# Ohio walks the same path as PA...



## hopin to cash

This is link to a discussion on what happened in PA over the last 10 years to it's deer herd.

I have attached only chapter 8 but you should go to youtube to get all the chapters. The history recited here should sound very familiar as the regulations over the last 5 years in OHIO have followed right in the footsteps.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Maybe we need to have one of these in Ohio but a little less one sided:


----------



## hopin to cash

Again sound familiar?

The Breakdown
Its not unusual for Wisconsin hunters to kill nearly half a million deer in a season. They are perennial leaders in the B&C and P&Y record books. From the outside looking in, the states deer program seems something to envy. But there has been a string of problems over the last decade and a half, mostly to do with herd reduction. 

After years of encouraging hunters to kill does offering more and cheaper antlerless permits, the DNR started mandating it in 1996 with a wildly unpopular Earn-a-Buck rule, requiring hunters to kill a doe before trying for a buck. This eventually covered 57 of 134 deer management units. The same areas also held special antlerless-¿only firearm seasons in October and December. In 2002, after three hunter-killed deer tested positive for chronic wasting disease in Dane County, the DNR established a CWD Management Zone, which now covers 8,819 square miles, implementing rifle seasons from September through March, providing free antlerless tags, and hiring sharpshooters to kill deer. Statewide, the agency issued more than a million doe tags in 2006. Hunters tolerated the changes while harvests boomed, from about 375,000 in 1994 to a record 615,293 in 2000. 

But then the totals tumbled. The 2008 kill fell to about 450,000. And when the 2009 harvest came in at a comparatively paltry 329,103the lowest in over 15 yearshunters erupted with complaints. They could live with herd reduction, they said, but not herd destruction. And they no longer trusted the agencys population estimates, used to justify the new rules. The DNR declined several offers to detail its side of the story for this article, but its reaction at the time seems to have been that hunters were too slow or unwilling to accept the new realities of an overpopulated deer herd.

The result has been a total breakdown in trust and communication.

Ohio follow-up:

Tonkovich him self even piped in on this article with his justification for shooting (decimating the doe population)

These articles are from a few ago and if history repeats itself... well, we will have the same issue in Ohio if we don't already.

The amazing thing about this is, we have only stepped to the edge of the cliff... (factor in a bad winter, coyotes, urban development and others) we may see a damnation of our deer herd of biblical proportion!!!


----------



## hopintocash2

holy crap bro, take your meds, your starting to scare me.


----------



## Lundy

hopintocash2 said:


> holy crap bro, take your meds, your starting to scare me.


Nice brotherly advice.

Thank you


----------



## buckeyebowman

OK, let's look at the other side of the coin, because I have seen it first hand. I was 15 or 16 when I was invited to my friend's, uncle's cabin to hunt deer in the big, northern woods of PA! That would have been about 1967-68. Yeah, I'm an old fart! 

Back then, the weekend before PA opening day, would see a mass migration of deer hunters from Ohio heading East, to PA. Because that's where the deer were. Almost none here. And yes, they had lots of deer. In 2 days of hunting I figure I saw nearly 200 deer! Wow, right? Except I didn't see a single antlered deer in those 2 days! That's all I had to hunt because that's all we could negotiate with our parents. Missing school and all, you know. 

Everything I saw were runty, little, greyhound sized, malnourished doe! They traveled through the woods in herds numbering 30 deer and more! I know there had to be some bucks around somewhere, because all these deer came from someplace, didn't they? Driving around after dark, looking at the meat poles in front of the camps, we saw a few bucks, spikes and forkhorns for the most part, and young! Remember, deer hunting was for bucks only back then. We'd spotlight the fields, and behold a sea of eyes reflecting back at us! The sighting of a buck would nearly give my buddy's uncle a heart attack! 

This situation was described as the "Pennsylvania Syndrome", which I described in another thread. So, PA decided to do something about it. They began issuing antlerless tags. The new regs were slow to take hold as so many hunters were brought up in the "you never shoot does" mindset, but, eventually they did. Then, the PGC introduced antler limitations. Truth be told, there are starting to be some really nice bucks coming out of PA these days. But, some folks are still pissed, saying that the deer herd "in their area" has been nearly wiped out.

A couple of things here. I think it's important to keep the "in their area" idea in mind. Localized phenomena do not necessarily describe the condition of the deer herd statewide. I would also remind people that just because the ODOW or the PGC say it's OK to do something does not mean that we have to do it. I would suggest that, no matter what the powers that be allow, we deer hunters have the power to decide how our deer herd survives or thrives. Unfortunately, personal greed enters the equation, and you can bet that the algorithms used to set limits have these factored in.


----------



## reo

PA ten years ago and Ohio ten years ago = apples and oranges. In other words they are totally different situations


----------



## reo

buckeyebowman said:


> OK, let's look at the other side of the coin, because I have seen it first hand. I was 15 or 16 when I was invited to my friend's, uncle's cabin to hunt deer in the big, northern woods of PA! That would have been about 1967-68. Yeah, I'm an old fart!
> 
> Back then, the weekend before PA opening day, would see a mass migration of deer hunters from Ohio heading East, to PA. Because that's where the deer were. Almost none here. And yes, they had lots of deer. In 2 days of hunting I figure I saw nearly 200 deer! Wow, right? Except I didn't see a single antlered deer in those 2 days! That's all I had to hunt because that's all we could negotiate with our parents. Missing school and all, you know.
> 
> Everything I saw were runty, little, greyhound sized, malnourished doe! They traveled through the woods in herds numbering 30 deer and more! I know there had to be some bucks around somewhere, because all these deer came from someplace, didn't they? Driving around after dark, looking at the meat poles in front of the camps, we saw a few bucks, spikes and forkhorns for the most part, and young! Remember, deer hunting was for bucks only back then. We'd spotlight the fields, and behold a sea of eyes reflecting back at us! The sighting of a buck would nearly give my buddy's uncle a heart attack!
> 
> This situation was described as the "Pennsylvania Syndrome", which I described in another thread. So, PA decided to do something about it. They began issuing antlerless tags. The new regs were slow to take hold as so many hunters were brought up in the "you never shoot does" mindset, but, eventually they did. Then, the PGC introduced antler limitations. Truth be told, there are starting to be some really nice bucks coming out of PA these days. But, some folks are still pissed, saying that the deer herd "in their area" has been nearly wiped out.
> 
> A couple of things here. I think it's important to keep the "in their area" idea in mind. Localized phenomena do not necessarily describe the condition of the deer herd statewide. I would also remind people that just because the ODOW or the PGC say it's OK to do something does not mean that we have to do it. *I would suggest that, no matter what the powers that be allow, we deer hunters have the power to decide how our deer herd survives or thrives.* Unfortunately, personal greed enters the equation, and you can bet that the algorithms used to set limits have these factored in.


True but this will never happen, nor should it have to. There is millions of dollars paid to professionals to manage Ohio's deer. In my opinion they are not doing a very good job lately. It seems there are others that have the same opinion.


----------



## Bonemann

The ODNR (or any game commission) has the perfect tool for deer reduction or (decimation) the hunters. Used in conjunction their propaganda it works almost flawlessly.

They say the herd is fine and you can take up to 6 six doe and some do.

They put out reports of deer harvest by the county, so you know where to go next year if your not having luck this year. 

Hunters can be like a swarm of locusts, harvesting deer from county to county and moving on to greener pastures when things dry up. Pretty much how the Amish do it. They have cleared their farms and now have to travel to continue their harvesting.

We all have some blame in this and I have no idea what the answer is but we need to find one.


----------



## sylvan 17

Here is a tip for you Ohio hunters! Don't shoot every doe that you are allowed,we did it in Pa for years and now have half or less the deer we used to.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub

reo said:


> True but this will never happen, nor should it have to. There is millions of dollars paid to professionals to manage Ohio's deer. In my opinion they are not doing a very good job lately. It seems there are others that have the same opinion.


I don't know what it is you want them to do??? They can't walk out in the woods and start pulling bullets out of people's guns. If you want less deer killed, I'd say a good place to start would be for you to take a few seasons off to "set an example" so to speak, for other hunters that feel we're killing too many... 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## buckeyebowman

reo said:


> True but this will never happen, nor should it have to. There is millions of dollars paid to professionals to manage Ohio's deer. In my opinion they are not doing a very good job lately. It seems there are others that have the same opinion.


That right! Self restraint is totally out of style these days, isn't it? That's what I addressed in the part of my post after what you had bold faced. The State can set any limits it wants, but we're not totally helpless! We're thinking beings who can understand what is happening and act accordingly. Will any effort be 100% successful? No! 



Bonemann said:


> The ODNR (or any game commission) has the perfect tool for deer reduction or (decimation) the hunters. Used in conjunction their propaganda it works almost flawlessly.
> 
> They say the herd is fine and you can take up to 6 six doe and some do.
> 
> They put out reports of deer harvest by the county, so you know where to go next year if your not having luck this year.
> 
> Hunters can be like a swarm of locusts, harvesting deer from county to county and moving on to greener pastures when things dry up. Pretty much how the Amish do it. They have cleared their farms and now have to travel to continue their harvesting.
> 
> We all have some blame in this and I have no idea what the answer is but we need to find one.


Oh, don't get me started on this topic! My BIL deals with the Amish on a daily basis. He manages a large property in Geauga County and finds illegal stands on it every year, which he takes down. The property is strictly no hunting! Even for him! So, he hunts another property owned by a friend. He also finds multiple illegal stands there, which he also takes down, as per the landowner's wishes. 



sylvan 17 said:


> Here is a tip for you Ohio hunters! Don't shoot every doe that you are allowed,we did it in Pa for years and now have half or less the deer we used to.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Kind of what I was saying, but, back in the day you couldn't shoot doe anyway. So, what was the use of seeing 100 doe a day? The herd was seriously out of whack, and something had to be done. Was it the right thing? Time will tell.



Bad Bub said:


> I don't know what it is you want them to do??? They can't walk out in the woods and start pulling bullets out of people's guns. If you want less deer killed, I'd say a good place to start would be for you to take a few seasons off to "set an example" so to speak, for other hunters that feel we're killing too many...
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Again, most of my original point. If I can take one doe off the farm and put it in the freezer, I'm delighted. If I'm lucky enough to follow that up with a buck, I'm ecstatic! We just don't "whack the crap" out of the place! 

You know, somewhere in here is a question of "balance". We, as hunters, like to see as many deer as possible. The DOW has certain deer population numbers in mind, and promulgates limit numbers in line with that. I suspect that somewhere in between lies the balance point. 

Maybe we need a "One a Year Club", or something like that.


----------



## reo

Bad Bub said:


> I don't know what it is you want them to do??? They can't walk out in the woods and start pulling bullets out of people's guns. If you want less deer killed, I'd say a good place to start would be for you to take a few seasons off to "set an example" so to speak, for other hunters that feel we're killing too many...
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Conservation minded rules and regulations would be preferable to the herd reduction mode that the state itself says it is currently in.


----------



## ldrjay

Ok ill bite there are less deer which isn't all that bad. I don't have a shortage where I am they are just smart enough to stay in safe areas. Why don't we just skip next years shotgun week and the herd will bounce right back. You shouldn't need three shots anyway. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Lundy

ldrjay said:


> Why don't we just skip next years shotgun week and the herd will bounce right back. You shouldn't need three shots anyway.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Since the bow harvest will exceed the gun season harvest this year I think they should just cancel bow season next year so the population can rebound.

And I only hunt with single shot guns


----------



## ldrjay

I quit on shotguns years ago. I don't even hunt shotgun I'm muzzleloader. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody

I wonder if the Pennsylvania issue is really that of the vocal minority.

I have four employees in PA, three in Pittsburgh and one clear field. They all deer hunt, and though I have never discussed this issue in particular, they all tend to get a very nice buck every year. Two of them have been hunting PA for 30 plus years and they like the herd better now. The commented that they never saw nice bucks before.

It is probably like ohio, very localized results. One place I hunted this year that was 135 acres, I only saw three different deer in the times I hunted it,

Another place, within ten miles of how the crow flies is absolutely crawling with deer. It neighbors a very public piece of land.

All that said, and all the talk of a hunter killing too many deer each...wasn't there a stat that Lundy found about how many hunters actually kill more than one or two deer? It was a really low percentage if I remember right?


----------



## ldrjay

Game wardens don't seem to be having a problem killing deer.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## bkr43050

Mad-Eye Moody said:


> All that said, and all the talk of a hunter killing too many deer each...wasn't there a stat that Lundy found about how many hunters actually kill more than one or two deer? It was a really low percentage if I remember right?


Yeah, the numbers are lower than most think. It is low on who kills more than 2 but very low beyond that. In the 2011-12 season the number of deer in the 219,000+ harvest that were killed beyond a 2 deer limit was about 8.5%. beyond 3 deer limit was about 4.7%. The reduction in the limit from last year to this year had almost no impact. The number of deer killed beyond the current 4 limit was only 4,537 deer which is about 2.0% of the total. This info comes from the DNR's own data.

http://ohiodnr.com/Home/HuntingandT...wmanydeerhunterstake/tabid/23949/Default.aspx


----------



## Jigging Jim

Divided We Fall.


----------



## Bonemann

Lundy said:


> Since the bow harvest will exceed the gun season harvest this year I think they should just cancel bow season next year so the population can rebound.
> 
> And I only hunt with single shot guns



That would be pretty interesting if the bow harvest will exceed all the gun harvests this year (when all is said and done).

It would be allot easier to sneak in the woods with a bow all camo-ed up (with out permission) and get a deer than walking through the naked woods in blaze orange with a noisy shotgun or muzzle loader (with out permission).

I'm just saying (LOL) !!!


----------



## buckeyebowman

Mad-Eye Moody said:


> I wonder if the Pennsylvania issue is really that of the vocal minority.
> 
> I have four employees in PA, three in Pittsburgh and one clear field. They all deer hunt, and though I have never discussed this issue in particular, they all tend to get a very nice buck every year. Two of them have been hunting PA for 30 plus years and they like the herd better now. The commented that they never saw nice bucks before.
> 
> It is probably like ohio, very localized results. One place I hunted this year that was 135 acres, I only saw three different deer in the times I hunted it,
> 
> Another place, within ten miles of how the crow flies is absolutely crawling with deer. It neighbors a very public piece of land.
> 
> All that said, and all the talk of a hunter killing too many deer each...wasn't there a stat that Lundy found about how many hunters actually kill more than one or two deer? It was a really low percentage if I remember right?





bkr43050 said:


> Yeah, the numbers are lower than most think. It is low on who kills more than 2 but very low beyond that. In the 2011-12 season the number of deer in the 219,000+ harvest that were killed beyond a 2 deer limit was about 8.5%. beyond 3 deer limit was about 4.7%. The reduction in the limit from last year to this year had almost no impact. The number of deer killed beyond the current 4 limit was only 4,537 deer which is about 2.0% of the total. This info comes from the DNR's own data.
> 
> http://ohiodnr.com/Home/HuntingandT...wmanydeerhunterstake/tabid/23949/Default.aspx


I found these two posts very thought provoking. It seems that most of us agree that the deer population is down, and many are pointing at the relaxed bag limits as the reason for it. Yet, as bkr43050 points out, the ODNR's own numbers show that an extremely small minority of hunters harvest beyond 3 deer in a season. And, I believe it was Lundy, posted a stat that only about 1/3 of gun hunters are successful at all! 

OK, so who, or what, killed all the deer? Where did they go? Mad-Eye's post has one clue. For statistical convenience we tend to look at things "statewide". However, his experience, and mine, suggests that deer population dynamics my be far more localized than most might think. Case in point. We hunt a farm behind my buddy's place. About 100 acres so, not all that big. We limit the doe harvest on our own. My buddy absolutely refuses to shoot doe, while I will take one a season. Thus, there are deer galore. Doesn't mean they're easy, just that they are there. A local farming family drives this property twice during gun season. They bring enough standers to cut off every escape route, and they bring enough drivers to stomp the woods flat! In the 2012 season they got exactly *ZERO* deer off this farm pushing it twice! In fact, on Sunday night of the last day of the 2012 gun season, we took the spotlight out back just to see what was around. The orange army had pushed the farm earlier that day and got nothing! There were 10 deer in the picked corn field behind my buddy's house that very night! This season they got 2 deer in 2 pushes. 

Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but it suggests that the deer in this area have become even more adept at evasion and survival than they were before. And with creeping "suburbanization" going on, it's obvious that they have found places where they can go and be undisturbed.

As far as the larger, more forested tracts of southern and southeastern Ohio, I'd have to suspect overharvest. Although EHD whacked the herd pretty bad during the last drought year. My BIL has a cabin down there, and noticed it immediately the season after. But there's no "suburbanizaton" going on where his cabin is! 

Overall, between increased survival skills of deer in urban, and semi-urban areas, and the drop in population in the southern part of the state, I'd have to say that what the ODNR is telling us about the deer herd is basically hooey! Let's face it. Nothing much else matters except the deer population in the area that you hunt! "Statewide" means absolutely nothing when you think about it that way.


----------



## hopin to cash

Not buying in on this theory that less does means bigger bucks. I think PA instituted the 4 point rule a few years along with shooting more does. So what you have now is some 2-3 old bucks and less does. The two are not related at all to producing bigger bucks. I certainly hope this was not Ohio's goal with the doe massacre.


----------



## Misdirection

We not only have less does in PA, we have less buck as well. A good majority of those "does" that were shot off were button buck. The PA game commission essentially reduced the deer herd by 1/3. It really sucks over here now especially in the North Central part of the state...there are very few deer left in some areas...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Flathead76

Waiting for what hoping to cash 3 has to say about our deer herd.


----------



## birdcrazy

Maybe the new checking system does have something to do with the numbers being down. Just as many shot and not as many checked.


----------



## bkr43050

birdcrazy said:


> Maybe the new checking system does have something to do with the numbers being down. Just as many shot and not as many checked.


The numbers have been declining since prior to the new checking system. The decline began after about 2 years of huge harvests from the liberal limits imposed with the antlerless system. I believe the 2011/12 season was the first one that the new game check system was in effect. If you look at the numbers from year to year you will see that the decline started the year before.

07/08 232,854
08/09 252,017
09/10 261,260
10/11 239,475
11/12 219,748
12/13 218,910
13/14 190,000 (estimate)

To me it is not that complicated. We took out way more does for 2-3 years and put us at a much lower number of does to breed. Even though we are killing fewer now the herd is not growing because we are killing beyond the recruitment level, therefore the herd is shrinking. I believe this trend will continue until we start backing off on the harvest of does.


----------



## hopintocash2

bkr43050 said:


> The numbers have been declining since prior to the new checking system. The decline began after about 2 years of huge harvests from the liberal limits imposed with the antlerless system. I believe the 2011/12 season was the first one that the new game check system was in effect. If you look at the numbers from year to year you will see that the decline started the year before.
> 
> 07/08 232,854
> 08/09 252,017
> 09/10 261,260
> 10/11 239,475
> 11/12 219,748
> 12/13 218,910
> 13/14 190,000 (estimate)
> 
> To me it is not that complicated. We took out way more does for 2-3 years and put us at a much lower number of does to breed. Even though we are killing fewer now the herd is not growing because we are killing beyond the recruitment level, therefore the herd is shrinking. I believe this trend will continue until we start backing off on the harvest of does.


i agree. keep killing the baby makers and the herd will decline. that was the states objective, and they have achieved it


----------



## hopin to cash

The decline continues... many of the comments by posters below were spot on. Another year another victory for the insurance companies. Called my agent demanding lower rates due to the odds of me hitting a deer are slim to none. He said sorry we still have to donate to the election funds of the officials who support us. Wish he would have said we donate millions to the Wildlife of Ohio but he didn't... just sad, the whole thing is just sad:crying::crying::crying:


----------



## Rainbow Record

my family and i hunt 3 counties the northern county is portage in the past 3-4 years we have seen little to no deer reduction in this area we will take buck and doe just depends what presents itself at time of harvest and if we have meat in the freezer we will pass on that doe. Now for the southern counties Harrison has been off severely went from seeing does in groups of 6-8 at a time to some days not even seeing deer they are there just not in the numbers that was. The other county is Belmont we hunt a trophy buck farm not high fence but the clients come mainly from South Carolina,Maryland,Virginia in hopes to shoot trophy bucks we hunted this farm and could only take does we have hunted there for the last 8 years we were notified there will be no doe killing this year his numbers are to low and he took the right steps and said no does we must stop killing so many does because i think the dnr is only looking at the money they get off tag sales. That won't matter if the herd size is reduced even more and half your hunters quit


----------



## buckeyebowman

You have some points, but questions still remain. Why, now, do "doe" tags expire when gun season starts? Why, now, are some counties no "doe" tag counties? Why, now, has the ODNR changed to a county-by-county system of deer management? I think it's because they are recognizing the need for more localized management. That there are places in the state where the deer herd has been whacked really hard, and other places not so much!

Case in point, Washington Cty. My BIL has a cottage there, and hunts a large, private farm. There are a few other people who hunt the farm and the neighboring properties, but it's nothing like any public hunting area you could name. What really whacked the deer herd here was the last outbreak of EHD. The farm encompasses a creek bottom, with pasture and crop land, and the timbered ridges on either side. The last EHD outbreak, the creek shriveled up to a few stagnant, algae choked pools. My BIL found deer carcasses galore! 

Fast forward to this year. We were able to go down for the last half of gun season. Having 2 straight days of steady rain didn't help, but we went out anyway. Plenty of sign, but I didn't see a thing the whole time. My BIL saw a few, including an 8 point, broadside, 20 yards from his stand that he had his crosshairs on the shoulder! He let it walk. As he explained, he didn't need the venison, and already had better bucks hanging on his wall. 

I have to think that if more hunters thought that way, the deer herd might be in a little better shape overall. I have to laugh when I hear "the ODNR killed all the deer"! No they didn't, we did!


----------



## catmoris

I'm hurting for my needs, ,and 1 deer is enough for me. I don't understand people who like just to kill and donate. Resources isn't endless.I hunted Salt Fork and there is no deer, corn field is full of grains. We are not suppose to believe that propaganda -deer over population 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub

Well, I've saw more deer in the last 2 days than I've seen all fall... I didn't hunt deer this year, but most all of my friends and family did and they haven't seen much. I'm really starting to believe that the deer are catching on to us.... and yes, the state has been very clear with their intent to reduce the herd, and I feel like that is happening as well....


----------



## Certified106

I feel like certain areas of the state are hurting BAD from the localized over harvest. 

Also for all of those who say I see plenty of deer the problem lies with once you don't see plenty of deer it's way to late and it's going to take a while to rebound if it ever does.


----------



## Star1pup

I hunt private property which used to have a lot of deer. I have seen our sightings, including trail camera photos, shrink every year for about the last three. We do not overharvest on this 67 acres, but of course deer travel o nearby crop fields. The four of us have not taken a deer off this property in 2 years.

I once hunter a great area near Kane, PA, and always saw a lot of deer. I never got a doe license so I didn't see much I could shoot. After PA changed the rules we could hunt without even seeing deer sign. I noticed that all of the out of state hunters stopped coming and restaurants closed their doors. I now keep that $101 in my pocket instead of buying a PA license. I hope the ODOW changes tactics before we destroy our Ohio herd.


----------



## hopin to cash

Hey Mike!!! How many damn excuses do we need for your poor management of our Ohio deer herd? I find this article humorous as we talked to a few leased property hunters who say they saw few deer during gun week. Somebody said its not the ODNR responsibility for the low numbers its the hunters that killed them during the liberal years times... Well these guys get paid a lot of taxpayer and sportsmen money to nurture and increase opportunities and currently that is not happening in my opinion. Maybe the insurance pack money far out weighs the latter?

Leasing affects deer management
THE amount of land currently being leased for hunting in Ohio is unknown,
but its enough to raise management questions for the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources.
Mike Tonkovich, the ODNR Division of Wildlifes deer project leader, says
leasing makes it more difficult to interpret deer harvest data to determine deer
populations. A lower harvest count used to be an indication of a lower population,
but that may no longer be the case, he explains. Are there fewer deer or are
fewer people shooting deer because two-thirds of the county is leased?
Leasing can significantly reduce the number of people who have access
to land for hunting, Tonkovich adds. At the end of the day were seeing a net
loss of opportunities. That makes it more difficult for the Department of Natural
Resources to manage deer populations by adjusting the number of deer hunting
permits issued in an area. If deer numbers cant be controlled, farmers might end
up seeing more crop damage. Another concern is that some leaseholders might
not understand deer management and might end up under-harvesting deer,
leaving the ODNR to clean up the problem.
Tonkovich would like to see more coordination between leaseholders to balance
the needs of area farmers with the desire to provide good hunting opportunities.
The ODNR will also need to adjust its management, he adds. We have to


----------



## savethetrophies

Who in the hell needs 6 deer?


----------



## Kenlow1

A-MEN BROTHER. Go play a SHOOT-EM UP video game if its kill everything that moves that gets you jacked up!


----------



## supercanoe

That leasing excuse is pretty far fetched. l Know of plenty of leased parcels that get hammered hard during every season. I would say that leases increase harvest. I know people that lease by the week and are booked solid from first day of bow to last day of bow. People come from all over the east half of the country. Every deer is in trouble with some of these leases. A few are tightly managed, but many are quantity over quality.


----------



## hopintocash2

does this guy have any clue at all? i emailed him 2 years ago my concerns about the deer population and his handling of it. he didn't like my email and i didn't like his response, but it is becoming more clear which one of us was right.


----------



## savethetrophies

If every deer hunter took 1 or 2 deer. As well as shooting a coyote every year we would be in much better shape... But people go kill 6 or 7 and wonder why the hell the sightings are down? U know what? We might even have a few more rabbits around here... Everyone wants the fruit, but nobody wants to help plant...


----------



## savethetrophies

I went to deer processed the other day after my friend got a nice big doe, and there were two guys sitting there that just unloaded what looked like 2 normal size doe and 2 greyhound dogs with have there body blown out??? Another question I have been trying to figure out in the 25 years I've been hunting is WHY would u take a deer that your going to get 20 pounds of meat off of???? Can anyone answer this one lol??


----------



## buckeyebowman

supercanoe said:


> That leasing excuse is pretty far fetched. l Know of plenty of leased parcels that get hammered hard during every season. I would say that leases increase harvest. I know people that lease by the week and are booked solid from first day of bow to last day of bow. People come from all over the east half of the country. Every deer is in trouble with some of these leases. A few are tightly managed, but many are quantity over quality.


Well then, the *many* will soon go out of business! Nobody is going to pay big money to shoot forkhorns or not see deer! These are the "quick buck" (no pun intended) artists, who are looking to get in, make the big dollars, and get out fast! And the sooner they are out, the better!



hopintocash2 said:


> does this guy have any clue at all? i emailed him 2 years ago my concerns about the deer population and his handling of it. he didn't like my email and i didn't like his response, but it is becoming more clear which one of us was right.


You have some good points. I, for one, would like Tonkovich to list for me those counties where 2/3 of the land area is leased for hunting! If he could come up with 1 or 2 I'd be surprised!


----------



## Misdirection

I can personally say I hunted my own property in PA where my neighbor and I try and manage the deer and habitat. First two days were rough due to the rain. Third day we were doing drives. I saw 14 doe and 4 buck on that day. One nice 8 that I couldn't get a shot on and passed on the rest. I also have a camp in the northern tier. It's not even worth the trip up there for deer. We went up in bear and I saw one lonely doe..hope Ohio doesn't go the way PA did in the mountains...


----------



## hopin to cash

Misdirection said:


> I can personally say I hunted my own property in PA where my neighbor and I try and manage the deer and habitat. First two days were rough due to the rain. Third day we were doing drives. I saw 14 doe and 4 buck on that day. One nice 8 that I couldn't get a shot on and passed on the rest. I also have a camp in the northern tier. It's not even worth the trip up there for deer. We went up in bear and I saw one lonely doe..hope Ohio doesn't go the way PA did in the mountains...


To late Ohio did and now we too will see the wrath of poor deer management led by big money. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## ostbucks98

Not if you and me and everyone else stops and realizes its ultimately us who make the difference. If the state says slaughter all the deer and your not seeing many deer in your area dont shoot em.


----------



## supercanoe

That is correct ostbucks. We saw the writing on the wall about 5 years ago when you could kill 6 deer. Our doe numbers dropped way off in 1 year. We stopped killing does. Some of the neighbors got on board as well. We have plenty of deer still. We have about 600 acres with us and 2 neighbors that aren't killing any does. People around us kill enough still. We started with a 125" minimum years ago. Then it went to 130". Then it went to 140". Bow only, no gun hunting. We have 8-10 bucks on them farm every year that are 3.5 years old or older. Many bucks are now reaching 5 and 6 years old. It is amazing what a deer herd can become when they aren't all killed. I go to other places to hunt and it is sad to not see many deer anymore. If the state found out about us they would probably be pissed. Private land owners successfully managing a quality deer herd. They would want them killed.


----------



## Lundy

savethetrophies said:


> If every deer hunter took 1 or 2 deer. As well as shooting a coyote every year we would be in much better shape... But people go kill 6 or 7 and wonder why the hell the sightings are down? U know what? We might even have a few more rabbits around here... Everyone wants the fruit, but nobody wants to help plant...


The vast majority of hunters that are SUCCESFUL already only shoot 1 or 2 deer, in fact by a large percentage they only shoot 1, but I doubt they are able to fulfill your recipe at killing a coyote.

The talk of 6-7 deer being killed by a large segment of hunters just isn't factual.

Read the below links and learn some the real, non emotional data.

There is a wealth of real information available to us if we would take the time to actually read it

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/pdfs/publications/hunting/pub304.pdf

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/hunting...pecies/deer/average-deer-harvested-per-hunter


----------



## Govbarney

Whats funny is as the deer population declines in the rural areas where people are allowed to hunt, it is exploding in urban areas where people are A: not allowed to hunt , and B: a motorist is far more likely to hit one.


----------



## Star1pup

Misdirection said:


> I can personally say I hunted my own property in PA where my neighbor and I try and manage the deer and habitat. First two days were rough due to the rain. Third day we were doing drives. I saw 14 doe and 4 buck on that day. One nice 8 that I couldn't get a shot on and passed on the rest. I also have a camp in the northern tier. It's not even worth the trip up there for deer. We went up in bear and I saw one lonely doe..hope Ohio doesn't go the way PA did in the mountains...


I quit hunting out of my buddy's camp near Kane as we stopped seeing even deer sign. I opted to keep the $101 license cost. But now the same thing seems to be happening in Ohio.


----------



## Misdirection

Star1pup said:


> I quit hunting out of my buddy's camp near Kane as we stopped seeing even deer sign. I opted to keep the $101 license cost. But now the same thing seems to be happening in Ohio.


My dad and brother who are from OH also quit hunting PA because of the lack of deer over here as well.


----------



## AEFISHING

The real question is how many deer related car accidents where there this year compared to past years.


----------



## Star1pup

The DOW will have a table at the Leetonia Deer Expo this Sunday and I'm sure they will be able to answer questions.


----------



## Lundy

AEFISHING said:


> The real question is how many deer related car accidents where there this year compared to past years.


Ask and ye shall receive.

Updated spreadsheet to include deer car accidents, no 2014 data available yet as you might expect.


----------



## thistubesforu

Keep in mind farm bureau has more of a role in this than insurance companies. Blame the them too!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## AEFISHING

Thanks Lundy! It has gone down. I wouldn't of guessed that.


----------



## Lundy

There is no doubt in mind that there are way less deer the last few years than the immediate years preceding.


----------



## nitsud

Made a graph of deer killed by car, because I think that's probably the best representative of the general population. Seems to be on the downward trend, no doubt. Decrease of about 1/3 over the past 12 years.

I doubt that this is a perfect indicator, or that the herd has decreased by 1/3. I'd hypothesize that once the herd exceeds the carrying capacity of the land, they'd be moving around substantially more in search for food, and thus more likely to get hit by a car.

In any case, thanks for the data, Lundy. Interesting stuff.


----------



## ldrjay

So if you see less deer, find a new area, quit hunting deer for a few years, or take a camera to shoot the deer instead.you guys are whipping a dead horse. It's actually very funny to read most of this stuff. When I do waste my time deer hunting im still seening plenty of deer. We do not manage it at all nor do the surrounding neighborhood. Its kinda weird. Yea my suggestion would be start looking for new land gents. They are still plenty out there. Even in the rural areas. Lol carry on boys.


----------



## buckeyebowman

nitsud said:


> Made a graph of deer killed by car, because I think that's probably the best representative of the general population. Seems to be on the downward trend, no doubt. Decrease of about 1/3 over the past 12 years.
> 
> I doubt that this is a perfect indicator, or that the herd has decreased by 1/3. I'd hypothesize that once the herd exceeds the carrying capacity of the land, they'd be moving around substantially more in search for food, and thus more likely to get hit by a car.
> 
> In any case, thanks for the data, Lundy. Interesting stuff.


Still, 20,000 deer killed by vehicles last year? That's a bunch! I can remember, years ago, when Ohio's deer herd was growing by leaps and bounds I knew a couple of local GP's. They said that the insurance companies were mad as hornets about the claims they were paying, and were threatening to "redline" the entire state of Ohio if the ODNR lost control of the population!

I read an article a long time ago which stated that, even at it's height, Ohio's deer population never exceeded the carrying capacity of the land. Ohio grows a lot of food. Of course, with newer farming practices, and the fields being picked clean as a whistle at harvest, that opinion may have to be revised. I think what puts most deer on the roads is the rut. When do you see the most deer carcasses? Or raccoon, possum, skunk or whatever? When that particular population of animals is breeding! I can always tell when the **** get moving in the Spring. They get splattered all over the place! Of course, a **** can't total out a car! 



ldrjay said:


> So if you see less deer, find a new area, quit hunting deer for a few years, or take a camera to shoot the deer instead.you guys are whipping a dead horse. It's actually very funny to read most of this stuff. When I do waste my time deer hunting im still seening plenty of deer. We do not manage it at all nor do the surrounding neighborhood. Its kinda weird. Yea my suggestion would be start looking for new land gents. They are still plenty out there. Even in the rural areas. Lol carry on boys.


Deer population densities are not uniform across the state. There are still plenty of deer where we hunt. The only "management" that we employ is that my buddy absolutely will NOT shoot a doe, while I will shoot ONE off this property. At my BIL's place in SE OH, there's plenty of sign, but we didn't see much last time down. Bad luck and rotten weather. Them's the breaks.


----------



## nitsud

buckeye, it would be interesting to see a chart of the timing of deer kills. A little googling later:

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0503.pdf

Looks like you nailed it. Large peak in November. I am still not sure if the roadkill stats are a good way to estimate the herd size. I could probably figure it out from:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/symposia/economics_symposium/schwabeHR.pdf

but that looks like a mountain to climb, and there aren't any graphs, just stat tables (ugh). Some other references described may have better info. From what I can tell, Ohio uses harvest info and collision info to estimate the herd.

In any case, I really don't have a problem with it being harder to put a deer down. If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## hopin to cash

Thanks for the charts but one thing is missing... I don't know how to copy and paste the registered vehicle charts for Ohio but it increases annually. Another smoke-in-mirrors stat that the state and insurance companies use. The deer population didn't just take off in 4-5 years and cause more accidents. The amount of vehicles on the road increased at a much higher percentage than the deer herd. More vehicles higher the odds somebody hits a deer.


----------



## nitsud

I'm not sure if there are really more cars on the road. Based on http://bmv.ohio.gov/facts_figures.stm, there don't seem to be. If you have some other data, you could just post the link.


----------



## Slab assassin 55

It seems the does need to be passed on a season or two in a lot of areas. We did this year and hopefully we will see more does this time next year. Can't see more deer when we kill most of the breeders 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## buckeyebowman

nitsud said:


> buckeye, it would be interesting to see a chart of the timing of deer kills. A little googling later:
> 
> http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0503.pdf
> 
> Looks like you nailed it. Large peak in November. I am still not sure if the roadkill stats are a good way to estimate the herd size. I could probably figure it out from:
> 
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/symposia/economics_symposium/schwabeHR.pdf
> 
> but that looks like a mountain to climb, and there aren't any graphs, just stat tables (ugh). Some other references described may have better info. From what I can tell, Ohio uses harvest info and collision info to estimate the herd.
> 
> In any case, I really don't have a problem with it being harder to put a deer down. If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth it.


I think roadkill stats are only valid in predicting the herd size in the area the road runs through. More and more I'm thinking "statewide" stats are meaningless!



hopin to cash said:


> Thanks for the charts but one thing is missing... I don't know how to copy and paste the registered vehicle charts for Ohio but it increases annually. Another smoke-in-mirrors stat that the state and insurance companies use. The deer population didn't just take off in 4-5 years and cause more accidents. The amount of vehicles on the road increased at a much higher percentage than the deer herd. More vehicles higher the odds somebody hits a deer.


This is an assumption that would seem to be in doubt since Ohio's population has been slowly declining for at least two decades. However, what may not be known is how many vehicles, registered in Ohio and out of state, are traveling Ohio's highways at any time. 



nitsud said:


> I'm not sure if there are really more cars on the road. Based on http://bmv.ohio.gov/facts_figures.stm, there don't seem to be. If you have some other data, you could just post the link.


Looks like "vehicle" registrations are down about 120,000 in the time frame covered by the graph. However those vehicles could include trailers, like boat trailers. Whatever, less is less!


----------



## nitsud

I think local data is way more relevant too, and collisions are clearly not telling the whole story. Populations naturally fluctuate, and there is a giant pile of variables that come into play.

Managing something as complicated as this is not easy, and there is probably plenty of evidence that they're screwing it up, and plenty that indicates that they're doing it right. It all depends on your point of view. Deer hunters want large herds, insurance companies want small ones. Then there are others with an interest, like the families of the 7 people who died from deer collisions in 2013 in Ohio, and the 844 who were injured, and the many more who lost significant money and/or their car (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/09/15/chances-of-hitting-a-deer-rising.html). It's tough to consider me killing a deer anywhere near as important as preventing this sort of heartbreak.

As with presidents, the best bet is to check back 30 years from now to determine if they did a good job.


----------



## rmcmillen09

I am a resident of Erie County Pennsylvania and have watched the deer heard being destroyed in the last decade. When they put a 4 on one side antler regulation on the hunters in management area 1-B people just reverted to killing does and button bucks. with the season for hunting combined archery/firearm being so long it didn't take long.In 2000 it was average for me to see upwards of 30 deer on the first day of firearms season.2014 the first day of firearm season 0. Mission accomplished Pa. you have done it, this has always been about Insurance companies and Timber all along hasn't it !


----------



## Lundy

Many years ago I used to bowhunt Erie County PA for a week each year. Don't know if it still is, but back then you were permitted to spotlight(no weapons in vehicle) up until midnight. There were bunches deer everywhere and we had successful hunts each year.


----------



## Misdirection

You can still spotlight in PA till 11 pm outside of riffle season, no firearms or bows in the vehicle (except legal carry firearm with permit)

Spotlighting isn't showing much deer up north by my camp or here at home (SW PA). At home we used to see a good 200 in a five mile loop. Now were hard pressed to see 30. Its very sad.


----------



## savethetrophies

Spotlighting, now that's a true sportsman. Wow... Unbelievable some of this sh*t


----------



## Misdirection

savethetrophies said:


> Spotlighting, now that's a true sportsman. Wow... Unbelievable some of this sh*t


Spotlighting is a tradition over here. Both at camp and at home, were not talking about Jacklighting where people shoot em at night.


----------



## savethetrophies

I know I feel stupid now. I realized that after I got irritated with the initial thought that came into my head. Lol... Forgive me ..


----------



## Misdirection

savethetrophies said:


> I know I feel stupid now. I realized that after I got irritated with the initial thought that came into my head. Lol... Forgive me ..


All is forgiven... No worries...


----------



## buckeyebowman

rmcmillen09 said:


> I am a resident of Erie County Pennsylvania and have watched the deer heard being destroyed in the last decade. When they put a 4 on one side antler regulation on the hunters in management area 1-B people just reverted to killing does and button bucks. with the season for hunting combined archery/firearm being so long it didn't take long.In 2000 it was average for me to see upwards of 30 deer on the first day of firearms season.2014 the first day of firearm season 0. Mission accomplished Pa. you have done it, this has always been about Insurance companies and Timber all along hasn't it !


I can understand the insurance company argument, but what would it have to do with timber?


----------



## reo

Worth the read:
http://www.whitetailproperties.com/blog/how-average-hunters-can-fix-the-deer-decline


----------



## buckeyebowman

reo said:


> Worth the read:
> http://www.whitetailproperties.com/blog/how-average-hunters-can-fix-the-deer-decline


That's a very interesting read and one I fully support. As I've said before, comments like, "The ODNR killed all the deer", make me laugh. The ODNR didn't kill a single deer, we did! 

However, I'm still waiting for a response to my question. What does the lack of whitetails have to do with timber? Other than timber that's too old!


----------



## hopin to cash

buckeyebowman said:


> That's a very interesting read and one I fully support. As I've said before, comments like, "The ODNR killed all the deer", make me laugh. The ODNR didn't kill a single deer, we did!
> 
> However, I'm still waiting for a response to my question. What does the lack of whitetails have to do with timber? Other than timber that's too old!


Logging has become a moneymaker for the state government: In 1999, timber sales generated a little less than $1.8 million. Last year, sales made the state about $4.4 million.

As you can see there is a far cry between creating a diversified wild life area and destroying an ecosystem. We have watched what the state called the creation of a diversified wild life area turn into a mangled mess of green brier and undergrowth that squeezes out any chance of future tree growth. If you want to see this first hand take a hike through the Brush Creek wild life area in Jefferson County.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/09/23/trend-cuts-both-ways.html


----------



## supercanoe

You have to account for inflation in those numbers. Building material prices have doubled since 1999. Some timber species that used to be low value have really gone up as people's taste change. And if you want more deer logging will help in a the long run.


----------



## reo

buckeyebowman said:


> That's a very interesting read and one I fully support.* As I've said before, comments like, "The ODNR killed all the deer", make me laugh. The ODNR didn't kill a single deer, we did!
> 
> *However, I'm still waiting for a response to my question. What does the lack of whitetails have to do with timber? Other than timber that's too old!


Are you saying that hunters have the ability to self-regulate? That is fantasy proven by history. That is how we got to almost zero deer in the past. The ODNR gets paid to manage the herd. If left un-checked hunters will kill every one they possibly can. Sad but that is reality. If we are to do it all on our own why have any regulations at all? Or the DNR for that matter. Why not commercial hunting of deer? No limits on fish either. Surely you are aware that this is not realistic. Sure there are some that manage their property well but unfortunately the fact is they are the small minority.


----------



## hopin to cash

supercanoe said:


> You have to account for inflation in those numbers. Building material prices have doubled since 1999. Some timber species that used to be low value have really gone up as people's taste change. And if you want more deer logging will help in a the long run.


What example can you give me where clearcutting helped a deer population? Maybe selective cutting with replant the the focus. I have seen neither on the public lands we hunt Nothing more than a total destruction of both habitat and food source.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## nitsud

Yeah, nothing deer hate more than thick brush and undergrowth. That 1% of state land that's been logged is really destroying the herd.

From what I understand, the success of deer in recent history is largely due to clearcutting for farming and other human development. But as usual, don't let reality get in the way of your ranting. It's moderately entertaining, and I've learned all kinds of stuff in refuting you. Keep it up!

From Edwin Bauer's book Deer In Their World:

"Much of the eastern United States and Canada was originally covered by vast tracts of virgin timber, where sunlight rarely penetrated to the forest floor. Whitetail deer thrived only on forest edges and in scattered openings. But with westward expansion and settlement, more and more of the original forest was cleared. The axe and plow, plus fire, created ideal deer range from Boston and Philadelphia all the way to the Mississippi River. The population of eastern whitetails exploded in the wake of the lumbermen and farmers."


----------



## ostbucks98

Might be 1% of state land but its alot more than that here in Vinton County. Just im my area im willing to bet close to 50% of the woods have been removed in the last 20 years. I wish satellite maps were more up to date. You cant go a 1/4mile without a clearcut.


----------



## nitsud

I'm sure. That 1% isn't distributed evenly, and I'm not an advocate of anyone making profit off of public resources, but the idea that it's bad for deer is just false.

Hell, I don't even necessarily disagree with hoppy about there being a problem with the deer numbers. I'm not a fan of disregarding facts, though, and I don't immediately blame the odnr for the choices they make. It's complex.


----------



## supercanoe

One example would be the 170" deer that lives in the successional cover behind our barn. This cover was created by intensive timber cutting. Timber management is critical to deer management. Many areas benefit the most from selective harvest. Some areas benefit the most from intensive harvest. If you want to grow mature bucks you must have sanctuary cover. If you want deer to survive predators you must have sanctuary cover. Successional growth provides sanctuary cover. It is also important for seasonal browse, security, and fawning.


----------



## hopin to cash

nitsud said:


> Yeah, nothing deer hate more than thick brush and undergrowth. That 1% of state land that's been logged is really destroying the herd.
> 
> From what I understand, the success of deer in recent history is largely due to clearcutting for farming and other human development. But as usual, don't let reality get in the way of your ranting. It's moderately entertaining, and I've learned all kinds of stuff in refuting you. Keep it up!
> 
> From Edwin Bauer's book Deer In Their World:
> 
> "Much of the eastern United States and Canada was originally covered by vast tracts of virgin timber, where sunlight rarely penetrated to the forest floor. Whitetail deer thrived only on forest edges and in scattered openings. But with westward expansion and settlement, more and more of the original forest was cleared. The axe and plow, plus fire, created ideal deer range from Boston and Philadelphia all the way to the Mississippi River. The population of eastern whitetails exploded in the wake of the lumbermen and farmers."


Your right my emotions do get the best of me... so as not to take the conversation south as it went last year I will bow out now and let next years statistics again speak volumes for the professionals that manage our recourses. My only point is this... to the average "Joe" the opportunities to harvest a single deer annually in the state of Ohio legally is dwindling. Carry on with my debate fellas. I'm out till Dec. 7, 2015 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## nitsud

Huh, that was a really thoughtful response. See ya next year!


----------



## ostbucks98

The problem here is the conversion to chipping. Almost nothing is left but mud. It takes years of growth to even supply cover for the deer. The area hit is what is devestating. Im talking 400 acre tracts.


----------



## buckeyebowman

reo said:


> Are you saying that hunters have the ability to self-regulate? That is fantasy proven by history. That is how we got to almost zero deer in the past. The ODNR gets paid to manage the herd. If left un-checked hunters will kill every one they possibly can. Sad but that is reality. If we are to do it all on our own why have any regulations at all? Or the DNR for that matter. Why not commercial hunting of deer? No limits on fish either. Surely you are aware that this is not realistic. Sure there are some that manage their property well but unfortunately the fact is they are the small minority.


We certainly have the *ability* to self regulate, but do we have the willingness? So many in recent years have been decrying the state's liberalizing of bag limits, but, on the other hand, go out and shoot as many deer as they could! All the while crying about how "there aren't as many deer as there used to be!" People like to talk about big business being greedy, well, greediness knows no bounds! You said it yourself, the minority manage their property well. That's why the rich will always be the minority, and the poor the majority!



nitsud said:


> Yeah, nothing deer hate more than thick brush and undergrowth. That 1% of state land that's been logged is really destroying the herd.
> 
> From what I understand, the success of deer in recent history is largely due to clearcutting for farming and other human development. But as usual, don't let reality get in the way of your ranting. It's moderately entertaining, and I've learned all kinds of stuff in refuting you. Keep it up!
> 
> From Edwin Bauer's book Deer In Their World:
> 
> "Much of the eastern United States and Canada was originally covered by vast tracts of virgin timber, where sunlight rarely penetrated to the forest floor. Whitetail deer thrived only on forest edges and in scattered openings. But with westward expansion and settlement, more and more of the original forest was cleared. The axe and plow, plus fire, created ideal deer range from Boston and Philadelphia all the way to the Mississippi River. The population of eastern whitetails exploded in the wake of the lumbermen and farmers."


I'm reminded of the situation in Minnesota some time ago. Their Forestry Dept. was debating whether or not to open up some of Minnesota's timber to logging. Naturally, the tree huggers came out and said "No, no, no!" But they decided to go ahead with it, and Minnesota's deer population just blew up! It's been known for many years that "climax" forest is not ideal habitat for whitetails! Heck, the Indians knew this! They just didn't have chain saws and lumber mills at their disposal. They had fire!


----------



## rmcmillen09

Before the 4 points on one side for a legal buck in management 1-B and the results of hunters settling for a doe instead of shooting a 500.00 fine. The gamelands had fenced off areas so that deer could not enter those enclosures for a study on the deer impact on the forest growth,damage that deer do to trees in a nutshell. The way the deer were counted per square mile by biologists and students surrounding an area for deer to be counted with a drive all deer that were seen exiting were counted and here is the real kicker if ten students counted deer no matter if 5 of them all saw the same deer those numbers were all combined thus allocating doe tags for said units deer per square mile. The timber industry is a 5.5 billion dollar industry annually in Pennsylvania and the Insurance companies were bringing large amounts of coyotes into the mix all add up to my previous post. The deer were over harvested period.


----------



## Lundy

rmcmillen09 said:


> and the Insurance companies were bringing large amounts of coyotes into the mix.


Can you clarify what you mean by this please?


----------



## buckeyebowman

Lundy said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by this please?


I've heard that rumor as well, and never seen any proof!


----------



## Star1pup

For what it's worth I think Ohio has been too liberal with all of our hunting seasons, including small game. Although it wouldn't hurt to hunt more geese these days.


----------



## rmcmillen09

Big $$$ backed the whole effort to bring the herd reduction into play.Who had the most to lose ? Timber and Insurance. When the (supposed) proposal of the antler restriction was brought to the hunters at our local school district all the hunters who attended this heard what Gary Alt and the Game Commission were wanting to do. The news even said there was an overwhelming number of hunters in agreement that were in attendance. All the people who I know that hunt only a couple were in agreement with their plans ? In the late 80s and early 90s we weren't allowed to hunt turkeys in our northern region of the county. We had so many Turkeys here it was crazy. Myself and other hunters came across some obvious turkey flock netting being done on the old steel mill property that is now gamelands. Launchers set up in rows to launch nets over baited turkeys. We came across a deputy warden not long after that and we asked him why we couldn't hunt turkeys here but they could net flocks at will? He said some are being moved to the Harrisburg area and some are being traded for coyotes and other wildlife between state agencies. He also told us NOT TO SAY ANYTHING about our conversation. Lundy a lot of Pa. hunters are very concerned about the future of deer hunting as we know it.


----------



## Lundy

I have no doubt about hunters having concerns about populations and management of the deer herds, antler restrictions, etc, etc,

I do not however for even one second have any belief that insurance companies were responsible for coyotes introduction in PA or any other state.

It would be a catchy jingle " Nationwide is on their hide"


----------



## Saugernut

Can anyone tell me how long it takes an oak tree to grow 18" in diameter? Im guessing a very, very long time. Over the years Ive watched numerous pieces of property destroyed from clearcutting. It makes me sick to my stomach to even look at a place after the fact. It looks like a barren waste land. I would never even consider letting a logging company step one foot on my property and my deer herd is still doing very well after 20 years of harvesting 4-6 deer a year from it. Oh yeah btw, the timber on my property is mature.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Lundy said:


> I have no doubt about hunters having concerns about populations and management of the deer herds, antler restrictions, etc, etc,
> 
> I do not however for even one second have any belief that insurance companies were responsible for coyotes introduction in PA or any other state.
> 
> It would be a catchy jingle " Nationwide is on their hide"


I have to believe that the "warden" was seriously yanking those guy's chains! Especially the part about "don't tell anyone"! If that was the case, why did the guy tell them? I will say that the mere idea of trading turkeys for coyotes strikes me as lunacy! 



Saugernut said:


> Can anyone tell me how long it takes an oak tree to grow 18" in diameter? Im guessing a very, very long time. Over the years Ive watched numerous pieces of property destroyed from clearcutting. It makes me sick to my stomach to even look at a place after the fact. It looks like a barren waste land. I would never even consider letting a logging company step one foot on my property and my deer herd is still doing very well after 20 years of harvesting 4-6 deer a year from it. Oh yeah btw, the timber on my property is mature.


Well, here's the flip side of that coin. My buddy owned 15 acres of fairly mature (18"+) mostly red oak. It was his folks old place. No one lived there anymore, and after years of the place costing him money he decided to sell the timber rights. I had hunted those woods and nearly never saw a deer. 3 years after logging the place became a deer magnet! Then it was rare to go on the property and NOT see deer. It had a become a bedding area for them.

I'm not trying to say that OH and PA have done everything right, but Ohio's new management initiatives don't seem to have impacted your deer hunting in a negative fashion. And it's not like they kept it a deep, dark secret either. They told everybody straight up what their intentions were.


----------



## fastwater

From what I've learned listening to extension agents from the state as well as OSU and knowing a Federal Forester, whether to leave a stand of timber alone, select cut or clear cut depends on many different factors. Having had all three of these out to my property, two of which are hunters, I have to say that their advice has all been in line with each other when giving me advice on my property.

Some of the areas were left alone as their was a good balance of mast producing trees, the canopy was not so thick as to not stop undergrowth from growing and there was some nice undergrowth sprouting up in the area. 

Another area had very mature trees. Many hardwoods. Problem was there were too many in the small area creating very tall trees that couldn't bush out. And absolutely no undergrowth/forage due to the thick canopy not letting the sun hit the ground. Granted, these tall mast trees produced nuts for the wildlife but not nearly to their potential. 
This was a good place for a select cut. Select cut was done and the remaining trees have since rounded out nicely and are producing more nuts in volume then when there was about 1/3 more trees. In other words, the trees that were left are now reaching their mast producing potential which they couldn't before simply cause they couldn't fill out properly. 
Also, with less canopy, the sun can now get to the undergrowth which has not only produced a lot of wildlife forage that was never there before but is also letting small mast tree sprouts to grow. 

Lastly, I had an area that had nothing in it but Quacking Aspens and Poplar. They were so tall and thick, there was absolutely no undergrowth. None!
This area was clear cut...almost. The Fed. Forester( a hunter) that stopped out and walked the property for me as a favor gave me what has proved to be an excellent suggestion. He told me to cut about half these trees down clear to the ground. The other half he told me to cut down and leave the stump about waste level. He said these trees would develop sprouts about waste level that the deer love to feed on. He was right. 
Also, clear cutting (again almost) this section of woods, turned this entire area into an area that held no deer before to an area that is now a very thick area that has made a perfect bedding area.

While there may be different opinions on clear cutting or harvesting mature hardwoods, this is the experience I've had with my little section of woods and can see advantages depending on the situation.
Too, I've been very pleased with the results of following the advice of these people that were not only way more knowledgeable then I when it came to forestry but were hunters as well and knew what I was trying to accomplish.


----------



## supercanoe

I am on the same page with Fastwater. I have an educational back ground in sustainable resource management and I have seen first hand what timber management can do to benefit forest health. Timber is a renewable resource. When managed correctly under a sustainable harvest program both the wildlife and land owner will benefit. Timber management will benefit a broad spectrum of wildlife, not just deer. After a selective cut the woods may look rough for a year or so, but you must focus on the long term goal. The release of sun light, water, and nutrients to the remaining trees will stimulate growth that was not possible otherwise. When I look at a recent cut I only see all of the future potential that the area holds and get excited. Then a couple years later I reap the rewards. It is truly amazing what you kind of hunting property you can create under a sustainable forestry program.


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody

Lundy said:


> I have no doubt about hunters having concerns about populations and management of the deer herds, antler restrictions, etc, etc,
> 
> I do not however for even one second have any belief that insurance companies were responsible for coyotes introduction in PA or any other state.
> 
> It would be a catchy jingle " Nationwide is on their hide"


Lundy, it reminds me of the guys that swear up and down that the state is dropping rattlesnakes from helicopters to reintroduce them....


----------



## buckeyebowman

fastwater said:


> From what I've learned listening to extension agents from the state as well as OSU and knowing a Federal Forester, whether to leave a stand of timber alone, select cut or clear cut depends on many different factors. Having had all three of these out to my property, two of which are hunters, I have to say that their advice has all been in line with each other when giving me advice on my property.
> 
> Some of the areas were left alone as their was a good balance of mast producing trees, the canopy was not so thick as to not stop undergrowth from growing and there was some nice undergrowth sprouting up in the area.
> 
> Another area had very mature trees. Many hardwoods. Problem was there were too many in the small area creating very tall trees that couldn't bush out. And absolutely no undergrowth/forage due to the thick canopy not letting the sun hit the ground. Granted, these tall mast trees produced nuts for the wildlife but not nearly to their potential.
> This was a good place for a select cut. Select cut was done and the remaining trees have since rounded out nicely and are producing more nuts in volume then when there was about 1/3 more trees. In other words, the trees that were left are now reaching their mast producing potential which they couldn't before simply cause they couldn't fill out properly.
> Also, with less canopy, the sun can now get to the undergrowth which has not only produced a lot of wildlife forage that was never there before but is also letting small mast tree sprouts to grow.
> 
> Lastly, I had an area that had nothing in it but Quacking Aspens and Poplar. They were so tall and thick, there was absolutely no undergrowth. None!
> This area was clear cut...almost. The Fed. Forester( a hunter) that stopped out and walked the property for me as a favor gave me what has proved to be an excellent suggestion. He told me to cut about half these trees down clear to the ground. The other half he told me to cut down and leave the stump about waste level. He said these trees would develop sprouts about waste level that the deer love to feed on. He was right.
> Also, clear cutting (again almost) this section of woods, turned this entire area into an area that held no deer before to an area that is now a very thick area that has made a perfect bedding area.
> 
> While there may be different opinions on clear cutting or harvesting mature hardwoods, this is the experience I've had with my little section of woods and can see advantages depending on the situation.
> Too, I've been very pleased with the results of following the advice of these people that were not only way more knowledgeable then I when it came to forestry but were hunters as well and knew what I was trying to accomplish.





supercanoe said:


> I am on the same page with Fastwater. I have an educational back ground in sustainable resource management and I have seen first hand what timber management can do to benefit forest health. Timber is a renewable resource. When managed correctly under a sustainable harvest program both the wildlife and land owner will benefit. Timber management will benefit a broad spectrum of wildlife, not just deer. After a selective cut the woods may look rough for a year or so, but you must focus on the long term goal. The release of sun light, water, and nutrients to the remaining trees will stimulate growth that was not possible otherwise. When I look at a recent cut I only see all of the future potential that the area holds and get excited. Then a couple years later I reap the rewards. It is truly amazing what you kind of hunting property you can create under a sustainable forestry program.


Well! A couple of sensible opinions! Based on real experience. Fastwater's experience was the same as in my buddy's woods. There was absolutely no understory! The red oaks might have given up a small crop once a year because they were crowded! 

And yes, the woods may look a little "rough" after some cutting has taken place, especially for those who think of trees as "monuments" and not plants. True, they might be great big plants, but they are plants nonetheless. And they need to be harvested occasionally to maintain the health of the entire ecosystem. Plants and animals included!


----------



## hopin to cash

If I read all this correctly what the state has done is cut down every tree in an area so hunters 30 years from now will have a better area to hunt. The state did no such thing as thin the canopy they removed the canopy.


----------



## supercanoe

It won't take 30 years to turn into great deer habitat, but it does take time for succession to do its thing. Timber management is a long term and slow process. I don't know what else to tell you. It is a well known fact that Ohio's maturing woodlands have had a negative impact on certain game species. It sounds like you are very worried about declining deer populations, so I would think that you would be happy to see some logging activity on state land.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *hopin to cash*:
> 
> *Clear cutting is a plan for the future?*
> If I read all this correctly what the state has done is cut down every tree in an area so hunters 30 years from now will have a better area to hunt. The state did no such thing as thin the canopy they removed the canopy


*hopin to cash*, 
My post is in no way meant to condone or condemn what the state(if that is who was in charge of the cutting) has done in the area you're referring to. Don't know why they did it. But I'm sure they had their reasons which could have been many. You may want to get ahold of a state or fed. extension agent to find out the reasons they clear cut instead of select cut. It most likely will make better sense to you after getting the reasons why.

I was just trying to give examples of the reasons the forestry management plans that were drawn up for my little section of woods were done so. 

I will say that those I've talked to that are involved with forest management have been very cautious when suggesting the removal of the trees and certain tree species on my property. The 1st line of thought they all had was what I could do to better my woods for the future. They soon found out when we walked the woods that when they told me they would cut this or that tree or clear cut a certain section of trees, I was going to ask why. 

The Fed. Forester I know that came here , did so on his own time and drove almost an hour one way to get here. We spent several hours walking the woods and he was just as interested in what was growing in the undergrowth as the standing timber. He listened to my 'wants' and what I wanted to accomplish, we then walked the woods to see if what I wanted to do was feasible. 
But make no mistake, as we were walking the woods, his biggest concern was if what I wanted to do was best for not only 'now' but for the future. 
Example:
I had no intentions or thoughts of clear cutting the area with the Aspens and Poplars. The thought never crossed my mind. That area was a 'beautiful' setting. Problem was, that's all it was. The area was not benefiting to its potential the woods nor wildlife. And surely had no chance of benefit for the future the way it stood. 
As he explained how a clear cut in that area would benefit the potential of that ground, not only for the immediate future, but down the road, it all made sense to me. 
His job entails walking Fed. property, marking trees for select cutting or clear cutting and the management of that property afterwards. Believe me this guy loves/lives his job, loves the woods and wildlife and has had extensive schooling in forestry. Unless he can see vast future improvements to be made, he will not recommend cutting trees. There simply has to be a valid reason in cutting for future improvement. I will add this about him, the part of his job he has never liked is being involved with clear cutting property for roadways etc. but he knows that comes with the job. 

To sum all this up...again, if you found out the reasons why the area you are referring to was clear cut, I'd bet it was done for reasons that will benefit that property on down the road as the people I've met in the forestry business do not just arbitrarily come in and cut down trees unless they can see future improvements to the property the cutting will make. 

Unless of course the state has plans for a roadway , building something etc. In that case, wildlife gets screwed for the obvious reason that our woods are disappearing and wildlife continues to be pushed into smaller areas. We, the hunters get screwed cause there's less places to hunt. And the people that work in forestry get screwed cause there's less forest for them to manage.


----------



## Saugernut

Fastwater, if you dont mind me asking do you or have you ever worked for the timber industry in anyway shape or form?


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Saugernut*:
> 
> 
> 
> Fastwater, if you dont mind me asking do you or have you ever worked for the timber industry in anyway shape or form?
Click to expand...

No sir, I have not. My line of work always involved 'the concrete jungle'. lol!

For years I spent hunting and enjoying the benefit of the outdoors utilizing public land and those that gave me permission to their land. Never really taking into consideration what needs to be done to maintain the properties.

Fifteen years ago I was fortunate enough to be able to get a very small piece of land in which I currently live on. I've always enjoyed the woods / nature but soon realized I didn't have the knowledge to manage the property to make it better then what it is now and most importantly, leave it better than when I found it when my times up. 
Sooo...I had to get some help from those more knowledgeable then I and set a management plan in place.

FWIW, I am very grateful for the services our state, OSU extension agents offer that is free of charge and am also thankful to the Fed. Forester that took his time to school me a bit. Their knowledge has truly been a 'Godsend' to me.


----------



## hopintocash2

i'll chime in here, as my brother gets a bit eccentric. we've hunted brush creek wildlife area in jefferson county for 35+ years. we have never seen select cut happen there, which i feel would help the forest. heck, i've done that on my property to help certain trees and get rid of others. when whoever clearcuts there, they clearcut!!! not small areas, but entire ridges with no regard to the tree they are cutting. i'm not sure if any political figure is profiting from this or not , but it is sickening to see the amount of destruction they create, then post a wildlife dervisity sign, as to make me feel better about the woods they just removed.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *hopintocash2*:h
> 
> i'll chime in here, as my brother gets a bit eccentric.


Ha! He and I must have a lot in common. All four of my brothers claim I'm more then just 'a bit eccentric'. They claim I'm downright goofy. 

AFAIK, isn't the Brush Creek Wildlife area co-owned by the sate and the National Wild Turkey Federation ? 

A call to them may give some answers for the reason to clear cut rather then select cut. Who knows maybe its to give turkeys better/thicker ground cover for nesting and escaping predators.


----------



## hopintocash2

fastwater said:


> Ha! He and I must have a lot in common. All four of my brothers claim I'm more then just 'a bit eccentric'. They claim I'm downright goofy.
> 
> AFAIK, isn't the Brush Creek Wildlife area co-owned by the sate and the National Wild Turkey Federation ?
> 
> A call to them may give some answers for the reason to clear cut rather then select cut. Who knows maybe its to give turkeys better/thicker ground cover for nesting and escaping predators.


lol, yep my brother is down right goofy too. i don't think brush creek is co-owned, but the turkey federation did get a rather large piece of reclaimed strip land. maybe the clear cut is for turkeys, but how much clear cut do they need? we are talking about 1000's of acres. look at the history of deer harvest in that county over the last 20 years. it has taken a dramatic down turn. maybe it's not timbering, but something has gone terribly wrong there.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *hopintocash2*:
> 
> ...look at the history of deer harvest in that county over the last 20 years. it has taken a dramatic down turn. maybe it's not timbering, but something has gone terribly wrong there


Seems like that's been the trend in most counties. And with cutting down Ohio's deer herd being the admitted goal of ODNR by using us hunters to so and setting excessive bag limits, sounds as though it may be working in your area as well as mine and many others as well. 
I'm afraid if we hunters don't start policing ourselves, we will see less and less deer as time goes on. Some state that they are seeing just as many deer in their areas as they used to. Let those hunters keep bagging them at a higher rate than the deer can multiply and it doesn't a rocket scientist to figure out what's going to happen in their area as well.



Here's an interesting article on Brush Cr. :


Brush Creek Wildlife Area - Ohio
consumer.discoverohio.com/searchdetails.aspx?detail=83459


----------



## buckeyebowman

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to spell out for me the connection between deer herd reduction and the timber industry! As I stated before, the insurance connection is easy to grasp considering vehicle damage and crop depredation. However, the timbering/deer connection is a little tougher to get hold of.

Do deer eat 18" diameter and over hardwoods? I don't think so. Do they impact mature forest negatively in any way? Again, I don't think so. And all real world experience indicates that timber cutting benefits deer by providing low growing browse, edge cover, and bedding areas. So, why would the deer herd need to be thinned in order for timbering to take place? Are they afraid that when they cut the trees that they would mash unsuspecting deer into the ground when they fell? I wonder.

So help me, please, you anti timber cutters! Help me see the connection!


----------



## buckeye dan

buckeyebowman said:


> BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to spell out for me the connection between deer herd reduction and the timber industry! As I stated before, the insurance connection is easy to grasp considering vehicle damage and crop depredation. However, the timbering/deer connection is a little tougher to get hold of.
> 
> Do deer eat 18" diameter and over hardwoods? I don't think so. Do they impact mature forest negatively in any way? Again, I don't think so. And all real world experience indicates that timber cutting benefits deer by providing low growing browse, edge cover, and bedding areas. So, why would the deer herd need to be thinned in order for timbering to take place? Are they afraid that when they cut the trees that they would mash unsuspecting deer into the ground when they fell? I wonder.
> 
> So help me, please, you anti timber cutters! Help me see the connection!


There is no connection and you are misinterpreting some of the details.

Deer have little impact on mature forest but mature forest is not always the best habitat for deer. If that mature forest is a bunch of garbage, fast growing soft woods or non mast producing hardwoods, deer will usually benefit more by removing it. By opening up the canopy, the more desirable, mast producing hardwoods get a fighting chance without being smothered.

Even if you don't have a smothered underlying growth of hardwoods waiting for their turn at the sunlight, you can at least open the canopy to ground level browse and cover by removing the less desirable trees.

Where worlds collide is when the timber being cut has a business value to it. A timber company is going to use the most productive technique to make the most money possible. They often take advantage of people due to their ignorance. I am not trying to imply they rip people off because they don't know one tree from the other. But, wildlife habitat and deer food is not typically at the top of their concerns or business model so they will try to buy all your timber to get at what has value and clear cut. Or they will select cut what is valuable to them and probably your deer and leave you with, for lack of a better term, worthless trees.

In my opinion, the state level decision makers that manage our forests have done a pretty good job of balancing business and wildlife, at least in the areas I am familiar with. Mead paper, coal companies and even AEP have done spectacular jobs keeping things in balance. It's the dedicated timber companies that solicit private lands that create problems. Not all of them mind you. They are getting better though.


----------



## fastwater

Very well put *buckeye dan*. 

IMHO, the Fed. and state levels, along with the other entities you mentioned do an excellent forest management job.



> Orig. posted by *buckeye dan*:
> 
> It's the dedicated timber companies that solicit private lands that create problems. Not all of them mind you. They are getting better though.


Again, you are sooo correct *dan*.
I can't stress to property owners out there enough to really vet a timber company before hiring them to cut your woods. Once it's done, you have what you have for many years.

As with any business's, there are 'fly by night' outfits out there. Some licensed, some not. Learn the different areas they make their money ... IE, do they sell chord wood on the side? If so, make certain they fell the money trees with as much care as possible to take down as few surrounding trees as possible. Although it's impossible to fell a huge tree in the woods without collateral tree damage, I don't want someone that sells wood on the side to drop a money tree into a group of close by smaller oaks busting them off so they can haul them out for firewood if the money tree can be dropped into a group of aspens. Too, we need to remember that every load of pole lumber the timber company takes off our property, they are going to make $ off of and we need to be compensated for it as well. 
When I had my property done, since I heat with wood, I had them drag the tops out of ravines etc to where I could get to them. Some of the softer 'casualty' trees and tops I left lay in certain areas and have spotted deer laying next to them as well as turkey feeding around them when they started to rot.

Timber outfits are also responsible for smoothing,installing berms for erosion and seeding any drag roads they make before leaving the job. This is a big area in which some of the 'fly by night' outfits will try and get out of doing or do a real shabby job on.

FWIW, if they are a licensed outfit, they can have their timbering lic. yanked for not doing so. But again, if they are a 'fly by night' outfit, they don't care. If they get shut down, they just get re-licensed under another name or cut without a lic..
Again, it's our property and when the cuttings done, we can't put it back anytime soon so it really pays to learn all we can about the industry before starting the procedure. 
It pays to not only vet these potential timber companies before hiring them but also have a plan in mind of what we(the property owner) wants to accomplish by the cutting in the 1st place. If we're clearing an area for building purposes or a farm field, that's fairly straight forward. If our goal is to improve the habitat, that's a different ballgame altogether. That's where our local extension agents can come in handy helping out with a long term plan.

Or there are 'forest consultant' outfits we can pay to come in for this as well before cutting.


----------

