Deer numbers

[sabmgb]

I started my deer hunting in the Loring area 50 years ago with my dad and uncle. Haven't hunted up there in about 15 years. Bush is probably getting to old and needs to be logged or burned.

[Sam Menard]

I started my deer hunting in the Loring area 50 years ago with my dad and uncle. Haven't hunted up there in about 15 years. Bush is probably getting to old and needs to be logged or burned.

I bet that you’ve had a few adventures!

[biggamer]

I hunt 4 wmus in Ontario pretty consistently. I can say the deer numbers are down drastically in all 4 based on scouting, running 10-15 cams, and tons of time afield. It hasn’t happened overnight and the last 5yrs has seen steady declines. More archery hunters, loads of wolves, extended seasons, and a couple heavy winters have knocked numbers back big time. Mnrf needs to make some unpopular decisions shortly or the decline will be catastrophic.

[Fenelon]

I totally agree with your comments regarding the inaccuracy of the big game reports. I don’t see how the data generated could be of any value to be an indice for management decisions. The reported deer numbers are probably 10x what is actually present eg. Two does with twin fawns come every night to the food plots i hunt. I know there are are only 6 deer present but in 14 days of hunting i report 84 deer seen. Totally bogus. Same with coyotes reported. Zero seen in 14 days yet i know there are at least three separate family packs that have territory on my land and the bordering properties. At least 14 coyote's based on Six cameras for the past three months. I’ve removed nine coyotes by trapping since Nov. 8th on my 150 acres alone and i still haven’t got them all. We shoot bucks only as shooting does and fawns is like shooting yourself in the foot from my experience.

[longpointer]

Numbers were down here in 90B for both Controlled hunts or at least by my own gang and others that I talked to. My gang in November only saw 5 , two were yearlings on Opening Day that buddy passed on and the other 3 were way out of shotgun range. My brothers gang push the bush in December and only got two Does.

[FishHog]

I totally agree with your comments regarding the inaccuracy of the big game reports. I don’t see how the data generated could be of any value to be an indice for management decisions. The reported deer numbers are probably 10x what is actually present eg. Two does with twin fawns come every night to the food plots i hunt. I know there are are only 6 deer present but in 14 days of hunting i report 84 deer seen. Totally bogus. Same with coyotes reported. Zero seen in 14 days yet i know there are at least three separate family packs that have territory on my land and the bordering properties. At least 14 coyote's based on Six cameras for the past three months. I’ve removed nine coyotes by trapping since Nov. 8th on my 150 acres alone and i still haven’t got them all. We shoot bucks only as shooting does and fawns is like shooting yourself in the foot from my experience.

this is a usual misconception with game reporting, but it's not bogus. All they are doing is watching trends. If you hunted the same number of days last year and reported more deer the trend is going down.

Its not rocket science, they aren't trying to get a population number, they are only looking at long term trends over years. Its proven trusted science that has been going on across north america for years. That combined with harvest data gives very accurate trends in the game herds.

Your just over thinking it and thinking the are trying to get data that they aren't. Its the cheapest most accurate way to get the data they need easily. Sure there are hundreds of other methods, but they aren't necessarily better and are typically much more expensive.

The data they do collect, along with traffic accident data and other factors gives them enough cheaply.

[Fenelon]

In order to make even a basic statement about a “trend” you still need “data”. The indice used for assessment of a trend needs to be standardized so that the same thing is being compared from year to year. The “number of deer seen while hunting” is being interpreted differently by different hunters eg. Some interpret the actual wording and will report the 84 deer (as used in my example), whereas many others will look at this number and say bollocks and only report the six animals. From my personal experience you get about 30% of the hunters doing the 84 report, about 50% reporting the count as six, then 20% falsifying their report by reporting much higher numbers (the idea being that high numbers will keep the doe tags and additional tags going). The old data saying of “garbage in means garbage out” comes to mind. There is such massive variance in how the info is being reported that i don’t see how even “ a line of best fit” can be
established to make any legitimate trend comment. I’ll have dig through the dust archives out in the barn. I’m sure i have some abstracts copied on background of the ODM (Ontario Deer Model) input variability, validity using mail in hunter surveys for big game management decisions, etc

[Gilroy]

In order to make even a basic statement about a “trend” you still need “data”. The indice used for assessment of a trend needs to be standardized so that the same thing is being compared from year to year. The “number of deer seen while hunting” is being interpreted differently by different hunters eg. Some interpret the actual wording and will report the 84 deer (as used in my example), whereas many others will look at this number and say bollocks and only report the six animals. From my personal experience you get about 30% of the hunters doing the 84 report, about 50% reporting the count as six, then 20% falsifying their report by reporting much higher numbers (the idea being that high numbers will keep the doe tags and additional tags going). The old data saying of “garbage in means garbage out” comes to mind. There is such massive variance in how the info is being reported that i don’t see how even “ a line of best fit” can be
established to make any legitimate trend comment. I’ll have dig through the dust archives out in the barn. I’m sure i have some abstracts copied on background of the ODM (Ontario Deer Model) input variability, validity using mail in hunter surveys for big game management decisions, etc

I have spoken on this lots of time and keep coming back to the same conclusion, it should be a very simple change of the wording:

HOW MANY INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE DEER DID YOU SEE.

So on my property I had a matriarchal doe and her last years fawn with her plus this years two new fawns. Every night they were out in the same field but I counted them only as four deer.

I did not see a nice 8 point buck at my licking stick 400 yards away from where the does come out but had him on camera.
I also had a none typical buck come out by a feeder the second day overnight also captured on camera.

Both these bucks had come from neighbouring properties one at least 2 miles away.(neighbour described it exactly)

So the most useful information I can give was that I was able to identify 6 deer period.

I had the four doe group on camera daily.

So everything could be verified, now I am sure that just on my property there was probably at least one real smart nocturnal big buck hanging around.

[finsfurfeathers]

Although every hunter may count and report differently I would imagine that they would report the same way year after year hence a trend may be derived but not necessarily the number of deer

[FishHog]

Although every hunter may count and report differently I would imagine that they would report the same way year after year hence a trend may be derived but not necessarily the number of deer

Ding ding ding!!!! we have a winner. And the trend goes back decades and keeps going.
Again its not accurate population numbers they are after, just the trend. This is one tool looked at, along with others that demonstrate the trend. Consistant reporting is what they need. If they change the questions now, the trends have to start again.

Just answer the questions as asked and that combined with harvest numbers which should be very consistant as there isn't any interpretation there, combined with the car insurance data on collisions with animals, aerial surveys, deer yard counts, etc, they do indeed get good trends.

You can hate on the MNR all you want, disagree with the questions, but there is still infact a basic tend gained from the data submitted.
No need to overthink it, its not rocket science, but is is repeatable and that is what they are after.