Public land proposals...

Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join
#1
How do you all interpret the new proposal below? Do you read it as no bucks until December 2nd or that you may only shoot does up to December 2 and not after?

The ODNR Division of Wildlife also proposed modifications for hunting on public land that would permit hunters to harvest only one antlerless deer from public hunting areas per license year and require that only antlered deer be harvested on public land after Dec. 2. This proposal would allow for some herd growth on public land.


Sent from my iPhone Admin note: Please go in to your app settings and disable signatures.
 

Jackalope

Administrator
Staff member
Site Admin
27,708
643
113
#6
You read it right buddy. The intent is either sex until Dec 2nd, buck only after that. Quite simply put, no does after Dec 2nd on public land.
 

Jackalope

Administrator
Staff member
Site Admin
27,708
643
113
#9
So not trying to start any argument here. But I see "We need herd growth on public land, but not on private areas" I guess it's a start over all.
I wouldn't say they're trying to "grow" the population as much as just limit the harvest. We've talked in depth here that its not tags that leads to over harvest its opportunity. When you have a deer population that is way below what hunters can expend in opportunity, then you have to limit opportunity to maintain the population and stop its decline. A simple way to put it would be you need half the season to maintain half the deer. More than that they decline, less than that they grow. Once upon a time there were enough deer on public land they could withstand an entire season, add in a bonus gun, rifles, and cheap tags and you have enough increases in opportunity to lower the numbers. Once they're lowered you have to limit opportunity to stop the decline and hold steady. Now there are areas where they could be below the low target population and trying to regrow but I'm sure that's fee and far between.
 
Likes: Sgt Fury

Jackalope

Administrator
Staff member
Site Admin
27,708
643
113
#10
I’d rather them manage public land and leave it up to land owners to manage their land. Within reason of coarse...
That's precisely what they're talking of doing. Landowners can enter in to an agreement where they can get more tags than his area calls for. Provided he meets some stipulations and has a population above what they think is correct. The long and short of it is there are areas of private land where no matter what they do statewide regulation wise, they will not be able to lower the population to what they think is right. This could be because maybe the landowner only hunts himself, or only lets family hunt and that's not enough to lower the population. They can't force him to let people hunt, and the hunters and farmers match making site they tried failed miserably because 1000x more hunters signed up than landowners. So how do you decimate the population on lands you haven't been successful on yet? Give the landowner more tags and let him legally exceede the bag limit of does in his area.
 

giles

*Supporting Member*
13,473
758
113
Highland county
#11
That's precisely what they're talking of doing. Landowners can enter in to an agreement where they can get more tags than his area calls for. Provided he meets some stipulations and has a population above what they think is correct. The long and short of it is there are areas of private land where no matter what they do statewide regulation wise, they will not be able to lower the population to what they think is right. This could be because maybe the landowner only hunts himself, or only lets family hunt and that's not enough to lower the population. They can't force him to let people hunt, and the hunters and farmers match making site they tried failed miserably because 1000x more hunters signed up than landowners. So how do you decimate the population on lands you haven't been successful on yet? Give the landowner more tags and let him legally exceede the bag limit of does in his area.
I was thinking about it more the other way. If you want to see more deer, kill less. Doing this by leading by example and lowering the number of doe’s killed on public land.
 

Jackalope

Administrator
Staff member
Site Admin
27,708
643
113
#12
I was thinking about it more the other way. If you want to see more deer, kill less. Doing this by leading by example and lowering the number of doe’s killed on public land.
Yes. But. You're assuming this will result in an effect of people seeing more deer on public land. I.e the numbers will grow. If you have half the number of deer you once did it would stand to reason that you only need half a season to maintain that.

If i had 100 rabbits that produced 100 offspring per year, it would stand to reason that i could have 100 rabbit dinners a year and maintain my rabbit population. If i only eat 100 per year i will always have 100 rabbit dinners every year thereafter.

But lets say I eat an extra 10% each year. The first year i eat 110 rabbits. This only leaves me 90 to start next year and they produce 90. So i start the year with only 180. Say i maintain my extra 10% consumption and eat 99 rabbit dinners the next year.

It would only take 5 years for me to be down to only having 50 rabbits that produce another 50 per year. So 100 total. Half of what i started with just 5 years ago. In the beginning if i ate 100 per year i could have maintained 100 rabbit dinners per year forever. But now i can only have 50 rabbit dinners per year if i want to maintain my 50 rabbit population.

Just because they cut in half how many dinners can be had, doesn't mean the rabbit population is going to regrow. It just means there are less to be had, and thus less should be killed to maintain it.
 
Last edited:

giles

*Supporting Member*
13,473
758
113
Highland county
#13
I believe more people are loosing faith in the ODNR and this will help open more hunters eyes to the problem. Sure there will be guys that think “I gotta go get my doe early” but I also believe some hunters will think “maybe I shouldn’t take a doe”. The more hunters are aware, the better chance we stand in the future.

People ain’t leasing because everything is all peachy...they are investing money so they can run their own program. Have their own “pocket” of deer. This type of behavior doesn’t do well for the future hunters. As this number continues to grow, the hunter numbers will continue to drop.

Another thing to think about is, with this new reg, how long until you won’t be able to find a buck on public land?

All in all, I believe this is a step in the right direction and hope it opens a few eyes. Even if this reg saves one does life, it’s worth it and a start.