I should also add that this club is in the same county (Jefferson) as Buckmaster's. Yet, our bag limit still remains high.
More about deer numbers...
- Thread starter Beentown
- Start date
Buckmaster
Senior Member
I've taken one deer so far this year as a result. The one Jefferson doe with my son. I am satisfied.
I'd like to see Jefferson a one deer county next year but that will never happen with Ohio's aggressive herd reduction program.
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
I interact with the government on many levels and he is the perfect example of a government worker. He doesn't know nor does he give a shit.
gavennn
Junior Member
- 106
- 0
I can also support the findings of almost everyone. I hunt private land in Licking county. The properties we hunt even border a state park with no hunting at all. In years past it was not uncommon to see Doe groups of 10 -12 deer moving. The largest group i seen this year was 5 deer. We always see Bucks just not all shooters. This year i seen 4 bucks all 1 1/2 year olds. Even the does seemed smaller this year. Time to get drastic about something.
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,189
- 171
lmao
If the decline in population has skewed the median age, then a higher number of younger does would mean smaller does.
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
So tell me something i'm missing... What do you think hey will come up with to get the heard back point in a positive direction?? I think options are limited.. What do you guys think.
dante322
*Supporting Member*
You're implying that the dnr wants the herd to rebound? That's not even on their radar. They want it even smaller than it is now.
True indeed. The DNR doesn't care about the numbers being low. Only reason they care is because they know the hunters will ask questions and they will have to try and come up with some smoke to blow up our asses.
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
Many will say kill less deer, which is exactly what we have done for the last 3 years.
Our harvest for 2011, 2012, 2013 will be very similar to 2003, 2004, 2005. The harvest in those years was the precursor the largest increase in population and harvest ever for the next 5 years, 2006 - 2010.
So is it that there are still too many deer being killed for the population to increase? We have killed about 100,000 less deer over the last 3 years that any 3 year average between 2006-2010 and about 60% have been does, so where is the population increase?
What is the right number to kill to start the rebound? 100,000, 150,000, 175,000? For how many years?
The population stayed very high in each year following huge record setting harvest in 2007 through 2010. How is that possible if the numbers killed in those high harvest years didn't collapse the population in subsequent years why did the harvest in 2010 so decimate the population for the 3 subsequent years of 2011, 2012, 2013?
Harvest plays a big role no doubt, but there is very conflicting historical data over the last 10 years that provides for a different outcome with the same input. How can you have it both ways, the big harvests of earlier years didn't diminish the following years population but today a greatly reduced harvests decimates it?
The easy answer is that the ODNR has too liberal bag limits, the majority of hunters shoot only one deer no matter what the bag limit is, the next largest segment shoots two, after those groups the multiple deer harvest numbers drop like a rock.
If it is primarily harvest driven then one of two scenarios had to be in play for the population to sustain during those five years with record harvests. Either the beginning population was much, much higher than estimated in 2006 and the continued record multi-year harvest eventually exceeded the herd ability to repopulate, or the ability of the herd to repopulate has been reduced from what it was in 2005 through 2010
I'm not buying that it is all tied to harvest, there is some other or others major influence at play here
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
You assume the record harvests didn't diminish the population since it was followed up with additional opportunity. Have you considered the additional opportunities. I don't the exact years that youth gun and bonus weekend were added, but those contributed to the increased kill. There weren't more deer. We just were more successful in killing the ones that were left.
I bet it would shock people what the harvest would be if we had the same bag and season opportunities as 1995.
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
If what you say is true then it would support that there had to be a very very large population beyond what was estimated at the beginning od 2006. Your theory would work for a year or two but not 5 years in a row, doesn't work,
Youth season was started in 2003 and has remained virtually flat every year until this year
Bonus gun started in 2006 and had a 20,000 deer average per year for each of those 5 years. Harvest increases during those years were 35,000 to 50,000.
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
Thank for that fresh perspective. It appears to me that a reasonable man might think... Lets start with if the numbers in 2006 were inflated...You have to start with why would they be inflated and who would benefit from high or from low numbers???
For argument I agree.. So now all the numbers since and probably before were skewed and now the herd is all jacked up. Only one asshole to blame on this one if indeed it was the case.
We as hunters need to continue to voice our concerns daily up until these morons vote again on FY14-15 season. If all we do is bitch on a forum, we are not solving the problem..
I mentioned before, how can we fix it..
Archery season goes from Sept-Feb. The youth season is a 1weekend typically during rut and more and more younger kids(10-17.5) are hunting, then regular gun season is for 1 week in Dec. Then comes January muzzleloader and the season ends.. The options are very limited from my view. 1st, I suggest cancelling the BS automated check in system and go back to checking in deer/turkeys locally, which also will allow smaller stores again to benefit from hunters visiting their stores and it will help hinder the poaching that goes on in So Ohio.. 2nd, cancel the youth hunting all together or make it where youths can only be ages 12-13yrs old. 3rd, Change the allowance of shooting 9does and 1 buck (or what ever the # is) throughout the state. only 1 buck and 1 doe period for the next 3 years to start. If I missed something i'll add it... lol Or we can keep it as is and pay more each season in tags and see fewer deer and sit on these forums and bitch and watch our state turn onto PA.. PA hunting still sucks and see how well it turned out for them.. You see a 105" 8pt you are screaming to the moon, look a that monster..lol
For argument I agree.. So now all the numbers since and probably before were skewed and now the herd is all jacked up. Only one asshole to blame on this one if indeed it was the case.
We as hunters need to continue to voice our concerns daily up until these morons vote again on FY14-15 season. If all we do is bitch on a forum, we are not solving the problem..
I mentioned before, how can we fix it..
Archery season goes from Sept-Feb. The youth season is a 1weekend typically during rut and more and more younger kids(10-17.5) are hunting, then regular gun season is for 1 week in Dec. Then comes January muzzleloader and the season ends.. The options are very limited from my view. 1st, I suggest cancelling the BS automated check in system and go back to checking in deer/turkeys locally, which also will allow smaller stores again to benefit from hunters visiting their stores and it will help hinder the poaching that goes on in So Ohio.. 2nd, cancel the youth hunting all together or make it where youths can only be ages 12-13yrs old. 3rd, Change the allowance of shooting 9does and 1 buck (or what ever the # is) throughout the state. only 1 buck and 1 doe period for the next 3 years to start. If I missed something i'll add it... lol Or we can keep it as is and pay more each season in tags and see fewer deer and sit on these forums and bitch and watch our state turn onto PA.. PA hunting still sucks and see how well it turned out for them.. You see a 105" 8pt you are screaming to the moon, look a that monster..lol
- 39,188
- 274
They were inflated. At no point did we have 750k deer. The deer numbers as stated by the DNR when Tonk took over was 450. Then he "recalculated them" to 550. Then to 625. Then to 750. Where it stayed year after year despite "record harvests". Keep in mind this increase of 300,000 deer was just a change of math. A change to how the formula was applied as Tonk stated the old way was wrong and his way was right. It wasn't until I started digging in his ass last year for the formula and math behind the 750 number he all of a sudden doesn't believe In that 750k number anymore and always thought it was wrong, and now the DNR will no longer publicly release a population estimate. HA! Touting a number for years all over everything the DNR printed that he himself came up with, but when backed in a corner to explain it he says he never believed it was accurate and won't be releasing it anymore. Truth is it served its purpose. Which was to to lie to us the hunter and make us think we had a surplus of deer so we believed we should kill more. And kept touting it knowing full well we were reducing the population to levels detrimental to our own interest. Only when faced with a legal FOIA request for explanation of the formula to reach the number did they crawfish out and now claim it's flawed never to be publicly stated again.
Last edited:
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
So what are we as TOOO members and hunters going to do about it now... lets not say the same thing, oh I wont shoot more then one deer.. good idea anyways, but who are we all going to contact about this and voice our concerns and get these facts out on the news...
I don't believe it is realistic to think we can fight multi billion dollar insurance companies. I don't believe it is realistic to think the DNR gives a squat what we say. In my honest opinion, a grass roots program of conservation needs to be implemented at the ground level. Instead of listening to those spouting "We need to thin the does for better bucks" we need to instill in peoples' minds "If there are less deer, there are less potential big bucks out there." You might claim "bitching about it on a forum" won't change anything. I don't know if I fully agree. It is all about awareness. As forums grow and/or as people on forums talk to their non-forum hunting buddies, people are becoming aware. I have already read and talked to plenty of people who are simply refusing to shoot as many does. I don't believe these efforts will work for a "quick" rebound, but moving forward I believe it will be beneficial. I have killed two this year. I could use some more meat in the freezer but won't shoot anymore. If my son wants to continue hunting I will take him. Not because I want more meat in the freezer, but simply to enjoy the memories. If he shoots one, it will be split between our family and a friend of mine whose family eats lots of wild game. It will not go to waste for sure.
Edit: One doe, one buck. Not two does.
- 39,188
- 274
Haha. You're where I was two years ago with this. I mentioned on here that I was going to start a political action committee and get the word out. I mentioned I was going to solicit donations from taxi, butcher and sportsman organizations to he the word out. Not two weeks later I got a call from a lawyer who is also a lobbyist. He basically told me I can do what I want. Just know I'll be sued at every drop of a hat. I asked him on what grounds. He flat out said they don't need one they'll just keep going until I can't afford to fight it. There are powers way beyond the DNR that are in play. I won't say who the lobbyist was with but I will tell you spending two million dollars in frivolous lawsuits is a drop in the bucket compared to what lower deer numbers is saving them. There isn't much we can do about it. The reality is much of the damage is already done. People are just now realizing it. The only thing we can do is make sure that when people do realize it they know who to blame. In my eyes that's Mike Tonkovich. Some may disagree with that as this is way way above his head, but in my eyes it's still his responsibility to keep the sportsman in mind and apply an even weight to the opposition of higher deer numbers. In short. There isn't much you can do as it's already done.
dante322
*Supporting Member*
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
I know what ya mean... All I say is that everyone print and forward the article of him and his BS to as many people they know.. Copies of interviews go along way versus some oone just talking about it. Start posting it on all other sites just to break balls.post it everywhere and put comments on it... JMTC...