I'll bring up the second topics in a few days, tradition was a big part of it. Check stations and hunter training will play a big part in that discussion.
Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
- Status
I'll bring up the second topics in a few days, tradition was a big part of it. Check stations and hunter training will play a big part in that discussion.
huntn2
Senior Member
The same is true for harvest in general. We know the harvest by county but have no basis for the effort within that county.
- 39,223
- 274
Or the population. They knew how many were killed but had zero idea how many were left. Didn't stop them from pushing regs for 9 years designed to decimate the population.
- 39,223
- 274
Ok. So lets say they get the number of how many landowners are actually hunting. What good does that do? They've had that data for years on non landowners. Didn't stop them from their agenda of decimating the population.
Numbers of hunters and the overall success rate is only two pieces of data that don't really tell you anything of value regarding the population.
The number that matters is number of hours afield per hunter divided by the percentage of success. This will give you the numbers of hours spent afield before a successful harvest. One could then draw a useful conclusion from that data. To simply say "the success rate stayed the same so the population must be the same" is intellectually dishonest and any statistics professor would give them an F for such a claim. Its almost on par with saying that harvest numbers rose this year so the population must be increasing too.
The success rate could stay flat at 33% for years, but the hours afield per harvest doubled. This tells them hunters are putting in 2x the time to maintain the same success rate. Now thats a useful piece of information because it tells them that despite the success rate remaining the same at 33%, either the population is reduced to half of what it was, or every hunter just suddenly became twice as picky. I would lean towards the first. Number of hunters and a success rate is a hollow piece of data without knowing the amount of effort spent per hunter.
This alone is still not a big enough piece of data to set population or harvest goals from however. The realization that hunters are spending twice as long to be succesdful needs to be compared against another piece of data for confirmation. Data such as an aerial survey count, or a road route count should be compared to cross validate what the hours per success numbers say is true.
Numbers of hunters and the overall success rate is only two pieces of data that don't really tell you anything of value regarding the population.
The number that matters is number of hours afield per hunter divided by the percentage of success. This will give you the numbers of hours spent afield before a successful harvest. One could then draw a useful conclusion from that data. To simply say "the success rate stayed the same so the population must be the same" is intellectually dishonest and any statistics professor would give them an F for such a claim. Its almost on par with saying that harvest numbers rose this year so the population must be increasing too.
The success rate could stay flat at 33% for years, but the hours afield per harvest doubled. This tells them hunters are putting in 2x the time to maintain the same success rate. Now thats a useful piece of information because it tells them that despite the success rate remaining the same at 33%, either the population is reduced to half of what it was, or every hunter just suddenly became twice as picky. I would lean towards the first. Number of hunters and a success rate is a hollow piece of data without knowing the amount of effort spent per hunter.
This alone is still not a big enough piece of data to set population or harvest goals from however. The realization that hunters are spending twice as long to be succesdful needs to be compared against another piece of data for confirmation. Data such as an aerial survey count, or a road route count should be compared to cross validate what the hours per success numbers say is true.
As stated in my hunting log, I now need to hunt 3 times as long (read: a lot more effort) to see the same number of deer as I did in 2010, and twice as hard as I did just 3 years ago. I venture to say it takes 5 times the effort than it did when I started hunting seriously in 2000.
Schu72
Well-Known Member
Very logical, but not sure I totally agree. You aren't factoring in hunter attitudes. The big buck craze has changed the way hunters hunt and what they hunt and that can certainly change success rates and the amount of effort to harvest a deer. Most everyone on this site could be tagged out already, but many are hunting a certain class of buck or they wait until post rut to harvest a doe. I can't say it took me 20 days of hunting to harvest my doe when I could have shot one 10 minutes into my first hunt.? right?
- 39,223
- 274
I understand what you are saying however that is not going to change much year to year. It has taken decades for the big buck craze to change the way the majority of people hunt. The hours afield per success will be far more impacted from one year to the next by population changes than by Michael Waddell. As a whole one would not expect the entire base of hunters to suddenly become twice as picky in one year. Some yes, a statistical significant portion in one year, probably not. Thats also why i said the data should be cross validated with some sort of physical survey be it an aerial survey or road survey to validate the data. Its a strong indicator of population through understanding the overall effort not a smoking gun.
I do take you seriously. I've been posting solely on the stakeholders group because that is what I'm supposed to be covering. I am a moderator on another site and that is where I post info on other topics. I am currently posting this info on four different web sites and two facebook pages, and then listening to and responding to comments as needed.
- 39,223
- 274
So let me understand.
1. You post the same information to 6 diferent sites.
2. You do not represent the interest of hunters on social media to the stakeholder group. Ie you yourself are not a stakeholder but rather a PR person.
3. You have no expectation to report to the hunters of social media the stakeholders stances so that we can align ourselves with the real stakeholders who hold our same opinions.
4. You provide no other benefit to the forum but to post social media press releases.
5. You have yet to show any benefit to the spoken agenda items of anyone here.
Initially when you were given the position i was obviously hesitant, however i decided that i would wait and see what became of it as i believe everyone wanted an advocate at that table. I hoped that members could share their agenda items, you would take them back and advocate for them, then report back the status of the issues that concern them. The membership could then engage you in discussion and give you additional information to continue advocating for the issues that concern them.
To date you have done none of this. You simply post the information they want you to disperse then respond only to argue or belittle with anyone that disagrees then you and give zero discussion to valid responses.
Your posts do not provide benifit to anyone but yourself and the DOW and it is obvious our issues or opinions do not matter.
If it smells like spam and looks like spam, its spam.
- 39,223
- 274
From febuary of this year.
. And lastly what 1023 says this may be nothing but a dog and pony show, At this point I don't know. If it is I'll call it that. As I mentioned before I was on the Highway Patrol for 25 years, six years in a group of troops decided they didn't like the way management was treating us and we formed an FOP lodge, The patrol in response formed a trooper rep committee in each district. I represented District 7 Cambridge on all disciplinary matters. This meant I would set in on all the hearing in Columbus with the Lt Colonels and the Majors. They never seemed to like my answers, for a six year troop to tell these guys with 25-30 years on was almost blasphemy in their eyes. I knew I was right when I did it then and if it needs said here I won't be afraid to do it again.......what are they going to do fire meickle:
So in order for our conversations to be worth anything, we need to be a member of another site? Anything beyond this thread on this site is worth nothing? For lack of better words, that’s fucking bullshit! Being prior LE, I expected a real effort for the people here. Guess I was wrong...I’m done with this thread. Enjoy
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. That has been their stated statement from the beginning of the population reduction plan many years ago. There will never, per their plan, be a population growth to previous numbers.
- 39,223
- 274
There is a giant difference between mentioning occasionally that we have to many deer, and full disclosure of an intent to decimate the population by 50 percent plus. And that number is just a guess as they've never actually said how far they are wanting to reduce it, despite me asking Tonk point blank what the reduction goal was. I wonder why that is, perhaps they know if they were up front and honest from the beginning hunters would have had a huge problem with it.
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
I get all of that, no doubt. Just saying there will be no plan to take populations upward from current levels on a statewide scale anytime soon, if ever, my bet is on ever.
Brent has done an excellent job of communicating the thoughts, ideas and concerns of his social media constituents to the stakeholder committee. Remember, he's just one voice in a diverse group and the info he's sharing at this time are simply ideas being discussed. To date, no individual faction has dominated the conversation or the process. It's pretty easy to discern where each committee member stands based on the group they represent. I'm there representing the Wildlife Council, but when I interject, I don't speak on their behalf. My function is to report back to the council which will have the ultimate say on what changes will be made.
I'm convinced this is not a dog and pony show. So much so that I've already donated 6 vacation days including 2 mornings of spring turkey hunting and 2 days of hunting the rut. We're just a little more than half way through the process. I sincerely believe that "most" sportsman of Ohio are going to be pleased with the end result and new direction of the deer management program.
I'm convinced this is not a dog and pony show. So much so that I've already donated 6 vacation days including 2 mornings of spring turkey hunting and 2 days of hunting the rut. We're just a little more than half way through the process. I sincerely believe that "most" sportsman of Ohio are going to be pleased with the end result and new direction of the deer management program.
- 39,223
- 274
- 39,223
- 274
Telling people its "Pretty easy to discern" is not open representation. The people these stakeholders supposedly represent have every right to know each of the agenda issues they're pushing so they can align themselves with the party that supports their beliefs. The stakeholder organization has a responsibility to make that known as this topic concerns a resource that belongs to everyone, not just 20 or so people sitting in a room chewing the fat.
The individual reporting back on the meetings should have no problem making it known what everyone's agenda items are by name. Without open accountability this is nothing more than a bunch of individuals sitting around hiding behind secrecy pretending to represent the interest of others. Statements like "it's pretty easy to discern where each committee member stands" and " "sportsman of Ohio are going to be pleased". Now where have we heard that before. Oh right, Nancy Pelosi when asked why ObamaCare was being debated in secrecy. "We have to pass it before you can find out what's in it, but you're gonna like it".
As for the changes themselves, its not going to take much improvement to change the perception of sportsmen on the new deer management program. Lets face it, 9 years of horrible management, misinformation, lack of data, lack of a published plan, greatly reduced sightings and harvest, and just overall crap concern for sportsmen isn't hard to improve perception on.
Most of the things coming out of the group that I've read so far would have been a great thing to have 9 years ago when we had a great deer population. Today they are simply designed to maintain and continue the population reduction and regrow the DOW revenue.
Keep the comments coming especially in regards to _________________, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
Question for today... ____________________
Question redacted by Jackalope. See below.
Question for today... ____________________
Question redacted by Jackalope. See below.
- Status