From what Lundy posted above you, 1/5 killed 2 deer that season. Guess I am the one guilty. I did.
What would be your plan?
- Thread starter Lundy
- Start date
EDIT: 27.06% of Ohio hunters that were successful in taking a deer took 2 or more.
- 1,312
- 141
From ODNR 2014-2015 summary
As in years past, the vast majority of successful hunters (76%) harvested only a single deer in the 2014-15 season. This year, 18.5% of successful hunters bagged two deer, 4% harvested three, and only 1% took four or more deer (Figure 9). Again, to emphasize the limited influence of a large statewide bag limit, less than 1% of successful hunters harvested five or more deer in any given year, and specifically in 2014, only 351 of the 228,530 permit buyers (0.1%) tagged five or more deer.
Figure 10 shows how the number of deer harvested per successful hunter has changed over time. In 2006, prior to the introduction of the antlerless permit, only 16% of multiple-harvest hunters bagged more than two deer. By 2011, with the availability of $15 antlerless permits, almost 30% of those hunters taking multiple deer harvested at least three. As deer populations have been reduced closer to goal and restrictions placed on the use of the antlerless permit, the number of hunters taking three or more deer has declined each of the past three seasons. This year, of hunters harvesting multiple deer, 22% harvested three or more (Figure 10).
As in years past, the vast majority of successful hunters (76%) harvested only a single deer in the 2014-15 season. This year, 18.5% of successful hunters bagged two deer, 4% harvested three, and only 1% took four or more deer (Figure 9). Again, to emphasize the limited influence of a large statewide bag limit, less than 1% of successful hunters harvested five or more deer in any given year, and specifically in 2014, only 351 of the 228,530 permit buyers (0.1%) tagged five or more deer.
Figure 10 shows how the number of deer harvested per successful hunter has changed over time. In 2006, prior to the introduction of the antlerless permit, only 16% of multiple-harvest hunters bagged more than two deer. By 2011, with the availability of $15 antlerless permits, almost 30% of those hunters taking multiple deer harvested at least three. As deer populations have been reduced closer to goal and restrictions placed on the use of the antlerless permit, the number of hunters taking three or more deer has declined each of the past three seasons. This year, of hunters harvesting multiple deer, 22% harvested three or more (Figure 10).
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,813
- 137
I just got my end of the year survey from ODNR, they include a map of the new zones we had already discussed on hear, the survey also asked questions about doe and buck only days, hunting pressure, amount of deer we seen, etc. I foresee some new rules being implements especially on state land. I am not sure how I feel about it (I feel like public land hunters already get the short end of the stick and have limited opportunity), sounds like some stiff regulations are coming for public land, but private land may not change much (this is all assumption from reading the survey, it was just the feeling it gave me). Any body have any #'s on private land kills v. public land?
- 39,219
- 274
Yeah. 1/5 of 1/3 of licensed hunters. So if you cut tags to 2 across the entire state you would save around 12,000 deer. But this really isn't the problem as those killing 3+ could be taking them from areas that still have a good population. Some of the problem is guys taking 3+ in areas that can't support it. And we just don't have the data for that. At the end of the day the impact to the population isn't so much the 3,800 people who took 3 or more. It's the 129,000 other people who took 1 or 2. This is why lowering the success rate will have a bigger impact than lowering available tags. You can accomplish this two ways. Limit tags to 1 and stop the guys killing 2+ deer. This will save about 40,000 deer. But that would mean everyone only gets 1 tag which most would likely covet for a buck. So it would actually save far more than the 40k. Not realistic however as the less educated to the problem would wet their pants. . So say we make it two tags across the state. Seems fair right. Well that's only going to save around 12,000 deer. Ohio hunters killed almost double that on opening day of gun season alone. This is why limiting opportunity will have a far bigger success than limiting tags. Tags would have to be lowered to a level that nobody would agree with i.e. 1. Shaving off a month of archery season and a couple days of gun would have far far greater positive impact.
- 39,219
- 274
I like the question about how the acorn crop was in my DMU this year. I wanted to include this picture of yet another fence row being ripped out. And say, maybe one of those six trees still standing a mile away behind that excavator might be an oak, but I doubt it.
The info you seek is here: http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals...ations/hunting/Pub 5304_DeerSummary_FINAL.pdf
I would whole heartedly support this but this is all a pipe dream magic fairy dust wish list. I get zero indication that the powers that be want to see the herd increase in any way shape or form
- 39,219
- 274
Well duhhh. Lol. The farm and insurance lobby would be up their ass so fast. Remember when the DNR implemented the early muzzleloader but cut bonus gun. Forty something state legislature showed up at the Department of wildlife offices demanding that it be added back. Do you think they did that because they were fighting for hunters. . Or because the farm and insurance lobby who helped their campaign funds wanted both the early muzzy and bonus gun like they've said in their yearly mission statement. Hint. At the time Two people sat on the wildlife council who have ties to farm bureau. Like board members. Guess how they voted on adding it back in addition to early muzzy. Lol.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
Most here get it. The first thing you have to understand is that the DOW is being influenced by the Ohio Farm Bureau and Big Insurance. Big Insurance wants less accidents. So, to them, that means less deer..........period.
The Farm Bureau is a little different. They want deer wiped out on public land. That drives up demand for private property and they get max $ for leases. So, you see, they don't truly want less deer running around in general. They just want hunters to covet their property for good deer hunting.
It's all driven by money. Who does DOW get most or nearly all of their funding from? Yet, who has the weakest influence at the table? Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The Farm Bureau is a little different. They want deer wiped out on public land. That drives up demand for private property and they get max $ for leases. So, you see, they don't truly want less deer running around in general. They just want hunters to covet their property for good deer hunting.
It's all driven by money. Who does DOW get most or nearly all of their funding from? Yet, who has the weakest influence at the table? Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hell the farmer on one of the farms I hunt wants all the deer gone, he hates them. He gets crop tags all the time, pretty much why I've only hunted there 2 hours in the last two years.
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,813
- 137
what county is that? Was the farmer just ripping up tree lines for a few extra rows of corn/beans/wheat?
It's happening all over the state! Down here in Warren county I've seen them doing it was well. They cut up what firewood they have and either sell it or use it and burn huge piles of brush and stumps for whatever reason. My guess is to get every little morsel of land they have opened up for more planting.
Every county! Every year more and more habitat is taken away. And with the big CRP push coming to an end...its gonna get a lot uglier before it gets better folks.
Fence rows, edges of woods, wherever a tree is in the way of a dollar. . . Our local farmers are cutting it down.
- 39,219
- 274
Pretty much every county up here in the corn and bean belt. It's rampant. Few extra rows, more sunshine, etc. I bet over the past three years I've seen 20 miles if fencerow torn out.
Remember last January when there was like an 80 car pileup on I-70 around London. Like three people died. That previous winter the farm along the highway ripped out the trees lining the highway and another fence row 3/4 mile across the field. I bet that field is 2 miles across now without a single tree. Straight line winds blew snow across I-70 and made whiteout conditions. How he isn't liable for that is beyond me. If I took my snowblower and blew snow from my driveway into the road and someone crashed I would be liable. It's really the same thing. An action caused a result of which he should be liable for.
But the reality is they basically get to operate with impunity. Zero consideration for erosion, wind, wildlife, waterways, pesticide or fertilizer runoff. In the Dakotas you have to get a permit from the state before removing fence rows, and if it's a waterway a runoff good luck. If not the permit is generally approved but it has to be replanted with younger similar trees with a density that will stop wind or blowing snow.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
Are we adding private land management practices to the "What would your plan be" topic? lol
I hate to see it too, but I don't care for more laws dictating to land owners what they can or can't do.
I hate to see it too, but I don't care for more laws dictating to land owners what they can or can't do.
- 25,318
- 261
Travel I-65 between Lafayette and Renselear Indiana any night there is snow on the ground and you will know exactly what wind over snow does to a road. There is not a night through the winter (when there is snow) that there isn't a serious wreck or two. I'd hate to imagine how many people have been killed on that stretch of road, and it is solely due to wind and blowing snow. The area you are talking about sounds similar, but it isn't like the folks that removed the trees are the ones blowing the snow... Ma Nature is to blame, people just do not help the situation.