ODNR Proposals released

[Curran]

Overall, I do believe this is a "feel good" effort. Majority of hunters will read this and say "it is about time" and think things are improving.

I don't know about that... if you look at the comments on the DOW facebook page about the proposal, about 95% of them are negative. People are putting down the glass of DOW kool-aid and understand that the proposal still isn't worth the electronic paper it was posted on.

 

[hickslawns]

I don't know about that... if you look at the comments on the DOW facebook page about the proposal, about 95% of them are negative. People are putting down the glass of DOW kool-aid and understand that the proposal still isn't worth the electronic paper it was posted on.

Good. I hadn't read this. Maybe with technology capabilities the word is spreading better. Probably always has been complaining but now it is easier for the masses to chime in in harmony versus a squeaky wheel here and there getting greased. Biggest advantage Ohio has going right now is the internet. IL and WI are being forced to change some things. Ohio doesn't want to fall into those categories. Hopefully the ODNR wises up quickly and is more proactive. I just don't really think this is their objective.

 

[Curran]

Hopefully the ODNR wises up quickly and is more proactive. I just don't really think this is their objective.

rotflmao Nope... they just posted a link to another government run, bureaucratic, electronic suggestion box for people to respond to, along with sharing the dates to the Open Houses :smiley_depressive:. Rather than respond to the masses who are voicing their opinions, the DOW simply turned a deaf internet ear.

 

[bthompson1004]

In my hunter's survey, I did comment on the lack of deer in Geauga county. Apparently I wan't the only one. It dropped from a 4 to a 3 with no antlerless permits being allowed. Minimal impact, I know, but maybe by the following year they will be a 2 or 1.

if the new "proposals" were created that quickly from hunter surveys, then my survey is worthless, cuz I just submitted it today...not that it matters in Lucas County (former completely urban zone) as they continue to open opportunity with lottery draw hunts at the more rural area properties owned by the metroparks...coupled with the word choice used by the local liberal media..if you read any articles fromt the blade, they make it sound like nobody even knows what a deer is but they are soon going to eat everything in the county...oh yeah, they mention how the local deer herd is "unchecked" also...

I wonder what the "magic percentage" is that they will stop with all these gun seasons?

 

[Jackalope]

this proves to me that they have a number of deer per county they want to see and its balls to the wall till they get to that number. I'm a fairly educated individual and have yet to see a pattern or figure out what criteria they are actually using other than scorched earth...

It's so simple it's lunacy. They're simply using harvest numbers. It's the only thing that makes any correlation. Once harvest reaches x number it's put into one of the tag and limit categories. At first they put them in higher limit categories to lower the population. Then rarely they would move them in to lower limit categories like they did Fayette.

We'll use the old zone method to make this easier.

Say a county was killing 500 deer and it was in A. 1,000 deer and was in zone B, and 1,500+ was in C. Say they wanted to reduce the population in YYY county that was in Zone B. They would take that county and move it to C to increase the harvest. Naturally it would increase. Then they would point to that county harvest and say the county was overpopulated. They would say they're providing great opertunity there and it was a record harvest etc due to overpopulation. Once harvest started to fall off they would say it was weather, crops, lack of hunters etc. All the while the truth was the population was declining due to over harvest. They're going to leave that county in C until they believe they've reached the harvest number they desire. Maybe it was originally 1000 when in B.. Then went to 1,300 once it was moved to C. and now that it's been in C for years it's down to 700 and the goal is 500. Once it reaches 500 they'll pull back the reins. What they're not taking in to consideration is the increase in opertunity and effort required. They've added gun seasons, cheaper tags, Sunday hunting etc. That 500 today is not the same 500 of 900 that it was years ago. It may actually take double the effort or double the given opertunity to get to today's 500 as it did the 900 way back when. If you took and set the limits and laws back exactly how they were when guys were killing 900 they wouldn't reach the 500 of today, it might only be 250. They have lowered the population increased opertunity. They set the goal of 500 and did all these things to increase kills and get it down to 500. The problem is it's now only 500 will all those increase kill measures in place.

 

[brock ratcliff]

No change in opportunity; no real change.

 

[MK111]

All the info furnished by the State isn't really aimed at the ones in the know (true sportsmen) but at the uninformed hunters and the public masses.
Remember right or wrong the wheel making the most noise gets the grease first. Then if there is any grease left over it's spread around thinly to make it last.

 

[bthompson1004]

More land to access for hunting = More opportunity

 

[yotehunter]

Its all about the dollar. Why would they change some counties to one anterless permits at 15 dollars if it wasn't and keep the same available tag numbers...or take two anterless permits down to one but let you kill the same amount of does just with a more expensive tag. Why do they even try to bullshit everybody its nothing but greed.