# Deer Harvest History



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

A chart I have been keeping up to date for many years. Not all 2020 data is available yet.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

Interesting .... what happened to record harvest the state claims ..... seems its way down from other years, like what ive seen out hunting..... less deer


----------



## jmyers8 (Aug 2, 2013)

Wow really interesting. Gun harvest have steadily declined to half and bow has doubled.. also license sales are way down too

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Morrowtucky Mike (May 2, 2018)

I still remember those awesome years during the mid 2000’s. Deer were everywhere, not so much in my area now.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

ironman172 said:


> Interesting .... what happened to record harvest the state claims ..... seems its way down from other years, like what ive seen out hunting..... less deer


Certainly not where it was many years ago before the ODNR sanctioned hunter harvest slaughter, 2020 was the highest since 2013 and was up 7% over 2019 and 13% over 2018.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

jmyers8 said:


> Wow really interesting. Gun harvest have steadily declined to half and bow has doubled.. also license sales are way down too
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Really interesting to me is the success ratio of tags purchased and used. 2019 showed the highest since I started keep track of this data. What does that mean? I'm not sure.


----------



## Uglystix (Mar 3, 2006)

Nice work thanks for sharing. I could never figure out the math.. they claim 700k deer in Ohio, 250k killed (not including poacher, predation, and natural death). That leaves 450k. Throw in the buck to doe ratio and offspring survival ratio.. Seems like the deer would be gone in a decade If you include the poached and etc numbers


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Just 100,000 does with a 1.5 yearling average = 250,000 total deer in one year. If just 1/3 of the new yearlings in year are does, 50,000 + the original 100,000 = 150,000 does x 1.5 = 225,000 new yearlings year 2 + 100,000 the first year yearlings that were bucks and the population from the original 100,000 does at the end of 2 years , with very conservative numbers = 475,000 deer


----------



## Kenlow1 (Jul 14, 2012)

You were an accountant before you retired weren't you? I knew it!


----------



## floater99 (May 21, 2010)

It seems we have a banner year according to calculation process for that yr ? as we age bow hunting can be done during nicer weather and a long season less tag sales I believe is due to lack of new hunters joining our ranks


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Kenlow1 said:


> You were an accountant before you retired weren't you? I knew it!


No I am not and was not ever an accountant. I just have always liked real data instead of guessing


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

jmyers8 said:


> Wow really interesting. Gun harvest have steadily declined to half and bow has doubled.. also license sales are way down too
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Exactly. Permits are way down too. Things could be on the upswing if again if we continue to have less deer hunters. I am in favor of even more does ! - meaning less allowable harvest of them.


----------



## jmyers8 (Aug 2, 2013)

I wish they would do 1 doe on public land and no does after the gun season. Then maybe open does just for muzzeloader on public. I'm not in favor of the 1 doe on public all year to easy to cheat the system that way.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

jmyers8 said:


> I wish they would do 1 doe on public land and no does after the gun season. Then maybe open does just for muzzeloader on public. I'm not in favor of the 1 doe on public all year to easy to cheat the system that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I'd be thrilled with a rule for no does/anterless on private land for three or four years with the exemption for farms. It would make for much better hunting in the regions owned privately for hunting/recreational.


----------



## jmyers8 (Aug 2, 2013)

Around where I live north central Ohio that wouldnt work. We have rural farms next to park land are buck to doe ratio would explode. Not saying some parts of the state couldn't benefit. But I also like shooting a doe or 2 a year for meat we primary eat deer meat over buying beef we easily go through 3 a year with no waste 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Lundy said:


> Really interesting to me is the success ratio of tags purchased and used. 2019 showed the highest since I started keep track of this data. What does that mean? I'm not sure.


I believe it has a lot to due with the higher quality hunting tools available in guns, archery, and muzzle loader along with the decline in numbers of the 'casual hunter' due to the loss of available hunting lands. The quality of all things we are allowed to hunt with has steadily, dramatically, and rapidly increased over recent years, an insane difference to the equipment we used in the past. That and 20 years ago our hunt camp in Adena had 20 guys that showed up annually and now there are only a couple due to the loss of mine property that we all hunted, it has been all either been sold off or is lease managed for hunting and that has happened all over the state. Prior to that there were multiple generations in our group, and that practice has sadly faded. I believe that there are more dedicated hunters today and less guys buying tags that were just along for hunt camp. Hell, I don't even hunt my own state anymore, except for my own property, our Family hunt camp is in Northern Michigan now where the hunting is terrible compared to here, but we can set up a nice camp up there. To me that dynamic explains a bit of the higher tag fill rate, more of those in the field are simply more focused on filling a tag.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

jmyers8 said:


> Around where I live north central Ohio that wouldnt work. We have rural farms next to park land are buck to doe ratio would explode. Not saying some parts of the state couldn't benefit. But I also like shooting a doe or 2 a year for meat we primary eat deer meat over buying beef we easily go through 3 a year with no waste
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Every region is different. It can be very local. All we need to do is to do our part and be wary of decline.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Lundy said:


> No I am not and was not ever an accountant. I just have always liked real data instead of guessing


There has never been any guessing.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

TheKing said:


> I'd be thrilled with a rule for no does/anterless on private land for three or four years with the exemption for farms. It would make for much better hunting in the regions owned privately for hunting/recreational.


With the property tax I pay to have land to hunt on, I think a couple deer is a small price to pay
Do that on public land ,
Get rid of the 6 deer state wide crap


----------



## jmyers8 (Aug 2, 2013)

I thought I remember reading somewhere not very long ago a very small percentage ( maybe even under 1%) kill 6bdeer a hear and very few take 4 or 5 the majority is 3 or under 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Lundy said:


> Just 100,000 does with a 1.5 yearling average = 250,000 total deer in one year. If just 1/3 of the new yearlings in year are does, 50,000 + the original 100,000 = 150,000 does x 1.5 = 225,000 new yearlings year 2 + 100,000 the first year yearlings that were bucks and the population from the original 100,000 does at the end of 2 years , with very conservative numbers = 475,000 deer


i really doubt the average is 1.5 yearlings per year. i would expect that number to be somewhat under 1 per year as not all does are bred every year. with your model, every doe is bred every season and half of those have twins. i just don't see that in the woods anywhere.


----------



## Muddy (May 7, 2017)

The fawn recruitment rate in Ohio is consistently less than 1 fawn per adult doe. Very few deer populations have a fawn recruitment rate that reach 1 fawn per adult doe. Recent data for the Midwest shows that recruitment averages around .8 fawns per adult doe.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

OK, with recruitment at .8 and a ratio of 50% male to female birth the number would be 292,000 deer at the end of 2 years starting with 100,000 does.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Lundy said:


> OK, with recruitment at .8 and a ratio of 50% male to female birth the number would be 292,000 deer at the end of 2 years starting with 100,000 does.


in a word... coyote.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

TheKing said:


> I'd be thrilled with a rule for no does/anterless on private land for three or four years with the exemption for farms. It would make for much better hunting in the regions owned privately for hunting/recreational.


The nice thing about owning land is you can choose to control your population yourself with some self control of the killing. I don’t trust the state to do a better job of controlling the herd than I can do. The idea you have suggested would make my property a mess. Doe to bucks ratio would be way out of whack. Private land doesn’t need help from the state. Look what they already did to the state as a whole. No thanks.


----------



## Morrowtucky Mike (May 2, 2018)

In my area EHD is what wiped out the deer population, not the ODNR from allowing to much harvest. We were finding dead deer everywhere one summer. My buddy found 3 dead bucks in the pond behind his house that year. It was basically in a single summer. We went from seeing deer all over that fall and winter and then by the next fall it’s like someone just turned a switch and they were gone. And no, it wasn’t from the coyotes in my area.


----------



## MagicMarker (Mar 19, 2017)

I’m with Bob. We’ll manage our place to suit us. No help needed from state


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

I wish I had more land to actually manage , just lucky they pass through and visit once in awhile


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bob is 100% correct. When the big push to reduce population by the DNR with increased bag limits and reduced tag costs and the harvest went way up and the population went way down the ODNR did not kill all of those deer, hunters killed all of those deer. The same hunters that cried about a reduced population after they did their best to kill as many as they could for the previous few years.

The DNR has NO ability to REDUCE the population, they only have control over INCREASING the population by reducing legal harvest. Hunters have the only actual control over reduction of population. If DNR made the limit 20 deer and a year round season it would not matter unless hunters were the willing tool to do the work.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

MagicMarker said:


> I’m with Bob. We’ll manage our place to suit us. No help needed from state


Every locale is different - different in pressure and habitat. And more than one plan is needed for that reason. I'm sure that our current 'one size fits all' method works for a certain level of pressure and habitat. It's hard to get neighbors to agree to a management plan that will increase the herd. That's why I think it would help if the state got involved. We have a decent population in our neighborhood but it is not increasing. The herds used to be counted as 50 to 100 in my neighborhood just 20 years ago. Now it is in terms of 10-20. I think that a 2 year wait time on antlerless (or an antlerless tag drawing by locale) could work in my region. And something like that surely should not be applied to all lands be they public or private.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

privateer said:


> in a word... coyote.


Coyote argument doesn't work, we kill around 200,000 deer a year, every year ,with coyotes present and they are not a new introduction to the equation, they have been here for decades. If hunters didn't kill what they kill each year we would have a population explosion, coyotes or not, that would not be good for us or the deer. Metro parks are a clear example of what would happen throughout the deer ranges in the state without hunting harvest to regulate populations. If coyotes were gone tomorrow the hunting harvest would need to be increased to maintain a stable population.

I think many hunters start with the premise that the deer population is too low, I don't believe the other vested parties or the ODNR would agree with that premise.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Lundy said:


> Coyote argument doesn't work, we kill around 200,000 deer a year, every year ,with coyotes present and they are not a new introduction to the equation, they have been here for decades. If hunters didn't kill what they kill each year we would have a population explosion, coyotes or not, that would not be good for us or the deer. Metro parks are a clear example of what would happen throughout the deer ranges in the state without hunting harvest to regulate populations. If coyotes were gone tomorrow the hunting harvest would need to be increased to maintain a stable population.
> 
> I think many hunters start with the premise that the deer population is too low, I don't believe the other vested parties or the ODNR would agree with that premise.


What vested parties? What ODNR metric decides a healthy population?


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

The rest of the non hunting public, landowners farmers, insurance companies. There has to be a balance of anyone and everyone that a deer population would have an impact on.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

Bunch of neighbors gardens and flower beds sure would appreciate a special city bow hunt permit.....



















A friend said he counted 20 that crossed the road in front of him last week headed for Indian springs elementary field


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Lundy said:


> Coyote argument doesn't work, we kill around 200,000 deer a year, every year ,with coyotes present and they are not a new introduction to the equation, they have been here for decades. If hunters didn't kill what they kill each year we would have a population explosion, coyotes or not, that would not be good for us or the deer. Metro parks are a clear example of what would happen throughout the deer ranges in the state without hunting harvest to regulate populations. If coyotes were gone tomorrow the hunting harvest would need to be increased to maintain a stable population.
> 
> I think many hunters start with the premise that the deer population is too low, I don't believe the other vested parties or the ODNR would agree with that premise.


i think you may have reversed the meaning of my statement. sure, coyotes have been in good numbers around NE Ohio and NW PA since the 70's. I recall pictures of them standing on the dog house at a friends back in late 70s. point is that they do take quite a bit of yearlings. it is a feast time for coyotes. of course they balance with high numbers when deer can support and not otherwise.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't disagree with that at all.


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

Lundy said:


> Bob is 100% correct. When the big push to reduce population by the DNR with increased bag limits and reduced tag costs and the harvest went way up and the population went way down the ODNR did not kill all of those deer, hunters killed all of those deer.  The same hunters that cried about a reduced population after they did their best to kill as many as they could for the previous few years.
> 
> The DNR has NO ability to REDUCE the population, they only have control over INCREASING the population by reducing legal harvest. Hunters have the only actual control over reduction of population. If DNR made the limit 20 deer and a year round season it would not matter unless hunters were the willing tool to do the work.


This is so true. 
I never understood why the sportsmen/women didn't understand the concept that you can't kill all the does and still have abundant deer populations. IMO if hunters want to continue to see abundant deer populations the limits on does is still too high. 
I'm glad to see a reduced doe harvest on public land and I hope they continue the policy for years to come. Public land deer herds need all the help they can get.
It was inevitable that the switch from gun season harvest to an archery season harvest would happen with the increase in technology in archery popularity & the improved equipment made it possible for more people to participate. A big bonus is the season is longer and the weather is better.
I never quite bought into the coyote predation theory, they've been around our area since the 70's and the herds did just fine in the 80's and 90's.

Thanks for posting Lundy, I always enjoy seeing the updated report.


----------



## lawrence1 (Jul 2, 2008)

One interesting takeaway for me is the increase in crossbow kills. Better crossbows have resulted in more crossbow hunters. Not everyone can shoot a vertical bow with acceptable accuracy. You can buy a set up crossbow and you don't even have to practice and kill Deer.

I remember before crossbows were legal. All the whining, from mostly the traditional archers, about how the crossbows were going to kill all the Deer and how there would be a hunter in every other tree. Some were most adamant about it. Not a crossbow hunter myself, but why not welcome them? Better than watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Also, I disagree with public land limits being less than private. In this instance, the ODNR gave in to the whiners who watch too many videos and think there should be a monster behind every tree.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

lawrence1 said:


> I remember before crossbows were legal. All the whining, from mostly the traditional archers, about how the crossbows were going to kill all the Deer and how there would be a hunter in every other tree. Some were most adamant about it.


 I am a past President of Apache Bowhunters Club , just south of Columbus. The crossbow debate was hot and heavy back then and raged for years. It looks like the traditional bowhunters were correct with their concerns based upon the harvest data today. 

I'm old enough to remember the very first season it was legal to hunt with a crossbow. It was during a 3 day "primitive weapons season"


----------



## lawrence1 (Jul 2, 2008)

Lundy said:


> It looks like the traditional bowhunters were correct with their concerns based upon the harvest data today.


So somewhere out there is a vertical bow hunter who didn't get his Deer because the crossbow hunters killed it?

Lame.
😀😀😀


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

the crossbow has done to the compound what the compound did to the recurve... it made the average shooter much more effective at hunting range.

this just means that the late season rifle hunter or disabled archer may get a chance at early deer too by using the crossbow. in my experience the effective killing range of the crossbow is the same as the compound. this has less to do with the distance/accuracy of the device than the fact you are shooting an arrow/bolt at about the same speed at an animal that will move...

of course with practice, i believe the compound has a longer effective range than the crossbow due to arrow weight and better efficiency due to bow length and the resulting power stroke. However, the crossbow will quickly catch and surpass the vertical crossbow when someone puts the full size compound horizontal on rails with a trigger...


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

Lundy said:


> It looks like the traditional bowhunters were correct with their concerns based upon the harvest data today.


I think that exact same thing.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

privateer said:


> *the crossbow has done to the compound what the compound did to the recurve... it made the average shooter much more effective at hunting range.*


Very good point privateer.
Having hunted with all three...the compound absolutely did to the recurve what the crossbow did to them both. And just like the age old heated issue for muzzle loader season back in the day going from flinters/caplocks to allowing inlines...and now from shotgun season to 'gun season' using rifles.

Thinking ahead...if the total bow kill keeps increasing and the current post gun season restrictions as far as buck only goes doesn't work as far as balancing herd to ODNR specs...what's a realistic solution?
Since ODNR most likely won't seperate the tools used in each season...
...Maybe a buck only restriction during a portion of the bow season???


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

fastwater said:


> Thinking ahead...if the total bow kill keeps increasing and the current post gun season restrictions as far as buck only goes doesn't work as far as balancing herd to ODNR specs...what's a realistic solution?
> Since ODNR most likely won't seperate the tools used in each season...
> ...*Maybe a buck only restriction during a portion of the bow season*???


For the most part we did just that on the 2 adjoining farms we hunted and we always saw plenty of deer. For bucks we only shot 8's or better and we had a nice buck population too. Most times we wouldn't kill more than 1 doe on the 300 acres we had access to.
A 50 acre tract of this property was sold and the guy allow some other hunters to come in and they shot everything that was legal. We could tell the difference of herd size on the properties we hunted in 2 years.

The problem is the state seems to want to aggressively reduce the herd. Since most hunters rarely kill more than 2 or 3 deer per season it stands to reason that 2 or 3 deer per year is just too high. I'm convinced as long as there are any deer and the state would issue tags and allow legal hunting. Someone would keep shooting until they were all gone.


----------

