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

How many?

Lundy

Member
1,307
127
How many deer do you think are left today in the state?

Isn’t the population from year to year really just a math equation?

I mean if you kill and lose less through predation, car accidents and old age than are born each year your population increases.

There was mention in another thread that saving 66 deer through tag reductions wasn’t significant. The math says that if those 66 deer are all does that those deer would become 1,993 deer in 5 years using a 1.5 birth rate and a 50/50 buck to doe birth ratio.

Same equation using 10,000 does you end up with 318,258 deer in the same 5 year period.

Even one doe saved on the farm I hunt could realize 40- 44 deer over a 5 year period.

None of these numbers account for predation, or loss through other causes, just simple math. However if the number was only half what the math shows it is still big growth numbers.

So if you had the answer to just 4 questions you could manage the population through harvest. With this data you could manage any size tract of land you choose.

How many deer are there currently? ("The Brock Factor")

Buck to doe ratio?

Birth rate average?

What percentage are lost each year through causes other than hunting? This in my mind is the big unknown

Example: State wide
500,000 deer
Buck to doe 50/50 = 250,000- does
1.5 birth rate = 375,000
Total deer = 875,000
20% loss through other than hunting = 175,000 - 700,000 remaining
Must kill 200,000 through hunting to keep population unchanged

Example for county
7,500 deer
Buck to doe 50/50 = 3750 –does
1.5 birth rate = 5625
Total deer = 13,125
20% loss through other than hunting = 2,625, 10,500 remaining
Must kill 3,000 through hunting to keep population unchanged

When you examine the potential for population expansion I think it obvious why the DOW expanded the doe harvest opportunities. These critters can expand population at a very rapid rate.

I just do not think that big changes are required to have a significant impact on the population.

A simple targeted small reduction in bag limits specific to geography would provide for a quick rebound in population in a very short time.
 

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,721
248
Ohio
We have 6 on one farm and 8 on another. That covers the south edge of Allen county.

Anyone else have a count? We can figure this out. lol
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
You must first know you're correct population levels.. Something DNR has recently admitted they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about...

Your entire equation does not mean Bo diddly if the very first variable isn't unknown. You assume that the 500,000 number is correct. However the DNR has stated that the population prior to season was at 750,000. And they have made such claims for the past four years. And over the same period of time dear vehicle accidents have declined 30%. And over the past two years alone harvest levels have declined a combined 16% statewide. With the majority of counties seeing over a 25% decline. Yet according to the DNR the preseason population estimate remains at 750,000..

If that is any inclination of population trends your true preseason population number would be 520,000.. Obviously this is assuming that five years ago when Tonk change the math on population estimates and on paper overnight and increased our population from 550,000 to 675,000 and then using the same math the next year increased it to 750,000.. This is assuming that his initial adjustment on paper was correct. If he was wrong and the herd was actually around 600,000 the entire time. That would actually our preseason I heard population 420,000.

So as you can see, your entire equation doesn't mean boo if they can't get a grip on the actual number. For years they have been managing by harvest numbers and harvest numbers alone... While at the same time increasing availability and opportunity.

There is no doubt that this management philosophy has led to a drastic decline in the population..

66 extra deer (which I clearly stated I believe was the maximum benefit of the doubt number) in a county that is 420 sq miles is a start no doubt.. But I do t think it's what we're looking for. I believe the population is now below a level where a simple tag reduction will help regrow it.. For all we know even a two deer limit in that county will continue to reduce the population. There comes a point where even lowering tag numbers can still do harm if the population is too low already. It all depends on the current population level. That ever unknown variable. If two tags was enough to keep the population steady. Then years and years of those 66 being killed could have the opposite effect of your numbers above.. It really depends now on how bad it is.. How low did it go. Simply lowering it to two ( a number that was capable of maintaining old levels) might not work. Because what was capable of maintenance at a higher population level, is also capable of lowering at a lower population level. We HAVE to know a correct population level.. Manage by what is alive, vs what is dead. Simple really.
 
Last edited:

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,721
248
Ohio
That is why I was helping them out to get a start on estimated herd size. I have 14 regulars. Probably missed a few so we will be generous, throw out 20 deer in southern Allen county. lmao
 

Lundy

Member
1,307
127
Jackalope, I think that is what I said, you must know the starting population. I do not think the DNR, today, really has a good handle on what the actual population really is. I just used 500,000 as a number, it could be 350,000 just as easily, it is just math

Hickslawn, since you KNOW you have 8 deer on one of your farms. If they are 50/50 buck to doe and use a 20% loss rate through "other" causes.

If you kill two deer per year on that farm, one buck and one doe your population increases to 27 deer over 5 years.

If you kill 3, 2 does and one buck, per year on that farm your population stays very close to 8 over the same five years.

All I am saying is that small changes either way make for a significant change in a short amount of time
 

LonewolfNopack

Junior Member
1,503
127
The woods
It makes since what you are saying Lundy. Ma Nuture is an amazing woman and has remarkable capabilities to repopulate what has been lost. But here lies the problem. I passed on the same group of does all bow season, up until youth gun season started. I had in my mind that I would not shoot them since there are so few deer in this area. As it turns out, all of those deer are now dead as far as I know. Either roadkill or the lead slingers slaughtered them. So its a good theory you have, but I really do not know many deer around here besides wise old bucks that can live 5 years to have that much reproductive potential. In the past maybe yes. But every tom and dick that own a two acre patch of woods in their back yard have now started hunting within the past two years, and they drop them like flies.
 
Last edited:

Lundy

Member
1,307
127
It makes since what you are saying Lundy. Ma Nuture is an amazing woman and has remarkable capabilities to repopulate what has been lost. But here lies the problem. I passed on the same group of does all bow season, up until youth gun season started. I had in my mind that I would not shoot them since there are so few deer in this area. As it turns out, all of those deer are now dead as far as I know. Either roadkill or the lead slingers slaughtered them. So its a good theory you have, but I really do not know many deer around here besides wise old bucks that can live 5 years to have that much reproductive potential. In the past maybe yes. But every tom and dick that own a two acre patch of woods in their back yard have now started hunting within the past two years, and they drop them like flies.

I don't disagree at all. You have to have correct numbers, including harvest, to effectively manage populations.
 

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,721
248
Ohio
Jackalope, I think that is what I said, you must know the starting population. I do not think the DNR, today, really has a good handle on what the actual population really is. I just used 500,000 as a number, it could be 350,000 just as easily, it is just math

Hickslawn, since you KNOW you have 8 deer on one of your farms. If they are 50/50 buck to doe and use a 20% loss rate through "other" causes.

If you kill two deer per year on that farm, one buck and one doe your population increases to 27 deer over 5 years.

If you kill 3, 2 does and one buck, per year on that farm your population stays very close to 8 over the same five years.

All I am saying is that small changes either way make for a significant change in a short amount of time

My apologies. Sarcasm and irony don't always translate to text well. My point was simply: Let's help the ODNR figure out how many deer are left and THEN we should determine what is the necessary harvest limits per zone next year. Personally, i am in a unique situation. While on one property there is a "good" herd (mainly due to the work we have done to the property specifically for the wildlife and because we try to not over harvest the area), on every other property in the area in which I hunt, I am seeing squat. Years past you would see the deer grouped up in the winter in herds of 12-20. Now I am seeing 6 or sometimes 8 deer. Wow! Big difference. I am worried about the direction we are going.
 

brock ratcliff

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
24,834
247
There is currently no good way to know. This is why I believe our DOW needs to give a serious look at the thermal imaging potentials as used in TN. There is a viable way to get a real estimate of the standing herd. That is the factor most important to management equation.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
Jackalope, I think that is what I said, you must know the starting population. I do not think the DNR, today, really has a good handle on what the actual population really is. I just used 500,000 as a number, it could be 350,000 just as easily, it is just math

Hickslawn, since you KNOW you have 8 deer on one of your farms. If they are 50/50 buck to doe and use a 20% loss rate through "other" causes.

If you kill two deer per year on that farm, one buck and one doe your population increases to 27 deer over 5 years.

If you kill 3, 2 does and one buck, per year on that farm your population stays very close to 8 over the same five years.

All I am saying is that small changes either way make for a significant change in a short amount of time

Yeah pretty much. lol.. I just wanted to point out that 66 deer isn't a fix all, IE smply reducing tags to 2 isn't a fix all. I get going and it's hard to stop. I wasn't digging at you..

In reality we can discuss topics such as these until the next decade.. But without that all vital number we will never get it..

I prefer instead to take the methods they have said personally they're using and apply that to known numbers.. If they they're using DVAs to set harvest numbers.. I can show you where DVAs have decreased 30%, yet their harvest goals and population estimates haven't.. If they say they moved Fayette and Madison to Zone A because of cover VS ag. I can show you 5 more counties in B that are almost identical in cover and ag and ask why they were not moved... I can't tell them where they screwed up or really how to fix it.. But I can show where YYY idea might be a wrong way of doing business.. And I can show when they say they did YYY because of ZZZ that they're wrong again...


To everyone it should be blatantly obvious what they've been doing up to this point.... They've bee managing based purely on harvest numbers.. Disregarding the increased opportunity and other factors such as technological advancements, hunter recruitment, and time afield... I will show soon how their county movements from zone to zone follow a trend based on kill numbers.... If we increase kills in a B county they move it to C.... They assumed increased kills meant expanding deer... So the moved it to C. When in reality, increased kills were a result of more hunters, more time, and better technology.. In other words, they we're killing more deer from less population... And then they get the bright idea to move it to C.. Compounding the problem further... It's my belief, this is the very issue at the root of the problem..
 
Last edited: