Gun week total is down 8%

[Gern186]

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.

There is your answer to the problem. If you want a couple experienced yote hunters to come down and help out let me know.

 

[Jackalope]

They need to go on a county by county limit and close season in VC for a year or lower the limit to two for two years.. Oh wait.. That would be counter intuitive to the DNRs plans to kill the piss out of does until there aren't many left.. ... Damn..

 

[Jackalope]

There is your answer to the problem. If you want a couple experienced yote hunters to come down and help out let me know.

While I believe they may be a small portion of the issue, and a another contributing factor. I don't believe they are the main issue for the lower numbers we are seeing. But this year we have been killing the piss out of them on our lease in VC... We shall see.

 

[Diablo54]

I'm blaming the coyotes in my area. We didn't see half as many deer as we saw last year. And there were several deer carcasses found on the land in the spring.

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brock ratcliff]

There is your answer to the problem. If you want a couple experienced yote hunters to come down and help out let me know.

Thanks for the offer. The funny thing is, the dang things move around. They were thick until mid-November, and then they disappeared along with the deer. It is not uncommon for the deer to do that around the area, and it seems the coyotes may follow the food (deer). I imagine they will be back on the property 'fore long, and when they are I will trade the bow in for a rifle.

 

[jagermeister]

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.

I could definitely see that. I know the areas I hunt, where the deer seem to be abundant as hell, don't have many coyotes at all. Actually, after running a trail cam there for about a year straight, I don't have a single picture of a coyote.

 

[Beentown]

I killed 13 two years ago and 6 this summer. And I am still seeing them regularly. This is all on a 750 acre area.

Beentown

 

[jagermeister]

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..

Well I would have an easier time believing all of that if the numbers you provided were anywhere near realistic. If we're gonna do the hypothetical numbers game, I'll throw some out there as well...

Let's say we have a starting population of 10500 deer... at a 1:2 buck to doe ratio (which is pretty nontypical) that results in 3500 bucks and 7000 does. Let's also conservatively assume that only 70% of the does get bred, only 94% of those are successful, and only 1.2 fawns per doe. Factor in a statewide average harvest rate of 30%... and here we go...

7000 does and 3500 bucks...
minus 30% deer harvested = 4925 does, 2425 bucks...
4925 does x 70% bred, x 94% success rate, x 1.2 fawns per doe = 3889 offspring...
3889 offspring + original 4925 does and 2425 bucks = 11239 total deer the following spring...
That's a gain of 1239 deer, AFTER 30% harvest and only 70% reproduction rate.

Now let's try one with EHD involved. I'm gonna say 20% mortality from EHD because I think 25% is pretty high.
10500 deer - 20% EHD deaths = 8400 deer (2772 bucks, 5628 does)...
minus 30% deer harvested = 1940 bucks, 3940 does...
3940 does x 70% bred, x 94% success rate, x 1.2 fawns per doe = 3111 offspring...
3111 offspring + original 1940 bucks and 3940 does = 8991 total deer the following spring...
Obviously, the herd has taken a pretty decent hit, going from 10500 to 8991 in just a year. However, since EHD is not killing 20% of the deer year after year, we can assume population growth and harvest continues on as normal. So using the same harvest and growth rates, the population rises to 9624 deer in one more year, and rises to 10301 deer the year after that. So even after a prolific EHD-related kill, the population is back to where it was originally in just three years.

Keep in mind, these numbers are based on a 1:2 buck to doe ratio! In reality, the statewide average is probably more like 1:4 or higher... which would result in the population bouncing back even faster! Also, I'm basing reproduction on just 1.2 fawns per doe, which I believe is pretty low as well.

I'm not saying that my numbers are right and yours are wrong, or vise versa. Do I think mine are more realistic? Well, yea I guess so. My biggest thing is that I don't believe the EHD outbreak is the sole cause of decreased deer sightings. There has to be more factors involved. If it's true that the population isn't bouncing back on its own, there has to be a significant amount of coyote kills, poaching, or alien abductions taking place ( ).

 

[jagermeister]

Here's another interesting tidbit...

If you look through the harvest data from 1900 to 2009, every year that showed a decrease in total harvest was followed by an increase in total harvest the following year(s). Just 'cause numbers are down doesn't necessarily mean we're in trouble fellas... just look at the history of it all.

Page 15, right side of the page...
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub304.pdf

 

[Jackalope]

Well I would have an easier time believing all of that if the numbers you provided were anywhere near realistic. If we're gonna do the hypothetical numbers game, I'll throw some out there as well...

Let's say we have a starting population of 10500 deer... at a 1:2 buck to doe ratio (which is pretty nontypical) that results in 3500 bucks and 7000 does. Let's also conservatively assume that only 70% of the does get bred, only 94% of those are successful, and only 1.2 fawns per doe. Factor in a statewide average harvest rate of 30%... and here we go...

7000 does and 3500 bucks...
minus 30% deer harvested = 4925 does, 2425 bucks...
4925 does x 70% bred, x 94% success rate, x 1.2 fawns per doe = 3889 offspring...
3889 offspring + original 4925 does and 2425 bucks = 11239 total deer the following spring...
That's a gain of 1239 deer, AFTER 30% harvest and only 70% reproduction rate.

Now let's try one with EHD involved. I'm gonna say 20% mortality from EHD because I think 25% is pretty high.
10500 deer - 20% EHD deaths = 8400 deer (2772 bucks, 5628 does)...
minus 30% deer harvested = 1940 bucks, 3940 does...
3940 does x 70% bred, x 94% success rate, x 1.2 fawns per doe = 3111 offspring...
3111 offspring + original 1940 bucks and 3940 does = 8991 total deer the following spring...
Obviously, the herd has taken a pretty decent hit, going from 10500 to 8991 in just a year. However, since EHD is not killing 20% of the deer year after year, we can assume population growth and harvest continues on as normal. So using the same harvest and growth rates, the population rises to 9624 deer in one more year, and rises to 10301 deer the year after that. So even after a prolific EHD-related kill, the population is back to where it was originally in just three years.

Keep in mind, these numbers are based on a 1:2 buck to doe ratio! In reality, the statewide average is probably more like 1:4 or higher... which would result in the population bouncing back even faster! Also, I'm basing reproduction on just 1.2 fawns per doe, which I believe is pretty low as well.

I'm not saying that my numbers are right and yours are wrong, or vise versa. Do I think mine are more realistic? Well, yea I guess so. My biggest thing is that I don't believe the EHD outbreak is the sole cause of decreased deer sightings. There has to be more factors involved. If it's true that the population isn't bouncing back on its own, there has to be a significant amount of coyote kills, poaching, or alien abductions taking place ( ).

My numbers were not ment to be anywhere close to actual numbers. But were used to show a point of how killing too many deer can lower the overall population to a point where even though we're shooting less deer, it can not recover to what it once was... As you said earlier.. Your killing less deer. Why don't they rebound? Simple.. We have less deer overall. If we had the same amount of deer we did 4 years ago and was killing 50% less today, obviously the numbers would boom... But the fact of the matter is, we don't, so they aren't.. If we shoot half of 10,000, or half of 5,000. The results are the same, the population can only rebound so much.


I would agree with you except for one piece of data that all else hinges on.. a 30% harvest rate.. They have a good idea of how many deer is being killed by hunters and tagged in.. But that is where the reliability of their data ends. However their estimations of total population is based on hokus pokus funny math at best.. It is predominately based on kill numbers. If they severely misjudged population in a county, or judge it by a whole zone average, that number could raise significantly as they have an unknown variable.. Say they were off on the 10,500 deer estimation by 1,050 or 10% Your 30% harvest data just became 40%... Say EHD was more prolific.. Which BTW The DNR has absolutely no clue as to how many deer died due to EHD. Ask anyone around that had it close to them and 20% is very very very conservative.. Deer were scattered everywhere in hollows and creeks.. Say they misjudged that by 10%.. oops.. Now the kill number is 50% of the actual population but 30% of what they "believe" it to be...

Lets run that math again...

What they think is 10500 deer is actually 9,500 - 20% EHD deaths = 7,600 deer (2553 bucks, 5066 does)...
minus 30% (which is actually 40% because they misjudged the population by +10% )deer harvested = 1532 bucks, 3040 does...
3040 does x 70% bred, x 94% success rate, x 1.2 fawns per doe = 2400 offspring...
2400 offspring + original 1532 bucks and 3040 does = 6,972 total deer the following spring...
Obviously, the herd has taken a pretty decent hit, going from 10500 to 6,972 in just a year.

Yeah I would say they took a hit... a 43.6% hit to be exact.. Is it plausible to believe that going into the next year with 43% less deer, that we will actually kill between 40-50% less deer... I would say so... It may not have been this drastic in a single years time.. But here we are 4 years later killing 50% less deer in that county. That, is the simple fact of the matter. Heck, I only fudged the numbers by +10% in 2 categories for a total of 20%... Is it that far fetched to believe the DNR could have been off 5% in a single category for 4 years running??? You bet ya they can be.. Their EHD numbers are unknown.. And their total population number is based more on kill than anything..

The fact of the matter is, all that's not our concern.. That's what we pay the boys in green to concern themselves with.. My concern is we're shooting 50% less deer than we were 4 years ago.. And in my honest opinion, in that regard, they have failed us miserably in MANY counties..

 

[mrex]

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. 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..

While we're on the subjuect of BS, where are you getting your numbers from? Here's the VC harvest totals from 2005 through 2009 -- 2946, 3420, 3025, 3337, 3942.

 

[Gern186]

Well that's interesting.........

 

[mrex]

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.

Yes shit? I hate it when you're right. It only took Meigs County 1 year to rebound. The massive die off occured durring the summer of 2003. In Meigs Co, they checked in 4,237 deer in 2002. That number dropped to 4,037 in 2003 after the EHD epidemic. The number increased to 4,673 in 2004.

 

[tuffshot]

Yes shit? I hate it when you're right. It only took Meigs County 1 year to rebound. The massive die off occured durring the summer of 2003. In Meigs Co, they checked in 4,237 deer in 2002. That number dropped to 4,037 in 2003 after the EHD epidemic. The number increased to 4,673 in 2004.

But the number has dropped to 1932 this year?

 

[Gern186]

But the number has dropped to 1932 this year?

That number is just for gun season, does not include early bow, late bow, extra gun, and muzzleloader.

 

[tuffshot]

That number is just for gun season, does not include early bow, late bow, extra gun, and muzzleloader.

True, but there sure is a lot of ground to make up. Which would be over 50% from the past years stated.

 

[Gern186]

True, but there sure is a lot of ground to make up. Which would be over 50% from the past years stated.

Could be....but with the number of bowhunters these days and being able to kill multiple deer with antlerless tags you will be surprised how that number will add up.

 

[formerbowhunter1023]

Could be....but with the number of bowhunters these days and being able to kill multiple deer with antlerless tags you will be surprised how that number will add up.

Unless there are less deer to be killed...

 

[Milo]

there is no way in hell they are going to make up 50% of the harvest totals from here on out. that's crazy talk and everyone knows it.

 

[mrex]

True, but there sure is a lot of ground to make up. Which would be over 50% from the past years stated.

Don - Here's the last 5 years in Meigs County: 4206, 4676, 4482, 4601, 4821

Lots of hunting to be done and lots of unfilled tags. It will be interesting to compare the muzzleloader totals from this year to last.