What would be your plan?

[brock ratcliff]

A Sept. 1 opening would be an absolute blast! Buck only would be good. Can you imagine being able to hunt the giants we all find in summer while they are still in velvet? I'd bet 100 bucks Mason would have been tagged out the first week of Sept. last year instead of still holding on to hope after almost two full seasons of chasing that dang deer.

 

[Kaiser878]

A Sept. 1 opening would be an absolute blast! Buck only would be good. Can you imagine being able to hunt the giants we all find in summer while they are still in velvet? I'd bet 100 bucks Mason would have been tagged out the first week of Sept. last year instead of still holding on to hope after almost two full seasons of chasing that dang deer.

I agree. A velvet buck is a dream of mine.... man would it be awrsome to hunt deer in the ending stages of their summer patterns

 

[Boarhead]

Buck in velvet would be pretty damn cool.

 

[Spencie]

I am the oddball here. I have NO desire...none...to kill a buck in velvet. Bucks are to be hunted hard horned. When I think of deer hunting it is in the cool crisp air of fall with leaves of many colors falling to the ground. Not sitting in a sea of green in 90* temps fighting mosquitos.

Don't get me wrong, if season is open I will hunt. I have hunted WV when they had early archery for does. It was not a lot of fun sweating while in only a T-shirt.

 

[brock ratcliff]

I like finding them and hunting them when they are somewhat predictable. Velvet is a plus, to me. September hunting is a blast. I left NM early one year so I could get back to Kentucky to chase deer.

 

[Lundy]

A late muzzy season (January) ruins late archery.

Yeah, well bowhunting in the last 3 weeks of November ruins gun season

 

[Spencie]

Yeah, well bowhunting in the last 3 weeks of November ruins gun season

No, 20 man drives ruin everything by 9:00am opening morning of shotgun season.

 

[Flathead76]

Iowa $544 and by drawing.
Kansas $347 and by drawing.

Why shouldn't Ohio charge the same.

Jesse has some good thoughts and written well. Will these ideas be put into effect, I doubt it?

These states do a draw because it stops NR hunters from buying up and leasing ground. If you can only draw a bow tag in Iowa every third year your probably not going to purchase ground just for hunting. The price of the tag does not stop most NR from paying 544 for a tag. If it were more most would probably still pay it.

 

[hickslawns]

Do you think the DNR is reading these posts and getting any good ideas?

I don't know if they are taking notes, but I bet there are some people higher up in the DNR who are reading them. . . .

Not to discount our WO and ground troops in the DNR as they are the ones who catch the flack and actually do the work. I just don't think their opinions are heard much more than our opinions.

 

[Hortontoter]

I'll probably make a few enemies with this, but so be it. I love this site until I read these type of posts.

I am SO, SO tired of hearing Joe and others blaming the DNR for the dwindling deer numbers. Get real, they don't pull the trigger on the weapons we carry, WE DO.

Some people on here complain weekly about the herd being low. But, these same people have killed a doe to get a measly 5 points in a team competition. I'd think shooting a doe would be a 5 point reduction in a contest where guys whine about dwindling numbers.

And don't feed me the line of crap about I need the meat, I ain't buying that either. I know what it costs to hunt, I can buy hamburger cheaper at the grocery store. And I can get a boat load of chicken for what I spend in gas a season, so can most of you.

If you want the deer population to grow YOU AND I must not kill does. I'm doing my part, ARE YOU?

 

[Jackalope]

I'll probably make a few enemies with this, but so be it. I love this site until I read these type of posts.

I am SO, SO tired of hearing Joe and others blaming the DNR for the dwindling deer numbers. Get real, they don't pull the trigger on the weapons we carry, WE DO.

Some people on here complain weekly about the herd being low. But, these same people have killed a doe to get a measly 5 points in a team competition. I'd think shooting a doe would be a 5 point reduction in a contest where guys whine about dwindling numbers.

And don't feed me the line of crap about I need the meat, I ain't buying that either. I know what it costs to hunt, I can buy hamburger cheaper at the grocery store. And I can get a boat load of chicken for what I spend in gas a season, so can most of you.

If you want the deer population to grow YOU AND I must not kill does. I'm doing my part, ARE YOU?

I am real. The blame lies with the people responsible for regulating it. If the DNR allowed people to dragnet for walleye in Lake Erie, then deceive people for years saying the walleye population was way too high, whose fault would it be when the walleye population went in the crapper? Surely not the people who trusted that the DNR was doing the right thing and followed the law. If the DNR next year made guns legal all season, removed the need for a tag, and allowed Ohioans to kill 6 bucks a year. Who would be to blame when hunters completely eradicated the deer population in the state. Surely not the hunters who followed the law and trusted the DNR to protect their interest.

The reason the DNR is to blame is they are the ones ago made the regulations and allowed the hunting population to drastically decimate the deer population. It is true that hunters pulled the trigger, but they are in no way the ones to blame. They're not responsible for seeing the big picture and making sure they don't kill too many. That's why they pay money to a state governing body.

On an individual basis. Sure there will be some that hold back and don't pull the trigger. Sure there will be some self policing among a very small percentage of the hunters. But to expect that to happen across the board without regulations forcing it is a pipe dream. We have laws to regulate the behavior of people. This is because as a group we are not capable of self regulation. If we're not capable as a whole then the blame falls squarely on those responsible for making the laws. In this case it's even more grievous. The very people responsible for making the laws used the fact that we can't self regulate ourselves against us, this causing us to unknowingly screw ourselves. To think that hunters can regulate themselves as a whole to a point where it makes a positive impact is a pipe dream. If that was even remotely possible we wouldn't be I this situation to begin with now talking about how it's our responsibility. The fact that it even happened should be all you need to see that it isn't possible to self regulate as a whole.

As for people shooting deer for the contest, you'll find the most informed hunters in the state here. Some areas still have good deer populations, although they're way fewer than they were years ago. This year I leased so property. The first time I hunted it I saw 14 does and 3 bucks before lunch. If I decide to take a doe off that property this year I'm pretty sure they'll be fine. On the other hand I have a couple properties I've hunted for 5 seasons now and have never shot a single doe. Button expect every hunter across the state to do the same voluntarily is unrealistic.

 

[bowhunter1023]

Dick, I have a lot of respect for you, but I think most of that post is off base. Just my opinion. I don't know of anyone that shoots does just to get their 5 points. Most guys are shooting them for meat. As for needing the meat, speak for yourself. If you want to buy that steroid, hormone injected sickly stuff they sell and put it in your body over free range, organic meat have at it. As for the cost, I can put a deer in the freezer for next to nothing as a landowner who processes his own meat. (Should I choose to do my own.) The same amount of meat I got from my buck, which cost me $1.36 a pound counting the cost of the slug and processing) I'd pay well over 6 or 7 times that in a store for the same quality organic meat. So when you talk down on those of us who truly do need the meat, I think you need to look a little deeper.

And like Joe said, lots of educated and experienced guys here. I'm selectively killing deer from high population areas around me (urbanish) and letting deer walk in the rural areas with the highest pressure. I'm helping to carry the torch on this declining population front, so I make educated decisions when it comes to when, and where I shoot a deer. And I'm not alone on that front.

 

[Hortontoter]

"This year I leased so property. The first time I hunted it I saw 14 does and 3 bucks before lunch. If I decide to take a doe off that property this year I'm pretty sure they'll be fine."

The "typical mentality" is what I'll call this statement. What the heck, I saw 14 does, what is one less going to hurt. Your decision has nothing to do with DNR regulations. YOU make the decision to kill or not to, just like I tried to point out. You can bring up your typical references to speed limits, walleye in Lake Erie etc. None of them hold water in my opinion. Since some areas, as you stated, have good populations, lets kill them there. What a pathetic way to think.

I'll go smoke my pipe and you go smoke yours. I hope you don't choke on your smoke while your head is in the sand.

 

[bowhunter1023]

So by your logic, we should never kill deer since we don't need meat and we shouldn't shoot them when the population can sustain it.

What are you smoking in that pipe?

 

[Hortontoter]

Not what I'm saying at all.

If we choose to kill deer in areas that have higher numbers those numbers will become low also. Sooner or later the numbers will be low everywhere. This is just logical thinking.

As far as the 5 points on the contest, so be it. I just don't understand people whining about a problem, but IMO still contributing to such problem.

And I do eat venison, but I'm not going to shoot a doe ANYWHERE to have venison. We all make choices, usually they are not the same for everybody.

Like I stated in my original post I may ruffle a few feathers, but I stated exactly what I think. and stand by it.

 

[Jackalope]

"This year I leased so property. The first time I hunted it I saw 14 does and 3 bucks before lunch. If I decide to take a doe off that property this year I'm pretty sure they'll be fine."

The "typical mentality" is what I'll call this statement. What the heck, I saw 14 does, what is one less going to hurt. Your decision has nothing to do with DNR regulations. YOU make the decision to kill or not to, just like I tried to point out. You can bring up your typical references to speed limits, walleye in Lake Erie etc. None of them hold water in my opinion. Since some areas, as you stated, have good populations, lets kill them there. What a pathetic way to think.

I'll go smoke my pipe and you go smoke yours. I hope you don't choke on your smoke while your head is in the sand.

So you're saying this "typical mentality" as you call it is the real problem, not the DNR allowing it. So therefor it's the hunters fault.

Question. How can you sit there and say that even I am not capable of self restriction, yet you somehow expect 600,000 others hunters to do it without DNR regulation forcing it? You're contradicting your own philosophy.

You yourself just said that I as a hunter can't make an educated decision based on my local population and my mentality is flawed and the problem. Yet in the next breath you say it's not the DNRs fault for allowing it and it's the hunters responsibility. So if even I as a very educate person on this problem can't do it, how in the heck do you expect the entire hunting population of Ohio to and blame them.

The bottom line is the responsibility lies with the DNR, they passed regulations and used hunters against themselves to increase the profits of insurance companies. The blame for that lies squarely with the DNR. If we as hunters were capable of self regulation the DNRs plan would have never worked to begin with and we'd have over a million deer and growing in the state these days.

 

[Mike]

Dang. DANG!

 

[Big_Holla]

It is definitely a combination of the two when it comes to killing more than should have. Is it solely the ODNR's fault? No. Is it solely the hunter's fault? Not really unless it is their land but at the same time unless you own a giant tract of land you stopping the shooting of does means nothing unless the neighbors do it too. Our neighbor to our West down there says he fills every tag he can and will continue to do so. Well that sucks and in my situation he's definitely part of the problem when he says he hasn't seen much this year. Same with someone else's mention of a couple Amish guys dragging out two yearlings saying they were the only deer they saw and wondered why. Some people need their hands to be held through life telling them what they can and cannot do and some are analytical and notice when there is a problem and start making changes in their lives. Same is true with the terrorism talk and gun control these days. Has the ODNR made some bad decisions? I would say yes and I would further say that they did not have someone watching to make sure they were not decimating the deer herd. Was that their goal? Were they being deceitful? Heck I don't know but enough have called them out for change this past year that they seem to be getting on the right path.

As far as killing deer for meat I agree with both Dick and Jesse. For most of us on here anyways I would bet that if a person tallied up everything involved in killing that one deer they would be surprised how much $$ it really costs. Everything from gas, food plots (and everything involved in just that), clothing (boots, socks, camo, etc.), trail cameras, treestands, blinds, bait/minerals, etc.. Unless you're a landowner (and likely Amish) cutting up deer you killed on a landowner tag I guarantee you've likely spent more than what it would cost you to buy the same amount of meat a deer gives you than buying pure organic grass fed no hormone beef. Maybe one or two people are the exception and bravo to you for doing it on the cheap. Most people who hunt these days spend a lot of time and money doing it if they actually thought about everything involved.

 

[bowhunter1023]

Where you guys are going wrong with this whole cost of meat thing is you're allocating all expenses to one outcome, an outcome I see as an additional beneficial outcome and not the sole outcome. I'd say most of us agree with that. We spend money on hunting because we love to hunt. We spent money on hunting because we want to shoot bucks. And some, spend money to hunt to fill the freezer. By allocating ALL expenses to one deer in the freezer is like saying you pay $1K a month for a mortgage so you can shit in your own toilet. Sure, we all love the comforts of home when it comes time for #2, but we pay that mortgage for a host of other reasons. Silly example I know, but it's a good example of what I'm saying.

I'll ask you guys this question: Who here spends money on hunting soley to put meat in the freezer?

The answer is very few of us. So to argue deer meat is expensive when you add up the cost of hunting is flawed reasoning (and accouting) in my opinion. Especially for someone who apparently is never going to shoot a doe and only shoots bucks. In that regard, our mounts sure are expensive decorations....

 

[Boarhead]

I will shoot a doe if their are plenty on the farm and usually pick a big old one with no fawns.
I enjoy hunting and if i want to shoot a doe that is my right. I'm not gonna whine about the numbers being down cause i remember many yrs back when we would have been excited to have the deer numbers we have today.
Also i dont go out and shoot a doe thinking..oh my.. i have to kill one for the contest,the thought never crosses my mind.
You are right lots of guys do complain but still shoot one and enter them in the contest.
Maybe we should change things and drop does out of the contest and add 10 points for every yote killed while deer hunting.