the woods to kill more deer due to their perception that the herd was getting out of control. I don't believe that was the case then, and certainly do not believe that is the case now. Apparently, the DOW no longer feels the herd is over-populating, so the first thing to be cut should be the very things that were implemented to reduce the herd. i.e. - bonus archery antlerless tags, and bonus weekend gun season.

If it were up to me, there would have been NO antlerless archery tags or bonus gun weekend in Zone A. I would seriously look at ending Sunday hunting in Zone A too, as those are factors that greatly inflated the harvest numbers.

 

[Hedgelj]

Hey Joe,

One thing I am seeing through many of your posts about how the DNR is coming up with your numbers (besides the sarcasm hehe) is that there is no science or rationale behind their actions. This reminds me a lot of the problems those of us pushing for the pistol caliber carbines have been facing. Basically, every time we give them an anser to their "problem with the idea", they come up with some other B.S. reason to say no. The most recent is that they want us to fund a survey b/c they are afraid of the public perception if they allow it. They don't care that there were no problems with Indiana when they implemented something very similar or none reported so far in Michigan but it is what it is, the system we have to work with.

Here are some threads about it:
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15727
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15704
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14814

 

[Jackalope]

Hey Joe,

One thing I am seeing through many of your posts about how the DNR is coming up with your numbers (besides the sarcasm hehe) is that there is no science or rationale behind their actions. This reminds me a lot of the problems those of us pushing for the pistol caliber carbines have been facing. Basically, every time we give them an anser to their "problem with the idea", they come up with some other B.S. reason to say no. The most recent is that they want us to fund a survey b/c they are afraid of the public perception if they allow it. They don't care that there were no problems with Indiana when they implemented something very similar or none reported so far in Michigan but it is what it is, the system we have to work with.

Here are some threads about it:
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15727
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15704
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14814

You are correct.. I have never gotten a straight answer on how they tabulate population levels or goals.. I have seen some references to things like deer vehicle accident data etc. But each and every marker they point to is down and have been for some time.. For instance we have seen a 30% reduction in DVAs. If that's what they're saying they use then why haven't we seen a 30% reduction in kill regulation?

Huntn2 and I asked a very specific question once.. What data you use to decide if a county should be moved to another Zone. I might as well have bought a ticket to the world tapdance competition.

The only data that has ever correlated into any pattern has been harvest data. For instance.. When the kill surpassed YYY number they moved it to B, When it surpassed Y,YYY number they moved it to C.. Which is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.. Managing a deer population by counting dead deer when you don't know the number of live deer, and then setting a live deer population goal is a recipe for disaster.

But don't worry. I have a brand new shiny FOIA request about to be sent for just that data.. And I'm not looking for a song and dance.. I want a 1+1+1+1=4 answer.

 

[huntn2]

It is really pretty simple....

Opportunity was created to kill more deer because the ODNR had a goal of reducing the herd based on the belief the State was overpopulated. Recent articles are eluding to the goals having been met. How those target goals were set or what the actual herd population was will remain a mystery. Doesn't really matter at this point. The ODNR is acknowledging the goals have been met. Therefore, if they don't want to go below their goal, they need to take away the opportunity that was put in place to increase kills.

Now, when they make adjustments to level off (and hopefully go far enough to allow the herd to rebound in some areas) I hope the changes are significant enough to provide adequate data enabling for more educated decision making and management in the future.

I would like to see permits sold by county and weapon/season. You want to gain a sound understanding of gun and bow participation, make the permits by season. Want to know how much effort (how many hunters) are working to achieve a counties harvest, sell by county and season. The state needs to get a better understanding of how many hunters are hitting the woods within a smaller area (county vs zone) by season to get the appropriate level of detail for statistical analysis and management. The macro approach of today just isn't sufficient any more.

 

[Lundy]

Good ole lundy. I bet you believe the reason they want to decimate numbers is because less than 1% of the poor poor farmers a decade ago begged them too. Or 1,850 tree farmers in Ohio finally had enough.. lmao... Sure.. They added it to give you extra opportunity.. And they did it because they love you so much.. Aren't you happy ole Mr DNRs got your back. You run along now and enjoy your extra opportunity. don't piss about a decimated population.. We did this for you.. You have more days to hunt now. Pay no attention to the insurance man behind the curtain. Run along now and be happy sitting in an empty woods with your gun for 2 more days. If you're good and play nice we might even give you more days. Now won't that be fun. More days to sit in the woods with a gun and see less deer. Laughable..

I knew better...but......

 

[Jackalope]

I knew better...but......

The sad thing is we do. But I bet 80% of them are still blaming their neighbors feeder for them not seeing deer.

 

[Lundy]

Good ole lundy. I bet you believe the reason they want to decimate numbers is because less than 1% of the poor poor farmers a decade ago begged them too. Or 1,850 tree farmers in Ohio finally had enough.. lmao... Sure.. They added it to give you extra opportunity.. And they did it because they love you so much.. Aren't you happy ole Mr DNRs got your back. You run along now and enjoy your extra opportunity. don't piss about a decimated population.. We did this for you.. You have more days to hunt now. Pay no attention to the insurance man behind the curtain. Run along now and be happy sitting in and empty woods with your gun for 2 more days. If you're good and play nice we might even give you more days. Now won't that be fun. More days to sit in the woods with a gun and see less deer. Laughable..

What meant was I knew better than to expect a response different than what you gave me, but I participated anyway LOL

 

[Jackalope]

What meant was I knew better than to expect a response different than what you gave me, but I participated anyway LOL

Well. And it'll stay that way until proven otherwise. The DNR implemented the bonus gun to manage the herd and reduce the numbers. That's why they implemented it when numbers were the highest instead of the lowest. Now that the herd is at a lower level again it's only common sense that it should be removed. It's the exact same problem we have with welfare reform. It's very hard to remove something once you have given it to someone because from then on out they feel entitled to it. They feel so entitled to it actually they completely ignore logic and overall consequences. Deep down inside they know it's the right thing but they would never ever admit it. It's the same analogy that I used before with someone's house being on fire but not wanting the fire department to put it out because they want to be warm.

 

[Lundy]

Well we agree on one point

And please quit setting my house on fire and blaming me for it burning down

 

[finelyshedded]

Well. And it'll stay that way until proven otherwise. The DNR implemented the bonus gun to manage the herd and reduce the numbers. That's why they implemented it when numbers were the highest instead of the lowest. Now that the herd is at a lower level again it's only common sense that it should be removed. It's the exact same problem we have with welfare reform. It's very hard to remove something once you have given it to someone because from then on out they feel entitled to it. They feel so entitled to it actually they completely ignore logic and overall consequences. Deep down inside they know it's the right thing but they would never ever admit it. It's the same analogy that I used before with someone's house being on fire but not wanting the fire department to put it out because they want to be warm.

I totally agree. If they had never added the extra days in the first place we wouldn't even be discussing this. IMO. The ODNR buckled under the pressure of insurance companies and started adding days. I remember one year we had like 10 straight days of gun law! Rotflmao sorry
I remember being much younger and excited about the extra days being added but after seeing less and less deer over the last decade I'm ready to see them reduce the days back to where they were. At least for awhile. I'd also like to see bow season start later like it used to be(first Sat in Oct) and end somewhere around mid Jan. or no later than the 31st.

Lets face it, the ODNR has been falsely reporting extremely high exaggerated numbers for some time now. Many of us have noticed a huge drop in deer sightings both in our travels and while on stand. I feel EHD,coyotes,liberal kill permits and these added days to both bow and gun seasons have nearly eradicated the deer in a lot of places. It's time to take action before its too late. IMHO

 

[Fullbore]

X2' go get em Ricky! Lol.

 

[finelyshedded]

X2' go get em Ricky! Lol.

lol bro. It is my feelings that some people are afraid to give up any days. What I'm saying is change it back for a year or maybe two or three more years if need be. With the insurance companies pressuring the ODNR those who are worried about losing them for good need not worry, once the deer rebound some then add the days back but the powers that be need to be more wise in how they set bag limits per counties or zones.

 

[Lundy]

I think some may be confused about where I am coming from.

I don't care one flip about the 2 day gun season personally. I have never shot a deer during the 2 day gun. No one that hunts with me has ever shot a deer during the 2 day gun. I don't care if I ever shoot a deer during the 2 day gun.

I have been reading on this site and others the concern for the dwindling deer herd for the last few years. Some have experienced it harder than others. Heck the Strouds Run outing was born from the deer herd reduction conversations.

Everybody has their own theory as to what has happened and why. I agree with some of the thoughts, some I don't. The ones that I don't agree with amount to little more than knee jerk reactions in my opinion.

The one common ground, it seems everyone shares, is to reduce the harvest to allow for a rebound of the deer populations. It also seems that most agree than excessive harvest has been the primary cause of the deer population reduction.

So one of the primary proposals being pushed by many here is the elimination of the 2 day gun season. It doesn't matter that the harvest increase we have experienced over the last 10 years has not come from the gun harvest. It doesn't matter that you will not realize a 1 to 1 reduction in harvest by eliminating the 2 day gun season. It doesn't matter that a group of hunters is asking for a reduction of hunter opportunity of another group. I guess that one shouldn't surprise me with how many don't like crossbows and never wanted them included in the archery seasons. Maybe you would like those outlawed now also, there's a 45,000 deer a year harvest reduction for you.

Having something bad occur that you want to change will always bring out the simple fix ideas to a complex problem. Eliminating the 2 day gun as the primary fix to the over harvest will no more fix the problem any more than banning assault rifles will stop mass shootings.

I am 100 % for all hunters and access to the the resource. I would like to see changes made that would effect the harvest without effecting the opportunity for any hunter to hunt any season. I would like to see expanded hunting opportunities, not less. I would like to see harvest management. We don't close Lake Erie to walleye fishing for a month due to low populations, we adjust the limits.

Personally I would like to see where I hunt in Athens County back to where it was in 2002. It was in the top 5 counties for gun season harvest with over 4100 deer taken during the week, this year it was 1983 deer and 2059 in 2011, and has not been in the top 10 counties for many years.

I get to hunt every day of every gun season, I'm lucky to be able to do that. Many hunters are not that fortunate and have limited days to hunt. That is why I am so opposed to the easy quick fix plan that does not address the problem of harvest, and assigns blame through restriction of opportunity for a problem that it is not responsible for.

2 day season, stay, go, doesn't effect me personally at all, zero, zip, but I refuse to piss on hunters, any hunters, without just cause, and I won't let anyone else do it either without at least voicing my opinion. I know my opinion is not popular here but it is what I beleive

 

[Lundy]

And please don't take my crossbow comment above wrong either. I do not hunt with crossbows, never have, never have really have liked them much but as the president of Ohio largest bowhunting OBA affiliated club many years ago I supported them and even worked very hard to try to gain acceptance and admittance into the OBA for them to no avail. My opinion then and support for crossbows had nothing to do with me personally, as I said I didn't really like them very much but I supported increased hunter opportunity. My opinion then wasn't very popular either as I'm sure you can imagine.