Phil, if we were hit with EHD as hard as Kentucky is this season, I'm sure there's be discussions. Yes we have a few pockets in Ohio that took a hit but nothing even close to what Kentucky or PA are dealing with.
Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
- Status
I think the ODNR would just let things be status quo. Probably blame the weather for the drop in deer harvest.
- 39,067
- 274
My question is how do we know that for sure? When our neighbors to the south, south east, and west were all hit hard I'm skeptical the large section of ohio that lies between them was somehow magically spared the same impact.
Well the Division of Wildlife received reports all summer and early fall and kept track of potential EHD deaths and confirmed EHD deaths. Somewhere online they have a map showing the distribution and abundance of said reports (whether or not it's up-to-date is a different story). The map shows a few "hot spots" in the state, but nothing widespread like KY and PA. To question the accuracy of the distribution would be assuming that people in some areas of Ohio just choose not to report the findings for some odd reason.
I hope you are correct. I am not trying to stir the pot, or bash them. Not trying to derail the thread. I'm just not so confident they would do anything. Maybe some press releases for PR to act as if they care and are making efforts. I simply don't believe they would actually follow thru with any real efforts to rebuild the herd. It is disheartening. I hope I am wrong.
- 39,067
- 274
Here is a good example of how involved and on top of it KY was. They posted a time lapse video of the outbreak.
https://youtu.be/9UB0faikDng
https://youtu.be/9UB0faikDng
JB, do you think it is possible that the state would either shut down gun season in Jefferson County this year or at least revisit the bag limit for the rest of the season?
Probably not on both items. The average hunter uproar would be great as the average hunter just wants to shoot deer even if it's the last one.
I highly doubt they'll make any changes mid-season like that. Most of your average hunters don't pay attention to or read regulations that come out months in advance... Changing things halfway through would be a nightmare from a regulation standpoint. I'd be surprised if some changes weren't made for next season though.
And for that to happen...people NEED to speak up! Make yourself heard, don’t rely on hope.
Here we go! Just back from our last session, I'm going to put a little background into where we are at.
First we have 5 fundamental objectives. While they are numbered 1-5 they are each equally important.
1. Minimize landowner dissatisfaction
2. Maximize hunter satisfaction
3. Maintain a healthy deer herd
4. Improve communication (develop relationships)
5. Preserve traditions
With these objectives in mind Thursday was our day to listen and comment on various proposals from the Division Staff on various tools that can help them manage our deer herd. Basically we were considering what would help them build a better tool box of options.
Here are the options we considered, once again in no particular order.
1. Deer Management Units (DMU)
Pretty much a no brainer, it will allow the biologists to group like areas (habitat and deer densities) together. These units would be divided by physical barriers like roads and rivers and will do away with the county boundaries. This idea was shot down for political reason about three years ago, looks like it will not have any opposition this time. Expected to divide the state into 20+ DMU's.
2. Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP)
This program would be geared towards landowners who do have problems with deer damage or at least high populations of deer. This could be an area within a DMU, the DMU may limit harvest to one deer, but this may be a property with a lot of deer on it. After consultations and visits with a deer biologist/private lands biologists, the state could issue additional tags to the landowner with some restrictions. Antlerless tags only. Tags would only be good in season, and landowner could allocate tags to whomever he wants, but must keep records on the tags.
3. Antlerless permit allocations
This would go hand in hand with the DMU's. This would allow the division to issue a set number of antlerless permits for each DMU. The example we received here was Holmes County, Aerial surveys showed an extremely low deer population in eastern Holmes County, <5 deer/sq mile. western Holmes had some surveys over 25 deer/Sq mile.
A few points to remember: Everyone will still have one either sex permit that can be used anywhere. There will be some areas where the antlerless allocations may be oversubscribed, meaning you won't get any extra tags. Couple questions we had, Should people within those areas have first chance at those permits? Area of concern with understanding the areas and needing two or three or even more tags if you hunt several different areas.
4. Landowner Permits
Two major concerns with the current system. Number of landowner harvest vs actual landowners in the counties really doesn't match up. And there is no way of knowing just how many landowner hunters we actually have. They can take the overall percent success ratio and work that backwards, but it's still at best a calculated guess. If they want the Antlerless permits to work this would be a big help in determining numbers.
5. Separate Regulations for public land
Recent surveys have not been clear on this one. One question was do you want it managed differently that public, about 65% said yes, when asked about the changes less than 50% wanted any changes. Even with that in mind there will be changes coming. Several options to consider: 1) Limit either sex days 2) reduce bag limits 3) Limited or no antlerless permits 4) Season restricions.
Additionally there will be differences between public lands, 350 acre Public Hunting area versus larger areas, state forests and the Wayne national forest.
And something that was pretty much agreed upon was habitat improvement plans on a lot of the areas.
6. Outfitter Licensing
Yes something will be coming on this.
7. Other states strategies
Earn a Buck
Conditional Seasons
Season specific bag limits/licenses
Permit Bundles
Each of these were considered, but at best got lukewarm responses. No one seemed to excited about earn a buck, conditional seasons means if we don't kill "X" number of deer, they will extend the season.
Season specific would mean you would have to buy separate licenses for each season you participate in....Bow, Gun, Muzzleloader.
Permit bundles would allow you to buy all the licenses at once.
That pretty much finished up the Thursday session, or at least the formal session. We continued talking about these topics after dinner until about 8-9 o'clock. When I say "we" I mean everyone. The division staff stays with us and offers to answer any questions that we have.
Enough for now! Fire away, I'll wait and post Fridays Topics in a few days, it was on a different direction than Thursdays.
First we have 5 fundamental objectives. While they are numbered 1-5 they are each equally important.
1. Minimize landowner dissatisfaction
2. Maximize hunter satisfaction
3. Maintain a healthy deer herd
4. Improve communication (develop relationships)
5. Preserve traditions
With these objectives in mind Thursday was our day to listen and comment on various proposals from the Division Staff on various tools that can help them manage our deer herd. Basically we were considering what would help them build a better tool box of options.
Here are the options we considered, once again in no particular order.
1. Deer Management Units (DMU)
Pretty much a no brainer, it will allow the biologists to group like areas (habitat and deer densities) together. These units would be divided by physical barriers like roads and rivers and will do away with the county boundaries. This idea was shot down for political reason about three years ago, looks like it will not have any opposition this time. Expected to divide the state into 20+ DMU's.
2. Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP)
This program would be geared towards landowners who do have problems with deer damage or at least high populations of deer. This could be an area within a DMU, the DMU may limit harvest to one deer, but this may be a property with a lot of deer on it. After consultations and visits with a deer biologist/private lands biologists, the state could issue additional tags to the landowner with some restrictions. Antlerless tags only. Tags would only be good in season, and landowner could allocate tags to whomever he wants, but must keep records on the tags.
3. Antlerless permit allocations
This would go hand in hand with the DMU's. This would allow the division to issue a set number of antlerless permits for each DMU. The example we received here was Holmes County, Aerial surveys showed an extremely low deer population in eastern Holmes County, <5 deer/sq mile. western Holmes had some surveys over 25 deer/Sq mile.
A few points to remember: Everyone will still have one either sex permit that can be used anywhere. There will be some areas where the antlerless allocations may be oversubscribed, meaning you won't get any extra tags. Couple questions we had, Should people within those areas have first chance at those permits? Area of concern with understanding the areas and needing two or three or even more tags if you hunt several different areas.
4. Landowner Permits
Two major concerns with the current system. Number of landowner harvest vs actual landowners in the counties really doesn't match up. And there is no way of knowing just how many landowner hunters we actually have. They can take the overall percent success ratio and work that backwards, but it's still at best a calculated guess. If they want the Antlerless permits to work this would be a big help in determining numbers.
5. Separate Regulations for public land
Recent surveys have not been clear on this one. One question was do you want it managed differently that public, about 65% said yes, when asked about the changes less than 50% wanted any changes. Even with that in mind there will be changes coming. Several options to consider: 1) Limit either sex days 2) reduce bag limits 3) Limited or no antlerless permits 4) Season restricions.
Additionally there will be differences between public lands, 350 acre Public Hunting area versus larger areas, state forests and the Wayne national forest.
And something that was pretty much agreed upon was habitat improvement plans on a lot of the areas.
6. Outfitter Licensing
Yes something will be coming on this.
7. Other states strategies
Earn a Buck
Conditional Seasons
Season specific bag limits/licenses
Permit Bundles
Each of these were considered, but at best got lukewarm responses. No one seemed to excited about earn a buck, conditional seasons means if we don't kill "X" number of deer, they will extend the season.
Season specific would mean you would have to buy separate licenses for each season you participate in....Bow, Gun, Muzzleloader.
Permit bundles would allow you to buy all the licenses at once.
That pretty much finished up the Thursday session, or at least the formal session. We continued talking about these topics after dinner until about 8-9 o'clock. When I say "we" I mean everyone. The division staff stays with us and offers to answer any questions that we have.
Enough for now! Fire away, I'll wait and post Fridays Topics in a few days, it was on a different direction than Thursdays.
- 39,067
- 274
Thanks for the update. So to summarize.
1. How do we kill the deer on private properties where we haven't been able to decimate the population yet.
2. How do we divide limits into units to so that we can further reduce the numbers in some areas without further exterminating them in others.
3. How can we increase revenue despite low deer numbers and the creation of unit limits? Perhaps create permits with restrictions such as time, location, sex, and weapon.
Missing is anything remotely close to regrowing the huntable population of deer.
In short what i see is a DNR that is trying accomplish three things.
1. Maintain the reduction they have.
2. Continue the reduction in areas where they want even less.
3. Grow revenue while doing the above.
Some of these would have been a great idea 9 years ago before they decimated the deer population across the vast majority of the state. Items such as DMUs, public land restrictions, and tag limits backed with aerial surveys. Its almost like I'm hearing an echo of the exact things we were screaming for 7 years ago. Our ageanda back then was to maintain the herd we had then, theirs is to maintain the herd we have now, which is much much smaller. So despite these new management ideas, without a plan to regrow the population these ideas are nothing more than an attempt to maintain the low numbers that exist today.
1. How do we kill the deer on private properties where we haven't been able to decimate the population yet.
2. How do we divide limits into units to so that we can further reduce the numbers in some areas without further exterminating them in others.
3. How can we increase revenue despite low deer numbers and the creation of unit limits? Perhaps create permits with restrictions such as time, location, sex, and weapon.
Missing is anything remotely close to regrowing the huntable population of deer.
In short what i see is a DNR that is trying accomplish three things.
1. Maintain the reduction they have.
2. Continue the reduction in areas where they want even less.
3. Grow revenue while doing the above.
Some of these would have been a great idea 9 years ago before they decimated the deer population across the vast majority of the state. Items such as DMUs, public land restrictions, and tag limits backed with aerial surveys. Its almost like I'm hearing an echo of the exact things we were screaming for 7 years ago. Our ageanda back then was to maintain the herd we had then, theirs is to maintain the herd we have now, which is much much smaller. So despite these new management ideas, without a plan to regrow the population these ideas are nothing more than an attempt to maintain the low numbers that exist today.
Jack I think your getting to be a smaller fish in a bigger pond everyday! The sky is not falling and the Ohio deer herd is going to do just fine.
Do you take us seriously or just here to say you are here? I have only seen you post in this thread as well, which is making me draw my own conclusion. One big talk about EHD comes to mind...
I don't think we should shoot the guy who brings the message when he doesn't make the new rules.
I’m asking questions, haven’t even taken a move towards a gun. If he’s a reader behind the scenes, good, it’ll save me from posting links from other threads to this one. If he doesn’t take us serious, then I won’t waste my time.
- 39,067
- 274
The problem is the ODNRs definition of "just fine" is 50% 60% 70% smaller than in 08? Yeah. "Just fine" alright.
But its nice to see you can respond to my post of legitimate observations without being a smartass and offering no value. Really shows your true intent here.
- 39,067
- 274
I thought he was the social media chair who volunteered to listen to and bring forward the opinions of those online. Which by the way I have seen zero evidence to date that has ever take place, or a valid response to those concerns from committee. Hell, we don't even have a position summary of the parties that are supposedly advocating for us, but we do have a refusal to give the name of the ones advocating against us.
So far it has been nothing more than a DOW PR dissemination of information campaign offering zero real benefit. He was told early on that if he intended to act as the mouthpiece of the DOW it would be a hard go. We don't have a red carpet frank.
- Status