Here is why I feel the way I do.
For the past 2 years I have heard always as a first response, eliminate the 2 day gun, as a fix to the over harvest. Many feel that the over harvest is significant and yet offer up again primarily the 2 day as the solution. The numbers easily show that when the 2 day was introduced in 2006 that the 7 day gun season kill dropped as did the MZ season harvest. many of the deer killed during the 2 day are not killed because of the 2 day but because they can wait until then to kill a deer. Last year there were around 17,000 deer taken during the 2 day, I believe that if you eliminate the 2 day you realize a net of maybe 7,000-8,000 harvest reduction. That is nothing more than a feel good moment like raising the tax rate on the top 2%, it accomplishes little. During our heyday of deer hunting, when the 2 day gun was introduced for the first time and the record 2009 seasons the gun harvest
You are also correct that the 2 day gun was not always here. it was started in 2006, If you do a comparison of harvest from 2002 until now there has been little growth in all gun seasons combined. The exception would be the introduction of youth season in 2003 that now takes around 9,000 deer per year. The big increase comes from extra tags and $15 tags statewide in 2007 that significantly increased the archery harvest
In 2002, with no youth season and no Nasa Plumbrook hunts the total gun harvest all in was 155,000, the archery harvest 48,841. In 2006 the gun harvest total including the 2 day plus the youth and Nasa hunts, all in was 169,000 deer, the archery harvest was 67,910 deer. In 2009, the last high harvest year for Ohio before the decline showed in the kill numbers, the gun seasons all in was 169,482, this was the highest harvest since 2006 and showed a net growth of 486 deer. In 2009 the archery harvest was 91,546, another year of record harvest, a net increase of 23,634 over the 2006 harvest. In you use 2006 as the baseline and compare harvest growth through 2009 season the gun seasons experienced a net decrease of deer harvested of 17,142 deer over those 3 years against average. The same comparison shows a deer harvest increase in the archery seasons of 52,305 deer over the same 3 years
The big increase in tags and the $15 tags valid statewide came into play in 2007 for the archery season. The harvest numbers grew right along with the tag and harvest limits for archery.
If you look at tag sales data and compare to harvest numbers it is interesting. The tag to harvest success rate stays very flat over all of these years. It is the chicken and egg question. Do the archery hunters buy the extra tags prior to starting the season because they know that they plan on harvesting a certain number or do they buy more tags as they fill the ones they have? I would guess the later considering how much concern there was on this site to fill the reduced price tags prior to them expiring. So much expressed concern on here about reducing the harvest and yet a larger concern of a need to go and kill a deer the last weekend before gun season or waste $15.
The problem is harvest, not method, not opportunity, it is the limit and tags availability. Eliminating hunter opportunity, especially two weekend days, does not address the problem in my opinion. If the intent is to cut back on the harvest increase that we have experienced over the past 6 + years it is very clear where the increase has occurred. It is from the increased tag and bag limit, most of which has occurred outside of any of the gun harvest. The number show clearly, in my opinion, that reducing the 2 day is little more than an emotional feel good solution that does little to correct anything.
The ODNR was able to increase harvest substantially in archery through increases in tag availability and reduced cost. Doesn't it make sense that you can reduce harvest the same way without eliminating any hunting opportunity?
