You nailed the part of the solution that hunters can control. It's continuous education, knowing the herd you are personally hunting, and only killing what that herd can sustain.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Compiled deer havest data 2014 and 2015 YTD
- Thread starter Lundy
- Start date
You nailed the part of the solution that hunters can control. It's continuous education, knowing the herd you are personally hunting, and only killing what that herd can sustain.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
- 39,188
- 274
Band together and become a force to be reckoned with, go after the DNR via PR. Get some of those asshats removed from their positions and dare the next guy to ignore us. That is the only way there will ever be effective long term change that benefits hunters.
Supposedly that's what all of these hunters organizations are supposed to do on our behalf. The reality is I've seen them collect dues and talk a lot of hit air.
Alot of these leases are locking up good whitetail areas where the deer already want to be. Displaced hunters are piling up in areas where they allow free hunting. This extra pressure pushes out deer onto less pressured areas. Alot of these leases might only see two weeks of hunting pressure during the deer season. So the deer pile up in these areas making them better with each day of the season that passes.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
The biggest problem now, and Joe has talked about this in the past............is opportunity. We have far more opportunity to kill them now than we ever had.
Take away Sunday hunting. Take away youth gun days. Take away bonus gun weekend. End archery season on last Saturday in January. Now, the opp today would match that of say..............2000. What was the harvest then? Compare last year's data (taking out the above listed opp) and what's the difference? That would paint a picture of how many less deer we have.
No group has been able to unite deer hunters. At least, not that I have seen. Even if hunters were able to organize and present a united front. What would they care? The DOW officials are appointed and not elected. Tonk won't be removed. Besides, we also know that there is big business lobbying from the other end. They have deep pockets.
Take away Sunday hunting. Take away youth gun days. Take away bonus gun weekend. End archery season on last Saturday in January. Now, the opp today would match that of say..............2000. What was the harvest then? Compare last year's data (taking out the above listed opp) and what's the difference? That would paint a picture of how many less deer we have.
No group has been able to unite deer hunters. At least, not that I have seen. Even if hunters were able to organize and present a united front. What would they care? The DOW officials are appointed and not elected. Tonk won't be removed. Besides, we also know that there is big business lobbying from the other end. They have deep pockets.
Last edited:
Just leave the Sunday hunting and Youth Hunting alone. As the Sunday hunting promotes all hunting, the Youths are the future of all hunting. The couple 1000's the Youth take aren't depleting the deer herds IMHO.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
You misunderstood. I'm not really saying, take those seasons away. I'm saying, if you took out the harvest from those added on opportunities, what would the harvest look like? Would it be more or less than 150,432 (the total take from 2000)?
Last edited:
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,792
- 137
This is exactly what I was saying with my Dale Earnhart Jr. example, I think continued leasing and basically the Europeanization of hunting in US/Ohio (only the wealthy participate) will lead to increase in population or it should. This of course will probably take 20 more years or so to evolve or fully be implemented.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
Which is exactly what the Farm Bureau wants. The state should start taxing them as corporations and drop their cushy ag tax bracket. That would change their tune!
I concur Jamie but the main thing Greg and I were trying to say was no matter how liberal the ODNR AND insurance companies try to use us hunters to lower the deer numbers we essentially have the control as to shoot to kill or let live.
The problem though is not everyone in the hunting community will stick together.
I also agree that leasing definitely has had a negative impact on hunting period! No matter what the game! Just my opinion...
it is definitely up to us as individuals to exercise good judgment with respect to how many deer, especially does, we take from the areas we hunt, showing restraint as needed as numbers decline. my point is that from a statistical standpoint, I think it is a non-issue because, trying as hard as we can, most of us cannot manage to get more than two deer in a season no matter if we are allowed 2 or 6 or 50.
- 1,312
- 141
Leasing is not new, it just a new name and form of compensation for private land access that has been going on for as long I have hunted Ohio.
Free unfettered access to private land to hunt has never existed, you had to gain access in some manner. Today that is sometimes cash consideration versus what ever was required to gain access over all of the years and is still the predominate method today. A very small percentage of private property is leased for hunting the vast majority is still very much the owner providing or not providing access based upon what ever his criteria happens to be.
Access to private property is solely dependent of the landowner, no land owner is required to grant access or to lease.
I am a proponent of requiring a license and regulation for any hunting land leasing company
Free unfettered access to private land to hunt has never existed, you had to gain access in some manner. Today that is sometimes cash consideration versus what ever was required to gain access over all of the years and is still the predominate method today. A very small percentage of private property is leased for hunting the vast majority is still very much the owner providing or not providing access based upon what ever his criteria happens to be.
Access to private property is solely dependent of the landowner, no land owner is required to grant access or to lease.
I am a proponent of requiring a license and regulation for any hunting land leasing company
Actually from what I've read hunters in Minnesota did band together enough to change hunting regs much like many are talking about in this thread.
ILUVBIG8S
Junior Member
Season doesn't need to end earlier. Needs to start later, or at least make it later for doe. Fawn survival rate when it's mom is killed in the first month of the season is probably pretty low. You kill a doe that is still producing milk then your part of the problem.
I've killed does with milk in January. So by that measure, when do you propose we start the season?
Another reason for the decline in gun numbers, number of gun hunters and people pushing less is because of access.
I remember as a kid everyone would push everything. But now with the big buck/big dick mentality access has been limited.
I remember as a kid everyone would push everything. But now with the big buck/big dick mentality access has been limited.
Deer hunting is the economic driver of the outdoor industry and deer hunters make up the vast majority of all hunters in America. Yet deer hunter organizations (QDMA, WU, MDF) have the lowest participation rate among all of the species specific conservation groups when it comes to overall members. If deer hunters simply matched the same organizational participation rate that waterfowl hunters generate (DU, Delta), the change in deer hunting would be astonishing. But as CritterGitterToo noted, "No group has been able to unite deer hunters." I don't know why that is, but it probably has something to do with hunters generally just wanting to be left alone to do their thing. It takes resources to make a difference. You can't go too many places and not find a DU fundraiser. On the flip side, deer hunters pour out money at events like Deerassic Classic that do nothing for deer hunting.
Last edited: