Come on, Sam... That would mean that the DOW actually considers the hunters in their management plan. That can't be right. :smiley_depressive:
Down
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
Come on, Sam... That would mean that the DOW actually considers the hunters in their management plan. That can't be right. :smiley_depressive:
I was surprised as anyone when he said that. I'd never heard it before, never heard a number for how many deer live in unhuntable areas
- 39,186
- 274
If 750,000 thousand lived in huntable areas.. Then simply comparing sighting to sighting in country driving VS columbus and dayton. There would have to be over 2,000,000 in suburban areas. lmao
Here is a very informative document that I think is well-worth a look.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/Deerbook.pdf
It's not Ohio, and it's not current, but the topics discussed and management strategies are the same. I think it does a good job outlining the various challenges associated with estimating deer populations and setting harvest goals. The question of whether we have too many or too little deer isn't important to just the deer and us hunters... It affects the deer, it affects us, it affects the non-hunting public, it affects insurance companies, it affects the economy, it affects other animal species, it affects the plant species in an area, and so on and so forth. Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make a decision that would affect multiple groups of people in many different ways? I'd bet you my life savings you weren't able to make EVERYONE happy. It's just the way it goes.
But yet here in this situation, so many are willing to throw an organization under the bus... not only that... you're throwing ONE GUY under the bus... a guy not much different than you or I... based on SPECULATION that we as hunters are getting "screwed." I wonder what some of you would think if you were on the inside looking out.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/Deerbook.pdf
It's not Ohio, and it's not current, but the topics discussed and management strategies are the same. I think it does a good job outlining the various challenges associated with estimating deer populations and setting harvest goals. The question of whether we have too many or too little deer isn't important to just the deer and us hunters... It affects the deer, it affects us, it affects the non-hunting public, it affects insurance companies, it affects the economy, it affects other animal species, it affects the plant species in an area, and so on and so forth. Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make a decision that would affect multiple groups of people in many different ways? I'd bet you my life savings you weren't able to make EVERYONE happy. It's just the way it goes.
But yet here in this situation, so many are willing to throw an organization under the bus... not only that... you're throwing ONE GUY under the bus... a guy not much different than you or I... based on SPECULATION that we as hunters are getting "screwed." I wonder what some of you would think if you were on the inside looking out.
Schu72
Well-Known Member
- 39,186
- 274
It is true you can't make every group happy... So far I only see one group that's NOT benefiting from the lower numbers.. Looks like the rest are getting their way fairly well.... As for going after one man.. Hazard of the job man, cest la vie as a public official appointed to position of responsibility when you screw a group over that's paying you they tend to get mad..
Last edited:
- 39,186
- 274
I didn't forget... That's your speculation. I've yet to see you tell me how a 33% reduction benefits deer hunters.
And I've yet to see you tell me how you're getting "screwed." You see less deer when you hunt... have to work a little harder to kill one... and it's like somebody pissed in your cheerios. I tell you what... when my deer hunting becomes slow, I either adapt, or I go do something else. I never feel like I'm getting "screwed" until something serious in life happens.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,189
- 171
JB, i think your logic is flawed on a couple fronts..the only people angry are the only people who support the very agency you seek to protect.. On the death thing your logic is also flawed because by your own words, your advocating for eradicating the entire herd because "every life is precious" i have a strong opinion that this year the total deer car accidents will plummet. i drive through several areas that are large land masses and unhuntable leagally... i am stunned by how few bodies i saw at the road side this year. i don't really care much for the deer collision data because the fact remains that many of these most likely happen in areas that the herd cannot be fixed by hunting...
I don't think my logic is flawed. I'm not saying the herd hasn't been reduced. I never said that. The fact that people are ANGRY about it is what my logic is addressing. No one has given any evidence of the DOW practicing management strategies with the intent to fuck over Ohio deer hunters. The only thing the DOW has done is accomplish the goal that they set out to obtain many years ago. Why all of a sudden are they now a bunch of crooked, no-good, corrupt sons-a-bitches?
I know differing opinions is what fuels a good debate but I think I've had enough of this. Nothing against anyone involved... You guys are all like brothers to me... But my opinion is what it is and your's is what it is. I think, for me, I'm wasting my electronic breath here.
Last edited:
- 25,263
- 261
Personally, I am not upset by the thought of reducing the herd. My frustration comes from the fact I KNOW it is reduced in my area...greatly, and yet according to the DOW we started the season with 750,000. I can assure you, the population has not gone UP over the last few years in any area I hunt! How desolate do they want some areas to be?
I saw a flyer where I live here in washington county that a group is giving out prizes in a drawing to people who sign up that shot does. I didn't read much of it but it appeared that most of the members of that group were insurance agents. That's all we need is to "pay" people to shoot does when we have a decrease in our herd every year since the disease killed off thousands of deer in our area.
- 25,263
- 261
And as far as the farmers complaining about deer damage... The farmers I hunt on are not at all bothered by deer! They will tell you there aren't enough around to hurt much! In fact, I spoke with one the other day that usually gun hunts a little. He said he didn't even bother to go out last week since he still had corn to sell, AND HE HASN"T BEEN SEEING MANY DEER.
If the herd is smaller it is because of the tens of thousands of hunters that kill 1,2 or 3 does every year. Not the small number that kill 6 or the 1400 landowners with kill permits. Easy to get all pissed off at someone else but maybe some should look in the mirror.
Same here Brock. Two close friends farm just under 1000 acres that I rarely hunt but I spoke with them this week for a couple hours. Told them I think I am going to hit some of there woods to fill a couple doe tags. They wished me luck because they have hardly seen any this year. I called up my Uncle (owns 2k acres and farms another 2k acres which he owns my main property with my father) and he said that he hasn't seen many deer at all. Just for grins I called a friend of mine whos family owns half of Crawford county and his family is hardly seeing any. These are straight up guys and I trust what they tell me.
They all kinda laughed when I mentioned the OFB/ODNR collaboration. They didn't think it would work for many reasons.
huntn2
Senior Member
We are all entitled to have our own opinion. Some clearly feel that things are going great and therefore there is no reason to be concerned. Others feel that things aren't going so great and rather than just accept it, they are willing to try and voice their concerns and see if they can't enact change.
I showed what could be happening with the herd numbers based on variables that effect survival. Between that and my observations I have my own thoughts and perception of what is happening. Perception is reality as they say.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the herd has shrunk. To what extent is debatable and whether or not that is a good thing is debatable. In my opinion, I think the desire to reduce the herd to 400-500k or even less is a bit extreme. That is merely my opinion. Think about that number and what that means. That basically means there is 1 deer out there for every 1 hunter who hits the woods each season.
My perception is the ODNR isn’t taking their foot off the gas so to speak. Talk of adding an early antlerless muzzy season leads me to this conclusion. I tend to question whether this is being contemplated in order to give hunters additional opportunities to take a deer which is really an effort to get the season kill numbers trending upwards again as opposed to the spiral they have been in the last 2 seasons. If the management plan is to stay the course and the analysis I performed has any merrit, then I have great concern with regards to what the herd will be like 3 more years from now…
For me, if things continue as is, I will do what so many have said to do...hunt other areas... For me that will mean PA and NY. I will scale back to 1 either sex tag in OH and I will greatly reduce my time spent in the woods here. I will go back to hunting PA gun instead of OH.
I showed what could be happening with the herd numbers based on variables that effect survival. Between that and my observations I have my own thoughts and perception of what is happening. Perception is reality as they say.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the herd has shrunk. To what extent is debatable and whether or not that is a good thing is debatable. In my opinion, I think the desire to reduce the herd to 400-500k or even less is a bit extreme. That is merely my opinion. Think about that number and what that means. That basically means there is 1 deer out there for every 1 hunter who hits the woods each season.
My perception is the ODNR isn’t taking their foot off the gas so to speak. Talk of adding an early antlerless muzzy season leads me to this conclusion. I tend to question whether this is being contemplated in order to give hunters additional opportunities to take a deer which is really an effort to get the season kill numbers trending upwards again as opposed to the spiral they have been in the last 2 seasons. If the management plan is to stay the course and the analysis I performed has any merrit, then I have great concern with regards to what the herd will be like 3 more years from now…
For me, if things continue as is, I will do what so many have said to do...hunt other areas... For me that will mean PA and NY. I will scale back to 1 either sex tag in OH and I will greatly reduce my time spent in the woods here. I will go back to hunting PA gun instead of OH.
