huntn2
Senior Member
Ok ok....ill bite...
Number of hunters
Time a field
Number of permits
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Ok ok....ill bite...
Number of hunters
Time a field
Number of permits
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
- 39,120
- 274
Yayyyyyyy :smiley_clap:
There is only one way to kill the same about as 8 years ago but reduce DVA's by 30+%..
Increase opportunity to kill a lower population..
10 deer in a woodlot I can kill 4..... If there are only 6 in there I can still kill 4, you just have to give me more time, extra gun days, and a buddy to help.... But in reality there are 40% less deer from the get go.
- 39,120
- 274
.
Lets make this even more fun....
Today compared to 04-05 we have more hunters, more tags, and more gun seasons.. Yet we killed the same number of deer.
---Year---------Herd est-----Harvest total.
2004-2005------685,000------217,301
2011-2012 -----750,000-------219,698
Know what this tells me about the 750,000 number they have been spewing for the past 5 years in every news releases???
Yeah... I would ditch it too.
Lets make this even more fun....
Today compared to 04-05 we have more hunters, more tags, and more gun seasons.. Yet we killed the same number of deer.
---Year---------Herd est-----Harvest total.
2004-2005------685,000------217,301
2011-2012 -----750,000-------219,698
Know what this tells me about the 750,000 number they have been spewing for the past 5 years in every news releases???
Yeah... I would ditch it too.
Last edited:
Its bullshit? They made it up? They don't have the slightest fucking clue what the actual number is?!?
- 25,151
- 261
Bingo...but yet they continue to say kill more. I'm interested to see what the bag limits are for next season, or I should say what the "goals" are. In other words, do they think we need to continue slaying every doe available. If that is the direction they continue to go, we as hunters need to take action beyond internet chatter.
Ohiosam
*Supporting Member*
The WO officer last night said he didn't expect any changes in bag limits for several years.
- 25,151
- 261
That is what I find most concerning. They seem to want to continue down the same path, and in the areas I am familiar, it isn't a good thing.
- 39,120
- 274
First rule of a being a Lawyer or Politician..
Never ask a question that you don't know and want the answer to..
- 39,120
- 274
Bag limit reductions will not change anything unless they are severe, like 1 tag severe.. Which I don't think any of us want to see. That's the fastest way, but it's also the most painful and detrimental on the industry... As Rex has said less that 2% of hunters kill more than 3 deer.. So even if we went back to 3 deer limits nothing would change.. It would only keep less than 2% of hunters from killing a small handful of deer..
We have to face the hard truth and realize we have to limit opportunity if we want this turned around.. Be it ending season on Dec 31.. Removing bonus Gun. Or both.. But a simple tag reduction back to 3 isn't going to change anything.. Those extra tags are just revenue for the DNR. The real turn around would have to come with limiting opportunity. Like my example earlier.. If there are 10 deer in a woodlot I can kill 4.. If there are 6 deer in a woodlot I can still kill 4.. You just have to give me more time, better tools, and a buddy to help...
We can't reduce the numbers of buddies to help (hunter population)... But we can reduce the time (season dates) and better tools (bonus shotgun).....
If this was implemented I still think it would take a few years before we bounced back though. But.. I'm not a biologists.. And don't pretend to know how to fix it... Not my job.. We have Biologists for that.. The key will be making them admit their mistakes and wrongdoings....... My battle cry has been "We're killing too many""
Last edited:
- 25,151
- 261
I guess you got the idea that I wanted bag limits reduced from my last post. While I do think its a start, I have been a proponent of eliminating the extra gun season first since this discussion started. Tonk reduced the bag limit for Fayette County, but looking back, I think it was just throwing the dog a bone...he knows it will make little if any difference but may quiet the natives for a time.
I just don't understand how the DOW can continue to encourage the wholesale slaughter of does throughout the state when the numbers show we are below 95's levels. And yes, I firmly believe we are!
I just don't understand how the DOW can continue to encourage the wholesale slaughter of does throughout the state when the numbers show we are below 95's levels. And yes, I firmly believe we are!
JMO, telechek is very convenient for ALL hunters but still very helpful to those breaking the law. Just means many poached deer gets tagged now vs. the way it used to be.
Would be nice though if the DOW would implement a tagging system for those of us who stumble across a nice deadhead from time to time just like the telechek system. A farmhand I know who found a nice buck a few weeks ago took pics at the site and called the GW three times and left two messages and still has got no response. WTH!! With a telechek system for deadhead recovery he would have to put up with this stupid nonsense! Just saying!
Would be nice though if the DOW would implement a tagging system for those of us who stumble across a nice deadhead from time to time just like the telechek system. A farmhand I know who found a nice buck a few weeks ago took pics at the site and called the GW three times and left two messages and still has got no response. WTH!! With a telechek system for deadhead recovery he would have to put up with this stupid nonsense! Just saying!
The GW's are fucking worthless. I've called ours 3 times now on the poaching issues out here and still have not heard back. Flat ass pathetic...
With age comes wisdom…for some. :smiley_crocodile:
…and the second rule, throw out misleading statements like, “the heard is down over 76% of the state” which could be interpreted, (by the untrained eye), that the heard is down 76% statewide.
The "box of marbles" theory can only sustain itself for a year or 2...not 10 years as has been suggested. Let’s extrapolate as you’ve presented over a 5 year period.
Year 1…10 deer…we kill 4…next year we have 6.
Year 2…6 deer…we kill 4…next year we have 2.
Year 3…2 deer…we kill 4…next year we have -2.
Year 4…-2 deer…we kill 4…next year we have -6.
Year 5…-6 deer…we kill 4…next year we have -10.
One more time…let’s plug reality into the equation.
Double the size of the woodlot.
20 deer – we kill 40% = (8 deer)
We know on average that of those 20 deer, 12 are does, 2 are bb’s and 6 are antlered bucks.
We know the ratio of buck/doe killed in Ohio each year is 50/50.
So of the 40% we killed, 4 were does, (mature and yearling) and 4 were bucks, (bb’s and antlered)… 20 – 8 = 12 deer.
The following March, we have 8 does and 4 bucks.
If we assume a birth rate of 1.5, (it’s actually 1.47 according to work done years ago by my good friend Bob Stoll)…by the end of June we will have 8 (does) x (1.5 fawns) = 12 deer.
So next year, we have 8 (surviving does) + 12 (fawns) + 4 (surviving bucks) = 24 deer!
I concede that overall deer numbers are down statewide and beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have wiped them out in Fayette Co. I’m over 100 hunters into my informal phone survey, (BBBC members from all over Ohio), and over 90% have said that deer numbers are noticeably down in their area.
Joe - this is the most accurate statement you’ve made in this thread:
Cutting a few tags won’t bring them back to the numbers we saw a few years ago or whatever number it is that you guys would like to see. It’s all about opportunity and cutting the number of “gun openers” from 4 to 3 would be a good place to start...and coyotes will slow down any recovery.
Jesse – If you’re going to keep lobbing insults at the DOW over dwindling deer numbers, then you need to stop shooting, (at), does in the areas you hunt. The same for you Joe. Why should the “I know what’s best for my area” theory be OK for you and not the other guy? If you’re going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.
I’m of the opinion that most of you haven’t hunted them in Ohio long enough to have seen the ebbs and flows that I have witnessed in the deer population. We’re obviously never going to agree on the competency of Mike Tonkovich or the intentions DOW. Because Mike is a personal friend of mine, I’ve taken a lot of your insults personally and I shouldn’t because I don’t know most of you personally. My mom is terminally ill right now and I’m really not in the mood to get excited about anything. Good luck with your crusade…I’m out.
- 39,120
- 274
Mike, And I think this is the most accurate statement you have made....
And I'm glad that you're now talking to people and finding out the same thing many of us have known for a couple years.. I can guess, formulate, speculate and beat people up with data all day long... But my whole point for 4 years has simply been ""We are killing too many deer and we're going to pay for it"" Now that we are paying for it. We need to find out who, and why, and expose them for it to make sure they pay for it... The problem is.. No matter who we look at.. The Wildlife Council, The Director of ODNR, the Ohio Farm Bureau, Insurance lobbyist, or Rumplestilskin, you know where the end of the road leads...
And sorry about your mother.. My condolences man . This is trivial in that scope...
Maybe they'll take notice that someone from the neighboring county thinks our GWs are useless. And I'm not alone in that line of thinking. Just start asking around the area of the county that had the buck population decimated this fall due to poaching and we can all prove it. Yet the one person whose job it is to do so, can't be bothered to return a few phone calls...
I just know down here our GW seems more concerned acting on calls near or on property he's got hunting permission on. :smiley_depressive:
Sorry to hear about your mother Mike. Prayers to her and your family.
Sorry to hear about your mother Mike. Prayers to her and your family.
Last edited:
- 25,151
- 261
The box of marbles theory would only apply for a year or two using the 10 deer alive/four killed numbers. However, I didn't throw those numbers out as an accurate representaion but rather an exaggeration to demonstrate a point. That point being, if we are killing far more than are recruited, we wind up with a net loss. The DOW wanted a net loss, they stated that to be the goal. That is fine if they were able to measure what the net loss was, and would pull back the reins to maintain the desired amount vs driving the numbers to the ground. My concern remains simple, how do they (DOW) know what we have when they admittedly are forced to work with flawed data? And knowing the templates that were used for years are broken, how do they continue to drive forward with such an aggressive management plan....especially considering that many in-field-observers (hunters) are asking where the heck the deer went?
Mike, I know Tonk is a bright guy. I also know it would be a difficult job to estimate what the deer herd is across such a huge area, and then to factor in the concerns of others (non-hunters). I don't think anyone would dispute that. It is however a bad move to point the blame at hunters for a lower kill. That only alienates the biggest management tool the DOW has. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, and hunters need to trust the DOW as the DOW once had to trust hunters to NOT over-shoot a growing herd. When the DOW issues statements that does not reflect what sportsmen see in the field, no one wins.
