What would be your plan?

[Lundy]

Still a lot of talk about the DNR and their deer management plan.

I don't think there is any doubt they put in place a population reduction plan some years ago and met that goal for the most part.

Now they have pulled back the reigns on that somewhat and are regulating small areas.

If you were the man, what would be your plan to manage deer and deer hunting in Ohio?

 

[Jackalope]

Too late for that chief. The deer population is so low in a lot of areas the harvest would have to be reduced to less than 1 to have it regrow.

Around 95% of hunters only kill 1 deer so a simple reduction in tags isn't going to regrow the population. For the population to regrow the number of available tags would have to be limited. Only X amount of tags available in Y county typed deal. That or close the county for a year or two to give them a head start.

See the problem with trying to regrow the population now that it's so low is the methods required isn't something most hunters would want to endure.

 

[Bigcountry40]

1 thing I would implement is bucks only in the month of January or right after muzzle loader.

 

[angelzd28]

Maybe shorten the season by a month, I know I only have X amount of time to hunt a year and shortening a month of the season would cut some of my time and in turn cut other hunters time down as well, and therefore would reduce the population. Like Joe said though, its not something most hunters would want to endure, even most guys on this site.

 

[Lundy]

Where we are is where we are, can't change how we got here, only what happens going forward.

"See the problem with trying to regrow the population now that it's so low is the methods required isn't something most hunters would want to endure."

Hunters were certainly on board with the increased harvest and population reduction and participated gleefully, but you don't think those same hunters would willingly get behind a reduced harvest plan?

If that is true how could anyone expect any organization to effect change in the deer management plans if some percentage (likely large) of the hunters would not agree with the plan?

 

[Ohioal]

If they go to the units like they are proposing I think the units that have gotten absolutely hammered should go to buck only or have a lottery type system for limited doe tags. The population can rebound at a fairly fast rate. Assuming one doe has one yearling doe per year if left alone in a 5 year period that lone doe can end up being 24 does after 5 years. That doesn't include the bucks. But they have to adjust soon to get it where it really needs to be. Also I have never hunted the Wayne but it sounds like the habitat I maturing to a point where some logging would probably make a world of difference habitat wise. I may be totally off base on this and please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Big_Holla]

JMHO what you will end up seeing is them managing public lands separately from private. The way it looks I'm guessing they will end up going to a single buck/antlerless tag (up to you on how you fill it) and then antlerless permits (AP) for the additional deer. In Michigan AP's are sold by zones and there are TWO quota's for each zone, public land and private. Some zones have very few permits (if any) available (public land is always less than the private quota) and the only way you can get one is to apply early and it goes into a lottery drawing. Other zones that have higher deer numbers you apply for the first AP but the remaining one's get sold over the counter until they are gone. You have to know what zone you want to hunt in as AP's for one zone are not good in another zone. This is just how Michigan does it but the way they seem to be setting Ohio up for different zones I can see this being the course they may take.

By separating public lands from private they then would likely implement a lottery system for all public AP's based on zones or could even do it by the state/federal land itself such as the Wayne National Forest. That would be the only way to start limiting how many deer are taken on those public lands. How often has someone said here that instead of shooting a doe off of their land (because their deer numbers are down) they'll opt to try some public land hunting? This in essence could shut that down. In some areas/zones (public and/or private) where herds have been impacted the most they could also decide to not allow AP's and the first tag is the only one you could use.

 

[Jackalope]

Where we are is where we are, can't change how we got here, only what happens going forward.

"See the problem with trying to regrow the population now that it's so low is the methods required isn't something most hunters would want to endure."

Hunters were certainly on board with the increased harvest and population reduction and participated gleefully, but you don't think those same hunters would willingly get behind a reduced harvest plan?

If that is true how could anyone expect any organization to effect change in the deer management plans if some percentage (likely large) of the hunters would not agree with the plan?

They were misled by a deceitful DNR into participating in a reduction plan that none of them fully understood. By being told things like "we have too many" "we want to give better opportunities" etc. If the DNR would have been honest upfront of their intentions from the start they never would have gotten people to do it. Tonk himself told me so, they relied on hunters "not being as smart, as we are". If the DNR would have came out in 2008 and said "we want to reduce the population by 40% because insurance companies want more money they would've had a revolt on their hands. Instead, they engaged in a pattern of misleading statements to accomplish their goal. Knowing full well they only needed to maintain the deceit until the goal was accomplished, because by then it would be too late.

If a program with minimal hunter impact to regrow the population was put in place today, it would take a decade to get back to where we were. What these organizations need to do is hold those responsible accountable and make it known who is to blame. Effectively change the leadership so that in the future if the population rebounds the new people don't dare go against the body of hunters. Control of the DNR need to be put back in the hands of the hunter, not the political lobbyist out to increase their bottom line. Only then will we see positive change that benefits hunters. To fix the deer population changes first have to be made at the DNR, hunters have to be put first, not insurance companies. Until that happens it doesn't matter what the deer population does, the DNR will just tell more lies to accomplish their insurance buddies goals.

 

[giles]

First thing I'd do is make special regulations for public land. Wether it all be a drawing system, quota system, or whatever, something NEEDS to be done about our public deer hunting.

Second thing I'd do would be to not open the season until December. Give the good breeding stock a chance to breed unbothered.

Third thing I'd do is take doe off the menu in some areas.

Forth thing I'd do is open up some of these city parks for hunting! Via same system as listed in the first thing I'd do.

 

[Bigcountry40]

If this state goes to a lottery or private/public license system, what will happen to all the non resident hunters? This system might work and give ohio residents a better chance to kill deer on state land or get a decent lease without spending 10% of their annual salary. I dont think this will ever happen because Ohio cares more for nonresident hunters more than us residents.

 

[Buckmaster]

1 doe per year Statewide.

1 Buck with 4 points on one side Statewide.

 

[Lundy]

Second thing I'd do would be to not open the season until December. Give the good breeding stock a chance to breed unbothered.

.

Archery?

 

[Bigslam51]

Ya that's a little overboard, Giles!

 

[Bigcountry40]

First thing I'd do is make special regulations for public land. Wether it all be a drawing system, quota system, or whatever, something NEEDS to be done about our public deer hunting.

Second thing I'd do would be to not open the season until December. Give the good breeding stock a chance to breed unbothered.

Third thing I'd do is take doe off the menu in some areas.

Forth thing I'd do is open up some of these city parks for hunting! Via same system as listed in the first thing I'd do.

Cities would rather spend tax money bringing in paid "specialist" to kill deer, rather than open it up to the public (with a lot of city and suburban folk looking for hunting opportunities) for a archery hunt/season. Makes complete sense right?

 

[giles]

Oh, and outfitters...that'd be a $20,000 permit. You must also hold a special insurance.

 

[Jackalope]

I don't see outfitters and leases being the problem. Sure it forces other hunter into a more condensed area where the deer get hammered harder. But it also locks up land and gives a lot of deer a sanctuary to hold up, breed, and populate the surrounding area. If it wasn't locked up the hunter population would just decimate the population there too like we have on open lands. So I see them providing more help than harm when it comes to rebounding the population. Almost a necessary evil in today's era of low deer numbers and liberal regulations. Besides, it just comes with the times, the leasing train is leaving the station in the future you'll either be onboard or left In the cold.

 

[Spencie]

It my little piece of the state there are not a lot of does. I personally would like to see:

1) Archery season open first Saturday in October
2) Archery season end on January 31
3) Bucks only in January
4) Gun season opening on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and running 9 days through the following Sunday
5) Muzzy season be in December...not January
6) Limited doe permits be sold per unit until the population has been restored

 

[giles]

Archery?

I don't think it'd matter the implement used. Not nowadays, so many hunters in the field all year around anyways. Use what makes you happy.

 

[giles]

Ya that's a little overboard, Giles!

What part? Not opening the season too December? That's the only thing that I'd see raising any eye brows. And the reason it would bother people sounds kinda selfish to me. Let them breed and kill that big freak nasty in late season.

 

[aaronc]

What part? Not opening the season too December? That's the only thing that I'd see raising any eye brows. And the reason it would bother people sounds kinda selfish to me. Let them breed and kill that big freak nasty in late season.

By the time hes "big freak nasty" he has been breeding does for 4 or 5 years. Genes are genes no matter if they are passed on as a 50" 1.5 year old or a 5 or 6 year old "big freak nasty" Those genes have been passed on long before. Ohio will never delay deer season until December, and rightfully so. We have very little to get truly excited about as sportsmen in ohio. We have dismal upland hunting, very poor waterfowl hunting with the exception of some VERY small areas of private land mother lodes. The main things we have are Lake Erie walleye and a truly world class rut. Why in the world would you shut one of those down???? there are many other ways to allow the population to rebound without excluding us all from one of the greatest things this state has to offer.