Rex, are you saying that ODRN isn't lobbied?
If so, why do they have a policy about it?
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/policies/lobbyingpolicy/tabid/9963/Default.aspx
Gun week total is down 8%
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
Rex, are you saying that ODRN isn't lobbied?
If so, why do they have a policy about it?
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/policies/lobbyingpolicy/tabid/9963/Default.aspx
- 25,141
- 261
All this arguing..and for what. We managed to tag 83 in Fayette County so far this year... Why would anyone think there are less deer?
Gern, Fayette County has very similar habitat to NW Ohio. Historically, we killed around 150 deer when it was a one tag county. They added the extra tags, it jumped to around 300 for a couple of years. The decline was obvious inside of a year. If you are in the woods as much as we are, you know when you have made a dent in the population. It has been horrible in that area for the last three years or so. Although Fayette is not a high kill county, and never has been, I have access to what I consider some of the best habitat in the county. Even on that little slice of heaven, there simply aren't near the deer there once was, and staring at leaves for days on end SUCKS! The DNR wanted the herd reduced, its reduced. Although, I think they are surprised at how reduced it is. I mean really, making Fayette County a four tag county... and killing 83 deer ... does it make sense on any level? I told Tonkovich last year on a phone conversation we were killing too many. He said, "well, if they aren't there, how are we getting the kill numbers we are getting?" ... I explained my thoughts on the matter as this: if there are 10 deer in a woods, you can kill three. If there are only four deer in the same lil woods, you can still kill three. 83 freaking deer killed this year with a four deer bag limit... I think that tells all we need to know about how good the DOW is at setting bag limits... They are plainly out of touch, AS I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS!
Gern, Fayette County has very similar habitat to NW Ohio. Historically, we killed around 150 deer when it was a one tag county. They added the extra tags, it jumped to around 300 for a couple of years. The decline was obvious inside of a year. If you are in the woods as much as we are, you know when you have made a dent in the population. It has been horrible in that area for the last three years or so. Although Fayette is not a high kill county, and never has been, I have access to what I consider some of the best habitat in the county. Even on that little slice of heaven, there simply aren't near the deer there once was, and staring at leaves for days on end SUCKS! The DNR wanted the herd reduced, its reduced. Although, I think they are surprised at how reduced it is. I mean really, making Fayette County a four tag county... and killing 83 deer ... does it make sense on any level? I told Tonkovich last year on a phone conversation we were killing too many. He said, "well, if they aren't there, how are we getting the kill numbers we are getting?" ... I explained my thoughts on the matter as this: if there are 10 deer in a woods, you can kill three. If there are only four deer in the same lil woods, you can still kill three. 83 freaking deer killed this year with a four deer bag limit... I think that tells all we need to know about how good the DOW is at setting bag limits... They are plainly out of touch, AS I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS!
Yeah, that's got to be some kind of record for the least number of deer ever killed in a county or something.......Hell, there were 98 deer killed in Paulding county just in the 2 day youth season!!!!
A bunch of us went to the DNR open house last year to try and persuade the DNR to keep a few select counties out of the Zone B area, well it didn't happen.... I hope this year the DNR takes a real good look at the individual counties and makes some adjustments where needed.
My county more than doubled it's gun week kill this year and has already surpassed last years total kill with 6 more days of firearms hunting and the rest of bow season remaining.......I know that the next few years are going to be harder hunting, but it takes more than just the DNR to restrict how many deer are being killed......it takes the hunters in a given area to make adjustments on their kill numbers too regardless of the bag limits set by the DNR.......Hopefully you guys and all the locals around there are more selective on what you kill from here on out, until your numbers get back to normal......I know there are a lot of guys up here that saw the opportunity to kill 4 deer and did it....and will be paying for it for a few years to come.
A bunch of us went to the DNR open house last year to try and persuade the DNR to keep a few select counties out of the Zone B area, well it didn't happen.... I hope this year the DNR takes a real good look at the individual counties and makes some adjustments where needed.
My county more than doubled it's gun week kill this year and has already surpassed last years total kill with 6 more days of firearms hunting and the rest of bow season remaining.......I know that the next few years are going to be harder hunting, but it takes more than just the DNR to restrict how many deer are being killed......it takes the hunters in a given area to make adjustments on their kill numbers too regardless of the bag limits set by the DNR.......Hopefully you guys and all the locals around there are more selective on what you kill from here on out, until your numbers get back to normal......I know there are a lot of guys up here that saw the opportunity to kill 4 deer and did it....and will be paying for it for a few years to come.
Last edited:
- 25,141
- 261
... and Mrex... it is very easy to say quality over quantity until you sit your ass in what was once a great area and now only see falling leaves and scampering squirrels. If your area of Athens ever gets that way, (which it won't) you will get tired of being perched in a tree thinking of the good ol days...
For those of you that say "just go where the deer are": I have, and am willing to hunt where ever I need to. The point of frustration is knowing that there is a need to move areas, to travel farther, simply because of mis-management of our resource. I just spoke with one of my Fayette County farmers the other day regarding crop damage. In his words, deer have never done any damage other than where they would lay down in the bean fields, and that was absolute minimal. I don't recall a heck of a lot of deer/vehicle collisions in the area either... I wonder why the DOW felt the need to eradicate the deer of Fayette County? Could be, in spite of all the graphs, they don't have a clue as to what they are doing... I really think they are just throwing crap on the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
For those of you that say "just go where the deer are": I have, and am willing to hunt where ever I need to. The point of frustration is knowing that there is a need to move areas, to travel farther, simply because of mis-management of our resource. I just spoke with one of my Fayette County farmers the other day regarding crop damage. In his words, deer have never done any damage other than where they would lay down in the bean fields, and that was absolute minimal. I don't recall a heck of a lot of deer/vehicle collisions in the area either... I wonder why the DOW felt the need to eradicate the deer of Fayette County? Could be, in spite of all the graphs, they don't have a clue as to what they are doing... I really think they are just throwing crap on the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
Last edited:
What still doesn't make any sense to me, is how the guys here that are hunting private ground aren't seeing your deer populations rise. If you're not letting every Tom, Dick and Harry hunt there, and you're not killing the deer like you used to, then who/what the fugg is killing them? Deer are amazing reproducers... I think I read that whitetail does are somewhere around 94% successful when it comes to producing offspring. If you're not killing a high number of deer, then surely they would bounce back on their own, especially on properties that are privately owned and/or leased. The only way it wouldn't increase, in my opinion, is if there was some other factor at play... and, in my opinion, EHD is not killing that many deer every year.
Precisely. The number of bowhunters is Ohio increases every year... both resident and non-resident. With an increase in numbers comes an increase in hunting pressure. Isn't is plausible that the increased pressure, prior to gun season, could result in the deer "wising up" before gun season arrives? That would certainly result in decreased harvest totals. Or... with increased bowhunters in the woods, there will be a lot more guys (like me) who end up just plain hating the gunseason and decide to burn up vacation days during the rut instead of the first week of December. There are a lot of factors at play, so basing assumptions on gunseason harvest data alone is probably not the right way to go.
No...I'm saying Mike Tonkovich, the deer project leader for the DOW, who makes recommendations to the wildlife council, which have historically been rubber stamped, makes his recommendations based on data and science and what he believes is best for all of us.
What were the numbers of twins born the last couple of years to the doe in the area? Versus singles? I've seen more singles the last few years than doubles by us... don't know it to be a trend but that may affect your numbers as well as other things...
Who makes the 'rubber stamps', provides the funding and the actual data and does the science? That'd be the insurance companies!
The worst known EHD outbreak in Ohio history happened in Meigs County 7 seven years ago. It took the deer 3 years to rebound in the affected areas. Deer who survive EHD infection are immune for life and does pass this immunity on to their fawns which usually prohibits an every year occurrence.
In my hunting areas here that I have hunted for years I have seen a decrease in deer over the last 5 years and a huge increase in hunters. The kill numbers might still be going up but only because we have more hunters with more tags hitting those woods now and not because we have more deer like the DOW would like to make us think. The main property I hunted this year I started bow hunting when I was in 6th grade some 22 years ago. I believe the numbers of deer have gone back to the numbers we seen back then and for those of us that have been hunting deer for 20+ years know how few that was.
I feel the same as you do Brock. The DOW is out of touch and needs a better system then the one they currently use to calculate deer numbers. Simply looking at pie charts and bar graphs don't tell the entire story and I think we as hunters need to ban together and take our thoughts and concerns and push our own numbers in their face. They can ignore 5-10 people in a meeting but they can't ignore 100+ nor the media that would also be invited to listen. Just like my kids or any other agency you have to keep on their ass and hold their hand to get anything done.
Alright, I'm done rambling now lmao.
I've been thinking more and more about that "quality vs quantity" statement and frankly I'm kinda pissed about it.
Managing the herd for "all Ohioans" - well, this Ohioan would like to see deer when he drives two hours to get to his hunting spot, as well as the deer he sees on a consistent basis in his suburban community.
In my rookie exuberance I used to think "Wow, I wanna tag out" and fill mine and all my family's and friend's freezers - but after reading/listening/learning I've seen that I have to change that thought pattern to preserve future opportunity. But how many guys will just take what they can get?
I heard a lot less shooting this year. I've talked to alot of guys who have been spending alot of time afield and getting skunked.
Not everyone is a trophy hunter. To some folks that medium bodied 9point is a real treat, a real excitement. Some guys are just happy with any deer they get an opportunity with. Alot of these guys live in suburbs and have to drive a looooong distance to their hunting spots. Alot of guys have to really conserve their precious vacation days because their employers aren't as liberal or their situation is such that they can't just walk out their back door and hunt. So when those days are spent as Brock said, looking at leaves and squirrels, that's a bad thing for the sport (IMHO). But what I'm hearing you say, MRex, is that it's ok to bring down the rural herd numbers so that the remaining deer flourish and bigger booners be produced? I can see how that would benefit certain hunters who have more time and access, but what about the average guy? Is it ok for him to buy his tags, spend his money, and get skunked so that the hardcore boys can get bigger bone?
For myself, I am not worried. I will do what's necessary and be successful and enjoy my sport. I'm having a good season so far, and will continue to do so, and I'm looking forward to a good year next as well. But I want our sport to flourish. I want everybody to have a chance at success. But here's what my horse-sense is telling me -
1) There's plenty of deer out there. But rural deer are on the decline. Lots of factors - coyote, bag limits, etc etc
2) Urban/suburban deer are on the rise.
3) We need more deer in the rural areas and less in the suburbs.
I don't want a runaway herd in the rural areas - but I'd rather have a runaway herd that could be thinned down than a scarce herd that would take years to recover. And I want the average guy and rookie hunters to succeed.
As far as the urban/suburban herd - perhaps the ODNR could come up with an educational program or marketing campaign to inform land/home/business owners about the benefits of allowing archery hunting.
Maybe the insurance companies could provide some cost-saving incentives to property owners who allow hunting access. Not everything has to be done by the government.
Managing the herd for "all Ohioans" - well, this Ohioan would like to see deer when he drives two hours to get to his hunting spot, as well as the deer he sees on a consistent basis in his suburban community.
In my rookie exuberance I used to think "Wow, I wanna tag out" and fill mine and all my family's and friend's freezers - but after reading/listening/learning I've seen that I have to change that thought pattern to preserve future opportunity. But how many guys will just take what they can get?
I heard a lot less shooting this year. I've talked to alot of guys who have been spending alot of time afield and getting skunked.
Not everyone is a trophy hunter. To some folks that medium bodied 9point is a real treat, a real excitement. Some guys are just happy with any deer they get an opportunity with. Alot of these guys live in suburbs and have to drive a looooong distance to their hunting spots. Alot of guys have to really conserve their precious vacation days because their employers aren't as liberal or their situation is such that they can't just walk out their back door and hunt. So when those days are spent as Brock said, looking at leaves and squirrels, that's a bad thing for the sport (IMHO). But what I'm hearing you say, MRex, is that it's ok to bring down the rural herd numbers so that the remaining deer flourish and bigger booners be produced? I can see how that would benefit certain hunters who have more time and access, but what about the average guy? Is it ok for him to buy his tags, spend his money, and get skunked so that the hardcore boys can get bigger bone?
For myself, I am not worried. I will do what's necessary and be successful and enjoy my sport. I'm having a good season so far, and will continue to do so, and I'm looking forward to a good year next as well. But I want our sport to flourish. I want everybody to have a chance at success. But here's what my horse-sense is telling me -
1) There's plenty of deer out there. But rural deer are on the decline. Lots of factors - coyote, bag limits, etc etc
2) Urban/suburban deer are on the rise.
3) We need more deer in the rural areas and less in the suburbs.
I don't want a runaway herd in the rural areas - but I'd rather have a runaway herd that could be thinned down than a scarce herd that would take years to recover. And I want the average guy and rookie hunters to succeed.
As far as the urban/suburban herd - perhaps the ODNR could come up with an educational program or marketing campaign to inform land/home/business owners about the benefits of allowing archery hunting.
Maybe the insurance companies could provide some cost-saving incentives to property owners who allow hunting access. Not everything has to be done by the government.
Last edited:
That seems to support my opinion. So why aren't the numbers on the rise at your lease, Joe? If you guys aren't killing all that many, and the surrounding 6000 acres barely gets hunted, what's holding them back? I just don't understand how the DOW's regs are the reason for your lack of sitings if you're not killing anywhere near the limit on that particular property. If the deer aren't being killed, why are you seeing less and less each year? Isn't it possible that sitings are decreasing because the deer are changing patterns and moving onto the surrounding, less-pressured, 6000 acres?
- 39,120
- 274
One would think the deer moved to the less "pressured" ground...Let's put it this way, the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Trust me... And I don't see how 6 people hunting a property for 2 weekends and one week a year is "pressured".. If that were the case there wouldn't be a single deer on public hunting anywhere in ohio..
As for the rest you're not looking at the big picture bub... Say we had 10,000 deer and each year we kill 5,000.. Just for easy math lets say they rebound to 10,000 the next year.... And this cycle goes on for years and years..
Ok.. So say one year EHD comes along and kills 2,500 of those deer.... And we go out on our newly doubled tags and kill 5,000 again just as we always did.. Now we only have 2,500 deer at the end of the year.... Can that 2,500 get back to 10,000.. Nope...
Using the same rebound rate of 100% (5,000 - 10,000) as before, we will only have 5,000 deer the next year.. (2,500 - 5,000) So say the next year we can't kill out 5,000 And we kill maybe 2,500.. The 2,500 remaining will only produce the 5,000.....
The deer are prolific breeders.. Yes.. They are still producing the same growth rate.. 100% is 100% weather you have 2,500 or 5,000...
The end result is, we're killing half the deer we were 4 years ago... Why.. Because only half the deer remain... It appears as though we are killing less deer, so they should be rebounding.. Wrong.. We are killing less deer... But it's too much... We're killing more deer than can rebound to the numbers they were 4 years ago...
The ONLY way we will see the harvest number go back to 5,000 a year, and the population number reach 10,000 again.. Would be to close VC for an entire season and not kill a single one of the 5,000 deer... OR.. Make it a 1 deer county and we will see 10,000 in a couple years..
- 25,141
- 261
No shit? I disagree. In fact, I will say you are dead wrong, at least in giving the appearance that a herd can rebound so quickly. Case in point; Sean's farm suffered a sever deer disappearing act in Aug-Sept of 07. EHD. They have shot a grand total of three doe off the propery since then. They have still not rebounded. The place is a virtual wasteland, at least in relation to what it once was. They will not shoot another doe off the place until the numbers are significantly increased. It isn't just on his property, that entire end of the county seems to be the same...very few deer (in relation to what it was four or five years ago) We shot 12 deer out of one freaking stand in 05 for crying out loud... there are only about a half dozen deer on the place these days. It's improving, but very slowly.
- 25,141
- 261
Valid point. I think in addition to hunter over-harvest, we have a severe predation issue. I had as many pics of coyotes as I did deer this year. In fact, I actually saw TEN yotes in one morning's hunt... I have never seen that many in a season in years past! My BEC pics also show very few fawns. Most mature doe should have at least two offspring in tow...not anymore. Most have none, and the ones that do only have one.
rgecko23
*Supporting Member*
Brock. That has to suck. You know those yotes are tearing up every fawn they come in contact with and are killing your deer herd. Sounds like there needs to be a serious crack down of yote killing in your area. I have been fortunate and only.see maybe 1 or 2 in a whole.season.
That along with the amount of deer we are aloud to takehas a ton to do with it. I think they really need tobstart taking a look.at bag limits again.
That along with the amount of deer we are aloud to takehas a ton to do with it. I think they really need tobstart taking a look.at bag limits again.