Proposed Deer Management Units

[jagermeister]

I don't think this has been publicized much since it's relatively new. I haven't seen any news releases at least. Here's the link to the proposed deer management units. Earliest they'd go into effect is fall of 2017, but I figured interesting enough to share.

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/hunting...-trapping-regulations/general-information/dmu

 

[PA Bandit]

Already been part of something like that....Living here now for a few years I can honestly say I like the "county" system better. If all they were doing was diving it to do "research, etc..." as the article suggested then sure whatever but if its anything like PA they use it to govern pretty hard.

Not sure if they are intending to manage by DMU like they did county or if they had further efforts (i.e. antler restrictions) that they would plan on implementing. Lets just hope this is not the Gary Alt plan v2.

Edit: Also thanks for the early morning read

 

[motorbreaker]

Already been part of something like that....Living here now for a few years I can honestly say I like the "county" system better. If all they were doing was diving it to do "research, etc..." as the article suggested then sure whatever but if its anything like PA they use it to govern pretty hard.

Not sure if they are intending to manage by DMU like they did county or if they had further efforts (i.e. antler restrictions) that they would plan on implementing. Lets just hope this is not the Gary Alt plan v2.

Problem with the system we have now is some counties vary a bunch. I hunt Highland and one side of the county has plenty deer while the other side has few. So it would be better for our county anyway. This is the same way Michigan does it.

 

[giles]

Last January they held a "Deer Summit" and they released this info there. I like the idea as it separates the wooded areas from the farm land. Also like Moto said, some counties are really going to benefit from this.

 

[bowhunter1023]

I'm not a huge fan of having lines that bifurcate a county and even certain properties. To me, that creates too much ambiguity and creates opportunity for violations. (Which generates revenue, so I'm sure that won't bother the DOW.) That said, I've been looking for the state to manage the deer herd on a more specific level as managing it on a state wide basis is asinine. Looking a Unit 6A which is where all my hunting takes place, I like the comparison with other counties. Overall, I think this approach will benefit the hunters and the deer herd.

 

["J"]

The new property I hunt is exactly the line splitting two areas.... 2E and 2F.... The road I take too it is the dividing line.... I wonder what the difference will be between the two???
Should be interesting.....

 

[Jackalope]

I still think the county by county management with placing said counties in management groups is the best way. They can put a county in any group they wish and they don't have to be close to each other. The county approach allows more fluidity and ability to adapt quickly.


The DMU approach is a set geographic area defined by roads. For example they have Clark, champaign, and union county in the same DMU. The hunting in these three counties is drastically different. The population of Clark county is more than both of those counties combined.

The only reason I can see to move this from the current breakout to DMUs is some sort of tag lottery or tags valid in X DMU only.

 

[PA Bandit]

The only reason I can see to move this from the current breakout to DMUs is some sort of tag lottery or tags valid in X DMU only.

This is how I have seen it applied in PA on a state wide basis early in the as PA refers to it "WMU" stage. The WMU's where it was suspected had more deer were allotted more tags for that specific WMU (i.e. doe tags that is). In theory it sounded alright....in practice it was subpar at best. My biggest complaint to be honest was how they divided them in the Northern part of the state there are millions of acres its not like there is a sign in the woods that tells you that your crossing into a new WMU. My personal opinion was that it did not really have any significant influence over just going by county besides people tagging deer intentionally for the wrong WMU trying to beat the system.

 

[Jackalope]

This is how I have seen it applied in PA on a state wide basis early in the as PA refers to it "WMU" stage. The WMU's where it was suspected had more deer were allotted more tags for that specific WMU (i.e. doe tags that is). In theory it sounded alright....in practice it was subpar at best. My biggest complaint to be honest was how they divided them in the Northern part of the state there are millions of acres its not like there is a sign in the woods that tells you that your crossing into a new WMU. My personal opinion was that it did not really have any significant influence over just going by county besides people tagging deer intentionally for the wrong WMU trying to beat the system.

Well it's a revenue thing. If the goal over the past 7 years has been to decimate the deer population across the state the old cheap tags but at will method isn't going to work anymore. If once upon a time a state harvested 270,000 deer and now they're harvesting 170,000 that's 100,000 tags they used to earn revenue on but no longer do. That's between 1.5 million to 2.4 million cut from your revenue.

So the question becomes how do they make more from less. The only solution is to raise the price of the tags being purchased. Or limit the timeframe and or areas they're valid in.

They're not doing this to better manage the population or regulations. There's nothing wrong with the current method of doing it by county and putting those counties individually into preset management groups. They're doing it to better manage and get the most out of tag sales. First will come the DMU and second the changes to tagging and fees.

 

[Big_Holla]

This looks to be how Michigan is set up. Be prepared for a buck only license and then antlerless permits being extra.....

 

["J"]

This looks to be how Michigan is set up. Be prepared for a buck only license and then antlerless permits being extra.....

The way it was back in the day....

Buck only, with opening day either or if I remember right....

 

[Bigslam51]

Not sure I'm liking this. A major road splits two units in my area, and I hunt on both sides of that road. Curious to see what the differences are as I don't see any major changes in the size of the deer herd from one side of the road to the other.

 

[giles]

Not sure I'm liking this. A major road splits two units in my area, and I hunt on both sides of that road. Curious to see what the differences are as I don't see any major changes in the size of the deer herd from one side of the road to the other.

This happens now…at a much higher lever. Every county actually. I think this will be a great improvement for areas with Amish families. As they just go from county to county right now and wipe out everything.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Count me as part of the yearly revenue that they missed out on for 2015. I'm hitting them in the pocket book. I'll be back in the game next year, but this "scheme" is upsetting to me.

I am truly tired of their rhetoric.

 

[Bigslam51]

This happens now…at a much higher lever. Every county actually. I think this will be a great improvement for areas with Amish families. As they just go from county to county right now and wipe out everything.

Your nuts if you think anything the DNR does is going to stop the Amish.

 

[MK111]

They propose to cut our county -Butler- in half following the river. I sorta understand why as the majority of the people live on the East side of the river. The East side is joined with Hamilton County which is heavy populated. In 2015 Butler was dropped back to 2 deer from 3 and Hamilton County is still 3. With the East side joined with Hamilton County they can raise the permits id wanted.
Butler was split on deer permits couple years ago then they dropped it.
I still don't like doing away with County areas.

 

[giles]

Your nuts if you think anything the DNR does is going to stop the Amish.

You're nuts if you think, I think!

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Taken right from the DOW website for the deer season summary 2014-15 year:

"The Division of Wildlife issued 494,378 deer permits in license
year 2014-15, eight percent fewer than last year and the
fifth consecutive year that sales have declined (Table 1).
Permit sales for 2014-15 were down nearly 21% from the
peak in 2009-10. The decreasing trend is likely due to several
factors including fewer deer in many areas of the state; the
statewide buck harvest of 68,515 was nearly 28% lower than
the record 2006-07 buck harvest (Figure 2). Another factor
influencing the decline is an aging hunter population. The
most notable change in permit numbers was the decline in
free permits issued to seniors and disabled veterans. In the
2014-15 season, 26,210 free permits were issued to seniors
and disabled veterans, a decline of 26% from the 35,606 permits
issued last year. Finally, to reduce harvest pressure on
does in some counties, restrictions were placed on the use
of the antlerless permit. As a result, antlerless permit sales
were down 44% compared to the 2013-14 season."

Very telling!

 

[Buckmaster]

Seems like improved moves into our conservation practices. Only time will tell its effectiveness. At least its segmented for potential adjustments rather well.

 

[hickslawns]

I will be split into two different sections. Where I do most of my hunting is lumped in with counties heading west to Indiana and traditionally low deer density areas. On my personal woods, this property is lumped in with Bellefountaine and these areas of higher deer density. I am scratching my head. Honestly? Just looks like they used 1-75 to split areas because it was a convenient dividing line. Sure isn't because the difference in deer 2-3 miles away (as the crow flies.)