How much has antler restriction helped Pennsylvania? I know it was a point of contention.
Buckmaster
Senior Member
I don't know but it would bring more benefit to those trophy seekers and up the appeal. With that you could increase license costs and play the supply vs. demand game.
From little I heard of it....it actually hurt the number of "trophy" animals. A 1.5 year old 8 is now fair game. The 6 point 4.5 year olds do the breeding. Conjecture as it was scuttle butt....but it makes sense.
Funny, I used to think "I'd like to tag out in a season". And seeing that all the meat was used would be no problem.
But my feelings have definitely changed with experience and now I'm thinking "one buck, one or two does is fine"
I would like to urban hunt but permission is a pain.
But my feelings have definitely changed with experience and now I'm thinking "one buck, one or two does is fine"
I would like to urban hunt but permission is a pain.
Rutin
Senior Member
I agree with alot of being what said for our local residents and the rights as outdoorsmans here in our state.
Now on a touchy topic about NR hunters.... We are quickly becoming like PA & MI which have more hunters than deer population and you can see where its getting them! If we dont do some type of lottery or price reciprocation we can kiss our herd goodbye. Sure there are mass amounts of deer in certain areas but I can think of areas I hunt that I may only hunt a week a year and the surrounding properties kill everything. If theres no limits within reason then we could kill our herd quickly.
When I say reciprocate prices I mean if it cost me $450 to hunt IL then an IL resident would pay $450 to hunt OH. The problem is we have whored our state out and now we are paying for it. I brought this up to an ODNR officer two years ago and got shot down quickly bc that would kill revenue! Its sad when moeny is the only concern about our OH deer herd, but who am I.... Just a resident fighting for a decent piece of land!
Now on a touchy topic about NR hunters.... We are quickly becoming like PA & MI which have more hunters than deer population and you can see where its getting them! If we dont do some type of lottery or price reciprocation we can kiss our herd goodbye. Sure there are mass amounts of deer in certain areas but I can think of areas I hunt that I may only hunt a week a year and the surrounding properties kill everything. If theres no limits within reason then we could kill our herd quickly.
When I say reciprocate prices I mean if it cost me $450 to hunt IL then an IL resident would pay $450 to hunt OH. The problem is we have whored our state out and now we are paying for it. I brought this up to an ODNR officer two years ago and got shot down quickly bc that would kill revenue! Its sad when moeny is the only concern about our OH deer herd, but who am I.... Just a resident fighting for a decent piece of land!
Make nonresidents hunt in urban zones - two birds with one stone
I do agree Rutin that if NRs want to hunt here, they not get a "bargain" but should pay premium price, because we're a premium state.
I do agree Rutin that if NRs want to hunt here, they not get a "bargain" but should pay premium price, because we're a premium state.
lung buster
Senior Member
A lot of good points in this thread. Speaking for the area that I hunt and live, I think the problem here could be the leasing. I'm surrounded by several thousand acres of old mead ground plus local timber property that is all leased. I know of one group that has 10 guys in that lease. I just wonder how does these guys are killing each year. I just know that the sightings have decreased dramatically over the last couple of years. I believe that its time to cut the bag limits back to 3 deer max in zone c and do away with the extra gun weekend. I think that would be a good starting point.
I agree 100% on this one.
If Ohio is ranked the #1 big buck state or at least in the top 5 states every year then why in hell is Ohio so fuggin cheap for NR to hunt here ? Shouldn't our NR prices be up there with states like IL. and Kansas ?
ohio mossy oak
Senior Member
I will touch on RUTIN's point a little..I say raise ALL Res an non License cost 50%..Now dont you residents get all pissy do the math an think about it..For one this will limit non res-numbers I would think some..Which would help the ultimate goal..RC I dont know if we need to charge IL type cost or not seems awful steep.Get rid of the E-check an phone check crap..That cant help things right?? Why dont we help the quality of bucks while upping doe numbers but still keeping them in control..Earn a buck tag??? Shoot a doe then you can buy a buck tag,,Total bag limit in zone C(max for any zone)3 deer 2 doe 1 buck.....One last thing....Regulate this outfitters a bit more!Pretty sure if you a outfitter in IL you pay like 2500 to 5000$ a yr..This would weed out the guys that think since they own 75 acres an a UTV they can be a outfitter........Im pretty new to this argument so these are ideas..Not my HARD opinions.. Feel free to tell me if they suck or not
Last edited:
Hortontoter
Senior Member
IMO the six deer limit in Zone C is one of the ODNR's biggest mistakes. I've preached this since the day it happened. I would be happy to go back to the one buck and one doe per season rule. I have always been against antler restrictions. Just asking the one week a year gun hunter with the itchy trigger finger to let 'em lay in the woods, because he shot one that didn't meet the requirements. Earn a buck at one time seemed like a good idea. But, now we need to increase the doe populations not shoot more so we can then hunt a buck.
The first thing we need to do is curtail unneeded damage permits and then lower the hunter limits to a reasonable number. I like the idea of antlerless tags only allowed in urban areas, at least for a couple years until the doe numbers increase. And I think the price of NR tags should be increased by 2-3X.
The first thing we need to do is curtail unneeded damage permits and then lower the hunter limits to a reasonable number. I like the idea of antlerless tags only allowed in urban areas, at least for a couple years until the doe numbers increase. And I think the price of NR tags should be increased by 2-3X.
Think about that for a minute. Put us on a level playing field with the big boys because face it we are one of the big boys. We will still get people that will come here and hunt just because it is easier to get places to hunt on public ground as well as the possibility of picking up property by knocking on doors in the pre season.
Leasing is an entirely different beast all in it's self. I do think that the amount of land an individual should be allowed to lease should have a cap. I don't care if your an outfitter or just some smuck wanting some place to hunt. You should be limited to how many acres you can hold under your name or business for strictly hunting purposes.
I should stay out of this but I don't mind the extra doe tags. They are serving their purpose of controling the population. I don't need to go out and see 12 does to have a good hunt. As far as things I would like to see is higher NR fees and a 4 point rule. The 4 point rule is as much to make people wait for a good shot instead of shooting at Brown.. The deer that are genetically inferior enuf to stay 6 points their whole lives are rare. Also make sure youth hunters don't hafta adhere to the antler restrictions.
Basically what I was thinking as well...
Also, double the NR license fee and tag fees, then designate that money to land acquisition and education efforts. It still makes Ohio a bargain, but places a proper value on our resources. I have nothing against NR hunters, I just feel we have undervalued our states resources and I would like to see that change. With the extra revenue going to benefit our beloved sports for years to come...
Last edited:
Part of me supports this as well, but the part of me that thinks kids and new hunters should not have to follow arbitrary management goals such as antler restrictions. I think it does more to help the sport in the long run than help IMO...
ohio mossy oak
Senior Member
Then shouldn't residents pay a bit more as well?Double the Res lise price would still put the cost well within reach of everyone...IMO..
- 39,145
- 274
In many places in the state you would be lucky to see 12 different does in a week of hunting anymore. And no matter what, every big buck came out of a does puss at some point. While a 1 buck rule is ultimately keeping our trophy buck status afloat, if we continue to kill does we are undoubtedly hurting our buck population also. There's a major difference in not needing to see 12 does per sit, and not seeing a single deer in 3 sits..
One thing I would like to see is for doe permits to be issued for a specific County.
To my knowledge, we have no information regarding how many hunters take to the woods in a particular zone and therefore we certainly don't know by County. All we know is the number of deer reported by County. If reported kills remain flat or increase but pressure (number of hunters and permits is rising) in a County, adjustments can be made at more of a granular level compared to the broad peanut butter spread approach in todays zones.
Reduce the doe permits and manage in smaller subgroups than today is a step I would like to see.
To my knowledge, we have no information regarding how many hunters take to the woods in a particular zone and therefore we certainly don't know by County. All we know is the number of deer reported by County. If reported kills remain flat or increase but pressure (number of hunters and permits is rising) in a County, adjustments can be made at more of a granular level compared to the broad peanut butter spread approach in todays zones.
Reduce the doe permits and manage in smaller subgroups than today is a step I would like to see.
No. We live here and we pay taxes here. If you don't live here and don't pay taxes here, then it is even more of a privilege to hunt here IMO. Hence why they can pay more...