Predation on Deer

[brock ratcliff]

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.

They have been around for years, but they have shown more impact to my local herd in recent years. It does little good to save the baby makers when the babies do not survive to adulthood. Make no mistake, coyotes kill a good number of adult deer too, but the greatest impact is to fawns. From 06 to 09, I was seeing 3 adult does for every fawn... the fawns were killed early in life. I am seeing fawns in more normal numbers now, so my plan to kill local yotes in Feb and March will continue. To me, it is a far more important part of herd management than food plots or mineral licks will ever be!

 

[Bowhunter57]

Jackalope,
Your reply is both accurate and to the point, sir! :smiley_clap:

Jackalope for Governor! :smiley_cheers:

Bowhunter57

 

[Lundy]

Jackalope,
Your reply is both accurate and to the point, sir! :smiley_clap:

Jackalope for Governor! :smiley_cheers:

Bowhunter57

I agree he would make a good politician even if over 40 years of deer harvest history and herd growth don't agree with his analysis

 

[brock ratcliff]

Lundy, do you see far fewer deer than you once did? Maybe we do not know all the factors leading to the decline but the fact remains, we can most easily control only one - antlerless harvest. Our DoW is supposed to stay on top of the factors, they have not. Stare at harvest trends all day, makes no difference - there are LESS deer alive.

 

[Jackalope]

I agree he would make a good politician even if over 40 years of deer harvest history and herd growth don't agree with his analysis

Incorrect again. The fact remains that we have less deer. Far fewer deer than we did in 2008. This is undeniable. Pretty much everyone can see this in their local populations. You are a very small minority in your opinion which goes against what the vast majority is seeing. Which leads me to wonder what other factors bias your reasoning and cause you to ignore such a blatant change in population.

It matters not the cause for the decline. The fact remains that hunters and the hunting industry in Ohio has been screwed by our DNR, their action and impact to us either willful or negligent matters not. If they screwed us by accident or on purpose they should be held just as accountable either way.

 

[epe]

I agree he would make a good politician even if over 40 years of deer harvest history and herd growth don't agree with his analysis

Yeah, and I've got a bridge I would like to sell you...My eyes don't lie...The deer numbers are down...

 

[epe]

There are more hunters, and we are kiling more does. Killing a doe is like wiping out three. The kill numbers may stay around the same, but there are less deer and the buck doe ratio is different now. I talk to a ton of hunters asking where the does are.

 

[RedCloud]

There are more hunters, and we are kiling more does. Killing a doe is like wiping out three. The kill numbers may stay around the same, but there are less deer and the buck doe ratio is different now. I talk to a ton of hunters asking where the does are.

Just 4 years ago we had more doe then bucks but now it has flip flopped and we have more bucks then does at this point.

 

[Lundy]

There are more hunters, and we are kiling more does. Killing a doe is like wiping out three. The kill numbers may stay around the same, but there are less deer and the buck doe ratio is different now. I talk to a ton of hunters asking where the does are.

Again, an emotional conclusion with no factual data to support the position. The ratio of doe harvest has remained with a couple of percentage points every year with both boom or bust populations.

2003 - 57%
2004 - 61%
2005 - 60%
2006 - 60%
2007 - 62%
2008 - 64%
2009 - 64%
2010 - 64%
2011 - 63%
2012 - 63%
2013 - 62% YTD

Button bucks as ratio of antlerless deer harvest (only 4 years data provided on ODNR site)
I would assume, based upon this 4 year sample, that earlier years followed the same trend as a percentage.

2009 - 33,099 - 18%
2010 - 30,899 - 20%
2011 - 25,836 - 19%
2012 - 25,941 - 19%

Also, I never, ever, even once, anywhere, anytime said there were not less deer than there was in 2009 or 2010, that is a undeniable fact as far as personally am concerned.

However to attribute the decline to over harvest as a whole, statewide, not isolated to individual small areas, is I think is very simplistic and missing a very large part of the equation.

We have had a growing harvest and a growing population in Ohio for over 40 years, yes both a growing harvest and population.

We have always been able to eat cookies from the bag of cookies but the oven kept making more, we have never been limited by ONLY how many cookies are in the bag because there were always going to be more baked, that is how the population in Ohio has grown over all of these years.

It now appears that the oven is not baking new cookies as fast as it use to.

It is just factual history, no speculation, no guessing, it's documented, it happened. How do you think the population grew to where it was 5years ago? We were sure eating a bunch of cookies every year.

It sure looks like we need to eat less cookies now that the oven is broken.


I wish everyone a great holiday season!

 

[yotehunter]

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.

I agree Phil and this years liberal limit didn't help

 

[yotehunter]

They have been around for years, but they have shown more impact to my local herd in recent years. It does little good to save the baby makers when the babies do not survive to adulthood. Make no mistake, coyotes kill a good number of adult deer too, but the greatest impact is to fawns. From 06 to 09, I was seeing 3 adult does for every fawn... the fawns were killed early in life. I am seeing fawns in more normal numbers now, so my plan to kill local yotes in Feb and March will continue. To me, it is a far more important part of herd management than food plots or mineral licks will ever be!

Something else to consider Brock if you kill the yotes after the end of Feb into the middle of march you are also eliminating pups for the next year because most females will be bred and carrying pups, so not only are you giving young fawns a chance you are also getting another 5 to 12 coyotes for the next year. Just food for thought.

 

[Milo]

Again, an emotional conclusion with no factual data to support the position. The ratio of doe harvest has remained with a couple of percentage points every year with both boom or bust populations.

2003 - 57%
2004 - 61%
2005 - 60%
2006 - 60%
2007 - 62%
2008 - 64%
2009 - 64%
2010 - 64%
2011 - 63%
2012 - 63%
2013 - 62% YTD

Button bucks as ratio of antlerless deer harvest (only 4 years data provided on ODNR site)
I would assume, based upon this 4 year sample, that earlier years followed the same trend as a percentage.

2009 - 33,099 - 18%
2010 - 30,899 - 20%
2011 - 25,836 - 19%
2012 - 25,941 - 19%

Also, I never, ever, even once, anywhere, anytime said there were not less deer than there was in 2009 or 2010, that is a undeniable fact as far as personally am concerned.

However to attribute the decline to over harvest as a whole, statewide, not isolated to individual small areas, is I think is very simplistic and missing a very large part of the equation.

We have had a growing harvest and a growing population in Ohio for over 40 years, yes both a growing harvest and population.

We have always been able to eat cookies from the bag of cookies but the oven kept making more, we have never been limited by ONLY how many cookies are in the bag because there were always going to be more baked, that is how the population in Ohio has grown over all of these years.

It now appears that the oven is not baking new cookies as fast as it use to.

It is just factual history, no speculation, no guessing, it's documented, it happened. How do you think the population grew to where it was 5years ago? We were sure eating a bunch of cookies every year.

It sure looks like we need to eat less cookies now that the oven is broken.


I wish everyone a great holiday season!

It could also be less cooling racks for the cookies and some coyotes eat the dough before it makes it into the oven. Pun entended. The one factor that has been also getting less and less is habitat. Merry Christmas lundy

 

[Jackalope]

Again, an emotional conclusion with no factual data to support the position. The ratio of doe harvest has remained with a couple of percentage points every year with both boom or bust populations.

2003 - 57%
2004 - 61%
2005 - 60%
2006 - 60%
2007 - 62%
2008 - 64%
2009 - 64%
2010 - 64%
2011 - 63%
2012 - 63%
2013 - 62% YTD

Button bucks as ratio of antlerless deer harvest (only 4 years data provided on ODNR site)
I would assume, based upon this 4 year sample, that earlier years followed the same trend as a percentage.

2009 - 33,099 - 18%
2010 - 30,899 - 20%
2011 - 25,836 - 19%
2012 - 25,941 - 19%

Also, I never, ever, even once, anywhere, anytime said there were not less deer than there was in 2009 or 2010, that is a undeniable fact as far as personally am concerned.

However to attribute the decline to over harvest as a whole, statewide, not isolated to individual small areas, is I think is very simplistic and missing a very large part of the equation.

I've never once stated over harvest was the sole reason for the decline. But the fact remains, no matter what other factors were at play they should have been accounted for and considered. That's called management and I would think it was covered in biology 101. Failing to account for those other factors when setting limits is piss poor management. So be it purposefully or negligently the ones at the helm should be held responsible. We can control only one factor and that's human harvest. If predation, fawn mortality, habitat loss, disease and the rest was not taken in to consideration then what do we pay biologist for.

The truth is they knew all of that. It was just icing on the cake for their herd reduction plans. Despite all the outside factors they raised tags and limits decimating the deer population in the majority of ohio. The county harvest numbers show this to not be just an isolated area.

Also. Percentages are deceiving. Percentage of harvest can be 57-62% if there is a million deer or 100. That's why you can't manage a living population of deer by the number of dead ones. It's lunacy to believe that you can account for every hunter variable.

 

[Bowhunter57]

Believing the ODNR numbers is a deception in itself. Jackalope and I have a first hand account of an event in Guernsey county with harvest numbers being altered. Seeing it happen there, there's no way that it's an isolated event.

I do not believe that the harvest numbers are a true and/or accurate representation of most Deer Check Stations.

Bowhunter57

 

[TwistedX]

I have read this thread a couple times now, it seems to me that we r working against ourselves. No single factor is going to account for the entire decline in population. I hope we can all agree there are less deer now than there used to be. Rather than argue about which factor is the most responsible for the decline why not make a list of all factors and figure out which ones we can alter to help increase/sustain population.
- habitat/cover
- car accidents involving deer
- poor management
- cwd/ other diseases
- coyotes
- over harvesting
- lies from dnr
- eating too many dog gone cookies :smiley_armscrossed:
- etc.
Add extras anything can help
All I'm saying is it does no good to argue about it unless you eventually get passed the arguing and to a point of action. Obviously we can't change car accidents involving deer or the diseases affecting deer but we can harvest more coyotes and less antlerless deer or harvest antlerless deer that haven't been bred. If we make an effort it can't hurt anything?

 

[Lundy]

We are not arguing, we are discussing

We all have the same end game as a goal.

Now pass the cookies please

 

[epe]

Again, an emotional conclusion with no factual data to support the position. The ratio of doe harvest has remained with a couple of percentage points every year with both boom or bust populations.

2003 - 57%
2004 - 61%
2005 - 60%
2006 - 60%
2007 - 62%
2008 - 64%
2009 - 64%
2010 - 64%
2011 - 63%
2012 - 63%
2013 - 62% YTD

Button bucks as ratio of antlerless deer harvest (only 4 years data provided on ODNR site)
I would assume, based upon this 4 year sample, that earlier years followed the same trend as a percentage.

2009 - 33,099 - 18%
2010 - 30,899 - 20%
2011 - 25,836 - 19%
2012 - 25,941 - 19%

Also, I never, ever, even once, anywhere, anytime said there were not less deer than there was in 2009 or 2010, that is a undeniable fact as far as personally am concerned.

However to attribute the decline to over harvest as a whole, statewide, not isolated to individual small areas, is I think is very simplistic and missing a very large part of the equation.

We have had a growing harvest and a growing population in Ohio for over 40 years, yes both a growing harvest and population.

We have always been able to eat cookies from the bag of cookies but the oven kept making more, we have never been limited by ONLY how many cookies are in the bag because there were always going to be more baked, that is how the population in Ohio has grown over all of these years.

It now appears that the oven is not baking new cookies as fast as it use to.

It is just factual history, no speculation, no guessing, it's documented, it happened. How do you think the population grew to where it was 5years ago? We were sure eating a bunch of cookies every year.

It sure looks like we need to eat less cookies now that the oven is broken.


I wish everyone a great holiday season!

Show me the "living" buck to doe ratio, compared to 10 years ago... And show me the coyote kill broken down buck to doe. If it was survival and I had to kill a deer up close, I'm taking a doe over a buck. Until then, please don't tell me it is a " emotional" response...You are sounding like a politician....

 

[Jackalope]

We are not arguing, we are discussing

We all have the same end game as a goal.

Now pass the cookies please

Agreed. At times it may appear that you and I are at each others throats. This couldn't be further from the truth. I enjoy our discussions and feel as though some very relevant information is uncovered. Doesn't mean you're right though. :smiley_arrogant:

 

[Lundy]

Now epe,

You started in this by saying that you had a bridge you wanted to sell me, I don't think you really have a bridge to sell, I think that you were implying I was less than smart

As far as you question about the living deer ratio of buck to doe as compared to 10 years ago there is no definitive data available to provide a absolute answer. The state doesn't know how many deer there are much less the exact ratio of buck to doe. Nobody knows how many deer there actually are as a statewide population.

However, it would be a pretty safe to arrive at a conclusion based upon known facts that the ratio is very similar today as it was 10 years ago. The harvest data shows that no matter what the total harvest of any given year over the past 10 years, no matter what the weapon ratio for harvest during those years, that the harvest ratio of buck to does and button bucks has always remained within a couple of percentage points. I believe that would have to lead to a conclusion that if there had been a significant shift in buck to ratio that it would have manifested itself in the harvest ratio's over these years.

Again this is on a statewide basis, big brush approach. Any individual area could vary greatly based upon specific local influences.

2 lane or 4 lane bridge?

 

[Jackalope]

Now epe,

You started in this by saying that you had a bridge you wanted to sell me, I don't think you really have a bridge to sell, I think that you were implying I was less than smart

As far as you question about the living deer ratio of buck to doe as compared to 10 years ago there is no definitive data available to provide a absolute answer. The state doesn't know how many deer there are much less the exact ratio of buck to doe. Nobody knows how many deer there actually are as a statewide population.

However, it would be a pretty safe to arrive at a conclusion based upon known facts that the ratio is very similar today as it was 10 years ago. The harvest data shows that no matter what the total harvest of any given year over the past 10 years, no matter what the weapon ratio for harvest during those years, that the harvest ratio of buck to does and button bucks has always remained within a couple of percentage points. I believe that would have to lead to a conclusion that if there had been a significant shift in buck to ratio that it would have manifested itself in the harvest ratio's over these years.

Again this is on a statewide basis, big brush approach. Any individual area could vary greatly based upon specific local influences.

2 lane or 4 lane bridge?

This does not take into consideration a hunters effort. A guy that has always shoot one doe and one buck a year can still do so even if the ratio has changed. The buck to do ratio can be out of wack and he can still do this, if he's not seeing the doe he used to he simply has to shift his tactics and increase his time afield. 5:1 or 1:1 he can still shoot the same as he has for years for what he thinks his family needs or he likes to do. The only thing those numbers prove is that we hunters are creatures of habit. It doesn't prove at all that the ratio hasn't changed.

Again. This is why managing a deer population by counting dead deer is a horrible method.