Ohio deer population

[Jackalope]

Nodalrat was telling me once that back where he's from if a farmer wants to be in the CRP program they have to allow hunting.

 

[MK111]

Here is a really good test of the proposed system.
Let unknown people stay in your house for weekend visits when your not there. Then report back to us 12 months later and let us know how it worked out. There will be problems.
That's exactly what what's happening when you sign up for a program like this. No one is willing to take the risk and neither would I. It sounds fine and dandy if your not the one taking the risk by are on the receiving end.

I would say 99.99% of the people using your property would be no risk but the .01% would destroy you.

Well if you are looking at owning 500 acres and paying 10k a year in property taxes or only 1k you'd probably think long and hard before turning down the offer. Not sure about Ohio but property taxes here are HIGH.

 

[Lundy]

Now that's a good idea!

No it is not, landowner rights do and should always supersede forced public access by hunters

 

[Curran]

No it is not, landowner rights do and should always supersede forced public access by hunters

Nobody is forcing anything. The landowner has the right to decide to allow hunting or not when applying for nuisance permits in this scenario.

 

[Lundy]

No, nuisance permits should still be issued with no condition of hunter access. It's called individual owner property rights.

 

[ajupsman]

No, nuisance permits should still be issued with no condition of hunter access. It's called individual owner property rights.

Problem is the wildlife is not the property of the landowner. They own the land. What happens to the wildlife effects everyone. I always hate when people refer to "my deer". There is no such thing.

 

[RedCloud]

Problem is the wildlife is not the property of the landowner. They own the land. What happens to the wildlife effects everyone. I always hate when people refer to "my deer". There is no such thing.

Agreed

 

[ajupsman]

The other thing I've never understood about nuisance permits is why are they not forced to follow normal hunting laws? Follow the seasons, no night hunting, etc... It just seems ridiculous they can kill deer at night in the summer with a rifle. That happened at a farm in NY I used to hunt in the 90's. They even asked if I wanted to help. I said no thanks.

 

[RedCloud]

The other thing I've never understood about nuisance permits is why are they not forced to follow normal hunting laws? Follow the seasons, no night hunting, etc... It just seems ridiculous they can kill deer at night in the summer with a rifle. That happened at a farm in NY I used to hunt in the 90's. They even asked if I wanted to help. I said no thanks.

They allow it to be that way for the simple fact it's EASY and can rid the problem faster as well as get the issue fixed as the crops are growing in hopes of saving the yield at the end of growing season.

 

[ajupsman]

Here is a really good test of the proposed system.
Let unknown people stay in your house for weekend visits when your not there. Then report back to us 12 months later and let us know how it worked out. There will be problems.
That's exactly what what's happening when you sign up for a program like this. No one is willing to take the risk and neither would I. It sounds fine and dandy if your not the one taking the risk by are on the receiving end.

I would say 99.99% of the people using your property would be no risk but the .01% would destroy you.

Just to be clear the current use program in NH is not the same as public access. You still have the say to remove people who are not following the rules. I know a landowner who was told any treestands placed on his property without written permission are his for the taking. That's just one example. It's not complete access like public land. The landowner just has to allow access to those that follow the rules.

 

[ajupsman]

Oh and liability for injuries that occur on the property falls on the state. You also can pick and choose which parts of your property are in current use. This allows you to keep some land posted. So if you have a big unused woodlot, thicket or swamp on your property you can put it in current use and get a big tax break on that portion of your property.

 

[motorbreaker]

Is there any kind of program that gives farmers a tax break or other financial concessions in exchange for allowing hunting access? My father in-law has his chunk of land in what is called current-use. He gets a huge break on his property tax by allowing recreational use of his land. He has to allow hiking, fishing and hunting to keep the discount. Now he still has the right to kick people off his land if they are not following his rules. Plus anyone who wants to use an ATV or hang a treestand has to get written permission. It's a pretty good deal. It allows him to keep all the land and still keeps it open for others to use.

Seems to me that it would be a better deal for the farmer to lease his land to a few hunters and get enough money to pay all his taxes and then some. It would also be better for the farmer cause he would know the people who are on his property. Plus if theres a problem, He knows who to talk to about it.

 

[Mike]

Yep^

 

[MK111]

That sounds good in a way.
So you let strangers stay in your house and they only have permission to use the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and family room. It works good for 10 or so guest then #11 comes along and trashes the house so you deny #11 permission in the future.
But opps too late the damage is already done. See where I'm coming from as a landowner. That's how I see it anyway.

Oh and liability for injuries that occur on the property falls on the state. You also can pick and choose which parts of your property are in current use. This allows you to keep some land posted. So if you have a big unused woodlot, thicket or swamp on your property you can put it in current use and get a big tax break on that portion of your property.

 

[ajupsman]

That sounds good in a way.
So you let strangers stay in your house and they only have permission to use the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and family room. It works good for 10 or so guest then #11 comes along and trashes the house so you deny #11 permission in the future.
But opps too late the damage is already done. See where I'm coming from as a landowner. That's how I see it anyway.

I see what your saying and a program like this is not for everyone. I do know a lot of people around here do it so they can still afford to keep land that has been in their family for generations. Due to high property taxes some people have to choose between selling some of their land because they can't afford the taxes or keeping the land and putting it in current use.

Yes I can see why a lease might be a better option but I know some lease companies require that 100% of the hunting rights go to the people leasing the property.

 

[MK111]

To hell with the lease companies. Set the lease up your way or no way and there will more than enough takers.

 

[RedCloud]

That sounds good in a way.
So you let strangers stay in your house and they only have permission to use the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and family room. It works good for 10 or so guest then #11 comes along and trashes the house so you deny #11 permission in the future.
But opps too late the damage is already done. See where I'm coming from as a landowner. That's how I see it anyway.

So what's the difference in the way it is now? You know how many farms I have lost over the years because of #11 screwing it up for the rest of us? A couple of farms the damage was done by a neighbor that had no permission to be on the property but that didn't matter either because the LO blamed the people that had permission because they was the only ones that was allowed there so he assumed it had to be us doing the damage. Even after we told him who it was it didn't matter because he could only see red and kicked everybody out. I'm sure the problems continued but we was already kicked out.

 

[Jackalope]

No it is not, landowner rights do and should always supersede forced public access by hunters

And deer belong to the people of the state. Not landowners. As such they shouldn't be allowed to wantonly slaughter and waste them. If they don't want to allow hunting that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to slaughter deer that don't belong to them because of that decision.

 

[bowhunter1023]

And deer belong to the people of the state. Not landowners. As such they shouldn't be allowed to wantonly slaughter and waste them. If they don't want to allow hunting that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to slaughter deer that don't belong to them because of that decision.

Amen.

 

[Jackalope]

Allowing landowners the ability to slaughter deer that belong to the people of ohio because they chose not to allow hunting is ridiculous.

That's like allowing a landowner to burn tires and disregard the air quality of surrounding citizens for miles just because he has 100s of them, disregard the fact that he put a sign out by the road that says "wanted old tires".

He made a choice to collect those tires, he shouldn't be allowed a free pass to burn and screw everyone's air quality because of that decision.