Predation on Deer

[Bowhunter57]

It's not becoming a fact, it is a fact. If we want to hunt deer in the fall, we're going to have to hunt coyotes in the winter/spring. Predation IS out of control and the deer population is taking an ass whipping. :smiley_asswhip:
http://gameandgarden.com/sustainability/land/do-coyotes-affect-deer-populations/

Bowhunter57

 

[Lundy]

This states with facts what I have been trying to convey with just my beliefs and no factual basis to support them. Only a belief that the numbers did not add up and something has changed significantly over the last 4 -5 years as a whole.

The deer population in Ohio was able to sustain huge increases in harvest for 5 years and repopulate for the following years, but now we much reduced harvest for 3 years the herd appears to still be declining.

I have been observing and saying for the last 3-4 years that I am seeing a lot of mature does with 1 or no fawns.

This small portion of the above article might confirm what I have been personally observing and possibly point to the single largest population reduction cause as a whole over the last 4-5 years.

In year 2005, Dr. Stephen Ditchkoff [5]of Auburn University and his students began collaring 50 fawns a year. When starting, they scarcely had a fawn killed by coyotes, but in 2008 34% were lost and in 2009 over half were lost.

 

[MK111]

Great read and thanks for posting.
Interesting note in the replies. If a coyote is killed out of the area in the fall-winter another coyote will move into the vacant area. Coyotes must be killed of in the spring and fawning period.
Hell kill them both times. The hunt is on here.

Come to think of it I have seen a lot of does alone or with 1-2 fawns in the last 5-6 yrs. I even asked our Local game Warden 3 yrs. ago if he has heard of and pouching going on near my farm since I seen less smaller deer. His reply was no. He never made a comment about coyote killing deer. I guess the State Officials what to keep the coyote problem a secret to lowered the deer numbers. Just a thought.

Now before anyone brings up my deer complaints on tearing up my cattle fence all the time. It's the full grown deer that run into it and tear the fence down. We still have a good amount of deer in the area but never really thought of only seeing full grown deer and not as many young ones. Sooner or later if there aren't any young fawns surviving there won't be any full grown deer left. Like 6-7 yrs.

 

[Lundy]

. Sooner or later if there aren't any young fawns surviving there won't be any full grown deer left. Like 6-7 yrs.

The resulting lower deer populations from poor fawn survival happens much faster than 6-7 years. The results would be seen to some extent the same year. A large part of the deer harvest in Ohio each year are the yearlings. Two or three years in a row would result in a major reduction in overall population

 

[GoetsTalon]

Not from this year but i know you all like the pics!!!

 

[MK111]

The resulting lower deer populations from poor fawn survival happens much faster than 6-7 years. The results would be seen to some extent the same year. A large part of the deer harvest in Ohio each year are the yearlings. Two or three years in a row would result in a major reduction in overall population

I was thinking along the lines of all most no deer in 6-7 yrs. But I know not all fawns will be killed off.

 

[Jackalope]

The deer population in Ohio was able to sustain huge increases in harvest for 5 years and repopulate for the following years, but now we much reduced harvest for 3 years the herd appears to still be declining.

If you're talking about the five years prior to 2007 I would agree with you. However around 2008 is when we began to see populations declining in areas of Ohio. While post 2008 we still had a couple years of record harvests this does not mean we had a record population. The DNR has been fully aware of the impacts of predation on deer for many years. Tonk himself went to a seminar in Fl I believe two years ago where this was the sole topic. These studies have been out for a while. They simply choose to ignore it as It's just another tool. Icing in the cake to achieve their lower population goals. Ignore it when considering seasons and limits of hunters it's just a bonus kill. The problem is they have no idea what the state population is. A 50% reduction of 750,000 deer is a drastic difference than a 50% reduction of 500,000. Both populations are capable of 180,000+ harvests. You simply have to add opportunity and enticements. Like cheaper tags and bonus gun seasons. Harvest numbers have nothing to do with population numbers unless you account for every variable and nothing changes. You can still kill the same amount of deer with half the population you just have to hunt twice as long.

 

[Lundy]

A 50% reduction of 750,000 deer is a drastic difference than a 50% reduction of 500,000. Both populations are capable of 180,000+ harvests. You simply have to add opportunity and enticements. Like cheaper tags and bonus gun seasons. Harvest numbers have nothing to do with population numbers unless you account for every variable and nothing changes. You can still kill the same amount of deer with half the population you just have to hunt twice as long.

Agree with your model over a 2 year period but it doesn't work for 5 years straight of high harvest.

If you killed 180,000 plus out of 500,000 year one you could, based upon recruitment do it a second year with an even lower starting population but you could not sustain the same 180,000+ for the subsequent years of 3-5 because the starting population would continue to diminish. We in fact actually reversed your model
and increased the harvest substantially years 3-5.

Our increased harvest trend started in 2006 and continued though 2010. Do you really think that each years previous harvest starting in 2006 reduced the population to where there were fewer than 500,000 deer starting 2009 when we had the highest harvest ever at 261,000 and then were able to follow that with 239,000 in 2010?

2004- 216,000
2005 - 209,000
2006 - 237,000
2007 - 232,000
2008 - 252,000
2009 - 261,000
2010 - 239,000

If the starting population was way north of million deer in 2006 your explanation would fit well with the historical data.

Or the deer recruitment was higher in previous years than it is today.



I think we will just end up agreeing to disagree on this.

 

[brock ratcliff]

I agree with Lundy here. Fawn recruitment is likely NOT what it once was. Coyote predation is one of the things I brought up to Mike T. He had no interest in studying its effects. I told him I was disappointed by that as I always assumed the DoW needed to know all factors influencing our herd. My personal observations were brought to his attention regarding fawn recruitment in agricultural areas - he did not care. Mrex told me via phone after Tonk returned from the FLA meeting that my thoughts on us falling into a "predator pit" may have merit...but he had no interest in studying it further in my area, on ground I have secured. Point being, he just doesn't care, after all, we'll quit hunting deer when they are gone.

Kill em in Feb and March and you'll see deer again. Its worked for me - in the lowest deer density county in the state!

 

[TwistedX]

Idk who to talk to or if this is something that would be sanctioned/condoned by TOO, but what about a contest, ( for bragging rights, and a more prolific deer herd) to see who can trap/kill more coyotes?

 

[hickslawns]

Idk who to talk to or if this is something that would be sanctioned/condoned by TOO, but what about a contest, ( for bragging rights, and a more prolific deer herd) to see who can trap/kill more coyotes?

Bragging rights or whatever, I would say this is a contest where there would be NO losers. Every coyote killed is a win. I am still not sure I blame it on the coyotes around here. We simply have never had a massive heard. I feel there are multiple variables involved with coyotes being just one of the variables. Just my 2 cents with no factual/scientific backing.

 

[Jackalope]

Agree with your model over a 2 year period but it doesn't work for 5 years straight of high harvest.

If you killed 180,000 plus out of 500,000 year one you could, based upon recruitment do it a second year with an even lower starting population but you could not sustain the same 180,000+ for the subsequent years of 3-5 because the starting population would continue to diminish. We in fact actually reversed your model
and increased the harvest substantially years 3-5.

Our increased harvest trend started in 2006 and continued though 2010. Do you really think that each years previous harvest starting in 2006 reduced the population to where there were fewer than 500,000 deer starting 2009 when we had the highest harvest ever at 261,000 and then were able to follow that with 239,000 in 2010?

2004- 216,000
2005 - 209,000
2006 - 237,000
2007 - 232,000
2008 - 252,000
2009 - 261,000
2010 - 239,000

If the starting population was way north of million deer in 2006 your explanation would fit well with the historical data.

Or the deer recruitment was higher in previous years than it is today.



I think we will just end up agreeing to disagree on this.

How is it such a difficult thing to believe that killing more deer leads to a lower population especially when killing record numbers of those deer. The very result of killing more deer is a lower population. It is completely plausible that you can kill more deer with a steadily declining population. The more you kill the quicker you reduce it. We may have been reducing it at a rate of 5% per year. A rate that would really be unnoticed. Then have a record harvest and we're reducing it by 10%. Do that a few years in a row and what was once a 15% reduction over 3 years is now 30% reduction. A record harvest does not mean record populations. If you have a box of 100 cookies and eat 5 a day it's going to take you 20 days. Bump it up to 10 a day and it'll only take you 10 days. That does not mean there is somehow more cookies available. Just that you're eating more and thus reducing them quicker.

I absolutely agree that fawn recruitment isn't what it once was. And it plays a huge role in why we are in the situation we're in. The problem is that should have been considered when setting our season dates and limits. Every factor detrimental to our herd should have been taken in to consideration as to their impact before using hunters to lower the population. Refusing to account for or even consider that impact is reckless and Irresponsible management. But at the end of the day the ohio farm bureau dow wanted the deer killed. Ohio's hunting industry and hunters be damned, ignore the impact of predation and lie to everyone about how big the population is so they kill more deer. They didn't care about fawn predation, their goal was never to make a stable recruitment so we replace as many as we kill.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Coyotes are not new to Ohio. They've been around a long time. They're a factor, but they do not represent a new variable in the deer population equation. Plus, when you kill them they have larger litters.

Every little bit helps I guess, but not shooting doe is the best advice for now.

 

[GoetsTalon]

I'll disagree with that first part^^^^ Have been hunting and trapping since the late 70's and we never seen, caught, or heard of anybody catching or shooting one back then. Tons of fox but no yotes. Then in the early 90's they were showing up and then exploded to what we have now. Lots of yotes and no fox because coyotes will kill every fox they see. I'm sure that there were a few here and there but not like what is going on today. They have a BIG variable on the deer population in ohio!!!

 

[switchhitter]

I agree with GT I have been bow hunting since the mid 70's we did not have coyotes back then. At least not where I hunted, hocking and Vinton counties.
Both red and grey foxes where common over the years they have gone away and all we see is coyotes. At night you will here them in every hollow.
It is a 2 hour drive to our property so trapping is out but I have picked up a call and will try to hunt them. We have arrowed a couple and shot a couple during turkey season. But never really hunted them .

Greg

 

[MK111]

When I lived and worked in Lima, OH around 1970 I seen a coyote caught in a leghold trap. May have been a fluke but it was there. I'm sure there wasn't many but just a start. I moved to SW Ohio in 1977 and never heard one but now I hear them everyday. Time and cover changes everything in nature.

 

[Boarhead]

I caught my first Ohio coyote back in 1983 in a dirt hole set for red fox so yes they were around back then just not as many as today.Still have the mount.It was a nice female.

 

[Boarhead]

I agree with Lundy here. Fawn recruitment is likely NOT what it once was. Coyote predation is one of the things I brought up to Mike T. He had no interest in studying its effects. I told him I was disappointed by that as I always assumed the DoW needed to know all factors influencing our herd. My personal observations were brought to his attention regarding fawn recruitment in agricultural areas - he did not care. Mrex told me via phone after Tonk returned from the FLA meeting that my thoughts on us falling into a "predator pit" may have merit...but he had no interest in studying it further in my area, on ground I have secured. Point being, he just doesn't care, after all, we'll quit hunting deer when they are gone.

Kill em in Feb and March and you'll see deer again. Its worked for me - in the lowest deer density county in the state!

I agree with you Brock on snaring them later, Most guys are done by then, I will start my snares for coyotes in January and probably run them till end of Feb to middle of March.

 

[GoetsTalon]

The guys that do it for the money (not me) cant wait Till the end of winter because by then the fur is only worth a small amount because of being rubbed bad. Sumbitches are like ground hogs. Seems like you hunt and kill and new ones move in. We got 21 in a two mile country block last year and though we wiped them out. Yeah right!!! My buddy gets layed off for the month of feb. so thats when he gets out.

 

[Boarhead]

The guys that do it for the money (not me) cant wait Till the end of winter because by then the fur is only worth a small amount because of being rubbed bad. Sumbitches are like ground hogs. Seems like you hunt and kill and new ones move in. We got 21 in a two mile country block last year and though we wiped them out. Yeah right!!! My buddy gets layed off for the month of feb. so thats when he gets out.

Yes a lot do it for the money, I just like to try and keep the numbers down In my hunting areas but realize that they will be around forever.I have been snaring them the last several years and feel it is the quickest way to eliminate a lot of them, I have noticed the last couple years that I see a lot more of our does with two fawns in my trailcam pics so it does help.Good luck and kill em all.LOL