Ohio, gun harvest way down

Looks like our neighbors are having a rough go of it as well this year. 
 
Ohio's 2014 deer gun season kill crashes and burns 

Any attempt by the Ohio Division of Wildlife to put a good spin on the just concluded statewide firearms deer-hunting season will likely be seen by at least some participants as nothing more than an agency trying to gain traction with bald tires.

A total seven-day count nearly 10,000 animals smaller than for last year’s deer gun season is not sitting well with some hunters who fruitlessly sought venison for the freezer and a trophy for the wall.

The final, preliminary total kill figure for Ohio’s 2014 seven-day firearms deer-hunting season is 65,485 animals. For the 2013 firearms deer-hunting season the figure was 75,408 animals.

Down as well is the to-date deer kill. For the 2014 header the figure stands at 148,830 animals while to comparable 2013 to-date statistic was 162,720 animals.

A quick look at the county-by-county breakdown shows that nearly 60 of Ohio’s 88 counties posted declines. And the really heavy-hitting counties such as Guernsey, Ashtabula, Morgan, Harrison, Coshocton, Gallia and Washington are all in the deficit column when their 2014 deer gun season stats are placed alongside their comparable 2013 deer gun season figures.

In announcing the 2014 firearms deer-hunting season the Ohio Department of Natural Resources was quick to note that the slashes in the county-by-county harvest rates is something to crow about.

“Until recently, the population in nearly all of Ohio’s counties were above their target numbers,” the Natural Resources Department’s press release says.

Continuing the agency’s explanation reads: “In the last few years, through increased harvests, dramatic strides have been made in many counties to bring those populations closer to their goal, and the effectiveness of these herd management efforts are reflected in the number of deer checked this season.

“Once a county’s deer population is near (its) goal, harvest regulations are adjusted to maintain the population.”

Yet not every Ohio deer hunter is buying into that line of white-tail management strategy. Among these dissenters is Dennis J. Malloy Jr., a former Wildlife Division wildlife officer who now toils away as an official with Whitetails Unlimited.

In an email sent to Mike Tonkovich – the Wildlife Division’s point-man on deer management in the state – Malloy wrote that the state “has to stop the bleeding.”

“I have never seen so many hunters apathetic and discouraged about our deer herd and deer hunting tradition,” Malloy wrote.

Continuing and adding that two of his uncles have thrown “in the towel,” Malloy writes he saw but three deer in Trumbull County on opening day and zilch in Harrison County on Sunday.

Further, Malloy writes in his email to Tonkovich, at the several rural gas stations he stopped at the bucks he observed were all small; their owners shooting them “because they were the only deer they saw.”

“They couldn’t be too picky after not seeing deer all week,” Malloy writes.

Malloy chides the Wildlife Division for taking a wrong approach to deer management, in the process alienating the constituency base that could abandon the field all-together in no small way.

“… the natives are restless..,” Malloy writes in conclusion. “…Please stop the bleeding before opening another wound.”
Here is the county-by-county kill for the 2014 statewide firearms deer-hunting season and as posted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The corresponding 2013 figures are in parentheses:

Adams: 1,134 (1,343); Allen: 348 (380); Ashland: 1,160 (1,162); Ashtabula: 1,730 (2,334); Athens: 1,360 (1,745); Auglaize: 278 (299); Belmont: 1,428 (1,851); Brown: 940 (932); Butler: 308 (312); Carroll: 1,477 (2,019); Champaign: 434 (414); Clark: 195 (198); Clermont: 685 (667); Clinton: 285 (250); Columbiana: 1,245 (1,726); Coshocton: 2,308 (2,658); Crawford: 515 (528); Cuyahoga: 24 (31); Darke: 241 (170); Defiance: 871 (744); Delaware: 422 (393); Erie: 219 (176); Fairfield: 708 (827); Fayette: 142 (103); Franklin: 124 (113); Fulton: 336 (341); Gallia: 1,220 (1,420); Geauga: 470 (509); Greene: 213 (224); Guernsey: 1,788 (2,401); Hamilton: 165 (202); Hancock: 443 (338); Hardin: 487 (544); Harrison: 1,491 (2,133); Henry: 334 (326); Highland: 1,004 (1,041); Hocking: 1,195 (1,456); Holmes: 1,349 (1,494); Huron: 921 (1,029); Jackson: 968 (1,156); Jefferson: 1,120 (1,494); Knox: 1,727 (1,966); Lake: 138 (126); Lawrence: 779 (1,002); Licking: 1,655 (1,887); Logan: 672 (653); Lorain: 646 (678); Lucas: 105 (131); Madison: 154 (127); Mahoning: 555 (750); Marion: 340 (348); Medina: 567 (555); Meigs: 1,270 (1,482); Mercer: 206 (219); Miami: 250 (211); Monroe: 1,056 (1,337); Montgomery: 130 (109); Morgan: 1,207 (1,445); Morrow: 671 (640); Muskingum: 2,084 (2,604); Noble: 1,031 (1,454); Ottawa: 121 (88); Paulding: 509 (499); Perry: 1,160 (1,362); Pickaway: 330 (343); Pike: 701 (818); Portage: 451 (568); Preble: 272 (274); Putnam: 315 (255); Richland: 1,159 (1,182); Ross: 1,106 (1,167); Sandusky: 261 (208); Scioto: 761 (1,099); Seneca: 710 (747); Shelby: 397 (371); Stark: 759 (883); Summit: 122 (140); Trumbull: 983 (1,298); Tuscarawas: 2,074 (2,604); Union: 313 (301); Van Wert: 283 (214); Vinton: 1,032 (1,424); Warren: 321 (285); Washington: 1,409 (1,606); Wayne: 639 (724); Williams: 831 (838); Wood: 389 (213); Wyandot: 749 (690). Total: 65,485 (75,408).

Can't kill the doe and expect there to be many bucks, it will be interesting to see how our PGC spins it this year.

Waaaaaaay back in the day I learned, from a PGC biologist whom was conducting a whitetail seminar at a outdoor show, a female deer generally produces a set of twins. One being a doe and the other being a buck.

Doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out how many deer won't be available, in the future, for just one doe killed this year.

Quite frankly, I don't care any more. It is what it is.

wayne c
Gee the guy who pushed till his nose bled for bolt rifles in archery season is now concerned that hunters are wailing too many bucks are being killed in archery season?  

 
Actually, some in the rifle only crowd was crowing about archery hunters killing all of the bucks before crossbows were legal. Seemed to have started after herd reduction. Imagine that!
 

Gee, and to think none of us saw this coming beforehand.

 
I was working before crossbows to quash some of the discontent about archery season. 
 

You think some of us are soured on the pgc now...   Lettem think about even trying to shorten our already shorter than most states archery season.

 
Yep. I would hope that all that hunt archery season now stick together if that season is being scrutinized. We have the data and facts on our side. We have lost 250,000 rifle hunters and the deer herd has been dramatically decreased. As a result, percent harvest by archery has increased and everyone is seeing few deer. I believe archery hunters are hunting longer than they ever have to kill a deer. Not so sure about the vast majority of the gun only crowd.
 

I wouldn't be opposed to other changes though if it would pacify others.    Limit the weeks a crossbow can be used.   No reason they should penalize us all for those that sought change.

 
Strength in numbers my friend. The percent harvest by archery was creeping up before crossbows were on the map. The result of less rifle hunters. All of those that hunt in archery season have the data on our side. Stick together. An attack against our current archery season is an attack against all of those that hunt it. traditional, compound, and crossbow. 
 

Or better still, just fix the **** deer situation and they'll have no reason to whine.

And that is the real heart of the matter. Plus the bleeding of rifle only hunters and our aging hunter base.  

wayne c
 I was waiting on the real angle and the other shoe to drop then BAM! I saw on another site where you were discussing this same issue and as part of the solution to this big "problem" you called for rifle hunters to do what you have done  "the last few years" and to even things up by pushing the B.o.c to lengthen rifle season.     
 
Yep.   That's what we all need.   That's simply frikken genius. lmao.    It appears your constant alliance with those antideer enviro extreme type  overly vocal unofficial lobbyists has finally sent you off the deep end my friend.

I have actually been suggesting for about 4-5 years now that the rifle season could be expanded in certain WMUs with low hunter densities. We have lost 250000 rifle hunters. While I love archery hunting, there is certainly some room for those folks as well since participation is dropping like a rock. 
 
I would not mind seeing a limited hunt for antlered deer in the early muzzleloader season either. By draw that is.

Cant imagine any unit you speak of hunting actually needing more time, unless you sometimes are hunting somewhere on the other end of the state Im not familiar with.  Im not aware of any unit in the sw. that has low enough overall hunting participation, or that has out of control deer numbers...or for that matter to put it more concisely, most units have fewer deer than could be or should be..so cant justify anything that extreme in nature.  
 
You've even said yourself, its not so much a archery vs. rifle issue.   Its a too few deer for hunters to be satisfied issue thanks to reductions.   More time = even fewer and even more disgruntled hunters in the future, or at least until hunter numbers at some point decline significantly in the future to make room for added opportunity, possibly at that point actually being NECESSARY.   Hopefully that time is far down the line, since it will mean our ranks has atrophied significantly.
 
I also am not unsympathetic to the rifle hunters.  But no, realistically there is no room for added opportunity since there have already been so many recent and its about maxed out.   Only so many deer to go 'round, and its causing problems as is.   That's one reason I don't support increasing length of archery season, no matter how much Id love to be able to hunt another 2 weeks until rifle season like most other states.  But there isn't room for significantly more opportunity and deer harvest in Pa at the moment, regardless of weapon. 
 
Your welcome to your opinion of course, but to any decision maker who thinks it a good idea to turn the hr mode up a notch,  all I would have to say is this;
 

 
Its time to point the ship in the other direction.

I would not mind seeing a limited hunt for antlered deer in the early muzzleloader season either. By draw that is.

 
I'd meet you half way there.   I would agree on a compromise.   Antlered only, short season either a 3 day or at most, maybe a week, during one of the weeks between end of archery and beginning for rifle.     Flintlock only.
 
Lets face it, inlines are no more challenge than a rifle period, and in rifle season they should be.   They already have an unnecessary early antlerless season also.   Nothing against inlines, just as I have nothing against centerfire rifles bows or any other weapon.   They just belong in rifle season, just as you believe crossbows belong in archery season alongside compounds as they are somewhat similar ballistically. 
 
Might appeal to people increasing the small ranks of flintlock hunters, and would add very little to the harvest imo due to the nature of the weapon and the relatively few taking part.  Depending on participation, might not even need to make it a "draw" hunt.   It would be a unique opportunity, hell even I myself might have interest, and instead of lowering my standards on a buck and taking it the last week of archery some years, I might brush the cobwebs off the ol' flinter.  Have had no interest in shooting skin heads, so the Lymans been in the gun cabinet collectin dust for some time now.
 
Then again, if there wasn't support from a significant portion of hunters overall, I would withdraw my support in preliminary stages of discussing the new season.

wayne c

We have lost 250000 rifle hunters.

 
Source for this statistic please?

Rosenberry has used that number many times over the past 2-3 years. S-10 and I have discussed that number a few times here. I think Rosenberry used it 2 years ago when discussing success rates. 
 
Even the local news stations said that the PGC estimates that 750000 deer hunters will hit the woods on Monday. They have always said a million in the past. 
 
 

http://www.portal.state.p...s/release__101_14.html

They actually have used 700,000 when calculating the percent success rate compared to before AR/HR. Of course that helps their claim that the percent successful is the same as before. Interesting to note that when calculating the dollar effect of Sunday hunting they used 882,000 deer hunters. They seem to use whatever number fits the lie they are telling. The million number was used a lot in the 80's and 90's.

wayne c
 Im not aware of any unit in the sw. that has low enough overall hunting participation, or that has out of control deer numbers...or for that matter to put it more concisely, most units have fewer deer than could be or should be..so cant justify anything that extreme in nature.

 
I agree. Around the population centers, there is enough rifle pressure I think.  I don't hunt the big woods but have many friends that still do. Adding a week at the end, not including the following Saturday, I can't see hurting anything where hunter densities are very low.  
 

I also am not unsympathetic to the rifle hunters.  But no, realistically there is no room for added opportunity since there have already been so many recent and its about maxed out.   Only so many deer to go 'round, and its causing problems as is.   That's one reason I don't support increasing length of archery season, no matter how much Id love to be able to hunt another 2 weeks until rifle season like most other states.  But there isn't room for significantly more opportunity and deer harvest in Pa at the moment, regardless of weapon.

 
Neither am I. I have spent 5 days at deer camp so far this rifle season, 4 of them vacation time, even though I have no intentions of shooting a deer. Going to be back down there this Friday and Saturday. I enjoy just carrying the gun around and seeing what I see. Maybe a coyote if I am lucky. 
 
I am also hesitant to push for more archery hunting opportunities for deer as well. Less deer is causing enough problems. 
 

Your welcome to your opinion of course, but to any decision maker who thinks it a good idea to turn the hr mode up a notch,  all I would have to say is this;

 
Maybe you are confusing my thoughts with wanted more HR. No thanks. It has gone too far. HR is my mind is increasing allocations. I do think there is wiggle room for some opportunities without really impacting the resource if allocations remain stable. 
 
 

 
Even killed a few deer in the early days-----Of course they were all scrub spikes.LOL

Maybe you are confusing my thoughts with wanted more HR. No thanks. It has gone too far.

 
But that's exactly what your promoting.   Your opinion is that in some units, which are now huge areas compared to smaller counties managed previously... Not just a few properties here or there....not even on a township level... Youre saying that over some of these huge areas that additional kill will be acceptable in your opinion because in your opinion hunter densities are low in those units.    More harvest means less existing deer in those units.   Less deer is herd reduction no matter how you slice it.   Absolute best case scenario, which aint happenin', they adjust allocations perfectly to accomadate the season, and the buck numbers take the only "hit" reducing their numbers and worsening an already not incredible age structure in the process.   Worst case scenario, the game commission goes to far with hr by NOT adjusting allocations to allow herd increase or stabilazation....course that just unsupported speculation on my part, since we don't have over a decade of history proving exactly that, or anything do we? lmao. 
 
Im not totally irrational in my positions against hr..   I believe there may be some, though relatively few areas that could benefit by fewer deer.  But not even close to being a good thing across the huge geographical areas that are our current management units. 
 

HR is my mind is increasing allocations.

 
Well your mind is mistaken.   Time and allocations both contribute significantly to the equation.    Add more time without lessening allocations and you have potential for likely increased harvest with higher percentage of existing tags filled.  Keep season length the same without adding time but add to allocation, a lower percentage of tags are filled compared, but you have more of them, so just as many deer can be killed as the previously stated scenario.  
 
You claim to believe hr has gone too far.   Yet on the other hand you claim to trust it wont go any further if you support another potential tool of reductions??     And if they do add a week to rifle, and "opportunity" is the goal, then cut back on the allocations, you've lost just as much opportunity to harvest as you've gained.   Is it worth the anger and disgust that would definitely come from the masses who already hate pgc and their deer management scheme?   Im sure everyones going to jump up and down with glee. lol
 
Then when decision makers decide to go further with reductions, they have even more ammo.  Increased allocations AND increased season length in place.    You also lose the stability of data collected over a period of years with seasons of varying lengths.
 
 

I do think there is wiggle room for some opportunities without really impacting the resource if allocations remain stable. 

 
Oh I see.   "IF ALLOCATIONS REMAIN STABLE"....They have gone "too far" yet there shouldn't even be an allocation reduction, not even when we go to your increased rifle season length scenario?   Amazing.   Your "troubled tone" over herd reduction going "too far" seems to be overshadowed by your support of the same. lol
 
Tell me this, can we at least cut the allocation in each unit by 1k when we add the season length you support, along with the sunday deer hunting you support as well as opening the season on Saturday....   Then maybe there will barely be enough "wiggle room" for only a half dozen more changes thereafter? lol

I made several pre-hr/ar meetings and watched Gary Alt and his entourage draw on their big note pads and show their charts explaining how all the needed changes would work.

There was so many questions asked at all the meetings; Mr. Alt couldn't remember who he told, what, when or, where.

Two responses that have stuck with me all these years: 1; meat eaters can kill a doe, 2; When deer population(s) in a WMU is obtained antlerless tags and/or season will be adjusted causing hunters to move to WMU(s) still over populated.

I can't say who made the comment at the time but, "the plan is designed for moving the predator to the prey".

The answers given were in response to comments such as; why the need for AR I don't hunt for trophy antlers. You can't eat the horns or, what happens if all the doe are killed in one area, etc.

Today, I believe somebody is listening to the complaints of the hunter as there have been some subtle changes made. Allocations and/or season length have been changed in certain WMU(s). AR changed from four point to 'three up ' on one antler. A proposal to remove AR restriction for senior license holders failed but a token law allowing, those license holders, the use of regular firearms during special gun season passed. Again, this was a token passage but, it shows somebody is listening (and concerned I think).

Interesting to see the comments posted on this, and many other, board(s) regarding the dissatisfaction of the PA. hunter.

Would be nice to see these same comments sent to the chairman of the PA. game and fishery committee.

United we stand, divided the deer will fall!.............