Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

You guys ain’t killin enough deer

Lundy

Member
1,239
86
I have to say I always get a little laugh every time I hear someone say that Tonk and the ODNR can't manage the deer herd. Of course he and they managed the deer herd. They did what they stated they were going to do, a large reduction. Certainly their management goals didn't and don't align with the majority of hunters but they damn sure managed it very well.

I don't think we will be as successful this time in the further reduction for a few reasons. When Slaughter One was put in play the deer herd was at what was most likely an all time high. It was easy to attract casual and first time hunters to kill a deer and way too easy to get the more regular, seasoned, skillful hunters to gleefully fill a bunch of tags.

1. Hunter participation has reduced sustainably from the very high deer behind every tree populations we once enjoyed. There just is too much effort for the casual hunter to put in the time to kill one much less additional deer with the current populations with this new initiative. Clearly evidenced by declines in hunter participation.

2. The effective tools now realize they were tools. The guy told them to shit in their bed, they would love it and they enjoyed a big shit, only to later realize that it stunk, was messy, hard to clean up and the bed would take a long time to be able to sleep in it again (and of course laid all blame on the guy that told them to take the shit). I just don't believe that the ONLY mechanism the ODNR has to reduce the herd will shit in their own bed again.

3. Distribution and access is not equal. In areas where population reduction is targeted it wouldn't matter how many tags they issued if there is not enough hunter access willing to do the deed.

The ODNR does possess the ability, all on their own, to increase deer populations through reduced legal harvest, they have zero, zip, nada ability to reduce populations without hunters doing the work for them
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
33,781
212
They did what they stated they were going to do, a large reduction.

I agree with most of what you said except for the above. Never once did they come right out and say they wanted a large reduction or any other quantifying statement. They always coated it with saying that some areas were overpopulated, that they needed to reduce to get healthier deer. It was always a misleading statement. They relied on hiding the true extent of their intentions because they knew if they were upfront hunters would never go along with it. No matter how we slice the pie they purposefully misled hunters to their own detriment. Doing that is nothing short of lying.

I asked Tonk personally a few years into the effort what the overall goal was compared to the population level in 07. Keep in mind by then we were already seeing declines of roughly 20% overall. I asked if the overall goal was a 30, 40, 50% reduction? He declined to answer so I prepared and asked him how much more they wanted to reduce from current levels. He again declined to answer. I kind of threw out numbers starting with 20% and incrementing by 10s. He stopped nodding "no" and started giving a "yeah about there" nod at +40% aditional. That would have made the total reduction somewhere in the ballpark of -60% from 2008 numbers. If he wasn't going to share those numbers face to face he sure as heck wasn't going to share them in ODNR press releases. They needed to mislead, aka lie, to hunters to get them to kill more deer than any of them would have ever agreed with. Even if they said "large" reduction nobody would ever assume that would mean 60%+ of the deer herd.
 

Bowkills

Active Member
1,677
60
Nw oh
I agree with most of what you said except for the above. Never once did they come right out and say they wanted a large reduction or any other quantifying statement. They always coated it with saying that some areas were overpopulated, that they needed to reduce to get healthier deer. It was always a misleading statement. They relied on hiding the true extent of their intentions because they knew if they were upfront hunters would never go along with it. No matter how we slice the pie they purposefully misled hunters to their own detriment. Doing that is nothing short of lying.

I asked Tonk personally a few years into the effort what the overall goal was compared to the population level in 07. Keep in mind by then we were already seeing declines of roughly 20% overall. I asked if the overall goal was a 30, 40, 50% reduction? He declined to answer so I prepared and asked him how much more they wanted to reduce from current levels. He again declined to answer. I kind of threw out numbers starting with 20% and incrementing by 10s. He stopped nodding "no" and started giving a "yeah about there" nod at +40% aditional. That would have made the total reduction somewhere in the ballpark of -60% from 2008 numbers. If he wasn't going to share those numbers face to face he sure as heck wasn't going to share them in ODNR press releases. They needed to mislead, aka lie, to hunters to get them to kill more deer than any of them would have ever agreed with. Even if they said "large" reduction nobody would ever assume that would mean 60%+ of the deer herd.
im pretty sure in the suggestions for the upcoming seasons public knowledge the bag limit increases statewide was known as a " statewide herd reduction plan coined by the odnr." The few county increases here and there don't get much chater but it was pretty well known to hunters, kill kill kill here's your tags.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
33,781
212
im pretty sure in the suggestions for the upcoming seasons public knowledge the bag limit increases statewide was known as a " statewide herd reduction plan coined by the odnr." The few county increases here and there don't get much chater but it was pretty well known to hunters, kill kill kill here's your tags.

Joining in 2018 you didn't get to experience the couple of years worth of coverage we had on the topic while it was happening live. All of it is what it is though. Old history. People can believe it or not. I think most hunters today realize they were mislead. And judging by the ODNRs facebook page a few years back they were catching holy hell shit for it. It's hard to paraphrase a few years worth of advocacy from 8-10 years ago into a paragraph... But believe this.. I sat at a picnic table with Tonk at Strouds with a stack of papers about 2 inches thick and went through yearly vehicle accidents, harvest stats, hunter survey data, and weather data. I pulled misinformation quotes he gave to the media, presented data and asked him if he could explain why he said that if the data showed otherwise. During that Tonk told me with other members standing there, that if they were honest about the scope their true intentions, hunters would never go along with it and they needed hunters to do it. He then went on to say that most hunters weren't smart enough to figure it out.

Historically. At the time the deer population was booming and everyone thought the ODNR was doing a phenomenal job. It seemed like someone was killing a nationally recognized buck every year, sometimes it happened multiple times a year. Ohio was all the buzz and was making article after article. Hunters had no reason to distrust the ODNR. So when they say they needed to reduce the population some nobody was really going to question it. The outright misinformation that the DNR put out to hide the extent of their intentions was blatant.. In just a couple seasons there were a ton of areas that were massively over harvested and the ODNR didn't seem to care much. I noticed it first in Vinton county where I was hunting. In a hollow where I would easily see 15 deer per sit a couple years in I might see 1 a day. Interestingly enough I have a buddy still on that lease and spoke to him at Dave's last summer. I asked if things had gotten better. He hunted for a week during the rut and saw 3 deer. Brock noticed it pretty quickly in Fayette county also. As we began to pressure the ODNR for a management plan, population numbers, etc it became pretty obvious what the intent really was. As other hunters across the state started to notice the DNR doubled down with press releases saying the lack of deer killed was because of rainy weather, or it was too hot, or a bad mass crop. Even once said that the harvest was down because there were too many acorns and hunters faild to adapt to the changing food source, And as evidence of that he said that the roadkill squirrel numbers were way down because they didn't have to cross the road for food. The whole time we were beating them up for numbers, "what was the starting population?" "How did you determine the desired reduction"? "What is the desired reduction?" "Did you do a population study". The answer to all of those was no. They were literally only looking at harvest stats, More deer killed must mean more deer are there, less deer means less deer are there. An incredably flawed and short sighted approach that lead to massive over harvest in a lot of areas.
 
Last edited:

Bowkills

Active Member
1,677
60
Nw oh
Reduction or decimation? At the time the deer population was booming and everyone thought the ODNR was doing a phenomenal job. It seemed like someone was killing a nationally recognized buck every year, sometimes it happened multiple times a year. Ohio was all the buzz and was making article after article. Hunter had no reason to distrust the ODNR. So when they say they needed to reduce the population some nobody was really going to question it. Joining in 2018 you didn't get to experience the couple of years worth of coverage we had on the topic while it was happening live. The outright misinformation that the DNR put out to hide the extent of their intentions was blatant.. In just a couple seasons there were a ton of areas that were massively over harvested and the ODNR didn't seem to much care. I noticed it first in Vinton county where I was hunting. In a hollow where I would easily see 15 deer per sit I might see 1 a day. Interestingly enough I have a buddy still on that lease and spoke to him at Dave's last summer. I asked if things had gotten better. He hunted for a week during the rut and saw 3 deer. Brock noticed it pretty quickly in Fayette county also. As we began to pressure the ODNR for a management plan, population numbers, etc it became pretty obvious what the intent really was. As other hunters across the state started to notice the DNR doubled down with press releases saying the lack of deer killed was because of rainy weather, or it was too hot, or a bad mass crop. Even once said that the harvest was down because there were too many acorns and hunters faild to adapt to the changing food source, And as evidence he said that the roadkill squirrel numbers were way down because they didn't have to cross the road for food. The whole time we were beating them up for numbers, "what was the starting population?" "How did you determine the desired reduction"? "What is the desired reduction?" "Did you do a population study". The answer to all of those was no. They were literally only looking at harvest stats, More deer killed must mean more deer are there, less deer means less deer are there. And incredably flawed and short sighted approach that lead to massive over harvest in a lot of areas.

All of that is what it is, People can believe it or not. It's hard to paraphrase years worth of advocacy in a paragraph... But believe this.. I sat at a picnic table with Tonk at Strouds with a stack of papers about 2 inches thick and went through yearly vehicle accidents, harvest stats, hunter survey data, weather data, I pulled misinformation quotes he ad given to the media, presented data and asked him if he could explain why he said it if the data showed otherwise. Know what the end result was.. Tonk told me to my face with other members standing there, that if they were honest about the scope their true intentions, hunters would never go along with it, and they needed hunters to do it. He then went on to say that most hunters weren't smart enough to figure it out.
Believe me when I say I live in the bottom of the fing barrel for the the Ohio deer herd and population. Farmers want every deer dead around here. I'm approached on deer populatation and deptevasion permits every year. We are in the MIDDLE of of the road between farmer/hunter/car. Honestly I think we r 100 percent where we need to be. I got perrmission yesterday to kill more deer because of s large winter herd was there 0 other reason besides farmer seeing deer.
 

whitetailjunky3

Junior Member
291
53
Believe me when I say I live in the bottom of the fing barrel for the the Ohio deer herd and population. Farmers want every deer dead around here. I'm approached on deer populatation and deptevasion permits every year. We are in the MIDDLE of of the road between farmer/hunter/car. Honestly I think we r 100 percent where we need to be. I got perrmission yesterday to kill more deer because of s large winter herd was there 0 other reason besides farmer seeing deer.
If you need help let me know lol
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
33,781
212
Believe me when I say I live in the bottom of the fing barrel for the the Ohio deer herd and population. Farmers want every deer dead around here. I'm approached on deer populatation and deptevasion permits every year. We are in the MIDDLE of of the road between farmer/hunter/car. Honestly I think we r 100 percent where we need to be. I got perrmission yesterday to kill more deer because of s large winter herd was there 0 other reason besides farmer seeing deer.

Whats interesting about that is the ODNR really laid on the farmer angle as a reason for the reduction. Farmer complaints etc. I can't remember the actual data this many years later but in their farmer survey only a couple thousand farmers responded, most said they enjoyed seeing wildlife, maybe 60-70% thought that the herd needed reduced some. The ODNR really laid hard on the farmer angle. I even shared with Tonk a study out of Purdue Ag where it said that farmers were often mistaken on the cause of crop damage. While deer overwhelmingly took the blame because they're visible, the vast majority of the corn damage was coons, and bean damage was groundhogs. My question to him was if "farmers" are really the reason then why aren't you educating them on the true reason and waging war on raccoons instead of deer. A prestegious ag university already did the work and the data is there. But here is the rub, the true reason wasn't farmers or crop damage, it was largely the Ohio Farm Bureau. Here's some interesting history about them

Nationwide insurance is headquartered in Columbus. I'm sure they make a ton of political and economical contributions. A little known fact, once upon a time they were named Farm Bureau Mutual and did insurance. In the 50s The insurance arm split off and was named Nationwide insurance, and the farm part was named Ohio Farm Bureau. This is also true in other states that were also suddenly concerned and embarking on deer decimation plans. What a beautiful way for an insurance company wanting to save hundreds of millions on policy payouts by reducing deer vehicle accidents than by pushing the poor farmer angle. Remember the early muzzleoader season we had for a little bit? It was the brainchild of Ohio Farm Bureau and for years it was included as a want in their yearly report to members.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia about their lobbying

In rural areas, the Farm Bureau grooms compliant political candidates, mostly Republicans; it wields the power to dictate outcomes of legislative elections and appointments to powerful state agriculture committees. Then it influences which farm-related bills become law. Along the way, it has become a close second to Monsanto in lobby expenditures for agriculture-related issues, spending nearly $6 million in 2011—all in the name of "farmers."


All starting to make sense now right.... And it's pretty obvious why I got a call from a large insurance companies lawyer threatening lawsuit if we started a booth at the D&T expo to expose the connections and real reason for the ODNRs efforts.

At the end of the day, the ODNR sold out hunters to shore up the profits of big insurance. Has anyone's insurance dropped now that deer vehicle accidents are down 33%+? No, but you do get to hunt less deer and pay more per tag and license to do it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tracker 6

Bowkills

Active Member
1,677
60
Nw oh
Whats interesting about that is the ODNR really laid on the farmer angle as a reason for the reduction. Farmer complaints etc. I can't remember the actual data this many years later but in their farmer survey only a couple thousand farmers responded, most said they enjoyed seeing wildlife, maybe 60-70% thought that the herd needed reduced some. The ODNR really laid hard on the farmer angle. I even shared with Tonk a study out of Purdue Ag where it said that farmers were often mistaken on the cause of crop damage. While deer overwhelmingly took the blame because they're visible, the vast majority of the corn damage was coons, and bean damage was groundhogs. My question to him was if "farmers" are really the reason then why aren't you educating them on the true reason and waging war on raccoons instead of deer. A prestegious ag university already did the work and the data is there. But here is the rub, the true reason wasn't farmers or crop damage, it was largely the Ohio Farm Bureau. Here's some interesting history about them

Nationwide insurance is headquartered in Columbus. I'm sure they make a ton of political and economical contributions. A little known fact, once upon a time they were named Farm Bureau Mutual and did insurance. In the 50s The insurance arm split off and was named Nationwide insurance, and the farm part was named Ohio Farm Bureau. This is also true in other states that were also suddenly concerned and embarking on deer decimation plans. What a beautiful way for an insurance company wanting to save hundreds of millions on policy payouts by reducing deer vehicle accidents than by pushing the poor farmer angle. Remember the early muzzleoader season we had for a little bit? It was the brainchild of Ohio Farm Bureau and for years it was included as a want in their yearly report to members.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia about their lobbying

In rural areas, the Farm Bureau grooms compliant political candidates, mostly Republicans; it wields the power to dictate outcomes of legislative elections and appointments to powerful state agriculture committees. Then it influences which farm-related bills become law. Along the way, it has become a close second to Monsanto in lobby expenditures for agriculture-related issues, spending nearly $6 million in 2011—all in the name of "farmers."


All starting to make sense now right.... And it's pretty obvious why I got a call from a large insurance companies lawyer threatening lawsuit if we started a booth at the D&T expo to expose the connections and real reason for the ODNRs efforts.
I had four big monstano f heads pull up in a black car in my fathers drive wanting to see what was planted behind his house., it was fine I asked if they all were deer hunters with a reply of no..... Mafia fuckers! Is my feel on those guys and they all knew a gun was in my grip.b
 

Bowkills

Active Member
1,677
60
Nw oh
Anyway if u don't know or have felt a land struggle the shit is real!!!!!!! Just a warning to u all Monsanto is a tick that can spread to all!!!!
 

finelyshedded

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
27,131
178
SW Ohio
I agree with most of what you said except for the above. Never once did they come right out and say they wanted a large reduction or any other quantifying statement. They always coated it with saying that some areas were overpopulated, that they needed to reduce to get healthier deer. It was always a misleading statement. They relied on hiding the true extent of their intentions because they knew if they were upfront hunters would never go along with it. No matter how we slice the pie they purposefully misled hunters to their own detriment. Doing that is nothing short of lying.

I asked Tonk personally a few years into the effort what the overall goal was compared to the population level in 07. Keep in mind by then we were already seeing declines of roughly 20% overall. I asked if the overall goal was a 30, 40, 50% reduction? He declined to answer so I prepared and asked him how much more they wanted to reduce from current levels. He again declined to answer. I kind of threw out numbers starting with 20% and incrementing by 10s. He stopped nodding "no" and started giving a "yeah about there" nod at +40% aditional. That would have made the total reduction somewhere in the ballpark of -60% from 2008 numbers. If he wasn't going to share those numbers face to face he sure as heck wasn't going to share them in ODNR press releases. They needed to mislead, aka lie, to hunters to get them to kill more deer than any of them would have ever agreed with. Even if they said "large" reduction nobody would ever assume that would mean 60%+ of the deer herd.
.............and THIS is why they lie and allow baiting and say it doesn’t give hunters an advantage!
Like Kim said earlier, they want to achieve a drastic deer herd reduction to appease their constituents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boarhead
1614792163971.png