Gun week total is down 8%

[mrex]

What I think Mike is saying is that the trend is still towards the harvest increasing and that is reflecting that the herd(statewide) is also increasing. From his posts in the past I know Mike thinks a smaller herd is a good thing, I don't disagree.

Sorry Mike if I misinterpreted your post or wrongly stated your position.

If I'm reading the chart correctly the numbers on the left and the reddish bars are the opening day kills. The numbers on the right and the black line are the total kills for the year.

That's correct. I prefer quality over quantity.

 

[Jackalope]

Do you have a solution for accessing the deer in the "unhuntable" areas?

That's not the Point Mike.. The point is we should not overharvest deer in huntable areas to offset the vehicle accidents in unhuntable areas. Which is precisely what's going on. They have accepted the fact there isn't a good way to decrease urban deer populations and strikes by vehicles. So they have went about trying to offset that.. As I said, 1 deer hit at 60 mph in Vinton costs far more than 3 or 4 hit at 25mph in a suburb in Columbus. They can't do anything about the 3-4 in Columbus, but if they decrease the 1 or 2 in vinton, the ones in C-bus don't matter when looking at the bottom line. It's a 73.7 million a year problem to them...

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Supports this claim

Vehicle damage and insurance coverage
Vehicle damage varies dramatically depending on the type of vehicle, its speed upon impact and area of the vehicle that sustains the hit. According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), vehicle damage from deer collisions
averages about $3,000 per claim nationally. Crashes that include bodily injury could increase costs significantly. OII estimates Ohio auto damages approached $73.7 million in 2008 based on average costs per claim.

 

[mrex]

Joe - This is cut and paste from a thread I started last summer on the OS. Notice the date of the letter correlates with the same time period in the mid 90's when the statewide numbers tanked. I was every bit as wrong then as you are now. The DOW is not in the pocket of the FB or the Insurance Commission. They manage our states deer herd to the best of their ability for the good of ALL OHIOANS!



I was looking for an old BBBC file and came across this from 14 years ago. I was later told that this letter was read at a department meeting and helped get the ball rolling for the state wide open house's now held in each wildlife district. A lot of this sure has a familiar ring to it...and the sky hasn't fallen as I predicted. Maybe these guys know more than we give them credit.

TO: Mike Budzik – Chief DOW

FROM: Mike Rex – BBBC Trustee

COPIES: Mike Tonkovich – DOW Deer Project Leader

DATE: 12-5-1996


Mike,

I am writing because of a concern I have with the Division of Wildlife’s new aggressive deer reduction management strategy.

I’ll start by saying that I understand the pressure put on the DOW by the Farm Bureau / Insurance Commission and the proposed Wildlife Indemnification Program. However, I don’t believe herd reduction is desired by the sportsman of our state and I think the ODNR may be losing sight of who keeps the lights on at Fountain Square!

In my opinion, this new strategy attacks the symptom rather than the cause of nuisance deer issues in Ohio. I believe the primary problem is accessibility or the lack of it in many areas. The urban areas outlined are undoubtedly over run with deer and the new bonus permits are probably a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, bonus permits don’t impact accessibility.

In rural areas, many farmers complain of crop damage. It has been my experience that these same farmers allow limited or no access to hunters. I believe a high percentage of the “nuisance permits” issued to farmers are abused or used as “trophy hunting” permits. I have no miracle cure or easy answer for the accessibility issue, however, I think it would be in the best interest of everyone if the DOW would make helping hunters gain access to property now closed to hunting its top priority instead of a lump some harvest target for the entire state.

One “scientific” argument I’ve heard used for increasing the bag limit here in the hill country of SE Ohio is a study that concludes that the average pedicle size or circumference of buck antlers is decreasing. Could this also be the symptom of a deer herd that’s being over hunted and that the average age of harvested bucks is decreasing?

Another new variable that is certainly effecting the deer population in Ohio is the exploding range of the coyote. I know that the experts say they don’t impact the deer densities but if they’re killing fawns as we know they are, then they should factor into the equation the same as hunters – even if they don’t buy bonus permits or take their kill to a check station!

Mike, as you know, I’m not a wildlife biologist, but I am an avid hunter who spends as much time in the field as any fully employed sportsman in Ohio. My job requires that I travel extensively throughout the state both day and night. And without question, I am observing fewer deer in the rural areas than I did 5 years ago. I believe the rural areas are paying the price for an urban problem.

Your agency has done a fine job of managing the states deer to date. I ask that you speak with other avid hunters around the state and see if their views are similar to mine. Heed the warnings of the last two gun season openers and forget about standing corn. These are the “good old days” of deer hunting in Ohio. Lets keep it that way!

 

[Jackalope]

Joe - This is cut and paste from a thread I started last summer on the OS. Notice the date of the letter correlates with the same time period in the mid 90's when the statewide numbers tanked. I was every bit as wrong then as you are now. The DOW is not in the pocket of the FB or the Insurance Commission. They manage our states deer herd to the best of their ability for the good of ALL OHIOANS!

Never said they were in the pocket Mike. I never implied the DNR themselves were getting kickbacks... But they have been under immense pressure from Federal and State agencies to reduce the deer numbers as Ohio as Ohio was 4th in the nation for Deer Vehicle accidents... Costing insurance companies 73 million a year in claims. You are right Mike "They manage our states deer herd to the best of their ability for the good of ALL OHIOANS! " It just so happens the insurance lobbyist are organized, have deep pockets, and can cause a major fuss from the top down.... While it may be for the benefit of "ALL OHIOANS, it's easy to see here who benefiting the most "Insurance companies", And who is getting shit on "Hunters in rural areas"... I guess if the Ohio Bowhunters Association had a 27 million dollar lobbying budget like Farm Bureau alone does, Or 65 million like State Farm, hunters wouldn't be getting the short end of the stick...

I don't care how you cut the pie Mike. The bottom line is this... Harvest numbers in VC have gone down between 7 and 15% a year for 5 years.. Yearly harvest numbers are down 50% of what they were 4 years ago. Gun Week numbers were down 27% this year. The Bottom line is, THAT is a direct cause of the DNRs "management" policies and practices... Be it purposefully or ignorantly, it is undeniably happening... At the end of the day it matters not "why".. It's BS either way..

Let me ask you Mike...

What is you opinion as to why harvest numbers in VC are down 50% of what they were 4 years ago?

 

[tuffshot]

Joe - This is cut and paste from a thread I started last summer on the OS. Notice the date of the letter correlates with the same time period in the mid 90's when the statewide numbers tanked. I was every bit as wrong then as you are now. The DOW is not in the pocket of the FB or the Insurance Commission. They manage our states deer herd to the best of their ability for the good of ALL OHIOANS!

I'm sorry mrex,
I didn't believe it then nor do I now.

 

[jagermeister]

It would be interesting to see is the number of hunters hunting in Vinton County from the last 5 or so years.

 

[Jackalope]

It would be interesting to see is the number of hunters hunting in Vinton County from the last 5 or so years.

Me Too. Both residents and NR. I can tell you one thing the NR have FLOODED the county.. Wouldn't it be nice if the DNR made this type of info in their database public like KY does.

 

[jagermeister]

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine that only 15 deer are killed per year on a 980 acre lease... with that many guys hunting it. Hell, between me and a few others, 13 deer were killed off a 120 acre plot in 2008, and the next year it seemed like there were more deer there than before! Have you ever run cameras over corn to try and survey the population on that property, Joe? It just doesn't make sense to me that your groups harvests are getting worse year after year, yet the population isn't climbing as a result of it. If EHD were knocking them back that bad, it would have to happen EVERY year and you'd be finding deer carcasses virtually everywhere. I don't know... I just don't get it.

 

["J"]

We've taken 5 off of 100 acres and I have passed on double that and that and my buddy is not to far behind on that.... Mahoning county.. They took 10 this season off of another farm I hunt and there still a lot of sightings on that farm as well...in Colubianna county...

 

[Jackalope]

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine that only 15 deer are killed per year on a 980 acre lease... with that many guys hunting it. Hell, between me and a few others, 13 deer were killed off a 120 acre plot in 2008, and the next year it seemed like there were more deer there than before! Have you ever run cameras over corn to try and survey the population on that property, Joe? It just doesn't make sense to me that your groups harvests are getting worse year after year, yet the population isn't climbing as a result of it. If EHD were knocking them back that bad, it would have to happen EVERY year and you'd be finding deer carcasses virtually everywhere. I don't know... I just don't get it.

Easy.. We have 28 people on the lease. Most of them do not hunt that often and are getting old.. They leased it when Mead removed it from public and decided to lease the parcel.. It is somewhere many of them have ben hunting since they were kids. The only reason they did it was to keep a bunch of Non-residents or flatlanders from leasing it and flooding the area.

6 bowhunters. Of which 5 are out of towners that hunt a couple weekends before rut, and 7 days in November. Maybe a total of 11 days. I hunt it more than anyone. Those Bowhunters have have killed 11 deer this year on the lease.. Lets say average they hunt 2 weekends and the rut. So 11 days each. For a total of 66 days.. 11 deer killed in 66 days is one deer every 6 days per person.

22 Gun only hunters of which maybe 15 show up for gun week.. All they do is drives and are highly ineffective. They may kill 5 deer all week.. After the first shotgun they are done hunting except maybe the bonus weekend.

It wasn't always this way.. For 10 years prior to 2006 they would kill 25-30 deer a year. The population could withstand it. The surrounding 6,000+ plus acres were not hunted at all. And just this year has been hunted by the owner because he started an outfitting business. There was never a shortage of deer.

However the problem was in 2007 or so i guarantee we lost 50% of our deer population to EHD. The hollows, ponds, and watering holes had deer everywhere. It was the very next year the DNR doubled the tag limit to 6 and added a bonus gun weekend. What this has done is cause the population to remain low and not recover. IMO for VC to recover to the numbers it saw in 2006 instead of doubling the permits to 6 from 3, it should have been lowered to 1 or 2...

We have never ran cameras. Don't need to. The road sightings and sightings from the stand have plummeted.

However a 250 acre or so property that is 15 miles north is covered with wireless cameras. They are for the most part still in the same locations as they have been for years. With about half of them over feeders. (5) He has seen a reduction of about 50% in pictures in this same time period.. If you're getting 28,000 pics in 2006 and 14,000 in 2009, something has gone amiss.

Last year in January when there was a snow on the ground that had been there for 2 days i went for an all day walk. I walked every ridge and every hollow on the entire lease.. I counted 28 sets of tracks in the snow. And some of those could have been counted twice if i cut them on the ridge and in the hollow. 28 sets of tracks in 2 day old snow on a sunny day... Unless they figured out how to fly our deer population is in trouble.

What we are experiencing is not isolated to our lease. I have been told the same thing by many people in many areas all over VC. The harvest numbers support this.

 

[huntn2]

Here is a chart I made.

I looked at the gun week harvest by county dating back to 2006. This chart shows the percent change year to year and then the percent change from 2006 to 2010. The OH gun week harvest is down from the previous year every year since 2006 with the exception being 2008. I looked at the change for each county across the last 4 years. That means I looked at 352 opportunities for change (88 counties times 4 years). 180 of those opportunities for change were a negative percent (harvest was down from the previous year) which is just over half of the total opportunities. More telling is that comparing 2006 to 2010, 60 of the 88 counties (68% of all counties) have a decrease in gun week deer harvest. Something like 12 of the 28 counties where the numbers have increased in 2010 compared with 2006 are counties where a major OH citiy (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati or Toledo) is located or borders the county of a major city (urban areas).

Take it how ever you would like. These are just the gun harvest numbers for opening week since 2006 so obviously muzzy and bow numbers can impact things, but it is interesting that the gun week harvest (when the majority of OH deer hunters are in the woods) continues to decline overall while the heard is increasing?!?!?!

I did chart by county but due to having all 88 counties in it the image becomes a bit busy...

 

[Jackalope]

Here is a chart I made.

I looked at the gun week harvest by county dating back to 2006. This chart shows the percent change year to year and then the percent change from 2006 to 2010. The OH gun week harvest is down from the previous year every year since 2006 with the exception being 2008. I looked at the change for each county across the last 4 years. That means I looked at 352 opportunities for change (88 counties times 4 years). 180 of those opportunities for change were a negative percent (harvest was down from the previous year) which is just over half of the total opportunities. More telling is that comparing 2006 to 2010, 60 of the 88 counties (68% of all counties) have a decrease in gun week deer harvest. Something like 12 of the 28 counties where the numbers have increased in 2010 compared with 2006 are counties where a major OH citiy (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati or Toledo) is located or borders the county of a major city (urban areas).

Take it how ever you would like. These are just the gun harvest numbers for opening week since 2006 so obviously muzzy and bow numbers can impact things, but it is interesting that the gun week harvest (when the majority of OH deer hunters are in the woods) continues to decline overall while the heard is increasing?!?!?!

I did chart by county but due to having all 88 counties in it the image becomes a bit busy...

View attachment 811

Interesting... Thanks for the chart.. Good Work! I for one would LOVE to see more of it... Interesting data points.

In Case someone Missed it from above..

" The OH gun week harvest is down from the previous year every year since 2006 with the exception being 2008."

"More telling is that comparing 2006 to 2010, 60 of the 88 counties (68% of all counties) have a decrease in gun week deer harvest."

 

[huntn2]

Here are the other two charts that are a bit busy. One is each years percent change by county and the other is just the 2006 to 2010 change by county.

 

[rrr]

I realize I'm entering the discussion late, so dismiss this if it's already been discussed, but I just found and read this article and I think it's pretty straight forward as to the ODRN's intentions:

[This is long, but very good; bold added]

Ohio's 2010 Deer Outlook
Buckeye deer hunters have never had it better. Here's a look at some of the top areas statewide...
By Tom Cross

Buckeye hunters had another record-setting season last year, killing 260,442 deer during the season. That is an increase of more than 9,000 deer over the previous record take of 251,299.

While that indicates whitetails in abundance for Ohio hunters, what biologists see is not all rosy in their efforts to control the state's growing deer population. The state's agricultural watch dog, Ohio Farm Bureau, would like to see the state's deer head, estimated at over 700,000, pared back to a scantly 250,000. Squeezed between the dynamics of two forces -- hunters who like the high deer numbers and agricultural interests that can be hurt by crop damage deer do -- the Ohio Division of Wildlife walks a fine line between its paying constitutes and the private land the deer live on.

Asked about last year's record take, Mike Tonkovich, head deer biologist for the Division of Wildlife replied, "There were parts of it I was disappointed with and parts of it I was excited about. I had hoped the harvest would be down over the previous year. Our goal is to start turning the corner on the population."

Tonkovich would like to see the deer harvest down between 240,000 and 250,000, but no higher then 260,000. However, Tonkovich said, there were a few bright spots.


"There are some things we'll have to wait for before we can fully assess what kind of impact we've had, but a couple of good things came out that stuck me," said Tonkovich. "While the buck harvest was up about 5 percent in 2009, the antlerless harvest was up only 3 percent. That could be good news because antlerless permits sales were up 10 percent. We (DOW) sold a record 133,000 antlerless permits in 2009. The interest was certainly there but we harvested only 3 percent more antlerless deer. This means we could be leveling out in terms of population and making progress. In looking at the buck harvest in a particular year what you're really looking at is a time line. Most of the bucks taken in 2009 were year-and-a-half old bucks that were born in spring of 2008. So when you look at the 2009 buck harvest, what you are looking at is a reflection of how many does were available in spring of 2008 to drop button bucks. Ohio had a large harvest of antlerless deer during the fall of 2008 but we won't find out what really happen until fall of 2010. And then again the antlerless harvest we had in 2009 won't reap any dividends until fall of 2011 in terms of looking at the buck harvest data. A smaller buck population, since bucks and does are born in equal numbers, means there were fewer doe fawns born as well. So we use our buck harvest data to gauge where the total deer population is."

In summing up the 2009-2010 season, Tonkovich pointed out the bright spots in the harvest data he's working with.

"The long and short of it is we saw just a small increase in the antlerless harvest in '09, but the sale of antlerless permits went up greater," said Tonkovich. "I was also pleased with the muzzleloading harvest. We justified moving the season into January because in the past December was like one long firearms season," he said. "We set a state record muzzleloading harvest with 25,007 deer after seeing a four-year slide in the muzzleloading take."

Although the total harvest was up it was only a 4 percent increase over last year.

"That's not a significant number," said Tonkovich. The reason, he says, is that small variations in hunter success occur from year to year even if the deer population were to stay the same.

Looking ahead to the 2010 season Tonkovich said hunters can expect much the same as last year and looks for near repeat in the numbers.

"I expect the population to stay right about where it was at last year," said Tonkovich. "We're going have a very similar population and a very similar harvest to last season, which may mean again somewhere between 245,000 to 260,000 deer with a comparable antlerless harvest or perhaps a few more antlerless deer.

In effect, does and bucks are managed differently and Tonkovich points out that to understand the deer harvest you need to do more than look at the total season take: you have to examine the trends in buck and doe harvests and see how they relate to each other. If state hunters were killing enough does to decrease the deer herd's population, then eventually the buck harvests would decline (because fewer does would be dropping fewer male fawns for hunters to kill in later years). But no buck harvest decline is in evidence yet.

"The buck harvest for the last four or five years, particularly since we added the antlerless permits, has been fairly stable at 88,000 to 93,000 bucks harvested across all seasons statewide, whereas the antlerless harvest has been going up. So we're making progress at putting more pressure on the antlerless segment of the population, which is a good thing, but has yet to reap any significant dividends. Not until I see that buck harvest start to do a 7 to 10 percent drop am I going to believe we've turned the corner.

"The archers continue to do well breaking the 90,000 mark for the first time, while the gun harvest actually dropped this year from 117,000 to 114,000. So the archers continue to have great success," said Tonkovich. "We took 91,000 deer with bow and arrow and that's just amazing."

The biggest jump in the antlerless harvest last fall came during the bonus weekend gun season, when hunters killed 20 percent more anlterless deer than in the previous year, the harvest increasing from 12,092 in 2008 to 14,473 in 2009.

The movement of the statewide muzzleloading season to Jan. 9-12 was also a boon to black powder hunters. Hunters killed 25,007 deer in 2010 compared to 20,966 deer taken in 2009 -- a 17 percent increase. Black powder hunters took 19,160 does (or antlerless bucks) during the muzzleloading season, which was up from last season when 15,462 antlerless deer were taken.


However that season segment was not without some controversy.

"People were upset as we were killing a lot of shed bucks because of the late timing of the muzzleloading season," said Tonkovich. "But there was a whole other issue going on with the mast crop failure -- it wasn't a complete failure but a very, very poor mast crop. Not only in southeast in Ohio but West Virginia reported a record poor mast crop and they were seeing shed bucks very early. So that compounded things. Bucks in poor condition are going to shed their antlers earlier. And that's exactly what happened in West Virginia and in southeast Ohio. Statewide we didn't kill that many more shed bucks over last year but there was a noticeable increase in southeast Ohio (District 4) because of the mast crop which can be a problem in regions where deer are more dependant on mast then agriculture. It was clear from looking at the data it was the mast dependant population that was affected."

Southeast Ohio contains the highest densities of deer in the state: 30 to 60 deer per square mile. In contrast some counties in northwest Ohio have some of the lowest deer densities in the state at only 5 to 12 deer per square mile. "I would argue that hunter success and deer densities are probably very similar across the entire state," said Tonkovich. "In northwest Ohio you have a woodlot that has some deer and you add a 200-300 yard buffer around that woodlot and that represents deer habitat. But in terms of deer per square mile of deer habitat, not land area, but defined deer habitat, I would say the number of deer per square mile of deer habitat is probably similar, not a whole lot different. We kill more deer in southeast Ohio because we simply have more deer habitat."

Deer hunting's popularity continues to climb in Ohio; an estimated 420,000 hunters purchased a record 625,000 deer permits last season. That's a gain of over 13,000 permits from 2008 season and an increase of 117,000 tags sold during the 2007 deer season. As a result, hunters who have only public land available to hunt have complained that the deer hunting on public land suffers from too much pressure.

"It's getting worse as leasing becomes more popular and access becomes more and more limited. This has been an issue for long time," said Tonkovich. "What I would like to see us do is make some of our public lands a lottery hunt, limiting the number of hunters and make it a quality hunt. Many states are now doing that."

Regulations changes for the 2010 season include a deer zone change and the elimination of having to purchase an either sex tag before purchasing an antlerless permit. If you don't care about horns, hunters for the first time will be able to purchase just the $15.00 antlerless tag and a $19.00 hunting license and be ready to hunt deer. The only other change for the 2010 season is the expansion of Deer Zone B to include the nine northwest counties of Allen, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, Lucas, Paulding, Van Wert and Williams.

 

[rrr]

Continued...

The top spots in the state for bagging a deer haven't changed all that much from last year's big harvest counties.

"I'd look at those big east central counties, Tuscarawas, Coshocton, Holmes, Harrison County; that east-central corridor has got some terrific deer hunting," said Tonkovich. "It's the perfect mix of agriculture and cover."

In other parts of the state, Logan and Morrow counties in central Ohio are Tonkovich's picks; and Ashland County up in District 3. In southwest Ohio, Adams, Clermont and Highland County are the top picks.

"Richland County is one of the counties I would highlight. Ashland County is a great county too; Morrow County's taken off; Logan County has some tremendous opportunities, those are counties with high harvest numbers and some terrific hunting opportunities," said Tonkovich. "When you get up into District 2 public land opportunities are very limited but Williams County is probably one of your best bets. We added the nine counties out of District 2 to Deer Zone B which are obviously doing very well so those counties might be some new areas to look at."

Zone A, now consisting of only 11 counties, still has the lowest population of deer in the state with 5 to 12 deer per square mile. This zone is partial agriculture and partial urban. Harvest numbers should be similar to last season. Hunters in Zone A are limited to two deer.

Zone B has grown to be Ohio's largest deer zone with 39 counties including the northeast and northwest corners of the state. Deer densities range from a low of 15 upwards to 30 deer per square mile. Tonkovich doesn't expect any changes in the deer harvest numbers. Hunters in Zone B are limited to four deer during the archery season, after gun season opens up it backs down to two deer.

Zone C has the most deer and a six deer limit throughout the archery season and first week of gun season. It also has an abundance of public hunting lands, including Wayne National Forest and Shawnee and Zaleski State Forest, state wildlife areas and AEP lands. In the southwest corner of the state Tranquility and Paint Creek Wildlife Areas offer some of that region's top deer hunting. Deer densities range from 30 to 60 per square mile. Harvest numbers could potentially be up this season.

Tonkovich wants to see continued pressure on the antlerless segment of the deer population.

"The last thing we want to do is get hunters comfortable with seeing 25 deer every time they go hunting because we've got to get the population down," said Tonkovich. "If you look at the harvest numbers over the past few years I still think the deer heard is tending upward. I'd eventually like to see the deer herd 25 percent lower then what it is now."

 

[tuffshot]

I'm yawning.

I'm yawning again.

 

[Jackalope]

I'm yawning.

I'm yawning again.

I agree with Tonk.. I don't want to see 25 deer every time i go out... But 1 a fuggin day would be nice. :smiley_chinrub:

I'm sure insurance companies are rejoicing as to how they are "Managing Ohio's Deer herd to the best of their abilities for the good of ALL OHIOANS (except hunters)

 

[mrex]

Interesting... Thanks for the chart.. Good Work! I for one would LOVE to see more of it... Interesting data points.

In Case someone Missed it from above..

" The OH gun week harvest is down from the previous year every year since 2006 with the exception being 2008."

"More telling is that comparing 2006 to 2010, 60 of the 88 counties (68% of all counties) have a decrease in gun week deer harvest."

...evem "more telling"...page 3 http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub304.pdf

 

[rrr]

No joke Jack, I'm seeing .16 deer per hour, and with an average sit of 7 some hours, that's not even a deer a day!

 

[huntn2]

...evem "more telling"...page 3 http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub304.pdf

Mike,

Do you think the increase in archery harvest is directly correlated to any increase in number of hunters hitting the woods with a bow in their hands?

I would be interested in seeing/understanding if the number of hunters hitting the woods with a bow has increased across the 11 years that the harvest continues to rise. My guess is that a direct correlation exists between the number of hunters hunting with archery equipment and the record archery harvest numbers...but, that is just MY guess. I don't have numbers to back that theory.