Ohio deer population
- Thread starter Steelheadtracker
- Start date
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
I'm not trying to stir up a hornets nest here by suggesting a program used in NH would work in Ohio. Like Jesse said earlier our program wouldn't work for you guys because most of your land is either agricultural or residential. Plus any big tracts of wilderness are already available for public use. What I'm trying to say is there has to be a way give the farmers incentive to allow hunters to take care of their deer problem instead of just allowing them to senselessly slaughter the deer in any way they see fit.
Last edited:
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
\\
It doesn't really matter if we agree on this or not, it won't change in my lifetime. Personal property rights will always trump any forced hunter access requirement to alleviate property or crop damage caused by a public resource.
The total reported kill by nuisance permits is less than 3% of the total reported kill. 10 year history shows between 2.4 percent and a high of 5 percent 5 years ago. The last 3 years has been under 3% each year and is reducing each year in complaints and reported kills as the deer population has reduced. . How is anyone going to get anyone in authority to pay attention to a problem that they don't see as a problem?
HOWEVER, if the same landowner is receiving a big tax reduction for his property for public access that is a totally different situation and the landowners choice.
dante322
*Supporting Member*
I dont know anything about the application process for damage permits, do they even ask if the landowner allows hunting when considering the application? It should be a factor in the decision as to weather or not the application is approved.
dante322
*Supporting Member*
I also feel that it should be a requirement that any deer that are killed on damage permits be collected and processed as part of the donation program. These animals are a resource after all, no ned to waste it. So it's gonna be a pain in the ass to get them picked up dressed cooled and processed. Maybe that will be a deterant from applying in the first place.
- 39,122
- 274
That would actually require them to attempt ethical shots, get out of the truck to recover the game, and use tags.
Most times here's how it goes. Drive around the farm at night with a spotlight. Shoot at any deer they see be it 30 yards or 300, drive truck over to where it was and shine the light around a little. Keep driving around, must have missed that one.
Or they don't even drive up too it. I've seen it before, they lay and rot. All that good venison wasted.
- 39,122
- 274
I'm not proposing we force anything. Life's about choices. Farmer John chose not to allow hunting, farmer John chose to live with the deer and accept the reality that comes with them. He shouldn't be given a pass to waste natural resources that belong to the people of this state because he makes bad decisions. The same as he can't dump diesel in the creek on his property because he doesn't like mosquitoes and everyone downstream can suck a dick. Just because the water runs through his land doesn't mean it belongs to him. The same with the deer.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
I think the fellas are trying to say that the "reported" numbers are a farce. They are indicating the actual kill is about 10% or so higher than the actual number "reported".
Oh, and yes, I pulled that 10% right out of my butt!
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
We have punched them in the pocket book a little:
"The Division of Wildlife issued 535,676 deer permits in license year 2013-14, nine percent fewer
than last year and the fourth consecutive year that sales have declined (Table 1). Permit sales for
2013-14 were off by nearly 14% from the peak in 2009-10."
Though, it hasn't put much of a dent in their budget. I haven't heard of massive layoffs at the DNR. The PCR law being passed and P&R funds probably helped stave off a few.
"The Division of Wildlife issued 535,676 deer permits in license year 2013-14, nine percent fewer
than last year and the fourth consecutive year that sales have declined (Table 1). Permit sales for
2013-14 were off by nearly 14% from the peak in 2009-10."
Though, it hasn't put much of a dent in their budget. I haven't heard of massive layoffs at the DNR. The PCR law being passed and P&R funds probably helped stave off a few.
- 39,122
- 274
We have punched them in the pocket book a little:
"The Division of Wildlife issued 535,676 deer permits in license year 2013-14, nine percent fewer
than last year and the fourth consecutive year that sales have declined (Table 1). Permit sales for
2013-14 were off by nearly 14% from the peak in 2009-10."
Though, it hasn't put much of a dent in their budget. I haven't heard of massive layoffs at the DNR. The PCR law being passed and P&R funds probably helped stave off a few.
They'll just raise the fees. It's coming.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,188
- 171
- 39,122
- 274
Tonk himself told us they were trying to raise them. Started going on about how the tag and license fees haven't been raise in years. The trouble they were having at that time was with the department of tourism. They didn't want the NR licenses raised because it may drive away NR hunters. As for residents, expect a fee increase soon. He also talked about a fee for hunting public land. Like a public land hunting permit specific to the property you're hunting. The problem there was the federal land. They could do it easy on state lands but it would be much harder to get it approved for places like WNF. And if they did it for one and not the other they feared it would push too many people to WNF leaving the others unhunted and the deer population would grow.