Deer Gun Harvest Totals Decline

[motorbreaker]

It is beyond me why anyone would have a problem with wanting to inform and unify hunters for a common goal. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that hunters are not happy with the current situation, and that hunters aren't receiving their fair share of consideration. It's also obvious that as hunters we need to be more unified and informed. Why anyone would have an issue with that is beyond me. Especially if it's backed by data and member hunter opinion surveys and a full blown non-profit structure with governance. Unless it's not about that at all and is just personal bias for who is doing it, not what they're doing.

I've hunted a lot of different areas. I've seen what using all the tags that may be available to a hunter can do to the deer heard. I was part of this until I learned what it does. Its fun at first but when the deer are all gone then what?
When I started hunting Ohio in 2002 I had harvest goals. At first there were a lot of deer. So we took a few more. But for the last 10 years we have limited the amount of does we kill and keep the population where were happy with it.
That's all we have to do is not shoot to many. Its not that hard.
Joes plan to educate hunters could save a lot of people from having to learn the hard way. Like I did.
If you hunt privet land you pretty much have control of the deer population to a degree. If you can get your neighbors on the same page things will be good. I know this because we have done it for years.
Some people may not need to be educated on this subject but even more need to be. They need to know the consequences of taking to many deer. And how to tell how many deer to take.
I'm all for educating hunters. And for Joe and Jesses plan to do so.

 

[xbowguy]

It is beyond me why anyone would have a problem with wanting to inform and unify hunters for a common goal. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that hunters are not happy with the current situation, and that hunters aren't receiving their fair share of consideration. It's also obvious that as hunters we need to be more unified and informed. Why anyone would have an issue with that is beyond me. Especially if it's backed by data and member hunter opinion surveys and a full blown non-profit structure with governance. Unless it's not about that at all and is just personal bias for who is doing it, not what they're doing.

Just my opinion: I dont think its so much WHAT is being said as HOW it is being said. Some will not get it until deer numbers affects them. If hunters noticed a "few" less deer than last year, NOW is the time to help that. Not in a year or two after we "see what happens". They dont rebound on their own anymore.

 

[Jackalope]

Where do you arrive at this number Joe?

The Ohio Insurance Institutes yearly report linked earlier in this very thread. Yeah, I do actually read data to back up my statements on subjects. somewhere around here I have a spreadsheet that Ryan and I created a couple years ago detailing deer vehicle accident data all the way back to the mid 90s.

 

[Jackalope]

I've hunted a lot of different areas. I've seen what using all the tags that may be available to a hunter can do to the deer heard. I was part of this until I learned what it does. Its fun at first but when the deer are all gone then what?
When I started hunting Ohio in 2002 I had harvest goals. At first there were a lot of deer. So we took a few more. But for the last 10 years we have limited the amount of does we kill and keep the population where were happy with it.
That's all we have to do is not shoot to many. Its not that hard.
Joes plan to educate hunters could save a lot of people from having to learn the hard way. Like I did.
If you hunt privet land you pretty much have control of the deer population to a degree. If you can get your neighbors on the same page things will be good. I know this because we have done it for years.
Some people may not need to be educated on this subject but even more need to be. They need to know the consequences of taking to many deer. And how to tell how many deer to take.
I'm all for educating hunters. And for Joe and Jesses plan to do so.

Great. And this will be the primary goal and mission of the organization. Helping others see before it's too late. We may never accomplish a single thing with the DNR but if we can help hunters understand that it starts with them, the warning signs to look for, or how to rebuild their local population then it won't matter how liberal the bag limits are. To accomplish such a feat in the hearts and minds of every Hunter across Ohio is likely a pipe dream. But if we can educate just 10% of Ohio's deer hunters that's something like 27,000 hunters that might not pull that trigger or loose that arrow next season at that one doe. That's 27,000 deer that will go on to breed.

 

[Gern186]

The Ohio Insurance Institutes yearly report linked earlier in this very thread. Yeah, I do actually read data to back up my statements on subjects. somewhere around here I have a spreadsheet that Ryan and I created a couple years ago detailing deer vehicle accident data all the way back to the mid 90s.

Im talking about your 2 million dollar campaign funding number you tossed out there. I might be closely related to a state representative and know a little bit also.

 

[angelzd28]

I think what people, at least at the beginning of this thread are arguing over is Macro management(Joe and Jesse's plan of attack) versus Micro management, what Dick was alluding too. Both concepts can and should be used. (MICRO) If I make $50,000 a year and I spend too much then I go in debt, so I budget and spend what I have and may save a little for the future. (MACRO) The state has a budget of X amount of dollars and either spends to much and has debt, or stays within its means and has some for the future. Now take this analogy and apply it to the deer herd, and shabam both concepts can and should be used. Now some guys will spend/kill to much while others have plenty left over for next year on the micro level, and this is where Joe and Jesses goal comes into play at the Macro level, by education, monetary pressure, votes, ect. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bowhunter1023]

I think what people, at least at the beginning of this thread are arguing over is Macro management(Joe and Jesse's plan of attack) versus Micro management, what Dick was alluding too. Both concepts can and should be used. (MICRO) If I make $50,000 a year and I spend too much then I go in debt, so I budget and spend what I have and may save a little for the future. (MACRO) The state has a budget of X amount of dollars and either spends to much and has debt, or stays within its means and has some for the future. Now take this analogy and apply it to the deer herd, and shabam both concepts can and should be used. Now some guys will spend/kill to much while others have plenty left over for next year on the micro level, and this is where Joe and Jesses goal comes into play at the Macro level, by education, monetary pressure, votes, ect. Just my 2 cents.

Very well put.

 

[Quantum673]

Im talking about your 2 million dollar campaign funding number you tossed out there. I might be closely related to a state representative and know a little bit also.

According to Ohio State Campaign Finance reports that 2 million number is high if you are talking per candidate. If you are referring to total spent amongst all candidates then it is low. It was estimated at over $37million for all candidates combined. Ohio was 6th highest in cost.

 

[Jackalope]

Im talking about your 2 million dollar campaign funding number you tossed out there. I might be closely related to a state representative and know a little bit also.

The statement was made to exemplify that if insurance companies could save 42 million a year by cutting the deer population numbers in half and how that's a ton of money to dump into state legislative candidates pockets to get their way. But I'll indulge your red herring detraction.

I stated "Especially when you consider your average state reps entire campaign might cost a couple million max

Key words in bold.

I did not not say "The cost of a state reps campaign is exactly 2 million dollars"

So obviously I was not dealing in absolutes as the the main point was how much money the insurance companies COULD spend. Not how much it costs to win an ohio seat. Numbers could vary by representative greatly. A republican representing district 17 in southern Ohio is going to spend a tiny fraction of what a representative running a heated race in district 13 up near Cleveland would spend. and in district 23 (Cleveland) a republican may need to spend 5x what what a democrat would. The point was not what a seat on the ohio senate costs, but rather the 41 million dollars insurance companies could spend to help get them elected.

 

[Beentown]

The statement was made to exemplify that if insurance companies could save 42 million a year by cutting the deer population numbers in half and how that's a ton of money to dump into state legislative candidates pockets to get their way. But I'll indulge your red herring detraction.

I stated "Especially when you consider your average state reps entire campaign might cost a couple million max

Key words in bold.

I did not not say "The cost of a state reps campaign is exactly 2 million dollars"

So obviously I was not dealing in absolutes as the the main point was how much money the insurance companies COULD spend. Not how much it costs to win an ohio seat. Numbers could vary by representative greatly. A republican representing district 17 in southern Ohio is going to spend a tiny fraction of what a representative running a heated race in district 13 up near Cleveland would spend. and in district 23 (Cleveland) a republican may need to spend 5x what what a republican would. The point was not what a seat on the ohio sentate costs, but rather the 41 million dollars insurance companies could spend to help get them elected.

And all that really doesn't matter because if it costs them less then that even furthers the point. Cost/benefit for them is even stronger.

 

[giles]

These boys get that syrup in 'em, they get all antsy in their pantsy.

Rabbit....

 

[bonemonger]

Before you ask for support I would like to know your objectives. Because there are only two ways to increase the number of deer. One way is to limit the number of tags, because it's obvious that we have to many hunters. The other way is to limit opportunity, which would mean shortening bow season, gun season and muzzleloader season. I would like to know which way that your going to go with it. In my opinion I could care less about private land, the odnr can sell all the tags that they want. If you don't own the land or lease it then the landowner will decide how many deer that he has eating his profits. If the majority of your focus is not on improving the quality of hunting on public land then you might as just join forces with whitetail unlimited. The only way that I see to improve public land is issue a limited number of tags for public land deer hunting with a lottery drawing. Again if they do that then someone who only has access to public might not get a opportunity to hunt. In closing all I'm interested in is the state taking charge of the raping that occurs on public land.
Also I do not hunt public land right now and me personally would not apply for a public land tag as long as I have access to private.

 

[Jackalope]

Before you ask for support I would like to know your objectives. Because there are only two ways to increase the number of deer. One way is to limit the number of tags, because it's obvious that we have to many hunters. The other way is to limit opportunity, which would mean shortening bow season, gun season and muzzleloader season. I would like to know which way that your going to go with it. In my opinion I could care less about private land, the odnr can sell all the tags that they want. If you don't own the land or lease it then the landowner will decide how many deer that he has eating his profits. If the majority of your focus is not on improving the quality of hunting on public land then you might as just join forces with whitetail unlimited. The only way that I see to improve public land is issue a limited number of tags for public land deer hunting with a lottery drawing. Again if they do that then someone who only has access to public might not get a opportunity to hunt. In closing all I'm interested in is the state taking charge of the raping that occurs on public land.
Also I do not hunt public land right now and me personally would not apply for a public land tag as long as I have access to private.

We're nowhere near asking for support yet. Lots of data needs collected between now and then, and you're right an agenda Item needs to be born from that effort first.

 

[Lundy]

I had added deer car collisions to my spread sheet a few years ago.

I can not find the deer damage permit information in their report for last year so the sheet is not 100% up to date.

 

[mrex]

The DOW does not set the hunting regulations as they're state laws. They make a recommendation to the wildlife council for the new regs who then votes to send it to the state legislature.

Proposed DOW rules and regulations changes are vetted through JCAR before the Wildlife Council votes to make sure nothing contradicts the Ohio Revised Code. The Wildlife Council vote stands alone and is not vetted through legislature.

 

[Jackalope]

Proposed DOW rules and regulations changes are vetted through JCAR before the Wildlife Council votes to make sure nothing contradicts the Ohio Revised Code. The Wildlife Council vote stands alone and is not vetted through legislature.

Thanks for the procedural clarification. Makes sense why when farm bureau got the early muzzy season that they wanted but the council eliminated bonus gun the 26ish legislators who wanted both seasons threw a fit directly to the wildlife council forcing an extra assembly and vote instead of stopping it on the statehouse floor.

 

["J"]

Proposed DOW rules and regulations changes are vetted through JCAR before the Wildlife Council votes to make sure nothing contradicts the Ohio Revised Code. The Wildlife Council vote stands alone and is not vetted through legislature.

Welcome too the conversation Mike, hope you stick around and join in... Give us some insight on your tenure so far on the council....

 

[Hortontoter]

I'll agree with this that you posted, Joe.

From what I've seen reading posts across the net on various forums, Facebook pages like the deer pics one, and even the ODNR page the opinion of "everything is fine" seems to be a very very small group of people. And when I say small I mean 1 or 2 out of 50 posts. Numerically that translates to 2-4% seem to think everything is OK... We're concerned with the opinion of the majority. Once upon a time we were the small but vocal minority that we didn't agree with the population decimation. That's not the case anymore from what we're seeing. It's the opposite.

I think this is the point I tried to make. If 96% of hunters are disgruntled. I'd think they would take matters in to their own hands and curb the shooting of does until the herd rebounds. Probably easier said than done, I know.

I'm not against what you and Jesse are trying to do. I just can't understand why hunters need an organization to learn self restraint.

 

[Jackalope]

I'll agree with this that you posted, Joe.



I think this is the point I tried to make. If 96% of hunters are disgruntled. I'd think they would take matters in to their own hands and curb the shooting of does until the herd rebounds. Probably easier said than done, I know.

I'm not against what you and Jesse are trying to do. I just can't understand why hunters need an organization to learn self restraint.

People are funny and greedy creatures. They're far more likely to do what's right if they feel like they're part of a movement. If they can't feel like part of something, they likely won't do it at all. "Why should I stop shooting does, nobody else is, so I might as well go get mine".

And the old saying of "hunters are great conservationist" really only applies to an organized group, or proceeds from a group. Individually we're a mighty destructive force. For example. The pitman tax that we spend when buying hunting and fishing related products has done tons of good for wildlife, from public land, conservation, and a wealth of other uses. Without hunters none of that would be possible. And while we get credit for it, we didn't really do anything. Heck I bet the majority of hunters don't even know about it. So we get the claim benefit of being the greatest conservationist, without the work or knowledge. Individually the majority of hunters are just that, hunters.

 

["J"]

I'll agree with this that you posted, Joe.



I think this is the point I tried to make. If 96% of hunters are disgruntled. I'd think they would take matters in to their own hands and curb the shooting of does until the herd rebounds. Probably easier said than done, I know.

I'm not against what you and Jesse are trying to do. I just can't understand why hunters need an organization to learn self restraint.

Because this generation of deer hunters (for the most part) can't control their hunting like in years past....

They have the mentality of, since I'm not seeing deer, I better take advantage of the ones I am seeing....