ODNR Weekly Deer Harvest Reports

[DJK Frank 16]

You will not justify to me that we have the same (or even close) to the number of deer that we did in 04/05/06.... at least not in my area.

When I started bow hunting up here in 02/03 (somewhere around that time frame), there was hardly anyone hunting until gun season. Now you are lucky to find a place to hunt that doesn't have 4 other guys piled in setting up stands right beside you. This is all on private land.

I would say the number of bowhunters in my zone or at least my area, is up 25% in the last 5-6 years. Add in an extra weekend of gun season and two extra anterless permits that we didn't have before and that about sums up the harvest number increase for my area over 5 years ago.

Now don't get me wrong, I see a fair amount of deer, but if anyone in my zone tells me we have the same amount of deer we had up here in 04/05, I want some of what they are smoking.

 

[ImpalaSSpeed96]

I would say the number of bowhunters in my zone or at least my area, is up 25% in the last 5-6 years. Add in an extra weekend of gun season and two extra anterless permits that we didn't have before and that about sums up the harvest number increase for my area over 5 years ago.

That's a fair argument.

 

[finelyshedded]

According to the latest season over last there was only 5 counties reporting a decrease in harvest compaired to last year.

For the first 47 days of the 2012 hunting season here is the report.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/9/pdf/deer harvest/111412deerharvest.pdf

Wow, that was not expected. I was figuring it being less. I haven't been seeing many deer on my travels to and from work and the grapevine news of hunters killing something(mostly a nice bucks) are really noticably down in my area. Maybe hunters aren't talking much after the kills these days.
In response to IS96 though, I also agree but am also waiting till the end of season before I make any assumptions. Like others have said, I've never seen this many hunters out and about in a long long time. They are everywhere, at least down here in the SW.

 

[huntn2]

Harvest started hot and has been cooling off. We will have to see where the chips fall at the end of the season.

Statewide, week 1 was 40+% higher than last year. We are now down to 20% higher than last year.

 

[brock ratcliff]

You will not justify to me that deer numbers are down if harvest rates increase every year. So what you're saying is that one magic year, we're just going to see almost no deer killed? I'm far from a biologist expert, but my common sense works pretty well.

Coming from a state where harvest regularly resound in the 50k range, from a much smaller area, and ridiculously liberal bag limits, i.e. none, the deer numbers remain constant. How many of you guys shoot your max limit of deer in the state, or zone for that matter?

Ohio is regarded as one of the best managed states from all my reading. In my best years I only killed 5-7 deer a year, when I hunted every day, and didn't have to travel to kill them (not in OH). I just don't understand how more deer are being harvested if there are less to choose from.

This has been explained a dozen times. In 2002, we added Sunday hunting. That boosted the number of deer killed for a time. When that tapered, we added an "extra gun weekend". That boosted numbers for a time. Then we added more available doe tags, that boosted numbers for a time. The last two years the total number killed has declined. There have been no seasons added or tag limit increases the last two years. If there are ten deer in a woodlot you can kill four of them. If there are only five deer in a woodlot, you can still kill four of them given enough opportunity (added seasons).

Last year, corn was standing all over the State into gun season. That probably saved some. This year, there are very few crop fields still standing. In Ag areas of the State, that is a huge factor in the early season harvest, and was reflected in the kill totals IMO. I saw more deer on opening weekend this season than I ever have...we had NO crops left!

 

[ImpalaSSpeed96]

So all you're really doing is probably improving the buck to doe ratio.... Isn't that what's best for the herd anyway?

 

[Jackalope]

You will not justify to me that deer numbers are down if harvest rates increase every year. So what you're saying is that one magic year, we're just going to see almost no deer killed? I'm far from a biologist expert, but my common sense works pretty well.

Coming from a state where harvest regularly resound in the 50k range, from a much smaller area, and ridiculously liberal bag limits, i.e. none, the deer numbers remain constant. How many of you guys shoot your max limit of deer in the state, or zone for that matter?

Ohio is regarded as one of the best managed states from all my reading. In my best years I only killed 5-7 deer a year, when I hunted every day, and didn't have to travel to kill them (not in OH). I just don't understand how more deer are being harvested if there are less to choose from.

Just a quick demonstration.. Just hear me out.


10,000 deer in a county..
Season 1 kill 1,000
Season 2 Kill 1,100
Season 3 Kill 1,200
Season 3 Kill 1,300

Lets just remove breeding from the equation to simplify this.

The four year kill total is 4,600 so there are 5,400 left.. Can we still kill a record 1,400 this year despite having only 54% of the deer 4 seasons ago? Very easy to do. Hunters just have to try harder. it's the giant variable we're missing.. Hunter effort is what matters. Hunter effort can mean any number of things. It means they can hunt more, bait more, scout a little better, take an extra day for gun etc. Or he may not have to try harder at all.. Say he only shoots one deer.. last year his doe group was 10. it's now 5. a 50% reduction.. If you look at the harvest numbers you'll see it stayed the same.. He killed his one. But it doesn't negate the fact that there is a 50% decline.


Looking at harvest numbers alone is voodoo.. I say it's only 10% of the info you need to make an educated decision. If you're looking at harvest numbers only without the supporting data you're looking at a train wreck in the making. And you're not going to see it coming until it's too late.

Here is a chart Ryan (huntn2) made from last seasons deer hunter survey.

This alone should be a concern. If you notice the hunters who spent the most time in the field and hunted the most seasons all saw the herd decreasing.. The people who said the population is the same spent the median amount of time in the field and hunted the median amount of seasons. Then the people who said it was increasing had spent the least time in the field, hunted the least seasons, and killed the least deer.

This tell me one thing.. Your good hunters. The ones who have boots on the ground and are hunting the most are seeing a decline.. And if you notice they also kill the most deer of all the groups. So less deer isn't keeping them from filling tags. Which points back to my original point with the example earlier about harvest numbers vs hunter effort. You can have less deer and kill the same or even more. The real trouble is those guys are still killing a bunch of deer even though they see the decline happening. However that's not happening. We're past that point. we have had 3 season of decline. We're past the point of only having to try harder to make it happen. Can you hear the train barreling down the tracks yet? I can.

 

[Jackalope]

So all you're really doing is probably improving the buck to doe ratio.... Isn't that what's best for the herd anyway?

Buck deers fall out of doe deers vaginas. Less vaginas means less buck deers. Less buck deers with the same number of hunters means less big buck deers. The bucks will be the last to show a decline due to our 1 buck limit. It'll take slightly longer for that population to show decline. However per Tonk and my conversation we are seeing a decline in harvest age of buck deer. Meaning they're getting killed younger.. The first sign of a declining buck population.


All that QDMA buck to doe ratio stuff only holds water if you have a tall fence and a bunch of dirt.

 

[huntn2]

Impala, another interesting and eye opening stat is deer vehicle accidents (DVA's).

2002 to 2010 DVA's are down 23%

 

[Dannmann801]

Here's a stat I'd be interested in seeing:

How many hunters (not tags sold, but hunters who bought tags)
Number of hunters who take in a season
1 deer
2 deer
3 deer
4+ deer

I wonder if that information is out there
Are there more hunters participating? and how many?

More hunters should mean lower bag limits or we get "fished-out" so to speak

 

[Jackalope]

Here's a stat I'd be interested in seeing:

How many hunters (not tags sold, but hunters who bought tags)
Number of hunters who take in a season
1 deer
2 deer
3 deer
4+ deer

I wonder if that information is out there
Are there more hunters participating? and how many?

From earlier stats I believe less than 5% of the states hunters shoot more than 3 deer. Success rates vs tags sold is only about 33% i think. Tonk agreed that simply reducing tag availability isn't going to increase deer populations. The group that shoots 3-6 is such a small group. Cut the tag limits in half and you'll likely not see a rebound or change in kill numbers. The sad fact is you'll have to reduce opportunity first, let them bounce back, then keep tags at a level to maintain the herd at current levels. We're past simply reducing tags. By reducing opportunity you have to do things like they did this year. No antlerless tags in gun season, another step would be to eliminate bonus gun. These things reduce opportunity. The other thing would be to reduce pressure. x amount of does tags in this county limits both tags and hunter numbers.

 

[RedCloud]

Take Fayette for instance. They killed a total of 62 deer this time last year and this year the have killed 88 showing an increase of 41.49% but that doesn't mean there was more deer this year over last year. Just add a few more bow hunters working harder and spending more time in the field can make the numbers look GREAT on paper but seeing an actual increase in the amount of deer in the county is another story.

Time will tell but the truth if you only looked at these numbers is still being pushed under the rug and out of sight out of mind. They show us numbers like this and the average hunter thinks everything is good and the less then average hunter still thinks everything is awesome in the deer woods. The ones that are not fooled like most of us here know better because we are the ones with feet on the ground and a huge chunk of time on stand watching leaves and squirrels. Like Joe said, these numbers are only a small portion of information and can't be taken as the only source to measure the overall herd. Turn in the surveys and help the DNR help us and by voicing what you have seen will go a long way. They can't ignore and keep us quiet forever. Athough I think it is more of a political issue and money changing from one hand to another that is a bigger problem then those at the DNR not listening to the hunters but that's just MHO of course.

 

[Lundy]

I don't think eliminating the bonus gun would have any significant impact on the harvest numbers.

I don't think that you get a 1 to 1 reduction in harvest that is reported during those 2 days. I think for a large number of hunters they would just decide to kill their deer during the regular gun or wait until MZ season to kill one instead.

How many deer, what percentage of the 2 day kill, do you think are killed during the 2 day gun that would not be killed otherwise? I am thinking around 30-50%.

It would never happen but I would like to see a one year NO Antlerless harvest in a couple of the counties suffering the most with the population reduction, and then a restricted antlerless tag for the following year and shazam you have fixed the deer population problem in that county without reducing even one hunting hour available. It would be great if the ODNR would do that in just a couple of counties to prove out the theory.

Jackalope, you have been talking to Tonk, do they believe there is a population level that is below their targets in any county today?

 

[Kaiser878]

You wanna decrease deer kills....stop making corn piles legal to Hunt over. Then watch how many of your so called "good"hunters kill deer. I bet you would see atleast a 25% decrease in kills.

 

[Milo]

You wanna decrease deer kills....stop making corn piles legal to Hunt over. Then watch how many of your so called "good"hunters kill deer. I bet you would see atleast a 25% decrease in kills.

but coonie don't kill deer...he just pets them and releases them

 

[Huckleberry Finn]

Here's a stat I'd be interested in seeing:

How many hunters (not tags sold, but hunters who bought tags)
Number of hunters who take in a season
1 deer
2 deer
3 deer
4+ deer

I wonder if that information is out there
Are there more hunters participating? and how many?

More hunters should mean lower bag limits or we get "fished-out" so to speak

Damn I just saw this...

Here ya go Dann
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Hun...wmanydeerhunterstake/tabid/23949/Default.aspx

 

[Huckleberry Finn]

Here are the charts displayed at the above link.

# of deer that hunters harvest, by number and by %

 

[Huckleberry Finn]

As for the harvest % numbers, I can't help but think that it's going to be a sparse gun season and nothing exciting after that...

 

[jagermeister]

You wanna decrease deer kills....stop making corn piles legal to Hunt over. Then watch how many of your so called "good"hunters kill deer. I bet you would see atleast a 25% decrease in kills.

I completely agree that there'd be a significant decrease by doing that. Not sure if it'd be as high as 25%, but maybe not too far off from that. It seems that hunting over corn piles is becoming the norm these days. I know guys who don't even know any other way to hunt besides baiting. I'm not crucifying anyone here... I mean, they're only doing what's legal... But it's kind of sad to see the skills of woodsmanship slowly declining in the overall hunting population. I know, I know... That was very Coonie-esque.

 

[Lundy]

I don't know if restricting baiting would have any significant impact on harvest or not, maybe.

I do know that it would have no impact on my groups deer harvest. I run 3 feeders currently and use blocks at other locations throughout the property. I have 7 permanent hunting blinds setup around the property and 3 are on the feeder locations. All of these locations are on natural funnel movement locations. I only started feeding a few years ago and I enjoy it a lot.

Point is there have not many days on this farm over the last 25 years during any of the gun seasons that I could not of shot a deer if I elected to, bait or not. Add to that that I hunt for my personal satisfaction and I'm not in competition with anyone or looking for style points and I will continue to for as long as it is legal and not harming the deer in some way.

My harvest hasn't changed since I quit bowhunting multiple states ever year around 10 years ago. Since going strictly gun I kill one deer per year. I will continue to kill one deer per year, feeders or no feeders