What changes if any to the Deer regs would you recommend to the ODNR?

[huntn2]

We have seen the report showing an 11% decrease in harvest for the first 6 weeks of archery this season compared to 2010. The season results for last year were down 8% from 2009 from what I recall. If this season concludes down at the same decrease the first 6 weeks have shown, the deer harvest will be down over 48,000 from 2009 numbers.

I won't speak for anyone, but I believe many here are concerned over this trend. I will go further to state, I know some here have been saying for a few years this was going to happen. My question is, what would you recommend to the ODNR as proposed changes if you feel the decrease being experience is a negative? If you don't see any issue with the numbers of harvest coming down, please share why you feel this is acceptable and best for the herd, etc.

I will say this. I have concern over the decrease we are seeing. If I take a conservative average of 3% increase in permits sold over the last 6 years than we should have roughly 665k permits sold this season. Based on the 11% decrease from the first 6 weeks of archery, we are forecasted to harvest 212,941 deer this season. That means 32% of all permits sold will be filled. Using permit sales and harvest data found on the ODNR site, the last time the permit fill rate was as low as 32% was 1998.

I don't necessarily doubt the state wide deer herd continues to grow as claimed by the ODNR. Problem is, I believe the growth is due to a booming urban deer population that cannot be managed. I don't have data to back it, but I feel we are greatly reducing the herd in "huntable" areas. If the liberal bag limits are to appease insurance companies we are in a lose-lose situation as hunters/sportsman. Urban deer populations will continue to explode. They are exploding in the highest population density areas of the state. That means more opportunities for deer vehicle accidents which means more pressure from insurance companies....

I have my own thoughts but will ask again, what would you propose or change in the regulations if it were up to you? I hope to not hear, "my opinion doesn't matter" or "they won't listen". Rather I hope we can actually discuss/evaluate some potential sound changes that could/should be considered.

Thoughts?

 

[Jackalope]

To fix it back the fastest before the scoarched earth management policy was enacted..... Get rid of the extra antlerless tags, Make all 88 counties a Zone A county for 2 years sans urban areas where tags can remain high.. Make em 30 tags for all i care in urban areas.. People won't shoot enough to make a dent there due to access issues. After that go back to a 2008 zone map and bag limit.

If we wanted a longer term way to increase the population back and maintain hunting opportunites ... Simply get rid of the extra tags and remove the one bonus gun weekend.


Basically.. Go back to the 2007-2008 reg book..

 

[Beentown]

To fix it back the fastest before the scoarched earth management policy was enacted..... Get rid of the extra antlerless tags, Make all 88 counties a Zone A county for 2 years sans urban areas where tags can remain high.. Make em 30 tags for all i care in urban areas.. People won't shoot enough to make a dent there due to access issues. After that go back to a 2008 zone map and bag limit.

If we wanted a longer term way to increase the population back and maintain hunting opportunites ... Simply get rid of the extra tags and remove the one bonus gun weekend.


Basically.. Go back to the 2007-2008 reg book..

Yep.

 

[epe]

I agree, but I don't think there is a chance in hell they take it back. Everyone but the hunters want the numbers down more. The state is making a lot of money off of the extra tag sales.

 

[RedCloud]

I will say this. They need to get some of the local municipalities open up hunting. I have seen more deer standing in people's yards in towns this year then I have in the huntable countryside.

I think it needs to go back to ONE buck and ONE doe per season.

When I first started deer hunting it was ONE either sex tag. Once filled with a buck or a doe your season was done. I had just as good of a time then as I do now with the option of all these damn tags.

 

[Milo]

Justifiable kill permits....without a doubt.

 

[saddlepants]

I Think you should at least be able to buy a $15 doe tag at any time without having to buy an either sex tag first. Doe only season a few extra weeks earlier?? For those of us hunting meat.

 

[Derek j]

First thing they should do is physically inspect a farmers land before issuing the kill permits. Make sure that they do actually have X% of damage they say they have. I see a lot of people using kill permits that have very little damage to crops or land. 2nd, drop down to 1-1 or 1-2 harvests allowed. This can bring the numbers back quickly in my opinion. 3rd, talk to the city officials where large numbers of deer are invading city limits, and work out an urban deer harvest program. Granville already has started doing this a few years ago, where you can bow hunt in city limits if you apply for a permit. I know my city of Mount Vernon could issue a few hundred permits, and not hurt the numbers they have now. And last but not least.......tell the damn insurance companies to shove it up the fartbox.....90% of them dont pay anything when you hit a deer anyways.

 

[Jackalope]

I Think you should at least be able to buy a $15 doe tag at any time without having to buy an either sex tag first. Doe only season a few extra weeks earlier?? For those of us hunting meat.

Done... As of this year... 'Hunters are not required to buy a Deer Permit before purchasing any Antlerless Deer Permits."
http://ohiodnr.com/wildlife/dow/regulations/hunting_deer.aspx#permits

But that's kind of contrary to what we're talking about here. We're talking about means of reviving the deer population to it's previous high, not killing more of them through liberal tags and season dates.... Many want those permits gone.. Not made more available.. lol

 

[Jackalope]

First thing they should do is physically inspect a farmers land before issuing the kill permits. Make sure that they do actually have X% of damage they say they have. I see a lot of people using kill permits that have very little damage to crops or land. 2nd, drop down to 1-1 or 1-2 harvests allowed. This can bring the numbers back quickly in my opinion. 3rd, talk to the city officials where large numbers of deer are invading city limits, and work out an urban deer harvest program. Granville already has started doing this a few years ago, where you can bow hunt in city limits if you apply for a permit. I know my city of Mount Vernon could issue a few hundred permits, and not hurt the numbers they have now. And last but not least.......tell the damn insurance companies to shove it up the fartbox.....90% of them dont pay anything when you hit a deer anyways.

AND correctly identify the species causing said damage.. It doesn't take a degree in biology to know the difference between coon and deer damage.

 

[saddlepants]

So you guys are saying the deer numbers are down? I dont believe that one at all - I do believe that nuisance permits have gotten out of hand though.

 

[Jackalope]

If they don't start listening... There is a very pretty park in the center of the grounds that house the Div of Natural Resources, Watercraft, parks etc... I would think rednecks would be far better equipped to camp for long duration than some hippies in NYC..... :smiley_crocodile:

 

[Jackalope]

So you guys are saying the deer numbers are down? I dont believe that one at all - I do believe that nuisance permits have gotten out of hand though.

Did you read the opening post?????????

Go do some reading,we've been having this discussion for the past few years.. There is indisputable proof that the doe numbers are falling rapidly.. Many who said the same as you 1 or 2 years ago, are pretty pissed off this season at the lack of deer.. The opening post alone showed you it's not only believable, but happening all over the state.

 

[rgecko23]

To fix it back the fastest before the scoarched earth management policy was enacted..... Get rid of the extra antlerless tags, Make all 88 counties a Zone A county for 2 years sans urban areas where tags can remain high.. Make em 30 tags for all i care in urban areas.. People won't shoot enough to make a dent there due to access issues. After that go back to a 2008 zone map and bag limit.

If we wanted a longer term way to increase the population back and maintain hunting opportunites ... Simply get rid of the extra tags and remove the one bonus gun weekend.


Basically.. Go back to the 2007-2008 reg book..

Agreed 100%...

 

[Archertl]

I think they should get rid of the antlerless permits execpt in urban zones FOREVER. Then make southern ohio a b zone and northern ohio an a zone for a year. then after that year is up go back to the 2008 map and leave it that way for three years then see were we are. Possably after that three year mark add a extra antlerless permit to zone c for 1 season if pop levels are deemed high.

 

[Derek j]

AND correctly identify the species causing said damage.. It doesn't take a degree in biology to know the difference between coon and deer damage.

Agreed.......1000%

 

[Darron]

It makes me sick that zone c has a 6 deer limit! I'm sorry fellas, I have been hunting in zone C for years and there aren't as many deer. There's a lot of huntable areas in zone c versus other areas of the state.

I would like to see it go back to one buck and one doe (possibly 2 does). IMO the height of the deer pop (deer sightings) was back in the mid to late 90 through early 2000's. Since they allowed these extra anterless permits I don't see as many deer.

I do hunt my own property in zone C, but I am also at the mercy of my neighbors as well. If they take a couple doe a year and I take one or two (max we take off the property) you can devistate the deer pop in a particular area. This is why we go light on the doe harvest because we have no idea what the neighbors are taking.

 

[Beentown]

It doesn't make any sense that Morrow has the same allowable numbers taken per hunter as Coshocton county.

 

[Darron]

I might get hammered for saying this, but who exactly needs 6 deer:smiley_confused_vra That's a lot of meat! IMO, 6 is too many. I would like to see zone C backed off to no more than 3 deer. People stop seeing deer on their hunting trips and guess what happens? People stop buying tags.

 

[Beentown]

I might get hammered for saying this, but who exactly needs 6 deer:smiley_confused_vra That's a lot of meat! IMO, 6 is too many. I would like to see zone C backed off to no more than 3 deer. People stop seeing deer on their hunting trips and guess what happens? People stop buying tags.

I know a family. That is what they use for red meat most of the year. He already has all six tagged. But he is the major minority. IMHO six tags is there just to get people to buy more than they would ever use, in general. $. Even with a limit of 4 deer in Zone C I bet the trend would continue. Less deer, more unused tags, deer piled in city limits.