Managing Ohio's Deer Herd - Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Managing Ohio's Deer Herd - Ohio Department of Natural Resources Managing Ohio's Deer Herd - Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Optimum Deer PopulationLevelsCitizen input, as mandated by our deer managementgoal, plays a central role in the goal-settingprocess. However, the decision to maintaina deer population at a given level is not madewithout considering the potential impact thatsuch a decision might have on the whitetail, itsenvironment, and other wildlife. Technicallyspeaking, that means finding a population levelthat neither exceeds the Cultural or BiologicalCarrying Capacity.Cultural Carrying CapacityThe Division of Wildlife recognizes that allOhioans share the costs associated with deer.However, opinion surveys of agricultural producers,hunters, and general citizens indicate thatOhio’s farmers and motorists shoulder the greatestshare of the burden. Therefore, in 1979, webegan using periodic (~5 years) surveys of Ohio’sagricultural producers to aid us in defining optimumpopulation levels in all but our most heavilyurbanized counties. Among other things, surveyparticipants are asked if they would like tosee the size of the deer population increase, staythe same, or decrease in their area. Respondentswho preferred either an increase or decrease wereasked by what percent would they like to see thedeer population change. An average percentchange is computed for each survey region andthen applied to population estimates to derivecounty population goals.County deer population goals represent whatwe believe to be the most equitable solution tothe complex problem of minimizing impacts andmaximizing benefits derived from Ohio’s whitetaileddeer resource. Our reliance on survey inputfrom farmers, however, has drawn criticismfrom some who feel such an approach results inunnecessarily low levels of deer. Although opponentsargue that farmers generally hold a negativeopinion of deer, we found that farmers generallyvalue deer and hold opinions of deer thatgenerally are consistent with the general public.Between 40-50 percent of Ohio’s farmers surveyedindicated that they enjoy seeing and havingdeer around. An equal number enjoy deer,but worry about the problems they cause. Onlya very small percentage of farmers regard deer asa nuisance. A 1996 study from The Ohio StateUniversity revealed that Ohio’s farmers generallybelieve that the benefits of wildlife outweigh thecosts. Thus, while farmers play the largest role indeciding when enough is enough, their decisionis likely to be one most Ohioans can support.The deer hunter also provides important inputinto the management process. In additionto voluntary comments, we poll a representativesample of deer hunters about once every fiveyears.Over 5,000 hunters representing everyOhio county are included in the survey, whichprovides information on opinions and attitudestoward season length, legal hunting devices, baglimit, hunting pressure, and deer population levels.Where appropriate, we incorporate this informationinto the deer management process.For example, a weekend firearms season wasadded to the 2006-07 season as a direct resultof a 2005 deer hunter survey conducted by TheOhio State University. Among other things, thesurvey identified significant barriers to huntingparticipation. Finding time to hunt was noted bya majority of the respondents as a barrier. The additionalweekend was deemed biologically soundand as a result, hunters were given two additionaldays to hunt deer with a shotgun in Ohio.Biological Carrying CapacityAs deer approach biological carrying capacity,herd and habitat health begin to decline.Evidence that this is occurring might include adistinct browse line, the replacement of highlynutritious and preferred plant species with lesspalatable and nutritious ones, and a decline inthe condition of the animals themselves. Deerherd condition data, such as yearling (1.5-yearsold) antler beam and body weight data, collectedsince the early 1970s suggest that, while conditionin western Ohio remains unchanged, it hasdeclined in portions of eastern Ohio. This declineis a direct result of both lower habitat qualityand higher deer densities.In summary, population goals are set for eachcounty based largely on preferences of our agriculturalproducers. These goals may be adjustedas deer herd condition changes. We believe thatsuch an approach goes the furthest toward achievingOhio’s publicly approved deer managementgoal. The concept of optimum population levelsis an important one because it provides the Divisionof Wildlife with management direction.
Harvest ManagementThe high quality of Ohio’s deer range and virtualabsence of natural predators, coupled withthe whitetail’s remarkable reproductive potential,dictate harvest management as the most practicalmeans of maintaining deer populations nearcounty population goals. Regulations can be effectivelyused to increase, decrease, or maintainharvests of either or both the antlered and antlerlesssegments of the population. For instance,a buck-only harvest regulation was used from1965-73 to foster deer herd growth. In 1973,antlerless (does and fawn bucks) permits were issuedin limited numbers to slow herd growth inportions of the state. By 1979, all of Ohio’s 88counties were open to gun hunting and in 1984,an either-sex regulation replaced limited antlerlesspermits in many counties to further slowherd growth. Despite these changes, Ohio’s deerherd continued to grow. In 1991, bag limit increasesfrom one to two deer (the additional deerwas antlerless) were instituted in many counties.Other tools have been used as well including seasonlength extensions, new seasons, and specialhunting zones and bag limits. The status of thedeer population relative to goal, as well as experiencewith past harvest regulations, determinewhich tools are used in a given county each year.In counties where populations are above goal,liberal harvest regulations are used to reduce deernumbers. The opposite applies in counties belowgoal. Ultimately, population levels are controlledby regulating the harvest of females, which typicallyrepresent about 75 percent of the antlerlessharvest.The effectiveness of our harvest managementsystem will vary somewhat from year to year dependingon a host of factors including hunterparticipation and weather during the firearmsseasons. These variables and many others thatinfluence harvest are often difficult or impossibleto quantify. Consequently, an over or under harvestin a particular county is a fact of life. This canbe compensated for in subsequent years, however,by adjusting the harvest regulations accordingly.We expect that over the long-term, the numberof deer in the state (and in most counties) canbe maintained near the desired level with sucha system. This system works best, however, onlywhen Ohio’s deer hunters and landowners participatefully.Successful management of Ohio’s deer herdrequires a cooperative effort among Ohio’s huntersand landowners to eliminate obstacles thatcurrently limit the effectiveness of our managementapproach. These obstacles include a reluc-Number of Deer120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,000Statewide Deer Population Trends as Indicated byAntlered Buck Harvest and Deer-vehicle Accidents3.02.52.01.51.00.5Reported Accidents per 1,000 Registered Vehicles01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006YearAtlered Buck HarvestDeer-vehicle Accidents0.0
- Page 1: Managing Ohio’s Deer HerdOhio’s
Harvest ManagementThe high quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong>’s deer range and virtualabsence <strong>of</strong> natural predators, coupled withthe whitetail’s remarkable reproductive potential,dictate harvest management as the most practicalmeans <strong>of</strong> maintaining deer populations nearcounty population goals. Regulations can be effectivelyused to increase, decrease, or maintainharvests <strong>of</strong> either or both the antlered and antlerlesssegments <strong>of</strong> the population. For instance,a buck-only harvest regulation was used from1965-73 to foster deer herd growth. In 1973,antlerless (does and fawn bucks) permits were issuedin limited numbers to slow herd growth inportions <strong>of</strong> the state. By 1979, all <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong>’s 88counties were open to gun hunting and in 1984,an either-sex regulation replaced limited antlerlesspermits in many counties to further slowherd growth. Despite these changes, <strong>Ohio</strong>’s deerherd continued to grow. In 1991, bag limit increasesfrom one to two deer (the additional deerwas antlerless) were instituted in many counties.Other tools have been used as well including seasonlength extensions, new seasons, and specialhunting zones and bag limits. The status <strong>of</strong> thedeer population relative to goal, as well as experiencewith past harvest regulations, determinewhich tools are used in a given county each year.In counties where populations are above goal,liberal harvest regulations are used to reduce deernumbers. The opposite applies in counties belowgoal. Ultimately, population levels are controlledby regulating the harvest <strong>of</strong> females, which typicallyrepresent about 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the antlerlessharvest.The effectiveness <strong>of</strong> our harvest managementsystem will vary somewhat from year to year dependingon a host <strong>of</strong> factors including hunterparticipation and weather during the firearmsseasons. These variables and many others thatinfluence harvest are <strong>of</strong>ten difficult or impossibleto quantify. Consequently, an over or under harvestin a particular county is a fact <strong>of</strong> life. This canbe compensated for in subsequent years, however,by adjusting the harvest regulations accordingly.We expect that over the long-term, the number<strong>of</strong> deer in the state (and in most counties) canbe maintained near the desired level with sucha system. This system works best, however, onlywhen <strong>Ohio</strong>’s deer hunters and landowners participatefully.Successful management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong>’s deer herdrequires a cooperative effort among <strong>Ohio</strong>’s huntersand landowners to eliminate obstacles thatcurrently limit the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> our managementapproach. These obstacles include a reluc-Number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Deer</strong>120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,000Statewide <strong>Deer</strong> Population Trends as Indicated byAntlered Buck Harvest and <strong>Deer</strong>-vehicle Accidents3.02.52.01.51.00.5Reported Accidents per 1,000 Registered Vehicles01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006YearAtlered Buck Harvest<strong>Deer</strong>-vehicle Accidents0.0
Change language