Deer Harvest History

[giles]

I agree with Lundy about the reduced tags theory. I also think this contributes.

Back in the hay days, you wouldn't catch me without two tags in my pocket. Just do some reading around here and you will read over and over about how some guys haven't killed a doe in years.

Either way, it has to be multiple things. There is not a single simple answer to this. We could also throw leasing into the mix. It all adds up.

 

[Lundy]

From the DNR summary for 2019 season

). Finally, and most notably, the number of deer permits issued is largely dependent upon the number of hunters participating. Since 2011 the number of individuals purchasing at least one deer permit has dropped from 359,000 to 294,000 – a decline of 18% in just the last seven years (Figure 3).

 

[Jackalope]

Tag sales down, success rates the same or higher tells me there are not less deer, just less hunters.

You can still have higher success with less deer, it just requires more effort. Something that is difficult to track and get numbers on.

Another factor is the people that quit hunting because of lower numbers will largely be your unsuccessful or struggling hunters. And the people who used to buy two but now only buy one tag because of the reduced population. As the pool of hunters condenses and better hunters are left, combined with less tags purchased, the success rate as a percentage of tags sold will rise.

The real number to look at to gauge the population is vehicle accidents. Those numbers only get better one of three ways. You have less licensed drivers, meaning less people on the road to hit deer. This isn't the case as licensed drivers are up. The drivers out there have gotten a whole lot better at not hitting deer, which isn't likely as that's a completely random largely uncontrollable occurrence. Or there are in fact less deer to hit. From 30k accidents in 2002 to 19k in 2019 would suggest a roughly 33% decline in the deer population. Factor in the new drivers to remain consistent and the number could easily be a 40% population reduction, but I would need to get the licensed driver data.

 

[cspot]

Landowner harvest is for sure included in the total harvest numbers

I believe lower tag numbers is a result of two factors, the reduction of population and bag limits and the reduction of hunters through natural attrition , I used to purchase 2 tags at the beginning of every season, I have purchased none the last 3 years. Older hunters are quitting hunting for any number of reasons and new hunter recruitment has not replaced the decline in older hunters. I’m sure the DNR knows how many individual hunters purchased at least one tag

I also think as hunters have aged the need or the want to kill multiple deer has gone down. The hunting for food for the table isn't as popular as it once was.

 

[Jackalope]

If someone could tell me for sure how many deer were in the state in 2002, 2003, 2004 then I think the data can easily provide a very close population estimate based upon automobile accidents. It is not weather dependent, hunter density plays no role, public versus private and access doesn't really matter. Deer have not learned how to cross roads more safely and drivers damn sure are not better drivers today than they were 15-18 years ago.. Should be able to get very close to the number if you have a well defined starting data point early on.. While I don't know the number I feel really safe saying we have around 2/3 of what we had in 2002, 2003, 2004

Agreed. Somewhere around a 33-40% decline from 2002. Unfortunately, our DNR didn't do any population studies, simply looked at the number of deer killed and assumed that more killed means a bigger population. Per what Tonk told me that's how they did it anyway.

 

[Jamie]

there is not any doubt that there are less deer now than there were 15 years ago. how many less is debatable, deer car collisions is a one strong indicator of the statewide population, but it's one of many. I'll bet the deer car collisions hit rock bottom in 2020 with so many less people traveling, driving to work, lockdowns, etc. will be interesting to see that number. that will not reflect the deer herd in Ohio accurately.

 

[giles]

The flaw with deer vs vehicle data is that it often happens in areas that no hunting happens. So you could reduce the surrounding herd to zero and have very minimal impact on this number. I would be interested in seeing a map of deer collisions by year. Someone has this if they are using it to factor county limits.

 

[Jackalope]

The flaw with deer vs vehicle data is that it often happens in areas that no hunting happens. So you could reduce the surrounding herd to zero and have very minimal impact on this number. I would be inserted in seeing a map of deer collisions by year. Someone has this if they are using it to factor county limits.

This is true it varies by area, it's only a good indicator for looking at the statewide population. It does not give a good indication of rural deer populations. Say you have 30k accidents a year and it's a 50/50 split urban vs rural. If you reduce the rural deer population to 0 you'll still have 15k accidents a year, and a completely deerless rural area. So to your point, a 33% reduction in accidents statewide could really be a 50%+ deer population reduction in rural areas. It's hard to say the impact on rural areas. We can only really look at statewide numbers without getting county by county accident data. Which I think I had at one point. I'll do some digging.

 

[Jackalope]

there is not any doubt that there are less deer now than there were 15 years ago. how many less is debatable, deer car collisions is a one strong indicator of the statewide population, but it's one of many. I'll bet the deer car collisions hit rock bottom in 2020 with so many less people traveling, driving to work, lockdowns, etc. will be interesting to see that number. that will not reflect the deer herd in Ohio accurately.

Yeah the constant has shifted for sure due to covid. But before covid it was a pretty stable indicator. One could loop in reduced fuel sales year over year to come up with a driving reduction percentage and maybe back into a number for accidents. For example a 50% reduction in fuel sales combined with a 50% reduction in deer vehicle accidents would indicate a stable number. A variation would show growth or decline.

 

[at1010]

I am curious -do we believe Ohio is alone in this quest or do we believe all states are wanting lower deer numbers because of insurance companies?

Are all states hunters feeling upset about less deer? We have had some horrible EHD breakouts over past 10 years as well.

lastly the national numbers of hunters is declining - that’s a fact and one that should concern us as hunters.

Ohio’s deer population may be less now than it was - I also think manipulation of data and a narrative is extremely easy to accomplish, no matter what side of the argument we are on.

I still would love to see DMAP programs for Ohio.

 

[Lundy]

The flaw with deer vs vehicle data is that it often happens in areas that no hunting happens. So you could reduce the surrounding herd to zero and have very minimal impact on this number. I would be interested in seeing a map of deer collisions by year. Someone has this if they are using it to factor county limits.

While there are a lot of variables that could play into and that would require a county by county population density change ( people) over the last 15 years, loss of habit from development, licensed drivers per county, deer accident ratio in each county by urban and rural areas, etc, etc, etc, I believe that there is little doubt that the deer car accident history provide a goods representative sample of the overall deer statewide population. I don't think the additional variables and a in- depth study by county would have much impact on the statewide numbers. The overall statewide conditions that existed 15 years ago exist today. I believe this is proven by the correlation of harvest increase and the decrease in deer car accidents. Those two historical data points support each other to arrive at a pretty safe estimate on percentage of population reduction statewide.

 

[Lundy]

I am curious -do we believe Ohio is alone in this quest or do we believe all states are wanting lower deer numbers because of insurance companies?

Are all states hunters feeling upset about less deer? We have had some horrible EHD breakouts over past 10 years as well.

lastly the national numbers of hunters is declining - that’s a fact and one that should concern us as hunters.

Ohio’s deer population may be less now than it was - I also think manipulation of data and a narrative is extremely easy to accomplish, no matter what side of the argument we are on.

I still would love to see DMAP programs for Ohio.

All states balance the impact of deer populations for all interested parties. Hunters, farmers, insurance companies, not doubt, as it should be.

Hunters certainly have two wishes high on their list, more deer and quality deer. I would expect that be universal

Efforts are made by all areas to increase new hunter recruitment, sadly I believe it will be largely unsuccessful and will continue to decline. Our society has changed and continues to change.

I don't believe there can be any rational doubt that the population is much lower than it was previously. The reported official data, harvest and car accident along with first hand accounts and observations by hunters support this conclusion easily.

 

[giles]

While there are a lot of variables that could play into and that would require a county by county population density change ( people) over the last 15 years, loss of habit from development, licensed drivers per county, deer accident ratio in each county by urban and rural areas, etc, etc, etc, I believe that there is little doubt that the deer car accident history provide a goods representative sample of the overall deer statewide population. I don't think the additional variables and a in- depth study by county would have much impact on the statewide numbers. The overall statewide conditions that existed 15 years ago exist today. I believe this is proven by the correlation of harvest increase and the decrease in deer car accidents. Those two historical data points support each other to arrive at a pretty safe estimate on percentage of population reduction statewide.

I agree. It would be silly to take numbers from the 270 loop and compare them to rt 62 from Grove city to WCH. The amount of vehicles traveling those roads isn't even close. Even though it would be close to the same amount of miles.

 

[at1010]

All states balance the impact of deer populations for all interested parties. Hunters, farmers, insurance companies, not doubt, as it should be.

Hunters certainly have two wishes high on their list, more deer and quality deer. I would expect that be universal

Efforts are made by all areas to increase new hunter recruitment, sadly I believe it will be largely unsuccessful and will continue to decline. Our society has changed and continues to change.

I don't believe there can be any rational doubt that the population is much lower than it was previously. The reported official data, harvest and car accident along with first hand accounts and observations by hunters support this conclusion easily.

I guess this is my conundrum - do we continue to show the evil side of the ODNR and how they have decimated the deer herd, which certainly will not help to increase hunter recruitment or can we find a middle ground to work together?

Would we agree that although the deer population was down from its peak, that it is showing an upward trend?

Do we know if there has been an increase or decrease in quality buck harvested, relative to the number of total bucks harvested? - I know this is difficult to discern.

Do we as hunters believe that we can achieve both higher numbers of deer, maintain the quality of bucks, and not allow degradation of habitat at a state level?

WV has a high deer population - yet I don't see a lot of guys going there to hunt deer or lease ground, compared to Ohio. So clearly high deer numbers are not a driver for many hunters.

All in all, I just find it scary that hunter numbers are declining and the lack of trust between DNR's and hunters, will continue to be detrimental to hunting in the long term.

 

[cspot]

I am curious -do we believe Ohio is alone in this quest or do we believe all states are wanting lower deer numbers because of insurance companies?

Are all states hunters feeling upset about less deer? We have had some horrible EHD breakouts over past 10 years as well.

lastly the national numbers of hunters is declining - that’s a fact and one that should concern us as hunters.

Ohio’s deer population may be less now than it was - I also think manipulation of data and a narrative is extremely easy to accomplish, no matter what side of the argument we are on.

I still would love to see DMAP programs for Ohio.

Most states have when thru herd reduction. You see the very same complaints in those states as you do in Ohio. Like I said in PA we went thru it before you guys did in Ohio. Once the herd is reduced the habitat bounces back and then they increase the population. In PA now you don't hear as much complaining about the population like you did during the "low" period as numbers have come back some even though they aren't what they were 25 years ago. We will not see that by design.

I believe that Ohio will be going to a doe harvest system similar to what we have in PA where you get an anterless license for a specific unit. Once they are sold out then you can't buy anymore. Still not a perfect system, but I think it helps focus harvest where it is needed. Far better than the current county system in Ohio. Also it will split some counties that maybe have vastly different terrains across it. Not sure if that will be this year?

 

[giles]

I guess this is my conundrum - do we continue to show the evil side of the ODNR and how they have decimated the deer herd, which certainly will not help to increase hunter recruitment or can we find a middle ground to work together?

Would we agree that although the deer population was down from its peak, that it is showing an upward trend?

Do we know if there has been an increase or decrease in quality buck harvested, relative to the number of total bucks harvested? - I know this is difficult to discern.

Do we as hunters believe that we can achieve both higher numbers of deer, maintain the quality of bucks, and not allow degradation of habitat at a state level?

WV has a high deer population - yet I don't see a lot of guys going there to hunt deer or lease ground, compared to Ohio. So clearly high deer numbers are not a driver for many hunters.

All in all, I just find it scary that hunter numbers are declining and the lack of trust between DNR's and hunters, will continue to be detrimental to hunting in the long term.

I think if we could convince the state to do some tree harvesting and create habitat changes, it would be a great start. Let's pump some money back into the system that doesn't come from the hunters pocket and improve hunting/trapping. This alone would create more game big and small. Therefore giving people a reason to go. Deer hunting started as small game hunting for most of us and those of us true to the core. The roots of it all so to speak. The game we love to chase needs habitat! The rest will fall in to place.

 

[giles]

I also believe if the state stepped up to do this, land owners would also. People are followers by nature.

 

[at1010]

I don’t know the answer and I know tone can be difficult to read so I hope my responses have come across as sincerely questioning and intriguing and no other way.
@giles @cspot - great response. Thank you. I’m a fan of dmaps for sure.

 

[Jackalope]

I am curious -do we believe Ohio is alone in this quest or do we believe all states are wanting lower deer numbers because of insurance companies?

Are all states hunters feeling upset about less deer? We have had some horrible EHD breakouts over past 10 years as well.

lastly the national numbers of hunters is declining - that’s a fact and one that should concern us as hunters.

Ohio’s deer population may be less now than it was - I also think manipulation of data and a narrative is extremely easy to accomplish, no matter what side of the argument we are on.

I still would love to see DMAP programs for Ohio.

When our DNR embarked on the reduction journey back around 2009 other states did also and faced similar hunter backlash. I specifically remember Wisconsin & Missoiuri, it was obviously a multi-state effort from somewhere.

 

[giles]

I don’t know the answer and I know tone can be difficult to read so I hope my responses have come across as sincerely questioning and intriguing and no other way.
@giles @cspot - great response. Thank you. I’m a fan of dmaps for sure.

It provoked thought.