# Final deer harvest numbers?



## dwmikemx

http://www.ohiodnr.com/home_page/Ne...r-Ohios-2011-12-White-tailed-Deer-Season.aspx

Above link from another thread.
It appears that there were 20,000 less deer killed statewide this year compared to last year. 

Harvest numbers actually down? Or do you think with the new online tagging system in place, many deer just went untagged and unreported?
Well? Whatta ya think?


----------



## Hunt&fish4life

That could be a little of both. Iknow i did'nt see as many deer as i usually do in bow season or gun/ml season.


----------



## M.Magis

There have always been un-checked deer. Nothing changed in that regard. It was certainly a weird year for a while, my sightings were drastically down in November. Eventually they picked back up to normal. This seemed to be the theme all over the Midwest for some reason, certainly not just Ohio.


----------



## bkr43050

I personally think it has nothing to do with the new reporting system. Our area (Knox county) has continues a trend that seems to be toward a thinner herd. The last 3 years or so the numbers have decreased. This year was over a 15% decrease in harvest. These numbers also happened at the same time that the damage permit kills have cut in half. A few years ago there were as many as over 1,000 deer taken on damage permits. I don't know this year's damage permit kills yet but I do know that last year they went from nearly 1,100 down to around 650. That decrease alone is over 6% of the harvest for the county. So if they are getting them on damage tags I would have expected to see some of those show up in harvest increases but instead we had the 15% decrease.

The way I see it is that the sky is not falling but there are definitely fewer deer.


----------



## bkr43050

I personally think it has nothing to do with the new reporting system. Our area (Knox county) has continues a trend that seems to be toward a thinner herd. The last 3 years or so the numbers have decreased. This year was over a 15% decrease in harvest. These numbers also happened at the same time that the damage permit kills have cut in half. A few years ago there were as many as over 1,000 deer taken on damage permits. I don't know this year's damage permit kills yet but I do know that last year they went from nearly 1,100 down to around 650. That decrease alone is over 6% of the harvest for the county. So if they are getting them on damage tags I would have expected to see some of those show up in harvest increases but instead we had the 15% decrease.

The way I see it is that the sky is not falling but there are definitely fewer deer.


----------



## viper1

I tend to disagree! I have seen as many or more as I have the last few years. Finished with 5 here. I have 4 cameras set up and have noticed a lot more activity at night then day. Also we started out with a wet spring,lots of crops remained in the field,the nut harvest was great and a lot of reasons for the kill to be down. I like watching them so I leave cameras out pretty much year round. Pulled one out back to day since i was there. It had 480 photos since the 5 and today's the 8th. Now of those there were squirrel,rabbit,****,deer,possum,dogs,cats, Cardinal and other birds. Boiled down to 250 photos of up to 10 deer in a herd. Early in the year there were only three. Mostly i would think they had plenty of food and good conditions. Seems ODNR agrees with this. As long as the herds are as big as they are the auto insurance companies and the farm bureau and such will keep pushing for high limits. After all even if they didn't they cant survive a large group with out food. And they don't eat concrete. Just my opinion and no proof.


----------



## M.Magis

One thing to keep in mind, the number of crop damage permits handed out doesn&#8217;t mean that they were all filled. I get some every year, but I seldom use them all.


----------



## bkr43050

M.Magis said:


> One thing to keep in mind, the number of crop damage permits handed out doesnt mean that they were all filled. I get some every year, but I seldom use them all.


I hear what you are saying but the numbers that I am referring to are the permit kills. The annual report published by the DNR lists both numbers. Knox county began to back off on the number issued last year. I don't know their numbers for this year yet since the report is not published yet. Up until a couple of years ago Knox county accounted for around 10% of the total permit kills in the state. The fact that they are backing off on the number issued suggests to me that some folks are starting to see fewer deer.


----------



## M.Magis

I see what you're saying. I thought those were the number of permits issued. 1100 in one country sounds rediculous. Any chance that was a clerical error? I've never actually seen those reports before.


----------



## bkr43050

I looked back and actually my numbers were low. In 2009/10 there were 1,169 killed in Knox county out of the 10,524 damage permit kills in the state. That is over 11% of the state total and 16% more additional beyond the hunter's harvest. The following year they only killed 619 through damage permits. So if you take the total from hunters and damage permits that year versus 2010/11 and it is nearly a 17% drop. With this year's harvest being another 15% lower than last year I am sure the overall total will be in the neighborhood of nearly 30% lower than the total of 2 years ago. The hunters totals alone from 2009/10 to this current year was a 25% drop.

By the way the annual reports are listed on the ONDR's website and as you can see I find them pretty interesting.

Here is the link to the documents.

http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/dow/regulations/hunting.aspx


----------



## bkr43050

By the way I initially wondered about those damage permit numbers but in looking back through all the earlier reports they were consistently increasing all the way up until two years ago. Here are the number for 2002-2010.

Deer Killed by Damage Permits
2002 397
2003 623
2004 811
2005 720
2006 882
2007 1038
2008 1002
2009 1169
2010 619


----------



## M.Magis

I&#8217;m guessing there was a change in personnel at the SWCD around 2002-2003. Those numbers took a big jump, and kept climbing past the point of being outrageous. I&#8217;m pretty sure I heard about them getting much stricter with the guidelines governing the tags, so that may explain the smaller amount last year. Sounds like Knox County may have been the reason for that. 
I checked out the reports but I&#8217;m a little confused. If I understand it right, the total number killed includes, and is primarily deer taken and checked in during regular seasons? The number of out of season permits issued is much, much lower than number of deer taken. Or maybe the number of permits refers to people, not permits?


----------



## bkr43050

I am not sure if I totally understand your question but the way I read the information is like this. The number of deer killed by hunters in 2009/10 for Knox county was 7173 and the number killed on damage permits was 1169. These two added together are 8342. The following year the hunters total was 6336 and the damage permit total was 619 for a total of 6955. I don't believe the damage permit kills are listed at all in the hunter numbers so the two should be added together as I did. The number listed for damage permits refers to the number of farmers who received permits. Their amount of deer on each permit varies. I have heard people talk about farmers with as many as 50. So yes I think that the permits refers to people rather than deer.


----------



## wildman

Yes, the new system has a lot to do with it...* Last year we went back and forth on this. I said that I predict the #'s will be down due to the check in sysyem, and what happened they are down.... *Just like the spring turkey #'s which is when the system started..The same guy's disagreeing with me then are disagreeing now... 

As for deer #'s; I hunted 6 day's the last 2 week's and saw an avg of 10 deer a sitting. day's of 20 an evening and morning were regular. This was at 3 diff property's and county's.
I know that with the high # of tag's issued and heavy hunted areas there are pocket's in Ohio that do have low #'s. That is do to the high # of tag's.. If the tag's stay high expect small public tracks/parks to really suffer...

Maybe it was the corn. last year it was the acorn's the turkeys it was the weather... alway's an excuse...


----------



## Bassnpro1

Can't say the new system had anything to do with it. Last year the numbers were down with the old checkin stations. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## M.Magis

wildman said:


> Yes, the new system has a lot to do with it...* Last year we went back and forth on this. I said that I predict the #'s will be down due to the check in sysyem, and what happened they are down.... *Just like the spring turkey #'s which is when the system started..The same guy's disagreeing with me then are disagreeing now...
> 
> As for deer #'s; I hunted 6 day's the last 2 week's and saw an avg of 10 deer a sitting. day's of 20 an evening and morning were regular. This was at 3 diff property's and county's.
> I know that with the high # of tag's issued and heavy hunted areas there are pocket's in Ohio that do have low #'s. That is do to the high # of tag's.. If the tag's stay high expect small public tracks/parks to really suffer...
> 
> Maybe it was the corn. last year it was the acorn's the turkeys it was the weather... alway's an excuse...


We've all heard your pitiful song and dance before. Take your violin somewhere else. You still cant give a reason for your conspiracy theories, because one doesnt exist. Last year the permanent tag was metal, this year its paper. Thats the only difference, period. Anyone who legally tagged a turkey or deer this year would know that. Maybe youre speaking from first hand experience? If things are so bad, I think the state lines are open.


----------



## M.Magis

bkr43050 said:


> I am not sure if I totally understand your question but the way I read the information is like this. The number of deer killed by hunters in 2009/10 for Knox county was 7173 and the number killed on damage permits was 1169. These two added together are 8342. The following year the hunters total was 6336 and the damage permit total was 619 for a total of 6955. I don't believe the damage permit kills are listed at all in the hunter numbers so the two should be added together as I did. The number listed for damage permits refers to the number of farmers who received permits. Their amount of deer on each permit varies. I have heard people talk about farmers with as many as 50. So yes I think that the permits refers to people rather than deer.


Yes, that's what I was thinking, I just didn't word it well. Farmers getting large numbers are those that are farming thousands of acres. The farmers I get mine from farm hundreds of acres, and get 20 total for the year. It's not much of a dent, but it's something.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Yes, the new system has a lot to do with it...* Last year we went back and forth on this. I said that I predict the #'s will be down due to the check in sysyem, and what happened they are down.... *Just like the spring turkey #'s which is when the system started..The same guy's disagreeing with me then are disagreeing now...
> 
> As for deer #'s; I hunted 6 day's the last 2 week's and saw an avg of 10 deer a sitting. day's of 20 an evening and morning were regular. This was at 3 diff property's and county's.
> I know that with the high # of tag's issued and heavy hunted areas there are pocket's in Ohio that do have low #'s. That is do to the high # of tag's.. If the tag's stay high expect small public tracks/parks to really suffer...
> 
> Maybe it was the corn. last year it was the acorn's the turkeys it was the weather... alway's an excuse...


I guess you can continue to believe your story no matter what we say but you are not going to convince me that the new system had anything to with the situation. My description of the status in our area dates back 2-3 years and the new system was not even in place when the numbers began decreasing. You are saying that you hunted areas with plenty of deer and I too heard a few accounts of the same...but none of those accounts were in my area. Most of them were in areas in the zones with bag limits less than ours. I know a lot of friends who ate tag soup this year and I know them well enough to know that they are not crooks who would try to cheat a tag system. The only way your argument could ever hold water is if the harvest numbers were steady for the years leading up to the new system and then quickly dropped but that just is not the way it is.


----------



## ReelTimeWes

dwmikemx said:


> http://www.ohiodnr.com/home_page/Ne...r-Ohios-2011-12-White-tailed-Deer-Season.aspx
> 
> Above link from another thread.
> It appears that there were 20,000 less deer killed statewide this year compared to last year.
> 
> Harvest numbers actually down? Or do you think with the new online tagging system in place, many deer just went untagged and unreported?
> Well? Whatta ya think?


One huge factor was the monsoon weather on Opening day of gun season. The bad weather kept alot of guys out of the woods and opening day figures for 2011 were down by 15,471. That accounts for most of it. Here's a link.
http://www.peakofohio.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=5&id=14134


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> Yes, the new system has a lot to do with it...* Last year we went back and forth on this. I said that I predict the #'s will be down due to the check in sysyem, and what happened they are down.... *Just like the spring turkey #'s which is when the system started..The same guy's disagreeing with me then are disagreeing now...
> 
> As for deer #'s; I hunted 6 day's the last 2 week's and saw an avg of 10 deer a sitting. day's of 20 an evening and morning were regular. This was at 3 diff property's and county's.
> I know that with the high # of tag's issued and heavy hunted areas there are pocket's in Ohio that do have low #'s. That is do to the high # of tag's.. If the tag's stay high expect small public tracks/parks to really suffer...
> 
> Maybe it was the corn. last year it was the acorn's the turkeys it was the weather... alway's an excuse...


You are so full of crap I can smell it through my laptop.


----------



## wildman

Think what you want... But the #'s are down...

Oh mighty know it all M.Magis I am so sorry. I have given you enough reason's and theories. When I said the #'s would be lower due to the New check in syatem you douted it well the #'s don't lie.


Smell the crap all you want. The #'s are lower Blame it on what ever you want. 

bkr43050 last year the low #'s were due to the bumper acorn crop. That should mean that we should of had 40,000+ more killed if you beleive the acorn theory Which personally I do.


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> Think what you want... But the #'s are down...
> 
> Oh mighty know it all M.Magis I am so sorry. I have given you enough reason's and theories. When I said the #'s would be lower due to the New check in syatem you douted it well the #'s don't lie.
> 
> 
> Smell the crap all you want. The #'s are lower Blame it on what ever you want.
> 
> bkr43050 last year the low #'s were due to the bumper acorn crop. That should mean that we should of had 40,000+ more killed if you beleive the acorn theory Which personally I do.


Strictly from a numbers standpoint wouldn't every county need to show a reduced kill reporting to support your assertion that the reduced numbers are a direct result from the new checking system?

Or do only certain counties (those with increased kills) have honest hunters?


Sorry, but there just aren't any facts (available today) to support your belief


----------



## I_Shock_Em

wildman said:


> Think what you want... But the #'s are down...
> 
> Oh mighty know it all M.Magis I am so sorry. I have given you enough reason's and theories. When I said the #'s would be lower due to the New check in syatem you douted it well the #'s don't lie.
> 
> 
> Smell the crap all you want. The #'s are lower Blame it on what ever you want.
> 
> bkr43050 last year the low #'s were due to the bumper acorn crop. That should mean that we should of had 40,000+ more killed if you beleive the acorn theory Which personally I do.


Everytime over the past season that wildman has commented on this, I think of the teacher from charlie brown......wah wah wah....wah wah wah wah....wah wah wah. Just bite the bullet dude and admit you're full of it


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Think what you want... But the #'s are down...
> 
> Oh mighty know it all M.Magis I am so sorry. I have given you enough reason's and theories. When I said the #'s would be lower due to the New check in syatem you douted it well the #'s don't lie.
> 
> 
> Smell the crap all you want. The #'s are lower Blame it on what ever you want.
> 
> bkr43050 last year the low #'s were due to the bumper acorn crop. That should mean that we should of had 40,000+ more killed if you beleive the acorn theory Which personally I do.


As I said, you can continue to believe your theory but the numbers were down the last few years. One minute you are saying the DNR is clueless with what they do and the next you are willing to drink the kool-aid of the acorn mast theory. 

2008 our county killed 8225 deer by hunters and damage permit kills. Coincidentally that was the first year that we were allowed to take 6 deer in our zone. The following year was 8343 but hen the next two years plummeted to 6955 and 5973. That is a 16% and 14% drop each year. So have we been having bumper acorn crops for 2 or 3 years now? So if the harvest was low because hunters just were not finding for some reason keep in mind that the 16% that didn't get taken that year would not only come back the following year as an extra 16% but probably closer to 30% with the reproduction. So we should have seen plenty of deer in 2009 since we left an extra 16% in the field (by your theory). Instead we killed another 14% less. If we are just overlooking the deer then to those size numbers we would be falling over deer everywhere in the field and I am telling you that is not the case. I am seeing probably less than half the number of deer than what I was seeing about 3-4 years ago. Or am I just to believe that my county alone has dishonest hunters to the point of lying about a couple thousand deer?

Even if I am wrong with my theory of the 6 deer bag limit the fact is that none of this history supports your new tag system conspiracy.

I don't know how much more clear that can be.


----------



## Fish-N-Fool

I recently completed my survey. I also have provided DNR with my opinion that there are more deer than ever in Greene county, but fewer deer in Muskingum county where I hunt. More reason to manage at the county level.....:!

Lundy - my county (Greene) is a perfect example to counter the wildman. Our harvest data suggests there are more deer than ever....and there was no impact from the change in reporting systems. I have argued from the beginning poachers will poach and legal hunters will tag deer. I don't know anybody that up and decided not to tag their deer in 2011....I do know a bunch of happy hunters (me included) that appreciate the convenience of the new system. I even talked with the deer processor I pass and he did good business all the way through the blackpowder season. I asked my taxi about his numbers brought in this year, etc. (I decided to have the old busted up buck I shot Euro mounted) - he took me into the shop and let me see....he actually has MORE large bucks than ever and he's been around for awhile.

Personally I don't buy the corn, acorn or weather theory....hunters kill deer in all conditions and it typically works itself out. I just happen to believe there are less deer in some areas of the state....just like DNR wanted.

And good luck to those that think they will go find a place to hunt in Greene - save your gas money


----------



## M.Magis

Fish-N-Fool said:


> Personally I don't buy the corn, acorn or weather theory....hunters kill deer in all conditions and it typically works itself out. I just happen to believe there are less deer in some areas of the state....just like DNR wanted.


I have no idea the cause(s), but my reduction in deer sightings, Im positive, isnt related to reduced deer numbers. I familiar with the hunting pressure of the surrounding properties, and there are very few deer taken overall, and not nearly enough does. For a while I shot more does per season than all surrounding properties combined, and numbers were almost ridiculously high. In 2010 I blamed the high wind in July and the acorns for the lack of sightings, because the day after that wind storm I went from seeing dozens of deer per night, to zero. Now that the 2011 season was the same, I really dont know what it could be. The bean and alfalfa fields were empty all summer, but most of the bow season I saw normal amounts of deer. November was horrible, but after Thanksgiving things got back to normal. Late season was sporadic, but that was due to the warm weather. The fact that people all over the Midwest reported the same thing, in my mind, eliminates any drastic reduction in the deer population as a reason. 

The day after bow season ended I had 20 deer out in the field by 5pm. 
Maybe they're getting smarter than we think.


----------



## bkr43050

Fish-N-Fool said:


> I recently completed my survey. I also have provided DNR with my opinion that there are more deer than ever in Greene county, but fewer deer in Muskingum county where I hunt. More reason to manage at the county level.....:!


I totally agree with this concept. I know some counties have much denser populations than others despite being in the same zones.


----------



## Fish-N-Fool

Magis - I had read your reports and although I don't know you I know you are on your land so you have a good grasp of the animals there. My comment wasn't that the acorn crop, wind/rain/weather, and standing corn don't effect hunting....I agree they do. I'm just saying it a long season & hunters tend to find the deer. This isn't the first season with standing corn until Jan...or wind...or the first bumper acorn crop. Hunters adapt and travel to where the deer are. And I have shared your observations in some areas I frequently travel through driving for work - I really didn't see any deer there hardly at all and I usualy see quite a few. I started seeing quite a few just the last couple weeks...looks like they are grouped up. I saw at least 10 in a cut corn field around 7pm in the headlights just last Tuesday. All these deer were somewhere during the season.

And I agree with you that many areas there is no lack of deer..even where hunters had spotty success. My area has more than ever. But, there are no doubt fewer deer in the area we hunt in Muskingum...if sightings aren't enough proof the sign in the area is. In our opinion in that specific area we feel there are 50% of the deer that were there 10 years ago. However, that still leaves a lot of deer...we used to see 15-20 per day. The hunting declined enough that we focus more locally.

I don't think the sky is falling...we'll see what next year brings. I think it is clear with the proposed regs DNR beleives there are plenty of deer and they are still encouraging hunters to kill them.


----------



## crittergitter

Fish-N-Fool said:


> I recently completed my survey. I also have provided DNR with my opinion that there are more deer than ever in Greene county, but fewer deer in Muskingum county where I hunt. More reason to manage at the county level.....:!
> 
> Lundy - my county (Greene) is a perfect example to counter the wildman. Our harvest data suggests there are more deer than ever....and there was no impact from the change in reporting systems. I have argued from the beginning poachers will poach and legal hunters will tag deer. I don't know anybody that up and decided not to tag their deer in 2011....I do know a bunch of happy hunters (me included) that appreciate the convenience of the new system. I even talked with the deer processor I pass and he did good business all the way through the blackpowder season. I asked my taxi about his numbers brought in this year, etc. (I decided to have the old busted up buck I shot Euro mounted) - he took me into the shop and let me see....he actually has MORE large bucks than ever and he's been around for awhile.
> 
> Personally I don't buy the corn, acorn or weather theory....hunters kill deer in all conditions and it typically works itself out. I just happen to believe there are less deer in some areas of the state....just like DNR wanted.
> 
> And good luck to those that think they will go *find a place to hunt on private land in a deer rich county* - save your gas money


I fixed it for ya!


----------



## M.Magis

Fish-N-Fool said:


> My comment wasn't that the acorn crop, wind/rain/weather, and standing corn don't effect hunting....I agree they do. I'm just saying it a long season & hunters tend to find the deer.


Yep, I know what you meant. My long winded reply was sort of agreeing with the part that the corn/acorn theory didnt hold water this year. Last year it made sense, this year it really didnt. At the same time, I know that the deer numbers around me haven't changed much. Im not sure what it was, though I still had a very good year in the end.


----------



## Fish-N-Fool

Yep you sort of got it right...it's hard everywhere....it's _almost_ mission impossible in Greene. Took me a heck of a lot of "nos" and "almosts" even through family, etc. But if you work hard enough at it you can find a spot on private ground. And it's hard to buy and unaffordable in my area.....farmland sells for up to 10k an acre to be farmed...20k plus to buy on in many areas where I am hunting. The 105 acre field right across the street sold for $1million last summer...to be farmed!!!!


----------



## jiggin'fool

I kinda think like wildman... now I am not saying that the deer numbers are low strictly because of the new tagging system, but I do believe it contributed. Especially with the possibility of hunters tagging a buck as a doe. I think the old tagging system kept the people who thought about not checking a deer in honest about what they did! I think there are also less people hunting.... might not seem like that on public ground, but do to all the hunting clubs and land leases, guys that have been hunting private land that were told the land was going to be leased are now forced to hunt public land... and some of them stop hunting. and I would say a lot of people didn't get out as much this year cause they had to keep food on the table! A lot of hunters are working middle-class... I know i couldn't afford to drive down south this year where I normally do 80% of my hunting! Lots of different factors play into why the deer numbers are low! More guys passing on smaller bucks in that chance of the big one? I have eaten lots of tags because I didn't want to shoot smaller bucks, even on public ground...Weather? it could be standing corn well into the winter! and maybe there are more honest counties than others.... I know last year DNR out by Kensington found 97 deer off the side of a ravine by the road with nothing but the backstraps cut of of them.... it was 1 mile from where my buddy hunts.... and he said he couldn't believe how the deer disappeared... that is until he heard about that! but I still think the new checking system accounted for some of it! I think some of the people who thought about not checking deer in the past, found it easier not to do so!


----------



## bkr43050

As I have stated several times on this thread the numbers in our county and in many other counties have been going down for the last few years and not just this season. How can that be attributed to a new system that was only in place since last fall??

And the other theories (crops still on, acorn mast, weather, etc.), none of those kill deer which means they do nothing to explain why so many folks are actually not seeing the number of deer now. We have had plenty of opportunities to overcome any of those theoretical factors. We have not had bad weather constantly throughout the entire season. The acorns should be all gone and around my place I can not think of hardly any corps still on.

I am not claiming that the deer are all gone or that the sky is falling but I just don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion than that the deer population is simply less than it was. I am sure some areas don't fall in that category but if you talk to enough hunters in various areas the feedback supports just that. Perhaps this is what the DOW wants. I just am not ready to believe other theories instead of the truth.


----------



## I_Shock_Em

jiggin'fool said:


> I think some of the people who thought about not checking deer in the past, found it easier not to do so!


Regardless of the type of check in system, these people still would not check their deer in. They didn't do it before, so why would they now? The deer that these poachers have killed in years past did not get counted towards yearly totals. The deer that these poachers killed this year did not get counted towards the yearly totals. There is no difference, regardless of the system used to check a deer.


----------



## bkr43050

I_Shock_Em said:


> Regardless of the type of check in system, these people still would not check their deer in. They didn't do it before, so why would they now? The deer that these poachers have killed in years past did not get counted towards yearly totals. The deer that these poachers killed this year did not get counted towards the yearly totals. There is no difference, regardless of the system used to check a deer.


I think his claim is that those people would have checked them in before. I guess one could come to that conclusion. I could also surmise that perhaps the number of deer checked in will go up with the new system because someone who may choose to shoot a deer during archery season with a gun would now feel safer to check it in just so that meat in his freezer had a tag. In prior years he would not take a deer to a checking station that had a bullet hole. I am not suggesting anything with that scenario but simply stating that you could dream up any number of things that may happen but as mentioned before crooks will be crooks regardless of the system in place. So why anyone would want to try and do away with a system that helps so many hunters by its convenience is beyond me.


----------



## viper1

I don't think any one can accurately point it out no more then what the deer are thinking. It's true herd is down. But look at the numbers this herd was all but extinct at one time. ODNR brought them back. I feel the numbers will go up and down. Bug it's a sure thing they want the herd smaller. They say that. Mostly because of complaints on deer. I'm sure all the things mentioned that effects it are true except people not checking them in. Some people will always do it and some own't cant change that with a stop at the check in station. After all once there in the vehicle no matter how you check them what stops them from backing up to a garage and dragging them in. Even with the old check in it was for the honest folks like most things. But We seen and killed plenty this year. It was all mostly later archery though. Gun season sucked and that always brings the numbers down. Just my opinion though,and probably as good as any.


----------



## jiggerman

We saw 85 deer in one day in the Franklin county area. But i have noticed every year less and less hunters. The cost of deer hunting has gone up, those who love the sport will always hunt and those who dont will fizzle out. We have been hunting since the 70's and we will always hunt as long as we have permission. Hunting is more than just killing a deer for some people and i really hope we never destroy the sport because of poor sportsmanship. . My dad is 78 and still hunting, he told me to always ask for permission, because you never know until you ask.I learned a long time what good is a story if you had to poach the deer to get it, it is just a lie and nobody likes a liar.Good luck to everyone in the upcoming season, sure hope it gets here soon.


----------



## vc1111

Years ago, as we were setting record after record, I considered the fact that such matters do not last forever. It is that simple. 

Consider also the fact that say 30 years ago, the numbers were no where near what they are today. Today, in an 'off' year, you will likely see multiples of what you may have seen just a few decades ago.

These are still "the good old days" for hunting whitetails in our beautiful state.


----------



## CapnBob

Follow the money. People in charge of managing the herd (ODNR?) are under a lot of pressure from insurance companies, tired of paying out claims for deer collisions.

That, coupled with the increased amount of "city people" moving out the the country (who then complain about wildlife, and want it gone from their flowers and gardens), puts the pressure on to reduce the herd.

Increased housing development puts more people in the deers neighborhood, the deer adapt, people complain about the nuisance deer.

So, sure, numbers will go down. I agree with others, this is still "the good old days", but we'll have ups and downs, with a general, hopefully slow overall decline in harvest.


----------



## bobk

Just talked to a guy from the odnr in Brown County at a gun shop who said the sale of hunting tags /license was down around 20% statewide. That would certainly count for a drop in the harvest.


----------



## wildman

That's not true look on the ODNR site.

2009 Hunting license 452,723 Deer tag's 624,908

2010 Hunting license 441,124 Deer tag's 609,417

That's not 20%

Makes up for a few but not many. 350,000 un-filled tag's give or take.

Of coarse those are the ones taged...lol 

kind of makes you wonder, do they know the #'s or just finding fake #'s to tell people..


With the sudden boom of bow hunting all the wounded that happens when bow hunting is never taken in account. That would include the ones found a few day's later that spoil that never get checked in. I know of around 8 by other hunters in a smaller Urban area that I hunt. 5 being Buck's. That could be one of the reasons for lack of deer sighting's at least it is in my area's.


----------



## supercanoe

That was a very interesting report, thanks for the link. I never knew that such a report existed. The deer herd was down last year and this year, regardless of the preseason forecast numbers by the ODNR. I can tell you that from 100's of hours of personal obseravtion in a wide area of the best deer habitat in Ohio and from talking to die hard landowner deer hunters over large areas of the state. Most places you go there are less deer. I knew last year and this year that it was down before the seasons ever opened. One person observing more or less deer in one location is too small of a sample size to make any kind of accurate estimate on herd size.
It should be down, that was the goal of the ODNR's increased harvest opportunities. If you look at the harvest data you can see a steadily increasing success rate between the number of tags sold and the number of deer killed since deer hunting began in Ohio. The hunter success rate is now steady at over 40%. If our success rate increases every year and more tags are sold every year, eventually the kill will reach a peak. It's not the end of the world and it's not a conspiracy. We have become a more efficient hunters in the last 20 years due to technology. My muzzle loader is not a primitive weapon any more, and neither is my bow. 

The ODNR is a government organization, so they do have a political agenda as well as a management plan that they must balance. I don't believe a lot of the ODNR explanations for reduced kill numbers. I love a heavy mast crop, I kill more deer when the acorns are abundant. To be successful you must constantly adapt to changes in the natural world. I don't believe the weather excuse, hunting pressure will average itself out between good and bad weather days. 
We all want to see lots of deer when we go out, but there are positives for a reduced herd size as well.


----------



## M.Magis

wildman said:


> With the sudden boom of bow hunting all the wounded that happens when bow hunting is never taken in account. That would include the ones found a few day's later that spoil that never get checked in. I know of around 8 by other hunters in a smaller Urban area that I hunt. 5 being Buck's. That could be one of the reasons for lack of deer sighting's at least it is in my area's.


Now us bowhunters are out there fatally wounding a large numbers of deer, and thats contributing? Wow, we learn something new from you every time you post.  
And theres a sudden boom in bowhunting popularity? Bowhunting has been very popular for a long time and nothing has changed in that regard. Really, you cant seem to make up your mind. Are the numbers down, or is the new system to blame? It cant really be both. Could someone also explain to me why the numbers were down this year all over the country, not just Ohio? Id have been one of the first agree back in November that numbers were different, but its clear now that there are just as many as ever. I can look out my window most evenings and see 20-30 deer. I dont know where they were, but they are there now.


----------



## wildman

I was wrong the #'s I posted were 2009 and 2010 I forgot that it is now 2012 LOL. They have not posted the 2011 yet so I apoligize. The ODNR guy that you talked to may be right. My Bad.....


Traditionaly the heavy mast crop bring's less deer kill's it is soomething that has gone on for year's. That is why I buy into last years lower #'s. And you are right you have to constantly adapt to changes..

This year I have my own opinion's which I have stated already that others don't buy into. I personaly have only seen lower #'s at my urban property which is due to the urban tag's added with 6 deer limit. thats 12 deer that can be killed. If you have a few guy's that hunt just that area and a few more that may kill a few there also. Well you get why the Urban #'s are lacking

The other 3 of 4 property's that I hunt It is nothing to see 10 to 20 deer with 4 to 5 a sitting shootable with a doe..

The last property, I see a few a sitting and they are all buck's. I don't know whats up with that other than high # of doe tag's..


----------



## wildman

Over the last 5 or so years Bow hunting has kind of boomed/grown. 

As the ODNR uses certain types of data like car ac., farm permitts, and harvest #'s all I am saying is Bow hunting and gun hunting deer get wounded and those # are not counted. Many more people are hunting with a bow more than ever. Most people would rather hunt with a bow. I know for a fact that now a day's bow hunters wound more deer than gun's. (some may disagree) Go to Wayne national forest during rut and during gun. There are more hunters in the area that I hunt during Rut hunting with a bow then gun. 

You can argue with me all you want Magis I really don't care.


As for the new system, You guy's must get together and Smoke up with Magis on some of his county Gold..... Someone else agrees and you bash him... Rediculous... Nieve is all I have to say... Take the human factor out of checking thing's in then it will get taken advantage of much more than it was before!!!!


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> With the sudden boom of bow hunting all the wounded that happens when bow hunting is never taken in account. That would include the ones found a few day's later that spoil that never get checked in. I know of around 8 by other hunters in a smaller Urban area that I hunt. 5 being Buck's. That could be one of the reasons for lack of deer sighting's at least it is in my area's.


I have no proof at all but would have to believe that way more deer get injured by gun hunters than bow hunters.Most of my friends are bowhunters and I find them to be much more critical of the shot they take over the lead slinging orange army I see and hear each year. In gun season when I hear one shot I usually tell myself there is a dead deer. When I hear the 3-5 shots I tell myself there goes another wounded deer.


----------



## wildman

bobk said:


> I have no proof at all but would have to believe that way more deer get injured by gun hunters than bow hunters.Most of my friends are bowhunters and I find them to be much more critical of the shot they take over the lead slinging orange army I see and hear each year. In gun season when I hear one shot I usually tell myself there is a dead deer. When I hear the 3-5 shots I tell myself there goes another wounded deer.


I agree that gun hunters wound deer, without a doubt they do...

I am a big time bow hunter and I agree that most take quality shoot's as do I. I shoot in 3-D leagues and talk to a lot of bow hunter's and was amazed by the #'s of wounded deer weather it was a doe of a buck. I am not knocking bow hunters at all. Branches, hitting a shoulder, or gut shot and so on. One guy that hunt's up the creak, wounded 4 by himself this year. (I can't stand that guy) A guy down the creak wounded 3. (he hunts 2 ac) I could go on and on nameing guy's that had told me that they wounded one or two. I am sure that on online here very few have wounded any.LOL really before this year, gun or bow I have only wounded 4 in 25 year's of hunting. 

It happens. I wounded a 145 to 150inch Buck this year. We hunted for him for 3 day's. I just wish I had gotten my dog before I trampled the wood's I will not make that mistake again. 

Look at the bow kill's compared to gun kill's. There are alot of bow hunter's now a day's..

My point is that the ODNR can't take in account for those #'s like they can with the other data out there. I would be willin to bet that the #'s would be a lot higher than most would think.

Ps. May be a lot of the deer wounded may not of died. They are very tough animal's.


----------



## M.Magis

wildman said:


> My point is that the ODNR can't take in account for those #'s like they can with the other data out there. I would be willin to bet that the #'s would be a lot higher than most would think.
> .


No one is arguing that. It's true and it's always been true. Deer also die of disease, cars, predators, injury, etc. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking we know something that wildlife biologists dont. They know a lot more than most of us, including exactly what factors are taken into account. I promise, harvest numbers arent the only factor.


----------



## I_Shock_Em

..........


----------



## JohnD

bkr43050, you are dead on with your observations. I am 10 miles west of Mt. Vernon and I and others in my area experience the same things.

I have been an avid bowhunter since the mid sixties when there weren't any deer around here. I and everyone I know can attest to the deer population slowly decreasing over the past few years.

As far as crops being on causing the kill to be down? none were still standing in my area by gun season and the guys that gun hunt around here see the same decrease in deer numbers.

As far acorn mast having an effect, It can have effect in areas but not statewide. Acorn mast is usually spoty. Have seen few acorns here at times and lots of them 15 miles away. Same way with apple crops. I had very few apples this year and a friend 6 miles away had a bumper crop.


----------



## wildman

wildman said:


> Yes, the new system has a lot to do with it...* Last year we went back and forth on this. I said that I predict the #'s will be down due to the check in sysyem, and what happened they are down.... *Just like the spring turkey #'s which is when the system started..The same guy's disagreeing with me then are disagreeing now...
> 
> As for deer #'s; I hunted 6 day's the last 2 week's and saw an avg of 10 deer a sitting. day's of 20 an evening and morning were regular. This was at 3 diff property's and county's.
> I know that with the high # of tag's issued and heavy hunted areas there are pocket's in Ohio that do have low #'s. That is do to the high # of tag's.. If the tag's stay high expect small public tracks/parks to really suffer...
> 
> Maybe it was the corn. last year it was the acorn's the turkeys it was the weather... alway's an excuse...


This post was from last year. and the year before I posted lower #'s partly/mostly due to the new check in system. And again with the perfect hunting weather our #'s will be down again for 2012.. I again wish that we would do away with the new check-in system!!!!! 2013 deer #'s will be even lower, if that is possible. 

It is hard to manage the herd with incorrect data. Not to mention lowering the deer #'s has been the ODNR's plan for the last 5+years.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> This post was from last year. and the year before I posted lower #'s partly/mostly due to the new check in system. And again with the perfect hunting weather our #'s will be down again for 2012.. I again wish that we would do away with the new check-in system!!!!! 2013 deer #'s will be even lower, if that is possible.
> 
> It is hard to manage the herd with incorrect data. Not to mention lowering the deer #'s has been the ODNR's plan for the last 5+years.


I think you are are completely off on this theory. The declining numbers began before the new checking system for many areas. Ours in Knox county began shortly after that start of the 6 tag system. The problem is not that the totals are not showing higher numbers. There just are fewer deer out there. Period.

I have spoken to plenty of hunters in my area and the consensus is that they are not seeing as many deer. Many are shooting fewer deer as well. The checking system has nothing to do with that. Any guys that you are citing that are violating the new system would have been too lazy, ignorant, etc. to follow the system that was in place previously with the tags. I am sure there were some guys that cheated the system in years past and there are now. I just don't see that as a contributing factor to the current status of the herd. I feel that the declining herd is due to the large bag limits along with the coyote predation in some areas.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> 2013 deer #'s will be even lower, if that is possible.


This I will agree with. With the current limits the numbers have declined in each of the past few years. There is no reason to doubt that they will continue to do the same until they lower the limits once again.


----------



## M.Magis

wildman said:


> This post was from last year. and the year before I posted lower #'s partly/mostly due to the new check in system. And again with the perfect hunting weather our #'s will be down again for 2012.. I again wish that we would do away with the new check-in system!!!!! 2013 deer #'s will be even lower, if that is possible.
> 
> It is hard to manage the herd with incorrect data. Not to mention lowering the deer #'s has been the ODNR's plan for the last 5+years.


Dont hurt yourself patting your own back.  Seeing how they did away with bonus antlerless tags for gun season, it didnt take a genius to figure out numbers would drop a little. That was the intent. You forgot to mention how the early archery season numbers were up? How desperate for attention does someone have to be to bring up a 10 month old post to show everyone they were right? Especially when it doesnt.


----------



## wildman

Ha Ha Ha I thought I was reading Your post Magis and I thought man this doesn't sound like Magis post. Well I wasn't it was bkr43050. It wasn't your normal attack post that I am use to..........Then I read yours and it sound just like your normal crappy attack post that I am use to reading...


bkr43050, I agree with some of your post, a lot of it. But I am certain that the "cheating' is more prevalent than ever before. It is not the lazy ignorant, etc. It is the guys that are cheap and what to harvest more deer than allowed.. IMO It adds a certain # of deer kills that are not recorded.. I to have seen a large drop in the does that I have seen this year. Deer sitings were a little lower than in years before.. Mostly just my Urban areas where the deer kill can be 12 a year per person. My other ares seem very good.


Magis, I am so desperate for attention... Really I just missed your sweet post... Your like a fish that took the bait..LOL I wondered how long it would take you to respond... Not long at all. LOL

Honestly I was just stating What I had said 2 years ago... When people disagreed that the #'s would be lower. Again the new system IMO has 60% to do with the lower #'s along with the higher bag limit's...


----------



## M.Magis

wildman said:


> Honestly I was just stating What I had said 2 years ago... When people disagreed that the #'s would be lower. Again the new system IMO has 60% to do with the lower #'s along with the higher bag limit's...


Higher bag limits? I think your tin foil hat is on too tight.


----------



## wildman

bkr43050 You are only down 126 deer for your county as of the first 72 day's

2nd highest Button buck kills. Ouch


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Honestly I was just stating What I had said 2 years ago... When people disagreed that the #'s would be lower. Again the new system IMO has 60% to do with the lower #'s along with the higher bag limit's...


60%?? You are kidding right?? You sure are throwing a lot of folks under the bus on that one. So since our numbers have dropped off by 40,000 (or more) then we have 25,000 deer mysteriously poached? No wait. 25,000 MORE deer poached than in previous years because we all know that there were some folks who failed to tag deer in the past as well. I am curious as to where your 60% number came from. Is that where the dart landed on the board? Or is there some sort of a research that you found to support this? As Mike said, you have stated since way back that you didn't like the new tagging system and have been in the minority with your view. You are free to believe what you want but I think you are doing nothing to support your view with your argument on the matter.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> bkr43050 You are only down 126 deer for your county as of the first 72 day's
> 
> 2nd highest Button buck kills. Ouch


After you factor in the 36% less harvested on the bonus weekend that puts the total at somewhere around 8% drop. That is comparing to last year's numbers which are already around 30% lower than just 3 years ago.

And killing button bucks does nothing to slow the harvest numbers...other than perhaps preserve more deer for the next year by saving a doe.Perhaps not the best for trophy hunters but a doe left in the field is much better for the herd numbers than a button buck.


----------



## viper1

Originally Posted by wildman 
Honestly I was just stating What I had said 2 years ago... When people disagreed that the #'s would be lower. Again the new system IMO has 60% to do with the lower #'s along with the higher bag limit's..

60% low life's? I admit we always have poaching. But I know an awful lot of hunters and know one willing to risk the punishment to take extra deer. Especially when the limits are so high now. Usually find the ones that say that are just justifying their own actions. So do you poach! 
I personally like the new system and see no reason why it would increase poaching. If a man will break the law he'll do it no matter what. On the other hand most the hunter I know are good men. And rarely take their hunting limits even though they can. Controlling wildlife is something we should help with not rely on the ODNR to say your killing to many. As grownups we should control our own actions when we know something is wrong.I feel sad for you and hope you get a better out look on things.


----------



## 9Left

I_Shock_Em said:


> ..........


....thats funny!


----------



## wildman

Yea yea yea... Ok the 60% is a little high... it could be 40% I know and have been trying to catch a guy that kills 20+ deer a year around my urban land. he only tags in one or two... 5 miles from my house a boy was caught poaching a month or so ago. He had 35+ racks one in the 180's and several in the 150's.. He is 17 so we will see how it unfolds.. I sometimes get wind of other poachers. The guy up the creak on urban land I know for a fact shot a big 6 and didn't tag it and has since killed others.. Yes I gave the info to our GW. 

I am trying to gather more info on the first guy I mentioned but it is hard when you have a job and he doesn't.. I had the battery's and chip stolen when I set up a cam on a known trail that he doesn't have permission to hunt.. He has .75ac's but hunts and rides his quad any and everywhere.. Yes I have shown the pic's to the police. I had to practicly drag the officer down the hill. Then I showed the officer the blood and quad tracks where he shot it off his property.. In a wealthy area that is rank top 5 in Cincy the officers want to keep the cited crime to a min. Thats the only thing I can think of.. 

There are more poachers than you think.. At the archery shop a guy came in and told us that he had shot 3 bucks last year when he left I asked if this happens a lot he said not a lot but on occation's.... I could go on an on.. Locals in the nelsonville area one local guy that I kind of know told me that they shoot a deer a day during the season. I said why he said I feed my family, Uncles cousin's and so on. Trust me I believe him.. I don't know could it be 60% maybe.. Just off what I have stated thats 35+ deer in Clermont county.. 21+ in hamilton county, and as many as the guy in nelsonville has killed in a season.. I didn't see him this year or last, that was 2 years ago.. add that to the ones that I don't know of and the #'s get kind of high..

Viper... If we only lived in that perfect world.. The people I hunt with are great people. It is the other ones that are just shady..


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Yea yea yea... Ok the 60% is a little high... it could be 40% I know and have been trying to catch a guy that kills 20+ deer a year around my urban land. he only tags in one or two... 5 miles from my house a boy was caught poaching a month or so ago. He had 35+ racks one in the 180's and several in the 150's.. He is 17 so we will see how it unfolds.. I sometimes get wind of other poachers. The guy up the creak on urban land I know for a fact shot a big 6 and didn't tag it and has since killed others.. Yes I gave the info to our GW.
> 
> I am trying to gather more info on the first guy I mentioned but it is hard when you have a job and he doesn't.. I had the battery's and chip stolen when I set up a cam on a known trail that he doesn't have permission to hunt.. He has .75ac's but hunts and rides his quad any and everywhere.. Yes I have shown the pic's to the police. I had to practicly drag the officer down the hill. Then I showed the officer the blood and quad tracks where he shot it off his property.. In a wealthy area that is rank top 5 in Cincy the officers want to keep the cited crime to a min. Thats the only thing I can think of..
> 
> There are more poachers than you think.. At the archery shop a guy came in and told us that he had shot 3 bucks last year when he left I asked if this happens a lot he said not a lot but on occation's.... I could go on an on.. Locals in the nelsonville area one local guy that I kind of know told me that they shoot a deer a day during the season. I said why he said I feed my family, Uncles cousin's and so on. Trust me I believe him.. I don't know could it be 60% maybe.. Just off what I have stated thats 35+ deer in Clermont county.. 21+ in hamilton county, and as many as the guy in nelsonville has killed in a season.. I didn't see him this year or last, that was 2 years ago.. add that to the ones that I don't know of and the #'s get kind of high..
> 
> Viper... If we only lived in that perfect world.. The people I hunt with are great people. It is the other ones that are just shady..


And all of these people just started becoming criminals a couple of years ago when the the state enabled them?? Interesting.


----------



## wildman

No but the the new system makes it easier to brake the law.... or shall i say easier not to get caught. It is what it is
I just think it is crazy that there are people that just dont see it.....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## viper1

wildman said:


> No but the the new system makes it easier to brake the law.... or shall i say easier not to get caught. It is what it is
> I just think it is crazy that there are people that just dont see it.....
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


how does it?


----------



## wildman

If you dont know then i am sure you won't get it even if I explained it any further. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## viper1

wildman said:


> If you dont know then i am sure you won't get it even if I explained it any further.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


LOL! You are funny, weird but funny! LOL!


----------



## sam kegg

i think they need to move the date of gun back one week.


----------



## bkr43050

sam kegg said:


> i think they need to move the date of gun back one week.


I am not sure what your reasoning is for this? Are you saying that the does would benefit from a later gun week? I don't think it is a major problem with the time it is is. It has been that way for decades and the herd has flourished despite having a large harvest of deer just after Thanksgiving. I even think that gun week is far less pressure on the deer anymore than it used to be, at least around our place. The archery numbers have skyrocketed over that last decade and thus fewer people are out during gun week trying to fill tags.


----------



## wildman

bkr43050 at least we agree on something's. Yea, there is no need to move it... I would like to see youth moved earlier away from rut..
Gun week is nothing like it was in the early 80's and early 90's


----------



## viper1

bkr43050 said:


> I am not sure what your reasoning is for this? Are you saying that the does would benefit from a later gun week? I don't think it is a major problem with the time it is is. It has been that way for decades and the herd has flourished despite having a large harvest of deer just after Thanksgiving. I even think that gun week is far less pressure on the deer anymore than it used to be, at least around our place. The archery numbers have skyrocketed over that last decade and thus fewer people are out during gun week trying to fill tags.


Well really me either... well till a couple weeks ago ! Was out back and I have two Does with fawns. Don't ever remember them being this early. I do remember killing some during season with babies inside. So maybe a week or two earlier would be better. Don't really understand it unless its because of the weather. It has been getting warmer in the winter and things ae drying up as far a s water goes. And I know the wild creatures tend to do things by temperature and moon cycles mostly. 
Problem is that would move it out of the rut here. And its during rut that most the larger bucks are killed.
I know one thing.... as soon as I seen them fawns all hunting has stopped in my area! Me or none of my neighbors want to cut our own throats. We would much rather shot a small buck then a doe and defiantly no doe with babies.


----------



## wildman

Is that because of the low doe numbers as of late?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## bkr43050

viper1 said:


> Well really me either... well till a couple weeks ago ! Was out back and I have two Does with fawns. Don't ever remember them being this early. I do remember killing some during season with babies inside. So maybe a week or two earlier would be better. Don't really understand it unless its because of the weather. It has been getting warmer in the winter and things ae drying up as far a s water goes. And I know the wild creatures tend to do things by temperature and moon cycles mostly.
> Problem is that would move it out of the rut here. And its during rut that most the larger bucks are killed.
> I know one thing.... as soon as I seen them fawns all hunting has stopped in my area! Me or none of my neighbors want to cut our own throats. We would much rather shot a small buck then a doe and defiantly no doe with babies.


I am sorry but you lost me on this. I don't know what babies you are referring to. Are you implying that you saw fawns with does recently that you suspected were this year's babies? If so, I would say you are mistaken on that. If any looked small at this point then they are likely just late-born last spring as a result of a late-bred doe last year. If you kill any does during the season with babies in them it was from the breeding done this fall. Most of the does would be only a 1.5 months into the pregnancy at this point so you would have to search pretty hard to notice the baby. You can notice them considerably by out in January though.

I don't think anything we do as hunters is going to move the rut. The most we could accomplish would be either kill deer before breeding or perhaps disrupt them to a point that they miss a cycle and get bred a month later. I don't know if that is where you were going or not?


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> I would like to see youth moved earlier away from rut..


My area had such low hunting pressure during the youth hunt that I doubt that it had much of an effect on the breeding deer, at least no more than the presence of archers during the same time period.


----------



## viper1

wildman said:


> Is that because of the low doe numbers as of late?
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Not sure what or who your referring or speaking to.


----------



## viper1

bkr43050 said:


> I am sorry but you lost me on this. I don't know what babies you are referring to. Are you implying that you saw fawns with does recently that you suspected were this year's babies? If so, I would say you are mistaken on that. If any looked small at this point then they are likely just late-born last spring as a result of a late-bred doe last year. If you kill any does during the season with babies in them it was from the breeding done this fall. Most of the does would be only a 1.5 months into the pregnancy at this point so you would have to search pretty hard to notice the baby. You can notice them considerably by out in January though.
> 
> I don't think anything we do as hunters is going to move the rut. The most we could accomplish would be either kill deer before breeding or perhaps disrupt them to a point that they miss a cycle and get bred a month later. I don't know if that is where you were going or not?


Well what i said is i saw newborn fawns. And yes I am well aware of breeding cycles. These broke the rule and their not from fall either. I know you cant change the rut But you can change the season. The way and how much I hunt really doesn't matter to me what they do. With in reason. Just thought them fawns were real weird as i said, In 60 years I haven't seen this!


----------



## wildman

viper1 said:


> Well really me either... well till a couple weeks ago ! Was out back and I have two Does with fawns. Don't ever remember them being this early. I do remember killing some during season with babies inside. So maybe a week or two earlier would be better. Don't really understand it unless its because of the weather. It has been getting warmer in the winter and things ae drying up as far a s water goes. And I know the wild creatures tend to do things by temperature and moon cycles mostly.
> Problem is that would move it out of the rut here. And its during rut that most the larger bucks are killed.
> I know one thing.... as soon as I seen them fawns all hunting has stopped in my area! *Me or none of my neighbors want to cut our own throats. We would much rather shot a small buck then a doe and defiantly no doe with babies.*



Is that because of the low doe numbers as of late?


----------



## crappiedude

viper1 said:


> Well what i said is i saw newborn fawns. And yes I am well aware of breeding cycles. These broke the rule and their not from fall either. I know you cant change the rut But you can change the season. The way and how much I hunt really doesn't matter to me what they do. With in reason. Just thought them fawns were real weird as i said, In 60 years I haven't seen this!


I don't agree with Viper much on the effect of coyotes on the wildlife in Ohio. I know what I've seen and maybe in his area it's different but I seriously doubt it.

With that said, I will say I can vouch for the presence of newborn fawns that I've seen myself in mid September. It wasn't in Ohio but it was in WV. In Ohio I once saw a buck in March (yes he still had antlers) and he looked to be chasing a doe. I thought it was weird but when I saw that fawn years later, I remembered that buck and it made sense.
It's not common but it is possible.


----------



## wildman

bkr43050 said:


> My area had such low hunting pressure during the youth hunt that I doubt that it had much of an effect on the breeding deer, at least no more than the presence of archers during the same time period.


I would like to see Youth season around Oct 20th... Weather is warm hunt the food and chase instead of the rut.. spreads out the gun season's.. Muzzy would be nice if it was around the end of Nov... To many big buck's get killed without antlers.. Or one.


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> Muzzy would be nice if it was around the end of Nov... To many big buck's get killed without antlers.. Or one.


Does it really matter when a buck gets killed and tagged as antlerless?

2011 - This year, there were 25,836 button bucks harvested. Statewide, button bucks accounted for 18% of the entire antlerless harvest. 

It doesn't hurt a thing if some drop bucks get killed during the MZ season. In fact it helps the overall population the following year.

If someone ends up shooting one of their personal mature target bucks because they mistake them for a doe, well too bad for them, they need to indentify their target better
Bet they wouldn't make that mistake twice


----------



## wildman

Lundy said:


> Does it really matter when a buck gets killed and tagged as antlerless?
> 
> 2011 - This year, there were 25,836 button bucks harvested. Statewide, button bucks accounted for 18% of the entire antlerless harvest.
> 
> It doesn't hurt a thing if some drop bucks get killed during the MZ season. In fact it helps the overall population the following year.
> 
> If someone ends up shooting one of their personal mature target bucks because they mistake them for a doe, well too bad for them, they need to indentify their target better
> Bet they wouldn't make that mistake twice


IMO this post is just wrong.. Wrong Wrong..... To bad for them? indentify their target better.........The season is just to late.. You are the only person that I have seen with this type of attitude..... Hell most everyone that I know think it is to late in the season... If a buck gets dropped it would be nice if he had antlers... 

I am sure that I am wrong about that.....


----------



## Lundy

Wildman,

Is is great the we agree on something. We both agree that each other is wrong

The deer season and harvest is not all about antlers contrary to what the TV hunting shows or you would have me believe.

Is killing a doe or a drop buck somehow less noble than killing a deer with antlers to you?

If you share the concern about the population reduction wouldn't you rather have male deer killed, antlers or not?

If all button bucks killed in 2011 and tagged antlerless were replaced with does that would be a potential reduction in population the following year of 65,000- 75,000 deer.

The killing of a buck, when ever it is done really has two impacts. The first is not a concern at all from a statewide perspective unless you are the ODNR and want the does killed to continue the population reduction plan. The second concern is very local to a hunter that is removing a buck from his hunting property. If he is concerned about removing a buck he won't shoot a drop buck by mistake.

Me and my group have hunted the same property for over 25 years. During that time the MZ season has been where it is now in January, moved to between the holidays and now moved back into January. Never once have we shot a drop buck mistaking it for a doe.

By the way I saw a complete drop buck on Sunday of the 2 day gun season and also a 1/2 rack. We better move the gun seasons earlier


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> IMO this post is just wrong.. Wrong Wrong..... To bad for them? indentify their target better.........The season is just to late.. You are the only person that I have seen with this type of attitude..... Hell most everyone that I know think it is to late in the season... If a buck gets dropped it would be nice if he had antlers...
> 
> I am sure that I am wrong about that.....


Yep you are wrong. Learn your target. They make binoculars so you can identify what you shoot. It's just being responsible when hunting. I look foward to muzzy season more than gun. Many of my friends feel the same way. So I guess Lundy isn't the only one with this type of attitude.


----------



## bkr43050

I agree with Lundy and Bob as well. Sure if you like chasing the trophy then having him mistaken for a doe in late season, by you or any other hunter in the area, then that may be a concern. But as the other guys explained it really does nothing to the herd other than take one deer from the herd which is the same effect as when he carried the antlers. I would think that if someone is really that concerned about trophy hunting they would most likely be taking care to observe the deer they are shooting well enough to eliminate the suspicion of a dropped buck. As far as the other hunters in the area? You have no control over them...just the same as you had no control over them during the season to prevent them from shooting it before you get a chance.


----------



## M.Magis

Surprise, surprise. I think you&#8217;re wrong too. It&#8217;s hard to make your argument when we already have proof you&#8217;re wrong. We&#8217;ve had a late muzzleloader season for decades. The herd steadily, and rapidly, increased during most of that time. As did Ohio&#8217;s reputation for one of the healthiest herds in the country. The herd isn&#8217;t going to fall apart now just like it hasn&#8217;t for the last 30 years. You need to sit back and realize that biologists might actually be smarter than you when it comes to game management. That&#8217;s what they do. 
As I think was already mentioned, you need to worry about what you do and quit worrying about everyone else. They're entitled to shoot whatever they want as long as they have the tag for it.


----------



## crappiedude

wildman said:


> IMO this post is just wrong.. Wrong Wrong..... To bad for them? indentify their target better.........The season is just to late.. *You are the only person that I have seen with this type of attitude.....* Hell most everyone that I know think it is to late in the season... If a buck gets dropped it would be nice if he had antlers...
> 
> I am sure that I am wrong about that.....


and now you know another guy who agrees with Lundy on this and I agree with him on most of his other posts as well.

To some guys it's not about the deer they killed but only about the antlers I got. I got to admit, the antler's aren't my driving force in hunting. I know guys who kill deer and give the meat away, they only want the head so I guess it goes both ways.
Same as catching a fish either pre or post spawn. It's the same fish.


----------



## viper1

Killing a large buck with no horns is wrong? Simple fact is that you cant eat horns. I hunt for meat not to kill a trophy. I have two I did that's plenty. But the truth is a young buck can take care of as many does as an older one. I worry more about killing to many doe's. Each doe knocks 2-3 deer from next years total. Kill a buck and its only one. So 50,000 does killed this year means 150,000 lost from next year.
But I have faith in ODNR as I know quite a few of them. They are all biggest part sportsman too! When it comes down to it they take care of doing a good job of managing the herd. Thank them you even have a herd to argue about. Personally all we can do is each take what they think is right,up to the limit of coarse. Don't spend your time worrying about others. If you think its getting too small in your area well manage it. Stop shooting there for a while.
But if they law says their entitled to shoot 6 and they do. You have no right to complain. Simply do something, change the laws you disagree with. It happens every day and is done by every day citizens.


----------



## vc1111

I'm curious about how you can be certain that bow hunting is "booming." Is this based upon some type of documentation or just conversations? 

If there is an increase at all, it may be an anomaly. But how can one prove it even exists?


----------



## Lundy

vc1111 said:


> I'm curious about how you can be certain that bow hunting is "booming." Is this based upon some type of documentation or just conversations?
> 
> If there is an increase at all, it may be an anomaly. But how can one prove it even exists?


Are you asking about the archery harvest to date this year or historical harvest increases in archery harvest over the last 10 years?


----------



## vc1111

I should have clarified that the question was for wildman. He refers to an increase in bow hunting. Is that based upon the number of tags filled? If so, how can one determine that more bow hunters are in the field as opposed to each hunter having a higher success rate?

Just curious really.

Interesting thread.


----------



## wildman

Lundy said:


> Wildman,
> 
> Is is great the we agree on something. We both agree that each other is wrong
> 
> The deer season and harvest is not all about antlers contrary to what the TV hunting shows or you would have me believe.
> 
> Is killing a doe or a drop buck somehow less noble than killing a deer with antlers to you?
> 
> If you share the concern about the population reduction wouldn't you rather have male deer killed, antlers or not?
> 
> If all button bucks killed in 2011 and tagged antlerless were replaced with does that would be a potential reduction in population the following year of 65,000- 75,000 deer.
> 
> The killing of a buck, when ever it is done really has two impacts. The first is not a concern at all from a statewide perspective unless you are the ODNR and want the does killed to continue the population reduction plan. The second concern is very local to a hunter that is removing a buck from his hunting property. If he is concerned about removing a buck he won't shoot a drop buck by mistake.
> 
> Me and my group have hunted the same property for over 25 years. During that time the MZ season has been where it is now in January, moved to between the holidays and now moved back into January. Never once have we shot a drop buck mistaking it for a doe.
> 
> By the way I saw a complete drop buck on Sunday of the 2 day gun season and also a 1/2 rack. We better move the gun seasons earlier


Like alway's it is the same people pulling the same crap... It's no wonder why the hunting section hardly ever gets posted on but other site are full of post and threads.. I wonder why? LOL

I have been hunting the same property since 1985. I agree that getting a good look at the deer that you are shooting at during late season should get a second look but really. The chances of a deer dropping there antlers in mid Jan. are much greater than any other part of the season.. Seeing a deer that has lost there antlers during gun season is fairly rare and most likely caused by something else other than a natural ocurance. I think it's great that you and your group of hunters are as careful as you are double and triple checking deer before you shoot them but there are many out there that are not as careful with what they shoot.. Which is why I raise the question about the timing of the late Muzzy season. It seems to me that you see it as if I don't do this then nobody else does..Which in my opinion is the wrong way to look at thing's..

As for the question that you raise about if it is "less noble" killing a doe than a buck. Are you killing me..LOL I find it quite a acomplishment to kill any mature deer and even more so if it is a nice buck.. I can kill a doe most any time I feel the need to. My 2 of my propertys are holding a bunch of doe's. I have killed my buck for the year (and it was a nice one), it was on public land. I find that anytime I shoot a nice buck on public to quite a feat. Noble? I think that term would be more fit for another topic.

A smaller herd is a healthier herd. The deer in the 70's and 80's were much heathier than they are now.. antler size has gone down in size as the size of the deer. That is a fact. with that being said. I have no control of what the ODNR goals are. They set the bag limits for the year. Many hunters are not as in tune to there propertys as other hunters maybe, there for they shoot what ever amout that they are legal to shoot. Some people just shoot what ever they want (poach) for more selfish reason's...


----------



## wildman

Here are the archery #'s since 2002




Harvest #

2002 48,841
2003 50,564
2004 62,626
2005 60,090
2006 67,912
2007 78,639
2008 85,856
2009 91,546
2010 85,012
2011 82,732


Yea, there is a boom in bow hunting..


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Here are the archery #'s since 2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harvest #
> 
> 2002 48,841
> 2003 50,564
> 2004 62,626
> 2005 60,090
> 2006 67,912
> 2007 78,639
> 2008 85,856
> 2009 91,546
> 2010 85,012
> 2011 82,732
> 
> 
> Yea, there is a boom in bow hunting..


Without a doubt there is a boom in recent years in archery harvests which seems to be largely offset by the lower gun totals.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> Like alway's it is the same people pulling the same crap... It's no wonder why the hunting section hardly ever gets posted on but other site are full of post and threads.. I wonder why? LOL


So apparently anyone who opposes your view is considered confrontational and attacking?? The world is made up of a lot of types and they don't all have to conform to your guidelines. The views that me, Kim, and others have stated is not one radical. I venture to guess that it parallels many folks views on the matter. Just as some may side with you.


----------



## bkr43050

wildman said:


> A smaller herd is a healthier herd. The deer in the 70's and 80's were much heathier than they are now.. antler size has gone down in size as the size of the deer. That is a fact. with that being said. I have no control of what the ODNR goals are. They set the bag limits for the year. Many hunters are not as in tune to there propertys as other hunters maybe, there for they shoot what ever amout that they are legal to shoot. Some people just shoot what ever they want (poach) for more selfish reason's...


I agree that for the most part a smaller herd is a healthier herd but I don't really see where Ohio's current herd is decreasing in quality. Plenty of trophies are being taken every year. As far as the size of the deer itself? I have no idea there either but again I see plenty of large bodied deer every. Is there any evidence to support this theory?


----------



## wildman

IMO, the old timers on here are very quick to gang up and try to crucify anyone that has diffent opinions than them. Which makes for more arguing than conversation....



Yes, there is evidence of it I would have to find it. But MREX on Ohiosportsman.com posted it a year or so ago.. I to find it a little hard to believe with the deer I see but his data is usually spot on and has the facts/studies to back it.. With a degree in Fish and Wildlife management it make very good scense.


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> IMO, the old timers on here are very quick to gang up and try to crucify anyone that has diffent opinions than them. Which makes for more arguing than conversation....


I read some of your posts on other sites.

If someone agrees with you it is "conversation" if anyone anywhere, and there are a bunch, it is not just isolated to here, disagrees with you it is "arguing"

I'm glad we could have this conversation together


----------



## bobk

Lundy said:


> I read some of your posts on other sites.
> 
> If someone agrees with you it is "conversation" if anyone anywhere, and there are a bunch, it is not just isolated to here, disagrees with you it is "arguing"
> 
> I'm glad we could have this conversation together


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## wildman

Lundy said:


> I read some of your posts on other sites.
> 
> If someone agrees with you it is "conversation" if anyone anywhere, and there are a bunch, it is not just isolated to here, disagrees with you it is "arguing"
> 
> I'm glad we could have this conversation together




I disagree in a cooth manor, without name calling.. Again on here if someone disagree's on here there are 4 or 5 people usually the same people that slam the door on any other type of thinking thought's or theory's.. It get's very old, very quickly.. Again perhap's that is why the hunting section on here is less used by many. We live in a free thinking society. We will always have disagreements.. I have no problem with that and hope to learn from them when it worth learning...


----------



## bkr43050

I really am not sure how active our hunting area is in comparison to others since I don't bother going to the other sites. I do know that I looked right now and there were 40 people viewing the hunting forums at this time and over 60 threads active within the last week. That seems pretty active to me.

I would be interested in reading the research that you referred to pertaining to our deer herds.


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> I disagree in a cooth manor,QUOTE]
> 
> You mean like this?........... You need to get over yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, WHY? Shotguns can shoot 200yd's Muzzys 200yd's now rifles with pistol cart... Go to KY or PA
Click to expand...


----------



## wlgds

I think we are shooting way to many deer, if we are not careful it's going to be like it was 40 years ago when you were excited just to see a track.


----------



## wildman

Again other than wlgds the same old people chiming in........


I am not alowed to express my opinion.. It is not at a certain person just that I am not for pistol rounds in rifles..


bkr43050 Maybe you need to venture out a little... or would you be lost with out your band-wagon.. LOL Again I don't want to have a pissing contest. I just like post that have substance with opinion's. 

I will look for that info for you.


----------



## viper1

I dont even know the guys your talking about. LOL! And on nobodys band wagon! The fact is its you who is lost and have no idea. Usually ewhen every one disagrees its that way. LOL! Seems to me you already expressed your opinion in this thread many times. So seems a reasonably smart man would sit down and shut up. Why do you care so much who agrees with you any way. I know what you are saying makes no sense to me and I really dont care. Why do you? 




wildman said:


> Again other than wlgds the same old people think chiming in........
> 
> 
> I am not alowed to express my opinion.. It is not at a certain person just that I am not for pistol rounds in rifles..
> 
> 
> bkr43050 Maybe you need to venture out a little... or would you be lost with out your band-wagon.. LOL Again I don't want to have a pissing contest. I just like post that have substance with opinion's.
> 
> I will look for that info for you.


----------



## wildman

viper1 said:


> Killing a large buck with no horns is wrong? Simple fact is that you cant eat horns. I hunt for meat not to kill a trophy. I have two I did that's plenty. But the truth is a young buck can take care of as many does as an older one. I worry more about killing to many doe's. Each doe knocks 2-3 deer from next years total. Kill a buck and its only one. So 50,000 does killed this year means 150,000 lost from next year.
> But I have faith in ODNR as I know quite a few of them. They are all biggest part sportsman too! When it comes down to it they take care of doing a good job of managing the herd. *Thank them you even have a herd to argue about. *Personally all we can do is each take what they think is right,up to the limit of coarse. Don't spend your time worrying about others. _If you think its getting too small in your area well manage it. Stop shooting there for a while.
> _ But if they law says their entitled to shoot 6 and they do. You have no right to complain. Simply do something, change the laws you disagree with. It happens every day and is done by every day citizens.


The Bold.... Thank them? I thank the small game and upland game bird population for the deer and turkey. That is where the money came from.... Now where are the quail? Where are the pheasant? I get the fact that corn and soy beans are high $. That farmers are planting everything they can. There isn't much the ODNR can do about it.. But what about the Grouse? There is no excuse for the loss of the grouse... Before the deer and turkey were reintrodused to Ohio there were 750,000 lisences sold in Ohio (1950's).. Now it is around 450,000 lic. sold. Kid's are not involved as much as they were back in the day. I grew up hunting small game much more than deer. I do understand that there are other influances out there but I do blame the lose of small game and unland game bird's.. I also see that there are other factors that play a role that dictate the ODNR's need to lower the deer herd #'s like farmers and insurance co. They do a good job when it comes to the money making deer herd and turkey. I just wish they would step up and focus on the things that bring out the young and the things that paid the way for the deer and turkey...

The under lined part... I think the ODNR are listening to the hunters. Word is the bag limits will be lower next year.. They do a good job and they guy's tha are in the field do a great job.. I just wish the higher up's would look at the big picture and focus on the things that we have lost. Those thing's if brought back/saved could make Ohio the sportsman dream place to hunt..


----------



## viper1

Not sure where you get there is less kids in hunting then there was. I taught hunters safety and we average 50-75 people every class. And 95 % are kids. I dont teach now much. But or club and affiliated clubs still host 5-6 large classes a month and never less then 25 and a lot 50-75 and still most all kids.Our youth in this country are still going strong. We also have three large yoth clubs in the sporting clubs.In fact the one organization brought the gold back twice once in California and the other in Texas. The pheasant and a few more upland birds are imported the pheasant is from China I believe. The grouse use to be better but never good. Odnr cut back on stockings because they dont handle the freezing weather well. We had 1 winter that all most killed them and the quail off. Our two local clubs both stock and release pheasants several times a year. They are not fenced in and turned loose way before season. Why simply because people would kill all they could. We have banned them and found them 6 miles away. So if you want to really do something besides talk join a sportsman club and get involved. They do more then just shoot guns.





wildman said:


> The Bold.... Thank them? I thank the small game and upland game bird population for the deer and turkey. That is where the money came from.... Now where are the quail? Where are the pheasant? I get the fact that corn and soy beans are high $. That farmers are planting everything they can. There isn't much the ODNR can do about it.. But what about the Grouse? There is no excuse for the loss of the grouse... Before the deer and turkey were reintrodused to Ohio there were 750,000 lisences sold in Ohio (1950's).. Now it is around 450,000 lic. sold. Kid's are not involved as much as they were back in the day. I grew up hunting small game much more than deer. I do understand that there are other influances out there but I do blame the lose of small game and unland game bird's.. I also see that there are other factors that play a role that dictate the ODNR's need to lower the deer herd #'s like farmers and insurance co. They do a good job when it comes to the money making deer herd and turkey. I just wish they would step up and focus on the things that bring out the young and the things that paid the way for the deer and turkey...
> 
> The under lined part... I think the ODNR are listening to the hunters. Word is the bag limits will be lower next year..


----------



## viper1

Not sure what that pea brain thinks this means. But if you look their are a lot more members older and more active then us. But I suppose a man with your education must be right! LOL!




wildman said:


> *Viper*
> Join Date: Apr 2004
> Posts: 3,354
> 
> 
> *Lundy*
> Join Date: Apr 2004
> Posts: 6,896
> 
> *bkr43050*
> Join Date: Apr 2004
> Posts: 11,043
> 
> *bobk *
> Apr 2004
> Posts: 867
> 
> 
> *M.Magis *
> Join Date: Apr 2004
> Posts: 3,677
> 
> 
> The band wagon.. The same guy's that chime in... Really it doesn't make a differance to me.. I use to get on this site a lot just not that much any more.. That could be why.. I am sure I am not the only one that see's it that way


----------



## vc1111

Wild man, I was referring to your first sentence in post number 45 in which you mentioned a boom in the last five years. By the numbers you posted, the kill only went up by about 5 percent from about 78000 to 82000.

The increase in the last ten years, which is substantial, seems to coincide with the increase in the amount of tags made available ( as opposed to an increase in the number of bow hunters). In other words, when the state made more tags available more deer were killed. I'm not sure it's safe to assume anything else, especially a presumed increase in the number of hunters. 

I don't doubt that the number of hunters has increased somewhat. I doubt that the increase would constitute a "boom" in new hunters.


----------



## wildman

viper1 said:


> Not sure where you get there is less kids in hunting then there was. I taught hunters safety and we average 50-75 people every class. And 95 % are kids. I dont teach now much. But or club and affiliated clubs still host 5-6 large classes a month and never less then 25 and a lot 50-75 and still most all kids.Our youth in this country are still going strong. We also have three large yoth clubs in the sporting clubs.In fact the one organization brought the gold back twice once in California and the other in Texas. The pheasant and a few more upland birds are imported the pheasant is from China I believe. The grouse use to be better but never good. Odnr cut back on stockings because they dont handle the freezing weather well. We had 1 winter that all most killed them and the quail off. Our two local clubs both stock and release pheasants several times a year. They are not fenced in and turned loose way before season. Why simply because people would kill all they could. We have banned them and found them 6 miles away. So if you want to really do something besides talk join a sportsman club and get involved. They do more then just shoot guns.


 Pheasant were brought over in the 1800's and have been here for 100+ years. As for the freeze yea we lost quite a few but how does North Dakota do it? Kansas? Doesn't it get cold there????? 

As for the kid's.. If you say so.. Dad takes them to the classes dad takes them hunting most likely Deer kid gets bored kid doesn't hunt anymore.. I have seen it a 100 time's... Maybe a few still hunt but thats what I have seen.... It's sad but again I blame it on the loss of the small game and upland bird's.. Hunting them seens to keep the attention of the kid's. I could go a bit farther and throw out the lease factor... Local farms that are being leased that use to be hunted by young hunter's... They are now being leased and unhuntable.. So access to near by hunting ground is gone...


----------



## wildman

vc1111 said:


> Wild man, I was referring to your first sentence in post number 45 in which you mentioned a boom in the last five years. By the numbers you posted, the kill only went up by about 5 percent from about 78000 to 82000.
> 
> The increase in the last ten years, which is substantial, seems to coincide with the increase in the amount of tags made available ( as opposed to an increase in the number of bow hunters). In other words, when the state made more tags available more deer were killed. I'm not sure it's safe to assume anything else, especially a presumed increase in the number of hunters.
> 
> I don't doubt that the number of hunters has increased somewhat. I doubt that the increase would constitute a "boom" in new hunters.



I see where you are coming from on the #'s but I am sure if you could check out the bow sales from 10 years ago to bow sales last year, those #'s would show a signifigant increase. That is an assumtion. I personaly have seen a huge increase in bow hunters. From friend's to just people in the field... The fact that bow hunters #'s have grown is not a secret.


----------



## vc1111

I figured that your feelings about the increase were based upon anecdotal evidence as opposed to documentation because, to my knowledge, there is nothing in place at this time to document the numbers as going down or up for bow hunters.

Because the deer populations in many states have been so strong, guys tend to hunt participate more than they otherwise might...just as when the fishing is good, more guys go fishing. But, generally speaking, I'm not sure that the numbers of hunters is growing significantly, if at all, no matter what implement is used.


----------



## wildman

vc1111 said:


> I figured that your feelings about the increase were based upon anecdotal evidence as opposed to documentation because, to my knowledge, there is nothing in place at this time to document the numbers as going down or up for bow hunters.
> 
> Because the deer populations in many states have been so strong, guys tend to hunt participate more than they otherwise might...just as when the fishing is good, more guys go fishing. But, generally speaking,* I'm not sure that the numbers of hunters is growing significantly, if at all, no matter what implement is used.*


*
*

All I am saying is that the weapon of choice has changed from a gun to a bow weather it is a crossbow or a compound bow..

Here are some #'s for you

Year licenses sold 

2011 423,990

2010 441,124

2009 452,723

2005 387,643

2000 391,370

1989 426,695

1979 472,376

1969 547,156

1959 674,082 

1949 737,675 Pre-deer hunting


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> [/B]
> 
> All I am saying is that the weapon of choice has changed from a gun to a bow weather it is a crossbow or a compound bow..
> 
> Here are some #'s for you
> 
> Year licenses sold
> 
> 2011 423,990
> 
> 2010 441,124
> 
> 2009 452,723
> 
> 2005 387,643
> 
> 2000 391,370
> 
> 1989 426,695
> 
> 1979 472,376
> 
> 1969 547,156
> 
> 1959 674,082
> 
> 1949 737,675 Pre-deer hunting


There is no data to support an increase in participation in one discipline other than harvest stats. Just no way of knowing if gun hunters gave up gun in favor of bow or took up bow in addition to gun, as I suspect.

What are you trying to show with license sales numbers? That hunting participation has reduced? I think everyone would agree with that.


----------



## vc1111

The numbers you posted reveal that we now have a less than ten percent increase in tag sales in the last five years despite the herd size (which encourages more deer hunting compared to say, small game). Of course, presuming that the increase is mostly bow hunters is pure conjecture, because the numbers reveal nothing to that effect at all. In fact, one could just as easily speculate that the increase is mostly gun hunters.

The numbers also reveal that we have fewer hunters today than we did about twenty years ago...despite the fact that the deer hunting success rate is clearly much higher that it was back around 1989.

One might also question whether the numbers you post are for "licenses" only, or do they include tags, such as antlerless tags, and consider those as a "license" to kill a doe?

Relying on any change in bow sales is also inaccurate, although I've seen no figures showing a "boom" in bow sales in the last five years or so. 

Even if such numbers exist, raw numbers tell next to nothing. For example, how many sales were attributed to guys upgrading their bows from one they've been using for a long, long time, as opposed to new bow hunters entering the market? Or...how many of the sales of bows can be attributed to guys buying a new bow every year or every other year (which I did for a number of years until I found one with which I was completely satisfied)?

The point is that a bow sale does not, by default, equate to a new bow hunter entering the game for the first time. Numbers are essentially a fertile field for anomalies. A coin toss should be 50/50 heads versus tails, but it is entirely possible to flip a coin and get heads on twenty consecutive flips.

One might just as easily surmise that the increase in hunting license sales in the last five years is due to the recession which began five years ago and has provided more idle time for those rendered jobless and perhaps a desire to use venison to supplement unemployment compensation. I am not making that argument but it would be just as valid if conjecture is to be relied upon as fact.

Drawing such conclusions from anecdotal evidence is problematic to say the least.


----------



## wildman

WOW, Sorry guy's....

In the paragragh with the bold there was no mention of the bow. I was just throwing out the past licenses sales...

If we are still questioning bow hunting "boom" or increase in popularity well I have nothing for you.. Other than 25+ years of experance. weekend 3-D shoot's.(which has Increased) being in the loop of many hunter's from around the state.. Hunting public land and seeing more bow hunters during rut than I do during gun season. If I have to find some sort of fact or statisic then I have nothing for you. Other than my observation's. If you disagree well feel free to do so. 

The bow sales was just a sugestion.


----------



## Lundy

No, I don't disagree with you. I believe without a doubt there are more hunters participating in bowhunting today than 10 years ago.

What we do not have is any data from the ODNR to substantiate the size of the increase. We have harvest data from each method but that does not equate directly to hunter participation. We just don't know.

You did also say; "All I am saying is that the weapon of choice has changed from a gun to a bow weather it is a crossbow or a compound bow.." That I can not agree with, just no basis for that conclusion for me.


----------



## viper1

Talking to an ODNR officer the other day. He claims hunting is changing. And the deer kill is misleading. First of all he reminded me that with the two week system we had before, and the seasons we have now they are culling the deer to numbers they feel is right for Ohio. They also confirmed archery is growing. So they expect less deer to be harvested. Gun hunting is as popular as it once was for many reasons. He also said they fell coyotes have less affect on the herd then many other things and say they are not a problem. Poaching is as popular as ever. The new checking didn't make it any more as those that do ,do and those that don't never will! They figure the deer kill will stabilize soon. And all in all that is the plan!


----------



## wildman

Lundy said:


> No, I don't disagree with you. I believe without a doubt there are more hunters participating in bowhunting today than 10 years ago.
> 
> What we do not have is any data from the ODNR to substantiate the size of the increase. We have harvest data from each method but that does not equate directly to hunter participation. We just don't know.
> 
> You did also say; "All I am saying is that the weapon of choice has changed from a gun to a bow weather it is a crossbow or a compound bow.." That I can not agree with, just no basis for that conclusion for me.





> Talking to an ODNR officer the other day. He claims hunting is changing. And the deer kill is misleading. First of all he reminded me that with the two week system we had before, and the seasons we have now they are culling the deer to numbers they feel is right for Ohio. They also confirmed archery is growing. So they expect less deer to be harvested. Gun hunting is as popular as it once was for many reasons. He also said they fell coyotes have less affect on the herd then many other things and say they are not a problem. Poaching is as popular as ever. The new checking didn't make it any more as those that do ,do and those that don't never will! They figure the deer kill will stabilize soon. And all in all that is the plan!


For starter's IMO Hunting has change in many way's hunters have gone from the gun to a bow and in many cases frown on the gun hunter. IMO there feel that gun hunters are beneath them that it is just to easy to shoot a deer with a gun... So IMO gun is no where near what it use to be. The area I have hunted since my day's at Hocking in the early 90's was 2 gun hunters per ridge is now i hardly see a hunter after the first day. Even the drive home to Cincy hunters use to be everywhere they are no now... Yes gun hunting is still big but I just don't see that it is what it use to be in th 80's and early 90's. Observation is a tool that work's. If I am observing a stop sign being run day in and day out I don't need a study to say it's so when it is already evident. Agree or don't agree but again I spend easily 50+ day's in the field. I hunt 6 different county's. I also coach 2 soccer teams and I am a coach cordinator so I speak to may people about hunting..

Viper. Your comit on Coyotes is IMO is correct.. even though they are a western animal in the east they have there place. They are an animal convenince. They will eat soybeans corn acorns an what ever is easy to eat.. yea fawns also... The only thing I disagree with is they really do a # in the urban areas.. They use the fences to ther advantage and have used that technique to kill many fawns. I have seen it hapen to many time's as have I heard to many stories to know it is true.. With farming doing away with the fences I don't think it plays much of a role as it does in urban land.

On the ODNR wanting to reach a healthy herd size. IMO I feel it is a balancing act.. One you don't want to have to small of a herd but on the other hand you don't want it to be like some of our southern states where there are to many and they lose size and numbers are just crazy..

To the guy that questioned large herd and loss of animal size well look at the states with high density herds and smaller sized deer, that is a perfect example. Here it just isn't as extream.

New check-in station... I have spooken to several GW's and I have been told different thing's one is what you have stated Viper and the other is what I have been saying.. My conclusion is it is what I am saying but it saves to much time and money and superseads the poached deer. Of coarse those are my thoughts. My only concern is the traditional method alowed the biologest if they wanted to look at each checkin station to see the #'s checked in. The old method of checking a deer was more acurate and usefull to the biolgest as where in each county deer were killed. Of coarse this just my thoughts I am sure others have theres...


----------



## sam kegg

during bow season on my property i seen tons of deer during morning eve day what ever.its seems that every year when gun starts we dont see a thing in fact we (my hunting buddies) have the most harvest during bow. my personal opinion is the rut gets em moving. but once they have bread they tend to bed down allot more and for longer. atleast thats what i have seen , so maybe if gun opens a week early or so we would see more action


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> For starter's IMO Hunting has change in many way's hunters have gone from the gun to a bow and in many cases frown on the gun hunter. IMO there feel that gun hunters are beneath them that it is just to easy to shoot a deer with a gun... So IMO gun is no where near what it use to be. The area I have hunted since my day's at Hocking in the early 90's was 2 gun hunters per ridge is now i hardly see a hunter after the first day. Even the drive home to Cincy hunters use to be everywhere they are no now... Yes gun hunting is still big but I just don't see that it is what it use to be in th 80's and early 90's. *Observation is a tool that work's. If I am observing a stop sign being run day in and day out I don't need a study to say it's so when it is already evident.* Agree or don't agree but again I spend easily 50+ day's in the field. I hunt 6 different county's. I also coach 2 soccer teams and I am a coach cordinator so I speak to may people about hunting..


And that is why you have trouble playing well with others. You seem to think that because YOU believe something that is indeed fact when it is not necessarily the case. 

You also lay out your qualifications but that doesn't mean you are any more qualified or spend any more time in the field that anyone else with a dissenting position, and in fact you are not and do not, but you wouldn't know that.

You always tend to state your opinion as fact and try and belittle anyone that does not agree with you. You wonder why the same guys here always seem to take opposing positions to you. I would have thought it would be fairly obvious by now. The "same old guys" as you phrase it, here have as much or more years of hunting experience as you do and just don't always buy into your theory and opinion.

We can have differing opinions, the real difference is that I think you are entitled to have your opinion whether I agree with it or not.


----------



## sam kegg

put hunter orange die in the corn years to come the deer will glo!! bam problem solved!!! merry xmas gentlemen


----------



## wildman

Lundy said:


> And that is why you have trouble playing well with others. You seem to think that because YOU believe something that is indeed fact when it is not necessarily the case.
> 
> You also lay out your qualifications but that doesn't mean you are any more qualified or spend any more time in the field that anyone else with a dissenting position, and in fact you are not and do not, but you wouldn't know that.
> 
> You always tend to state your opinion as fact and try and belittle anyone that does not agree with you. You wonder why the same guys here always seem to take opposing positions to you. I would have thought it would be fairly obvious by now. The "same old guys" as you phrase it, here have as much or more years of hunting experience as you do and just don't always buy into your theory and opinion.
> 
> We can have differing opinions, the real difference is that I think you are entitled to have your opinion whether I agree with it or not.



If I come off that way it is not my intention's but again there you go...... I have been asked to add fact's to thing's... All I was stating is that seeing something or observing them is rather factual. That's it Other than that I am throwing out my opinion on thing's. I may try to show that I am not an internet chair man but Wow now I am catching crap for doing that. All I am doing is proving that I have time in the field.. I just try to say/give reason.... I thought we were past the argumentive side of thing's, but I guess I was wrong..

Agree or not you always seem to get personal on thing's.. My question is what is wrong with you? Why am I wrong what are your opinions on the topic, because that would be a good start. not personal attacks. I find it funny that you are a form moderator and you act like this. In what way was my last post negetive or "bad"???????????????? Didn't your mother teach you "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all? I know you sure didn't add anything to this post!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lundy

So because your history here of presenting your opinion (facts) has more often than not been a source of turmoil and I question your methodology,you accuse me of personal attack, your retort is to degrade my mother for not teaching me good manners.

She turns 91 tomorrow, pretty frail, memory isn't very good anymore, hasn't hunted in over 60 years, and I don't think even she would buy into your stuff.

You are no doubt one of the special few

Have a great holiday


----------



## vc1111

Wild man, you make mention of shortcomings on the part of the DNR as to small game, such as pheasants, grouse, etc. 

Specifically, what are they doing wrong? 

I also started out small game hunting and I see a variety of things that have changed to affect small game...and the DNR has next to nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

Also you criticize the state for not getting kids involved? That is a family matter, not a government matter. It is also a quantum shift in American values away from guns, hunting, and its family traditions to Xbox, iPads, Netflix, and Facebook. Want to see where kids are? Look there and look at the parents who buy them their first cellphone when they are barely potty trained. The DNR could spend their entire budget and never change any of that. And the license sales numbers you posted reflect that.

I would instead point to the nearly complete shift in farming methods as the POSSIBLE blame for failing pheasant and grouse reproduction numbers. Forty years ago, farmers left hedgerows between fields. Those were important cover. Those are gone. When you look across a farm today, you see nothing but dirt for the most part...little cover at all.

Back then, they also relied on crop rotation to maintain soil fertility, which also left cover for the small game over a portion of each farm at all times. Today, they pour chemicals all over the place to fertilize and control unwanted vegetation. They use the chemicals to allow them to plant what they want anytime, and they do it in such volume that the water composition of one the planet's largest bodies of fresh water, Lake Erie, has been profoundly effected by the runoff of all those chemicals and "fertilizers." They are essentially contaminating the environment and we wonder why the small game is disappearing? Is there a direct link? I cannot say so with certainty, but the two events seemed to overlap.

I also see an obvious coincidence between the advent of coyote migrations to Ohio (they were not here at all when I was young), and the crash of small game populations. Is there a direct connection? I cannot say that with certainly. I can say the two events pretty much overlapped.

It would be nice if government could just wave a magic wand and pheasant populations would mushroom, grouse numbers would explode, and kids would suddenly put down the Xbox controller and beg daddy to let them take a hunter safety course. I would not stand on one leg waiting for any of that to happen, because it is far more complicated than that. One of the single biggest problems in this country today is too many people believing that it the government can fix everything by just throwing OUR money at what are simply FAMILY problems.

Dads and moms are in charge of fostering the interest in any outdoor activity and that most certainly includes hunting and fishing. When I was young no one would ever ask a hunter "Why do you need to hunt?" You never felt a need to explain yourself. It was a given. People hunt. Today you mention hunting in a group of people and you may find yourself explaining carrying capacity, the desire for venison with its lack of triglycerides, steroids, and nitrites, and why you hold your inherent love for the outdoors, which far fewer people share today.

The DNR has nothing to do with it.


----------



## viper1

I do agree with most of that. But Being a smoker and curing guy my self I need to clarify one thing.
This nitrate and nitrite fear is unfounded and started 50 years ago when people started pouring salt peter in their meats to cure them.
Nitrites and nitrates are both natural elements found i all food Vegetables being the main one. But no one will say don't eat veggys. LOL! But deer and all life has them too! Its like so many things considered good for you. Only at too high of levels does it become bad. And those levels don't exist today unless some one who doesn't know what their doing does it their selves.
Now I return you back to your subject I have been following. I really think its a lame discussion. But let me explain why. Every one brings up good points. But what one watches one place doesn't mean its the same 10 miles away. its like the climate. We have a certain climate in this area. But inside that climate is a lot of separate little ones according to elements that change. Hills , valleys. trees all sort of things. Since we don't have a way to control or even look at all the variables there is no way to state any thing definite. To solve any problem you need all variables know. With out it its a guess and their like opinions and we know the rest! End of Story.


----------



## wildman

wildman said:


> The Bold.... Thank them? I thank the small game and upland game bird population for the deer and turkey. That is where the money came from*.... Now where are the quail? Where are the pheasant? I get the fact that corn and soy beans are high $. That farmers are planting everything they can. There isn't much the ODNR can do about it.. *_But what about the Grouse? There is no excuse for the loss of the grouse... __Before the deer and turkey were reintrodused to Ohio there were 750,000 lisences sold in Ohio (1950's).. Now it is around 450,000 lic. sold. Kid's are not involved as much as they were back in the day. I grew up hunting small game much more than deer. I do understand that there are other influances out there but I do blame the lose of small game and unland game bird's.. _I also see that there are other factors that play a role that dictate the ODNR's need to lower the deer herd #'s like farmers and insurance co. They do a good job when it comes to the money making deer herd and turkey. I just wish they would step up and focus on the things that bring out the young and the things that paid the way for the deer and turkey...
> 
> The under lined part... I think the ODNR are listening to the hunters. Word is the bag limits will be lower next year.. They do a good job and they guy's tha are in the field do a great job.. I just wish the higher up's would look at the big picture and focus on the things that we have lost. Those thing's if brought back/saved could make Ohio the sportsman dream place to hunt..


*Wow maybe you should re-read my post...* 


The grouse habitat is gone. Between the ODNR and the forestry they have dropped the ball. 

Coyote has played a role in the low #'s of rabbit's and bird's. A $20 bounty's I don't know some blame the turkeys for the grouse but there are not fact's to support it other than a few observations of turkeys destroying grouse nest. Brirds of pray play a role as well but with proper habitat which would solve that problem.. As for the quail and pheasant. I believe that all the chemicals the farmes use have a part in the quail and pheasant's come back.. I know it pay's a toll on our stream's. I do know the state pay's many farmers for CRP. Which in my opinion they need to check fields and help them become more habitable for the upland bird's. I hunt a 300 acre crp field which is lacking much of what the birds need. that would be a start. 
I am just a hunter and I can come up with a few thing's but I do not know it all other than the biologest have lost hope on the quail and pheasant.. I also know that PA. has a wonderful program which is doing very well.

I can appriciate your rant about people expecting the goverment to fix everything, all I can say is your preaching to the choir.. If you think I am one of those people that expect the magic wand you are sadly mistaken..But what I do expect is for the people that work for the people to manage the people's property properly do so and not just focus on managing this comes from ta biologest "fairly easy" animals this comes from a biologest which just so happen to bring in the revenue. That is what I expect and I don't think I am asking a whole lot.


----------



## crappiedude

"The grouse habitat is gone. Between *the ODNR *and the forestry *they have dropped the ball." *

"I can appriciate your rant about people *expecting the goverment to fix everything*, all I can say is your preaching to the choir.. If you think I am one of those people that expect the magic wand *you are sadly mistaken*.."

It seems those 2 statement kind of contradict each other.

I used to hunt grouse back in the 80's. We had some good days and even though we didn't have dogs we'd get 10-20 birds up every time out. It's been a while so my memeory may be off a little but it seems to me the hunting was fairly decent into the early 90's and then we noticed a drop in numbers. 
Back then the DNR was saying the decline was due to an aging forrest (habitat loss) which seemed to make sense. The mature forrest and large mast crops seemed to accomidate turkeys better. 
I don't see it that the DNR dropped the ball on anything, they are simply managing the forrest for what they are.

I used to hunt with an old guy back then and when we used to talk about our hunts, he would always say " the world is always changing, nothing remains the same". As I look back over time, I can see what he meant.

I haven't seen the flocks of quail since the back to back extreme winters of 77 & 78 (I think those were the 2). Again habitat loss hasn't helped the recovery here either.


----------



## vc1111

I posted the magic wand comment in response to your insinuation that the ODNR should "step up"and do things to "bring out the young." I stand by my commentary. That is the realm of family, not government.

The outdoors is like education. It is there for all, but you have to get off your ass and go get it.

By and large, it is the land owners who "control" the habitat or lack thereof. While I appreciate that you would like to see the ODNR demand that they do this or that in conjunction with the CPR program, the land is not managed for wildlife per se. It is managed to optimize crop production and everything else is secondary to that mission.

I I know this veers off topic, but I think we should rethink all farming subsidies. Another thread for another day perhaps.


----------



## vc1111

Viper, I stand corrected on the matter of nitrites; thanks for the info.


----------



## wildman

vc1111 said:


> I posted the magic wand comment in response to your insinuation that the ODNR should "step up"and do things to "bring out the young." I stand by my commentary. That is the realm of family, not government.
> 
> The outdoors is like education. It is there for all, but you have to get off your ass and go get it.
> 
> By and large, it is the land owners who "control" the habitat or lack thereof. While I appreciate that you would like to see the ODNR demand that they do this or that in conjunction with the CPR program, the land is not managed for wildlife per se. It is managed to optimize crop production and everything else is secondary to that mission.
> 
> I *I know this veers off topic, but I think we should rethink all farming subsidies. Another thread for another day perhaps*.


yea, I agree on that..LOL But what is funny I think we would agree on it..



Crappiedude, I feel they dropped the ball in managing state and national forest land.. Priv. land: I think it would be nice if they gave some sort of incentive dealing with logging which would help the grouse.. Not clear cut the state but maybe studies that would help find quality numbers of grouse and encorage sorounding priv. land to help extend there habitat. Just athought.. All I kow is in the 70's and 80's mature forest made up 20% of Ohio now it makes up around 60%.

Young growth is great for most animal's.


----------



## crappiedude

wildman said:


> Crappiedude, I feel they dropped the ball in managing state and national forest land.. Priv. land: I think it would be nice if they gave some sort of incentive dealing with logging which would help the grouse.. Not clear cut the state but maybe studies that would help find quality numbers of grouse and encorage sorounding priv. land to help extend there habitat. Just athought.. All I kow is in the 70's and 80's mature forest made up 20% of Ohio now it makes up around 60%.
> 
> Young growth is great for most animal's.


I think most people would agree that young growth is best for wildlife. I also think it would be nice if the DNR could manage everything to perfection. 
I just don't think it's possible.
I don't want to hijack the thread with alot of the why's but the amount of forrest land in the USA had been on the increase since the 50's maybe. Lot's of reasons are at play.
I just don't think it's the DNR's job to offer everyone an "incentive". That's the problem in Washington right now. LOL! 
Believe me, if the grouse numbers would come back strong I'd could give up deer hunting to go chase them around the state.


----------



## wildman

crappiedude said:


> I think most people would agree that young growth is best for wildlife. I also think it would be nice if the DNR could manage everything to perfection.
> I just don't think it's possible.
> I don't want to hijack the thread with alot of the why's but the amount of forrest land in the USA had been on the increase since the 50's maybe. Lot's of reasons are at play.
> I just don't think it's the DNR's job to offer everyone an "incentive". That's the problem in Washington right now. LOL!
> *Believe me, if the grouse numbers would come back strong I'd could give up deer hunting to go chase them around the state*.




Wouldn't that be nice.... I have 2 dog's...

There are birds out there but just not great huntable #'s. IMO why is there even a season?


----------



## buckeyebowman

wildman said:


> yea, I agree on that..LOL But what is funny I think we would agree on it..
> 
> 
> 
> Crappiedude, I feel they dropped the ball in managing state and national forest land.. Priv. land: I think it would be nice if they gave some sort of incentive dealing with logging which would help the grouse.. Not clear cut the state but maybe studies that would help find quality numbers of grouse and encorage sorounding priv. land to help extend there habitat. Just athought.. All I kow is in the 70's and 80's mature forest made up 20% of Ohio now it makes up around 60%.
> 
> Young growth is great for most animal's.


And the tree huggers will still tell you "They're cutting down all the trees!" 

All the interlocking factors that have led to the demise of pheasant, grouse, and quail populations in this state create a labyrinth that I don't know that anyone can figure out. I'm as intelligent as the next guy, but there are some things that puzzle me. 

I understand that farming practices have changed, yet, some of the weed fields and thickets where we used to find pheasant are still weed fields and thickets, but the pheasant are no longer there. I used to hunt Beaver Creek State Park quite a bit and saw a fair amount of grouse. There's nothing quite like the adrenaline rush you get hiking in to your deer stand in the black dark and having a grouse blow out from underfoot! Talk about a heart stopper! The place still looks the same as it ever did, yet the grouse are no longer there. 

Here in NE Ohio, the reason for the loss of quail is a little easier to understand. Back in the late '60's , early '70's there were quail all over the place up here, and I and my buddy knew where a lot of them were. Crappiedude is right. The consecutive winters of '77 & '78 just flat wiped them out! There's nothing like 2 winters in a row with thigh deep snow and sub zero temps to decimate a quail population. After the winter of '78 I never saw another quail around here.

But, as to pheasant and grouse I think a major contributor to their loss is predation, pure and simple. And it's not just from the re-establishment of the coyote. Think about it. All raptors, hawks, falcons, owls and eagles, are protected. I don't think eagles do very much damage along this line, but hawks and owls are another story. I belong to a hunting club just across the PA line that stocks pheasant during the season. On quite a few occasions we find pheasant carcasses with just the head missing. I've been told by more than one person that this is the sign of an owl attack. I don't know what they find so tasty about pheasant heads, but the birds are dead all the same. 

Back in the day a lot of furbearer trapping went on here, and raccoon were a major target of that effort. Not so much any more. Raccoons are not only a major nest raider of ground nesting birds, but they will also hunt pheasant. I've seen it happen. When trapping kept their numbers in check, there was not much of a disease problem. Nowadays we have to spend taxpayer dollars for planes to drop rabies vaccine laced baits for them, their populations have become so thick!

Of the 3 species I mentioned I suppose the one I miss the most is the grouse, although pheasant put a strong pull on my heart. I had an incredible amount of fun hunting pheasant, but, when you think about it, they don't really belong here. They're an import, a non-native species, while grouse are native sons and daughters. And as for quail, while American, they are primarily a bird of the southern states.


----------



## bkr43050

Well the ODNR's weekly results link results for this week changed rather drastically again and indicated that there is indeed still a timing issue with the totals. Last week the state was showing an increase of 7.74% from last year's harvest. This week dropped to now showing a decrease 1.85%. As I had said last week I had a hard time believing that the totals would be up from last year given that the gun week totals were down as much as they were. When I compared the totals from last week to this week it appears that they likely not included any of the bonus weekend until these latest numbers. Last year's total increased nearly 18,000 within that one week. The current 1.85% decrease is minimal when comparing to last year but still indicates that the herd is smaller than it was just a few years ago. When comparing just year-to-year it can somewhat hide the real picture numbers of comparing to what we had 5+ years ago.

The individual county numbers are in the list for those who are interested in seeing them. Rather than copying the info here I will just provide the link to the ODNR page.

http://ohiodnr.com/Home/HuntingandT...eerharvestcomparison/tabid/24154/Default.aspx


----------



## viper1

Minimum is right. I think that a 1.85% decrease is really good my self. In fact im sure that the harvest could fluctuate a lot more then that if the deer heard stayed the same. As harvest has as much to do with the people hunting as any thing. True the heard has dropped but not to a level were it should rely cause a problem to the real hunters who spend a lot of time scouting and hunting. Maybe more so to the ones who hunt a lot less. Looks to me like ODNR are doing what they want and trying to please both sides. Im not sure at what level they think this is. But im sure we will find out. LOL!





bkr43050 said:


> Well the ODNR's weekly results link results for this week changed rather drastically again and indicated that there is indeed still a timing issue with the totals. Last week the state was showing an increase of 7.74% from last year's harvest. This week dropped to now showing a decrease 1.85%. As I had said last week I had a hard time believing that the totals would be up from last year given that the gun week totals were down as much as they were. When I compared the totals from last week to this week it appears that they likely not included any of the bonus weekend until these latest numbers. Last year's total increased nearly 18,000 within that one week. The current 1.85% decrease is minimal when comparing to last year but still indicates that the herd is smaller than it was just a few years ago. When comparing just year-to-year it can somewhat hide the real picture numbers of comparing to what we had 5+ years ago.
> 
> The individual county numbers are in the list for those who are interested in seeing them. Rather than copying the info here I will just provide the link to the ODNR page.
> 
> http://ohiodnr.com/Home/HuntingandT...eerharvestcomparison/tabid/24154/Default.aspx


----------



## bkr43050

viper1 said:


> Minimum is right. I think that a 1.85% decrease is really good my self. In fact im sure that the harvest could fluctuate a lot more then that if the deer heard stayed the same. As harvest has as much to do with the people hunting as any thing. True the heard has dropped but not to a level were it should rely cause a problem to the real hunters who spend a lot of time scouting and hunting. Maybe more so to the ones who hunt a lot less. Looks to me like ODNR are doing what they want and trying to please both sides. Im not sure at what level they think this is. But im sure we will find out. LOL!


No doubt that a 1.85% is minimal and could happen any year but the point I was making is that the large drops we had in the last few years had been attributed (by the ODNR) to various factors such as weather, mast crops, etc. If that were the case the years following that should show that since the bag limits were still set the same. It seems to me that those explanations did not prove to be true and that it may be more a matter of the kill-off (through harvest, predation, damage permits, disease, car-accidents, etc.) has exceeded the recruitment from offspring. I would suspect that this will lead the DOW to reassess the bag limits at some point. Whether it happens this next year? We will need to wait to find that out.


----------



## Lundy

Viper1

We will have to wait for the final year end numbers to make any real comparisons. 

However a 1.8% decrease is minimal in a year to year comparison but does not even begin to tell the entire story and certainly can not be used as support that everything is static in the deer populations

If I reduced your income by 1.8% per year you may say that is a minimal reduction, But If I reduce your income by 1.8% for many successive years you.......well I'm sure you get the picture.

I am not as concerned about the decreases that the ODNR wants to enact as much as them not telling what the target number is.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Lundy said:


> Viper1
> 
> We will have to wait for the final year end numbers to make any real comparisons.
> 
> However a 1.8% decrease is minimal in a year to year comparison but does not even begin to tell the entire story and certainly can not be used as support that everything is static in the deer populations
> 
> If I reduced your income by 1.8% per year you may say that is a minimal reduction, But If I reduce your income by 1.8% for many successive years you.......well I'm sure you get the picture.
> 
> 
> I am not as concerned about the decreases that the ODNR wants to enact as much as them not telling what the target number is.


As Joseph Stalin said many years ago, "Those who vote have no power. Those who count the votes have all the power." In our case it would be, "Those who hunt deer have no power. Those who count the deer have all the power." 

I was on wildohio.com yesterday and looked at the numbers from the extra weekend of gun season. A 32% decline from two years ago! That's pretty steep!


----------



## viper1

I agree it is a sever over the years decrease. I have been watching and listening too! But this year it hasnt been so bad and listen to the people who cant find one. That has nothing to do with decrease its the hunter. After all last year and this year was less then a 2% decrease. Guess what im trying to say is we have no say. But were still way better off then before ODNR built the heard up. And yes the fact they dont say leads me to believe they continue letting it go till the insurances stop bitching. That is what scares me. Because honestly I don't think
they will be happy till the herd is gone. But I do believe its ODNR and limits that is killing the herds. Oh and auto accidents. Nothing else is such a drastic factor I believe.


----------



## crittergitter

bkr43050 said:


> Well the ODNR's weekly results link results for this week changed rather drastically again and indicated that there is indeed still a timing issue with the totals. Last week the state was showing an increase of 7.74% from last year's harvest. This week dropped to now showing a decrease 1.85%. As I had said last week I had a hard time believing that the totals would be up from last year given that the gun week totals were down as much as they were. When I compared the totals from last week to this week it appears that they likely not included any of the bonus weekend until these latest numbers. Last year's total increased nearly 18,000 within that one week. The current 1.85% decrease is minimal when comparing to last year but still indicates that the herd is smaller than it was just a few years ago. When comparing just year-to-year it can somewhat hide the real picture numbers of comparing to what we had 5+ years ago.
> 
> The individual county numbers are in the list for those who are interested in seeing them. Rather than copying the info here I will just provide the link to the ODNR page.
> 
> http://ohiodnr.com/Home/HuntingandT...eerharvestcomparison/tabid/24154/Default.aspx



It doesn't mean anything. Determining the population of the deer based on harvest models is a failed science. Especially when the opportunity to harvest them is expanded exponentially each year. The year to year comparisons are not apples and oranges. In addition, they don't know what the starting number was. There is no regard for public land locales that have been decimated. 

I will attend the open house in the spring. Though, I HIGHLY doubt I will be participating in this sport next fall.


----------



## wildman

And 3 years later..... The #'s are still low.... Its been dropping since the put the new check in system in place.. Amazing I said it would keep dropping and it has.

With bow hunters popularity and more bow wounds have helped.. But I am sure I am wrong like I was 3 years ago..


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> And 3 years later..... The #'s are still low.... Its been dropping since the put the new check in system in place.. Amazing I said it would keep dropping and it has.
> ..


Yep,very powerful, the new check system has even reduced the deer auto accidents and the crop damage complaints,

You must be bored going back and reviving threads from 2012


----------



## wildman

Yes I am... Lundy I need snow!!! 
But you have admitted I said the #'s would keep dropping and it has...

Also the low crop and accident #'s could be from uncounted Deer due to many not being checked in and a higher # of bow wounds.. But what do I know? Lol

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> Yes I am... Lundy I need snow!!!
> But you have admitted I said the #'s would keep dropping and it has...
> 
> Also the low crop and accident #'s could be from uncounted Deer due to many not being checked in and a higher # of bow wounds.. But what do I know? Lol
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Wonderful, you have had plenty
of time to get some real facts and stats on this. I look forward to you posting them. Let's see the numbers and facts. Game warden here says different. Numbers were already on the decline before the new system.


----------



## wildman

Well if I had proof of the cheating there wouldn't be any cheating would there? And how would a person get statistics on the #'s of bow wounds hell bow and gun wounds.. Unlike some people, I am in the field hunting. When we find Deer with broad heads in them well its self explanatory... 

When we jump a doe off here bed at 10 feet with an arrow hanging out and you look at where she was bedding and there's blood in it.. Well... 

I'm just going off the #'s.. Field experience and interaction with other hunters..
So where did all the deer go? Very few hunters harvest anymore than 2 Deer a year. Nor have they ever. I would bet even less since the new check in system.
I highly doubt that the GWs tell you different. I don't consider 14000 Deer much of a drop when the new system was put in place it dropped 50,000 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> when the new system was put in place it dropped 50,000
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Just be absolutely clear, you are saying, contend, believe, that there were an additional 50,000 deer harvested and not reported the first year of the new check system due to the new check system?


----------



## wildman

I don't believe that its entirely do to the check in system.. But the commit that the #'s were falling before the check in system was was implemented was made. The year before they went down 14,000 The #s went down 50,000 the year it was implemented a major drop. 

My point for the last 3/4 years is the same. Due to the new check in system and popularity of bow hunting more Deer are getting mortally wounded & more Deer are not getting checked in. There for the biologist #'s are incorrect. The #'s they base there decisions off of. 

Hunters that hunt see it.. Hunters that hunt in other areas see it. Hunters that talk to or shoot with or hang out with other hunters see it and hear about it.. I find it comical that I am found to be so wrong. I said the #'s would be and stay going down. It will plateau but Deer #'s are low so it will be tough to hold that #. It will be up to the hunter to keep his #'s higher

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## seang22

Hunters need to stop limiting out...


----------



## wildman

seang22 said:


> Hunters need to stop limiting out...


Imo limiting out state wide hardly never happens... Very very low %.

County wide it happens.

I shot 3 this year and I think I'm going to shoot one more. Keep in mind I hunt 3-4 property's in 3 countys and keep an eye on #'s by physically seeing them.

People can harvest 9 if they have the #'s on there property's. But if you don't then you can't. Problem is, like littering many don't litter but some do and it's near impossible to catch the them or teach them other wise.. Education will help change the mind thought. 

It would be nice to see a deer management section in the rules and reg's booklet suggesting some of the above. Just a thought..


----------



## supercanoe

wildman said:


> Imo limiting out state wide hardly never happens... Very very low %.
> 
> County wide it happens.
> 
> I shot 3 this year and I think I'm going to shoot one more. Keep in mind I hunt 3-4 property's in 3 countys and keep an eye on #'s by physically seeing them.
> 
> People can harvest 9 if they have the #'s on there property's. But if you don't then you can't. Problem is, like littering many don't litter but some do and it's near impossible to catch the them or teach them other wise.. Education will help change the mind thought. It would be nice to see a deer management section in the rules and reg's booklet suggesting some of the above. Just a thought..


What?


----------



## Lundy

Hey Wildman, answer a couple of questions for me please.

Old tag system, you must attach a temporary tag before moving the deer.
New tag system - you must attach a temporary tag before moving the deer
What is the difference?

Old tag system - you take it to a check station and received one metal tag
New tag system - you call and the assigned number must remain with antlers, hide and meat forever
What is the difference?

Old system - guy kills a deer and takes it to his barn and cuts it up and puts it in freezer, not tagged
New system - guy kills a deer and takes it to his barn and cuts it up and puts it in freezer, not tagged
What is the difference?

Old system - GW checks a guys meat in freezer, no tag required
New system - GW checks a guys meat in freezer, must have tag number
What is the difference?

Old system - GW checks antlers in some guys barn, must have tags
New system - GW checks antlers in some guys barn, must have tag number
What is the difference?

Old system - GW wants to know if Billy Bob checked in a deer, he must check all of the check station logs at every mom and pop corner store in the county Billy Bob Lives in and adjoining counties MANUALLY
New system - GW wants to know if Bill Bob Checked a deer he has access to data base immediately
What is the difference?

Old system - GW wants to know how many deer Billy Bob has checked in, how many deer have been checked in by Billy Bob the last few years, How many deer have been checked by people living at that same address as BillyBob, how many tags Bill Bob has purchased, he is crap out of luck.
New system - all data available to him in his car on his laptop immediately
Whats the difference?

Lastly, if more hunters are poaching now with the new system that with the old system, which I do not believe, the reported harvest would be reduced. Since you said the ODNR sets population and harvest goals by counting dead deer this would lead the ODNR to believe that there are less deer than there actually are leading them to reduce the harvest goals. So the more that cheat, the more they will estimate the population lower and reduce harvest goals.

I think that the same number cheat now that cheated with the old system, the population is lower due to the realized increased harvest goals that the ODNR put forth for a bunch of years. There is no data to support any other conclusion.


----------



## wildman

Old system required a metal tag on all bucks. When you showed off your bucks to me I seen a metal tag on everyone of them. Now you don't. 

Old system when checked in they were physically seen by someone and there was a chance a gw would be there.. Now just a phone call. 

Old system tag was bought at store and couldn't be duplicated. Now I can make as many copy's I want to get it home. 

Old system the person tagging it had to check it. Now 60 year old mom that didn't shoot it can call the second or third buck in..

In the past it wasn't quite as easy as it is now. The mind set has changed. Yes people poached and always will. Now there it just more of it.

Now the data base part of it is very nice.

Suggestions not rules. 

I don't have low Deer #'s on the property's I hunt. I do hear others complain about it and more complaints about public. 

I hear Many people talk about wanting to see lower bag limits some talk about 2 Deer limits state wide... Just because some people over harvest there lands should ruin it for the ones that don't.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lundy

seang22 said:


> Hunters need to stop limiting out...


As an example

2012/2013 season

33% of deer hunters are successful

73% Kill one deer
19% Kill two
5.4% Kill three
1.8% Kill four
0.57% Kill five
0.29% Kill six or more


----------



## wildman

I agree that the 2 Deer limit will do little going off recorded #'s. Again recorded #'s

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## M R DUCKS

Lundy, spot on!
Cheaters/poachers are going to cheat/poach.

Wasn't the goal of the ODNR to reduce the deer heard?
Have the harvest numbers gone down? Yes.
Goal met ! (or still a work in progress)

Already changes taking place. Last year total state wide bag of 9 reduced to 6 this year. Some counties bag reduced. Some counties no "antler less permits" allowed. More changes coming I'm sure.


----------



## seang22

Lmao


----------



## jmciw17

New checking system only hurt the local stores that used to get a lot of business from hunters that would come in to check there dear and see other dear taken and have pictures taken and put up on a board in the store and also spend some cash.I do not use the new system because I am a land owner and patronize my local checking station in Guernsey County. Owner of store says his business took a big hit for business. And yes the number of dear are down on my property but still there.There has also been much less hunters in the area probaly from fewer sightings of dear and the cost of going hunting and missing work. New system has hurt hunter comoradarie in my opinion, oh well I guess I am old and set in my ways


----------



## Flathead76

Old system you had to fill out your tag before dragging your deer out and driving it home. Your best chance of being contacted by a warden is in this time frame. Hard to reuse a tag that has been written on or soiled with blood. The new system when you get to put your homemade tag on and go. If you get home without any contact with a warden ; cut it up, put it in your freezer, keep your mouth shut, grab a new piece of paper to make another tag, and repeat.

The old system you had to bring your deer to a check station to have it looked at to get your hard tag. The new system you just call it in. So if you have not shot an antlered deer being this late in the season you could call in a 10 point and get a conformation number. So a few seasons down the road you could slap that conformation number on that 10 point that you could not kill this season. 

No matter what the system is people will find ways to cheat. Those are two differences.


Lundy said:


> Hey Wildman, answer a couple of questions for me please.
> 
> Old tag system, you must attach a temporary tag before moving the deer.
> New tag system - you must attach a temporary tag before moving the deer
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old tag system - you take it to a check station and received one metal tag
> New tag system - you call and the assigned number must remain with antlers, hide and meat forever
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old system - guy kills a deer and takes it to his barn and cuts it up and puts it in freezer, not tagged
> New system - guy kills a deer and takes it to his barn and cuts it up and puts it in freezer, not tagged
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old system - GW checks a guys meat in freezer, no tag required
> New system - GW checks a guys meat in freezer, must have tag number
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old system - GW checks antlers in some guys barn, must have tags
> New system - GW checks antlers in some guys barn, must have tag number
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old system - GW wants to know if Billy Bob checked in a deer, he must check all of the check station logs at every mom and pop corner store in the county Billy Bob Lives in and adjoining counties MANUALLY
> New system - GW wants to know if Bill Bob Checked a deer he has access to data base immediately
> What is the difference?
> 
> Old system - GW wants to know how many deer Billy Bob has checked in, how many deer have been checked in by Billy Bob the last few years, How many deer have been checked by people living at that same address as BillyBob, how many tags Bill Bob has purchased, he is crap out of luck.
> New system - all data available to him in his car on his laptop immediately
> Whats the difference?
> 
> Lastly, if more hunters are poaching now with the new system that with the old system, which I do not believe, the reported harvest would be reduced. Since you said the ODNR sets population and harvest goals by counting dead deer this would lead the ODNR to believe that there are less deer than there actually are leading them to reduce the harvest goals. So the more that cheat, the more they will estimate the population lower and reduce harvest goals.
> 
> I think that the same number cheat now that cheated with the old system, the population is lower due to the realized increased harvest goals that the ODNR put forth for a bunch of years. There is no data to support any other conclusion.


----------



## wildman

Thanks Lundy for bringing the snow!


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> Well if I had proof of the cheating there wouldn't be any cheating would there? And how would a person get statistics on the #'s of bow wounds hell bow and gun wounds.. Unlike some people, I am in the field hunting. When we find Deer with broad heads in them well its self explanatory...
> 
> When we jump a doe off here bed at 10 feet with an arrow hanging out and you look at where she was bedding and there's blood in it.. Well...
> 
> I'm just going off the #'s.. Field experience and interaction with other hunters..
> So where did all the deer go? Very few hunters harvest anymore than 2 Deer a year. Nor have they ever. I would bet even less since the new check in system.
> I highly doubt that the GWs tell you different. I don't consider 14000 Deer much of a drop when the new system was put in place it dropped 50,000
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


So basically you still got nothing. Of course since you say so it has to be true. You are the only person in the woods and the game warden that you talk to is real and the guys I talk to are imaginary. Still a bunch of idle words. Funny how you got push back on another site so you had to come here and bring it back up. Still all hot air.


----------



## wildman

Pushed back, what the hell does that mean? The conversation on the other site reminded me of this thread... Your right Bob I'm wrong.. How many days in the field did you have? Do you shoot at any archery clubs? Did you go to the deer summit last year? Planning on going this year? Did you go to the Deer and Turkey exbo? These are all things that I have been to and after talking to how ever many hunters and spending how ever many hours in the field in 4/5 county's I don't think I need to make things up to have an opinion or really need to. nor do I have gather some impossible statistical #'s to back my opinions.

I'm sure for some people, its easy to sit in comfort of there computer chair and disagree and ask for impossible statistical #'s. But again the year the check in system was implemented there was a 50,000 Deer drop and has slowly declined from there.. Thats Strange 

Either way my opinion has no merit or facts to back it. All is good in with Ohio Deer hunting.. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

wildman said:


> Pushed back, what the hell does that mean? The conversation on the other site reminded me of this thread... Your right Bob I'm wrong.. How many days in the field did you have? Do you shoot at any archery clubs? Did you go to the deer summit last year? Planning on going this year? Did you go to the Deer and Turkey exbo? These are all things that I have been to and after talking to how ever many hunters and spending how ever many hours in the field in 4/5 county's I don't think I need to make things up to have an opinion or really need to. nor do I have gather some impossible statistical #'s to back my opinions.
> 
> I'm sure for some people, its easy to sit in comfort of there computer chair and disagree and ask for impossible statistical #'s. But again the year the check in system was implemented there was a 50,000 Deer drop and has slowly declined from there.. Thats Strange
> 
> Either way my opinion has no merit or facts to back it. All is good in with Ohio Deer hunting..
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Wildman, I agree 100% that the new check system has had an impact on the number of deer taken and not recorded. It just made it that much easier for those that wanted to cheat. To what degree we will never know. What I am curious about is what you and others feel this is leading to as far as the state using these numbers to set limits and seasons. My gut tells me these numbers mean little to the state. $ and the power that comes with $ is what matters.


----------



## bobk

Way to busy to go to clubs and shows anymore. Did that for 30 years and have other things that take up my time now. Gosh, I must not be in the loop since I don't go clubbing anymore. I never said the herd isn't in decline. I just do not believe it's all because of the new check system. Asking for some type of proof that it's all on the new system is asking too much I guess. You don't have to be a groupie to know what's going on with the herd in Ohio. I spend plenty of time in the woods, ( no way as much as you of course) talk to plenty of hunters over a 17 county area in southern Ohio. Your view is not the only view out there on this subject.

Push back is basically people not drinking your kool aid and disagreeing with what you say. Happens all the time in life.


----------



## NorthSouthOhioFisherman

I just wanna see deer like I did about 6-8 years ago again, is that too much to ask?


----------



## hopintocash2

bobk said:


> Way to busy to go to clubs and shows anymore. Did that for 30 years and have other things that take up my time now. Gosh, I must not be in the loop since I don't go clubbing anymore. I never said the herd isn't in decline. I just do not believe it's all because of the new check system. Asking for some type of proof that it's all on the new system is asking too much I guess. You don't have to be a groupie to know what's going on with the herd in Ohio. I spend plenty of time in the woods, ( no way as much as you of course) talk to plenty of hunters over a 17 county area in southern Ohio. Your view is not the only view out there on this subject.
> 
> Push back is basically people not drinking your kool aid and disagreeing with what you say. Happens all the time in life.


Bob, I don't take exception to your belief that the new check system is a problem. I do believe your statement about spending a lot time in the woods a load of crap. You stated in another thread that you don't buy license or tags because you hunt your own land. So unless you own a hell of a lot of land all over the state, you have no clue what is happening, as well as others here. If you want to be a hunter, get out and HUNT. Go to state lands and HUNT. You guys with honey holes on this site are so far removed from reality it is sickening.


----------



## bobk

hopintocash2 said:


> Bob, I don't take exception to your belief that the new check system is a problem. I do believe your statement about spending a lot time in the woods a load of crap. You stated in another thread that you don't buy license or tags because you hunt your own land. So unless you own a hell of a lot of land all over the state, you have no clue what is happening, as well as others here. If you want to be a hunter, get out and HUNT. Go to state lands and HUNT. You guys with honey holes on this site are so far removed from reality it is sickening.


Oh boy, I don't buy deer tags. Why in the hell would I? I do buy a license so if I said I don't I was wrong. I'm guessing that's from the deer survey post . I do however hunt birds, yotes and the occasionally tree rats. I spend time on several of my friends land. Brown county and Vinton county. I do HUNT. It's possible to hunt on private land too you know. Saying I'm not a hunter and have no clue just because I have property is a load of crap. Unbelievable. Some that think public land hunters are the only real hunters is also a load of crap. I figured out about 25 years ago if I want to have good land to hunt I best buy my own. You have no clue about me at all.


----------



## bobk

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Wildman, I agree 100% that the new check system has had an impact on the number of deer taken and not recorded. It just made it that much easier for those that wanted to cheat. To what degree we will never know. What I am curious about is what you and others feel this is leading to as far as the state using these numbers to set limits and seasons. My gut tells me these numbers mean little to the state. $ and the power that comes with $ is what matters.


I think the number of huntjng license is down and the sale of tags had to be down this year as well with the reductions in many counties. With the state being all about $ I would guess they will have to do something soon to keep the revenues up. One of the ways to increase revenues could be to bump the amount of deer killed in the counties again. Just a guess but I think they will do something to keep the cash coming in. Probably won't be a good thing they do either.


----------



## Lundy

hopintocash2 said:


> . You guys with honey holes on this site are so far removed from reality it is sickening.


The reality is what you have the ability to make it. You obviously have come up a little short in your ability to create a better reality for yourself but certainly have no problem deriding those that can, do, and have. It is always easier to just complain about your plight that to make a difference in your own outcome. The world is full of people that have perpetual personal pity parties, get over it and change your reality or sit back and continued to be sickened by those that can.


----------



## wildman

bobk said:


> I think the number of huntjng license is down and the sale of tags had to be down this year as well with the reductions in many counties. With the state being all about $ I would guess they will have to do something soon to keep the revenues up. One of the ways to increase revenues could be to bump the amount of deer killed in the counties again. Just a guess but I think they will do something to keep the cash coming in. Probably won't be a good thing they do either.


Sales are up on license... 

You people are just funny. I doubt some of your statements bobk... It good to see things here haven't changed a bit..


----------



## Lundy

"Honey Holes" The reality is that only roughly 4% of the land in Ohio is open to public hunting but accounts for around 9% of the total state kill.

The other 96% of the available huntable lands are all "Honey Holes"


----------



## wildman

Ha ha ha 

Again nothings changed..


----------



## Lundy

wildman said:


> Sales are up on license... .


Are you trying to say license sales or tag sales are up this year? 

And just for the heck of it, why would tag sales ever be up again? Huge numbers of deer, 50,000 according to you, that don't get tagged with the new tag system. They don't need to purchase tags they won't use anyway.


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> Sales are up on license...
> 
> You people are just funny. I doubt some of your statements bobk... It good to see things here haven't changed a bit..


That's fine doubt me all you want. 
2005 sales 425,992
2015 sales 404,997


----------



## wildman

License are up. Still down from the 50's but up from the last few years... I don't know about tags

Just going off the #'s Lundy.. That's the biggest drop in deer #'s on record and it just happens to be the year we changed systems.. Call it what you want.. So far I haven't been off on the deer #'s going back 3/4 years.. Only to hear from you and bobk and the gang how wrong I am.. Others chime in and you attack and just like normal the gang goes after him.. Obviously Bob rubbed him the wrong way...

Bobk my doubt is that you have friends...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## bobk

wildman said:


> License are up. Still down from the 50's but up from the last few years... I don't know about tags
> 
> Just going off the #'s Lundy.. That's the biggest drop in deer #'s on record and it just happens to be the year we changed systems.. Call it what you want.. So far I haven't been off on the deer #'s going back 3/4 years.. Only to hear from you and bobk and the gang how wrong I am.. Others chime in and you attack and just like normal the gang goes after him.. Obviously Bob rubbed him the wrong way...
> 
> Bobk my doubt is that you have friends...
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk[/QUOT


Oh man, I thought you were my only friend. I'm so disappointed. I'm going to go kill a deer and not phone it in. That will get me some friends for sure. Everyone does it so I may get some friends doing so. Keep the personal insults coming though it makes me feel like you care. I'm feeling soooo lonely.


----------



## wildman

Ha Ha Ha

Good stuff


----------



## supercanoe

hopintocash2 said:


> Bob, I don't take exception to your belief that the new check system is a problem. I do believe your statement about spending a lot time in the woods a load of crap. You stated in another thread that you don't buy license or tags because you hunt your own land. So unless you own a hell of a lot of land all over the state, you have no clue what is happening, as well as others here. If you want to be a hunter, get out and HUNT. Go to state lands and HUNT. You guys with honey holes on this site are so far removed from reality it is sickening.


I worked hard to purchase my own land. I work hard helping friends work on their farms that we hunt on. I build relationships with local farmers to gain hunting rights. "Honey holes"-I've got too many. The hardest part for me is deciding which farm to hunt. I always see deer. Sometimes I decide to shoot one. This is my reality.


----------



## idontknow316

I'm just wondering lol


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

supercanoe said:


> I worked hard to purchase my own land. I work hard helping friends work on their farms that we hunt on. I build relationships with local farmers to gain hunting rights. "Honey holes"-I've got too many. The hardest part for me is deciding which farm to hunt. I always see deer. Sometimes I decide to shoot one. This is my reality.


Great response and so very true! We all come to the discussion regarding deer hunting and where it is headed from our own perspective which is formed by our own experiences.
Not everyone has the ability to purchase land ....hard worker or not. Not everyone wants to knock on doors to seek permission.....
Until a few short years ago this state had a good option for these people and it was public land. In recent history this has changed. Public land in many cases is no longer a good option if one wants to see more than a few deer a season. I say season not per hunt.
Those that have been affected by the decline in opportunities to take deer off public lands are understandably frustrated as all the state had to do was take some actions to reduce the doe kill from the public lands. Instead they threw the baby out with the bath water so to speak in their single minded focus to reduce the herd at all costs knowing full well the public areas would take the deepest cut.
As a very frustrated public land hunter I do not begrudge those that own their own land nor those that just have permission on private land areas that hold strong populations. Good for them. They are blessed.
I do take issue though when these same people when they make no attempt to empathize and understand what has been lost to the public hunters in recent years. 

I am going to be a hold out... I will not lease, I can't afford to purchase at my age and will not be knocking on doors. I will hunt public harder and longer and hope for the best. I am also looking at public land opportunities in other states. Since it seems the state will do nothing to protect this public land resource the best hope is that many Ohio public land hunters will quit hunting or buy land or lease etc. and after enough move away from hunting the public lands the herd may be able to replenish somewhat. This will take years but it may be the best hope for our public deer hunting in the future.

This is my reality.


----------



## wildman

Great post Unclemike...

Many of the more fortunate forget how important and vital our public lands are. I have been luck enough to hunt almost 30 years on public land..

My future will not include purchasing land to hunt for I am a girl maker.. My future will include paying for College and I am sure a couple of weddings. I am lucky enough to have friends with land that I am able to hunt. I am sure many people have friends its just hard to find friends with land which means hunting on public is their only option.

Land being leased for high $ and public land having low #'s, the new recruitment of hunters for the future looks bleak.. 

Managing public lands at a sustainable level and the purchase of new land is what is needed.


----------



## bobk

Unclemike, do you bowhunt public land also?


----------



## Lundy

If the ODNR had a different set of regulations and bag limits on public lands, one deer, buck only, would the hunters that hunt public land be happy? I think not, they would I think be screaming about the privileged private land hunters.

What regulations would you set for public hunting?


----------



## supercanoe

Anyone who is waiting on the state to create a deer utopia for their hunting enjoyment is going to be disappointed. Life is what you make of it, if you don't like your current situation get out there and work to improve it. That could mean buying your own land, joining a lease, helping a farmer out for permission to hunt, knocking on doors, etc. Otherwise you will be here every year at this time complaining about the same issues. Public land hunting is tough in Ohio, that is a cold hard fact that won't change. The human population grows every year, more land is developed, and public lands remain static.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> If the ODNR had a different set of regulations and bag limits on public lands, one deer, buck only, would the hunters that hunt public land be happy? I think not, they would I think be screaming about the privileged private land hunters.
> 
> What regulations would you set for public hunting?


Other states including Texas have different reg. No need for me to list them as your mind is clearly made up regarding public lands and hunters.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

supercanoe said:


> Anyone who is waiting on the state to create a deer utopia for their hunting enjoyment is going to be disappointed. Life is what you make of it, if you don't like your current situation get out there and work to improve it. That could mean buying your own land, joining a lease, helping a farmer out for permission to hunt, knocking on doors, etc. Otherwise you will be here every year at this time complaining about the same issues. Public land hunting is tough in Ohio, that is a cold hard fact that won't change. The human population grows every year, more land is developed, and public lands remain static.


No one asked for utopia just a professional management of the herd. Seems that concept is above the understanding level of many fellow hunters.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

bobk said:


> Unclemike, do you bowhunt public land also?


Yes been bow hunting public lands for over 40 years. Still take one most years with the bow, sometimes even two. I drive 100 miles south each way each weekend as the deer populations on the public lands in the N.E. part of the state where I live are so low. The decline I saw over the years on the public close to home is now occurring in the less populated regions of the state I hunt.


----------



## bobk

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Yes been bow hunting public lands for over 40 years. Still take one most years with the bow, sometimes even two. I drive 100 miles south each way each weekend as the deer populations on the public lands in the N.E. part of the state where I live are so low. The decline I saw over the years on the public close to home is now occurring in the less populated regions of the state I hunt.


 Are you hunting the Wayne by chance?


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

bobk said:


> Are you hunting the Wayne by chance?


I have hunted the Wayne. Took my first buck there in the early 70's. Now days I hunt mainly Egypt Valley and Jockey Hollow.


----------



## Lundy

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Other states including Texas have different reg. No need for me to list them as your mind is clearly made up regarding public lands and hunters.


I visit Texas multiple times a year, I fully understand the regulations and deer hunting in Texas

You have little knowledge of what I actually think or don't think about public hunting and hunters.

I was asking how YOU would suggest managing the deer regulations on public hunting areas. You are obviously passionate about that subject and highly critical of the past and current management practices, so I wanted to hear your ideas. You never know, I might even agree with you,


----------



## crittergitter

It is a good thing for one to work to make things bettter for one self. 

However, that doesn't mean we should just leave things go.

If there is a 5 foot pothole in the road, we can all choose an alternate road to get from point A to point B. Though, it would be nice if the city, state or whomever is responsible for the management of such things could address the problem and make it better.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> I visit Texas multiple times a year, I fully understand the regulations and deer hunting in Texas
> 
> You have little knowledge of what I actually think or don't think about public hunting and hunters.
> 
> I was asking how YOU would suggest managing the deer regulations on public hunting areas. You are obviously passionate about that subject and highly critical of the past and current management practices, so I wanted to hear your ideas. You never know, I might even agree with you,


I have formed my opinion based upon your posts on this thread. If your posts reflect your true feelings then I may have formed an accurate opinion... point being just an opinion...and may or may not be accurate... so prove me wrong and add something with substance rather than talking about pity parties and screaming public land hunters were different regulations enacted. Your words not mine. Own them or explain what you meant by saying them because I get the impression that you don't feel any empathy toward the plight of the public land deer hunter these days.

Were there different regs of course there would be those that would hate that type of thing. On the other hand given a choice between different regs. or a lack of deer many might see the value. Either way the state has not and never will make regs. to keep hunters happy be they public or private land hunters.

Last point and I am done with this one for now.... there has been NO and I mean No management practice with regard to public lands deer herds. Just lump them in with the rest of the state. Anyone could have predicted the outcome. I don't call that management I call it a total failure to manage.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

crittergitter said:


> It is a good thing for one to work to make things bettter for one self.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean we should just leave things go.
> 
> If there is a 5 foot pothole in the road, we can all choose an alternate road to get from point A to point B. Though, it would be nice if the city, state or whomever is responsible for the management of such things could address the problem and make it better.


THANK YOU! Someone that can see it is not all or nothing.


----------



## wildman

I was talking to a biologists on the phone about the lack of upland game birds, the conversation moved to Deer. He told me that they don't do anything for Deer just set the limit's.


----------



## bobk

Unclemike , I want to send you a pm but I can't figure out how to do it on the new format?


----------



## crittergitter

Ohio's fish and game management agency has never shown itself in my opinion to be an agency of conservation. I've seen put & take saugeye, put & take pheasant, put & take wipers. 

It is rare that they do anything in the name of conservation. The musky clubs had to plead with the agency for multiple years to get the bag limit reduced to 1 per day. There still is no size limit. 

As far as I am concerned they could announce they are closing deer season on all public lands for 1 year, the fall of 2016. I would be perfectly fine with that as I feel it would prove beneficial. I know others might be upset by that. Sometimes, in the name of conservation difficult decisions need to be made. The same applies if the population is out of hand and measure need to be taken to reduce it. 

The overall lack of transparency, and the propaganda used to promote their agenda are a few things that really irritate me about the ODOW.


----------



## bobk

Think of all the money the state would loose by doing that. They love the money a heck of a lot more than the deer. How about 1 deer per hunter for the season? There are people in this discussion right now that have talked about tagging out or killing 3 deer this season. I just don't understand that. They are the same ones complaining about the herd numbers but making no sacrifices themselves. I love to eat deer but let more walk for a few years and see what happens to the herd. Just a thought.


----------



## crittergitter

People, in general, don't self police. They just don't. My worst year of hunting was 2012 where I spent most of my time hunting the same public wildlife area that I had spent 18 years hunting. I had 28 trips afield and saw 7 deer while in the field. That's pretty terrible. I know the entire area like the back of my hand. I've harvested plenty of deer from there over the years. I generally only take one deer. Might have been a year or two where I got a buck and a doe. I moved, shifted to less pressured areas and everything. The numbers just weren't there. 

However, a friend of my uncle hunts the same area. He and his wife both attempt to tag out every year and many years they do. He knew the population was down and didn't care. He bought his tags and was going to do his best to fill them and would do so even if it meant killing the last living deer out there. That's the mentality of the "fill my tags" hunter. I can't change it. 

The state can change it. They can enact guidelines in the name of conservation. Be it reduced opportunity, limited tags or a closed season. It is up to them. They "manage" it. Not the hunter. We're simply a tool to carry out their stated goal.


----------



## Lundy

Uncle mike,

Actually I am a propenet of raising non resident license fees and establishing a different bag limit for non residents on public lands. A large percentage of the public land harvest is non residents

Secondly I would like to see population evaluations and estimates, including buck to doe ratios, for each individual public area or management area and a total allowable harvest goal set for the season. Once the maximum deer harvest has been reached the area is shut down to deer hunting for the rest of that season. Physical deer check points for all deer harvested within public management lands

Lastly, I would like to see a significant increase in deer tags with the money used to fund private landowner public access hunting. Basically I would like the state to lease private property for hunting and fund it with deer hunters dollars. Also put forth a licensing requirement for hunting land lease companies.

So I, as a hunter of private land "honey Holes" am very willing to pay a lot more money every year to improve and enhance hunting opportunities for all hunters, old and new comers to the sport and tradition.

What is difficult for me is to listen to is complaining with no constructive ideas or EFFORTS to improve anything. Complaining is easy, advocating for change and putting forth effort to accomplish change is difficult. PCR's in Ohio didn't come from complaing, it came from a group of people working tirelessly for many years to make it happen


----------



## supercanoe

A policy of sustainable selective timber harvest on public lands would do wonders for the deer herd and generate income for maintenance and land acquisition.


----------



## ML1187

I hunt 300 acres in Greene county and have for 25 years. Numbers are NOT what they once wore. No question about that. What did we do? We decided to act. We haven't taken a doe from those acres in a long , long time. 6 years plus. WE had to decide to do this for the health of the herd. Did we want to? Nope. I love shooting deer. But it has made a world of difference. I can't tell you how many different bucks were spotted from this acres this year. Easily over 20. Does are back in numbers of 6+. It wasn't easy. It wasn't always fun. But we turned it around. You can too.


----------



## wildman

One property I hunt has a requirement that we shoot a certain # of Deer because there is so many. The #'s have gone down but a friend seen 23 different Deer. 20 he could of shot. 

Another is urban where the #'s are coming back. We got rid of a neighbor poacher. 2 years ago. 

Another is in an area where leasing sorounds it. Doe #'s are very high.

But I do have a property that is very low so I don't kill anything off of it unless a big buck comes around.

Discipline, Knowing your herd and the hunting pressure around it is key. Public land and its hunters don't have that luxury.. That's the problem..


----------



## ML1187

wildman said:


> Discipline, Knowing your herd and the hunting pressure around it is key. Public land and its hunters don't have that luxury.. That's the problem..


I truly believe the state needs to begin to manage each public sector on its own merits. Don't they do that now with our lakes and rivers ? Why can't it be done with public land ? 

Hopefully the move away from huge zones and into smaller parcels as proposed for next year will have some advantage.


----------



## wildman

ML1187 said:


> I truly believe the state needs to begin to manage each public sector on its own merits. Don't they do that now with our lakes and rivers ? Why can't it be done with public land ?
> 
> Hopefully the move away from huge zones and into smaller parcels as proposed for next year will have some advantage.


To their defense they are changing the zones up...

You exactly right. Why can't they manage public sectors like they do our water ways...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> Uncle mike,
> 
> Actually I am a propenet of raising non resident license fees and establishing a different bag limit for non residents on public lands. A large percentage of the public land harvest is non residents
> 
> Secondly I would like to see population evaluations and estimates, including buck to doe ratios, for each individual public area or management area and a total allowable harvest goal set for the season. Once the maximum deer harvest has been reached the area is shut down to deer hunting for the rest of that season. Physical deer check points for all deer harvested within public management lands
> 
> Lastly, I would like to see a significant increase in deer tags with the money used to fund private landowner public access hunting. Basically I would like the state to lease private property for hunting and fund it with deer hunters dollars. Also put forth a licensing requirement for hunting land lease companies.
> 
> So I, as a hunter of private land "honey Holes" am very willing to pay a lot more money every year to improve and enhance hunting opportunities for all hunters, old and new comers to the sport and tradition.
> 
> What is difficult for me is to listen to is complaining with no constructive ideas or EFFORTS to improve anything. Complaining is easy, advocating for change and putting forth effort to accomplish change is difficult. PCR's in Ohio didn't come from complaing, it came from a group of people working tirelessly for many years to make it happen[/QUOTE
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply to me Lundy. I agree with what you have said. What action should we as hunters be taking. The winter meetings seem a one way flow of info from the state. Other than taking the time to take their surveys what action should concerned hunters be taking?


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> Uncle mike,
> 
> Actually I am a propenet of raising non resident license fees and establishing a different bag limit for non residents on public lands. A large percentage of the public land harvest is non residents
> 
> Secondly I would like to see population evaluations and estimates, including buck to doe ratios, for each individual public area or management area and a total allowable harvest goal set for the season. Once the maximum deer harvest has been reached the area is shut down to deer hunting for the rest of that season. Physical deer check points for all deer harvested within public management lands
> 
> Lastly, I would like to see a significant increase in deer tags with the money used to fund private landowner public access hunting. Basically I would like the state to lease private property for hunting and fund it with deer hunters dollars. Also put forth a licensing requirement for hunting land lease companies.
> 
> So I, as a hunter of private land "honey Holes" am very willing to pay a lot more money every year to improve and enhance hunting opportunities for all hunters, old and new comers to the sport and tradition.
> 
> What is difficult for me is to listen to is complaining with no constructive ideas or EFFORTS to improve anything. Complaining is easy, advocating for change and putting forth effort to accomplish change is difficult. PCR's in Ohio didn't come from complaing, it came from a group of people working tirelessly for many years to make it happen


Thanks for taking the time to clarify for me Lundy. I agree with most all of your points.

I don't mind hearing complaints and concerns expressed though... at least it means those people recognize there is an issue. That is if it can be done without being negative towards those that hunt lands other than public. I also don't agree with those that think those hunting public lands are just too lazy or stupid to find somewhere else to hunt. There are positives about hunting public land so long as it still holds reasonable deer populations which for years was the case. Would be nice if both sides of this coin stopped this behavior. Nice to wish right.

I am at a loss as to what to do and to encourage others to do to push for changes by the state. The annual meetings seem to be mainly a one way flow of info from them to hunters. Surveys are good but not all get them. I would hope anyone that gets one and has an opinion on these things takes the time to reply. Other that that what options are out there? You spoke to the PCR supporters getting it done. How did they do this? Perhaps it can be repeated?


----------



## Lundy

Uncle Mike,

One of the primary participants in the PCR change is also a member here. BuckeyeDan. Reach out to him for ideas


----------



## jray

I really like some of the ideas being mentioned on here. I can tell you as I heard it personally from the source that small parcel management is what is coming. Habitat fragmentation and therefore deer herd fragmentation is the problem of our generation and it will only get worse. I also like the idea of managing your own deer herd. I did not shoot any does on my property this year. I did shoot a couple on public land where there are more than enough and does need thinned.


----------



## Saugernut

Yep me too, passed on does all year on my private land and got one nice buck. Was lucky enough to get a couple of nice fat does later in the year on pub. which has a larger population that I have.


----------

