To many deer odnr

[Hortontoter]

An hour of interesting reading. But, did it solve anything? We all have such varied ideas of what is proper in life, including deer hunting ethics and tactics. Some hunt over bait, I have before, for the last 10 years or more I have not. I think baiting should be banned, but this is just my opinion.

Some feel that crossbows should be banned, I'm on the fence about that as I must hunt with one. I do believe that crossbow users are more apt to "stretch" the capability of their weapon than a compound or traditional archer. I base this on conversations I've had with crossbow user that tell me they can easily take a deer at 70+ yards with the latest and greatest crossbows. Total nonsense in my opinion, yes it has been done, but that doesen't make it right IMO.

Some complain about NR hunters locking up big parcels of land, be assured residents do the same. And if a group of 5 or so like minded hunters can get together they can lease land at a reasonable cost. Fing enough with the same thoughts about hunting is the haed part. As BH said residents are more likely to want to fill the limit of tags at their disposal, again his and my opinion also.

I think the electronic tagging system is the biggest mistake the ODNR has made in recent years. To much ability to cheat the system. I will say as a landowner that uses a landowner tag cheating the tagging system would be so simple it isn't even funny. I could shoot a deer, attach my landowner tag, bring the deer home, process the deer and be on my merry way tomorrow to have my 3 landowner tags still to fill. I gaurantee you this is done time and again by some.

Let's talk youth season. I have nothing against this season, but it seems odd that youth hunters took more bucks than does this past weekend. Just seems odd, and I wonder if all these deer, buck or doe, were actually killed by hunters under 18. "Wow, five year old Timmy shot a B&C buck this morning at 220 yards with a straight walled rifle, can you believe it." Makes me wonder at times.

Does Ohio really need a 4 1/2 month archery season. I think archery season should end after the second gun weekend. This would at least give more of the pregnant does a chance to drop fawns in the spring.

And I must disagree with Brock about grown men sitting in a tent to hunt. No different than a grown man climbing a tree to gain an advantage over his quarry. And, I guess I'm the worst of the worst, sitting in my box blind with my Buddy heater hooked to my 20 lb propane tank running to keep me warm on those cold days lol.

I think the point of all this is that as hunters we are definately our worst enemy. We only agree to disagree, what a shame.

 

[BuckeyeFooter]

Accessible land in southern Ohio has been culled of deer via over hunting and EHD. There are a small fraction of deer compared to 20 or 30 years ago, it is not even close. Urban and suburban deer are exploding, we’ve been watching this guy grow up over the last three seasons. All the tools for herd management are worthless where it is needed, and over hunting has depleted herds on accessible land.

I sent an email to ODNR about the problem, their reply was “approximately the same number of Bucks are harvested year over year so the herd must be the same”

I pointed out that technology has changed the game on harvest numbers: wicked-fast crossbows, cellular trail cams, straight wall rifles and ever increasing popularity of bait have made hunters more successful, yet the harvest numbers of bucks drifts slowly down.
Bottom line is they want low deer herds and high tag revenue, we are paying for our own demise, ODNR is pissing down our backs and telling us it is raining.

 

[gjs4]

I think there is some irony with folks who claim trophy deer management that dont shoot does. While you only need ladies night to keep the bar hopping.... a doe saturated property is the last the place you can consistently and strategically kill bucks. Folks who get that and target giants arent the ones where this is an issue.

I think the ODNR does a great job overall. If you had to rate dentists giving you a root canal- theyre all getting grief and the same goes for these folks. They are politically bound, have limited resources and will be working around the nerves of emotional people (hunters). Could they do better? Of course everyone will say so. Do they know that my neighborhood doesnt have chit for deer yet its in an area that is supposed to be saturated? Nope....nor can they get that granular with locale. Id love them to though. People are greedy with their expectations. Here are two in my opinion, which will piss some folks off reading this. I think there should be a reduced fee, but not free licenses for landowners (and the acreage increased to 50) and baiting cannot occur on properties less than 5. The corn piles have fueled populations of animals- whether deer, or nest predators, etc.....but do they grow the population of any animals the state desires? Its hypocrisy. The folks not paying for licenses, registering kills, just "taking the buck in the backyard" are consumers in everyway and provide nothing......but the lighning rod to my mind is the group below.

Not sure how many of you know your local neighborhood outfitter....but you should look into these folks. They lease from widows for pennies on the dollar (drive the cost of all things hunting to the moon), run hunters through by the bus load, only take bucks, only run corn piles, wouldn't know conservation if it bit them in the arse.....but they're everywhere in OH. Far more than most states due to the proximity to the east coast. There goes your access, costs, buck herd (while growing the doe herd) and nothing goes anywhere but the owners pocket. You can blame the bus loads of lazy addicts form out of state but the drug dealer outfitter is who needs to go. They need governance and a forced contribution to state for the resource they don't own but rape. Do yourself a favor and Google/search for the outfitters near you (just be prepared for some disappointment).

 

[giles]

Take away property taxes and I'll gladly pay a tax to provide food off my own land. Until that happens, I am not okay with paying another tax off my own land. Because license fees are just another tax. If you think the landowner is the one abusing the system now...tell them they have to pay more. See how that works out, lol.

 

[Hortontoter]

I think there is some irony with folks who claim trophy deer management that dont shoot does. While you only need ladies night to keep the bar hopping.... a doe saturated property is the last the place you can consistently and strategically kill bucks. Folks who get that and target giants arent the ones where this is an issue.

Most properties are not saturated with does unless they are off limits to hunting. Yes, I'm one of those that doesn't shoot does. But, I only control a small piece of property. Deer venture a 1/4 mile from me and they are no longer safe from hunters. Does my letting the does walk mean anything? Maybe not to the does, but I feel good about doing it. Does are the fawn factory. It is easy math, less does less fawns.

I think there should be a reduced fee, but not free licenses for landowners (and the acreage increased to 50) and baiting cannot occur on properties less than 5. The corn piles

If you have found somewhere that shows the amount of acres needed for a landowner permit I'd like to see it. I am 73 and get reduced fees already. Any why 50 acres for a landowner permit? But, lets be able to bait if we have 5 acres or more. Lets just take the baiting away everywhere. And many landowners buy licenses and tags to hunt places other than land they own. IMO the only way to get the herd back to what it was 10-15 years ago is to lower limits and opportunity.

 

[BuckeyeFooter]

Baiting is not hunting, just selective harvest.

 

[gjs4]

As for the license being viewed as a property tax- its not. You own what grows from the soil, not what walks on it or flies above it. If you dont contribute to the DNR- you cant complain about it. Its like voting. Im not looking for the free out as a landowner, nor would I expect that not paying taxes wouldnt come with repercussions. We may be the greatest nation in the world but we arent as free as many think. Not going into the should-a could-a....but if youre hunting on a "little" piece and doing nothing for conservation, im not sure theres a seat at the table for you with anything other than free for all complaints on the internet. My teen kids often argue because its easy to have a know it all perspective but they do so without accountability. There is so much complaining of nonlandowners invading.... they all have to pay and way more than residents....at some point money talks...so you have to be represented or backseat driver that gets ignored.

As for not shooting does; what intel do you have on the herd in the area? How does that relate to the provisions in the area? The idea of im just a small landowner and have no impact is wrong. An idiot dumping oil eventually trashes a water source. Does are obviously the key to fawns which are the key to population growth or decline. Does are not the key to strategic buck hunting; theyre a hope for opportunity at best. A winning lotto ticket means i can retire now; Are you guys buying some with the same plan? Everyones actions affect the herd and conservation, it just varies as to what degree based on the environment. The rhetorical question is "do you need a fawn factory?".

1000% with you on baiting...as with most hunters here (dam that DNR!). It keeps Ohio hamstrung with deer, ecology (like turkey populations) and deer ignorance. Its the easy button and likely part of the opportunity equation you mentioned. As for why tangibly" 50" and not somewhere inbetween...there needs to be some commitment and will admit the "50" was just more than 5 which seem to have some Ohians develop an arrogance with their positive impact and ignorance for a negative. Yes; it can happen on large or smaller pieces and an arbitrary number may or may not come into play as to who does what. You are right.

Also- solid point on some landowners contributing with buying licenses when they hunt others' ground. My point was too many folks are complaining about the DNR and pointing fingers in every direction but their own. OH is awesome BUT declining. Ive seen the number of 3yos getting smoked due to the EHD over the past few years knocking the age structure down. If we are sitting on the internet arguing about deer quality....the food, its legal or my right, etc....arguments arent warranted. This is our happy place and fun space and (as with some of the above) need to acknowledge our role. Our fraternity we get protective of IS, wihtout a doubt, the enemy of what we enjoy more than anyone/anything else.

No one really changes their opinion reading posts...but i push myself to read, digest and consider. Hunting CULTURE does more than laws, agencies or anythingelse. When everyone farts its easy to hate the stink and feel our's wasnt as bad as the other peoples. Its the ol "are you part of the problem or solution..."?

 

[giles]

I did not call deer property tax. I called deer tags a tax. Everything is taxed 50 times and you are okay with one more. Because they're deer owned by the state that property owners grew from the soil they own?

 

[gjs4]

Take away property taxes and I'll gladly pay a tax to provide food off my own land. Until that happens, I am not okay with paying another tax off my own land. Because license fees are just another tax. If you think the landowner is the one abusing the system now...tell them they have to pay more. See how that works out, lol.

Just curious- Should urban residents who pay property taxes need to buy a license? Out of state land owners? Should the amount of property tax paid change the level of exemption or priviledge?

Under this premise of payment means autonomy, wouldn't the non-res who pay 70% of the license fees but only harvest 20% of the deer have more say then residents landowners?

not busting chops or trying to debate, i get where youre coming from whole heartedly, i just know hard stances can be the very weapon used against us and eventually things black&white end up difficult.

I wonder if they DNR would listen to hunters on removing bait if we actually met the doe harvest numbers....or thats just their convenient excuse

 

[gjs4]

I did not call deer property tax. I called deer tags a tax. Everything is taxed 50 times and you are okay with one more. Because they're deer owned by the state that property owners grew from the soil they own?

Not okay with it,....but not changing it or feeling it is a struggle to win. I want my voice heard and support that with dollars, not sovereignty. God can judge me....but im not a nihilist

random fun fact for the forum. Had heard trespass of some of the beards& blue brigade operates in the same way. The idea of taking a possession purchased or grown is sinful, but driving deer off anothers land is viewed different. Cant say its fact or fiction...but hearsay.

 

[Hortontoter]

I wonder if they DNR would listen to hunters on removing bait if we actually met the doe harvest numbers....or thats just their convenient excuse

I believe as hunters we could control deer numbers regardless of what bag limits the DNR institutes. But, that would require all hunters to be like minded to acheive a desired same goal. That's never going to happen.I see deer in trucks and on hitch mounted carriers in gun season that are no bigger than a German Shepard. To each his own, as they say. Exactly why we will never all be like minded. I've passed on a fair amount of does and younger bucks this season, waiting on a decent buck. I may eat my tag, but have no problem doing so. I do believe size does matter.

 

[Jackalope]

I'm not going to wade too deep as I've swam across this ocean numerous times. I don't think anyone should be exempt from a tag fee. That includes landowners and farmers on nuisance permits. If you kill a deer it should cost the kings ransom payable to the state and earmarked for only hunting conservation. Deer don't belong to any one person but rather every person in the state. Therefore the payment for killing one should be unilateral for residents. I also think farmers with kill permits should be supervised by a DOW agent with the permit fee reflective of that cost, this would be to eliminate the farmers who have 5 permits and gut shoot as many as they want. Or a crazier idea is to make it earn a deer. For every 25 raccoon tails you get 1 deer nuisance permit. Do that and I bet they see the supposed deer crop damage almost disappear. I've been an advocate for an outfitter fee and license for a long time.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

I have never overstated my observations. I keep them truthful and honest. To that end, I can honestly say that deer hunting in my area has gotten progressively better in the last few years. I'm seeing more doe, and more deer of multiple year classes. Kind of refreshing. Is it like it was in 1997 when I feel Ohio was at a peak for abundant deer hunting opportunities, Not At All. Though, it doesn't have to be. Also, there are definitely NOT too many deer.

As for how I would make it better. I guess a balance must be met. We can't have 850,000 deer running around. I'd keep the regulations that states no more than 1 non-antlered deer may be harvested from public land. I do think that is helping our public areas! Next, I'd hit the outfitters with a licensing fee and it'd be a doozy! You want to max profit off the deer here and many don't even live here, you're getting hit the wallet!! Off the top of my head I'd say a good ballpark figure would be $1500. Next, any landowner that applies for damage permits, his land is not eligible to be leased for deer hunting. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Lastly, I would do anything I can to improve landowner participation for the OLHAP program or whatever it's called where they make their land available to hunters. If they already get an incentive, I would look to enrich it and make it a very nice incentive to get landowners on board. Access is one of the biggest issues, and that would help to alleviate that problem.

I do hope you fellers are having a fine 2024 season!!

 

[gjs4]

Just curious Crittergettertoo- which portion (NW, NE, SE, SW) are you in?

I think you forgot a zero on $15,000.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Just curious Crittergettertoo- which portion (NW, NE, SE, SW) are you in?

I think you forgot a zero on $15,000.

I'm in north Central Ohio.

 

[Jackalope]

Lastly, I would do anything I can to improve landowner participation for the OLHAP program or whatever it's called where they make their land available to hunters. If they already get an incentive, I would look to enrich it and make it a very nice incentive to get landowners on board. Access is one of the biggest issues, and that would help to alleviate that problem

I'd like to see mandatory enrollment for any land receiving government funding or tax abatements through special programs such as tree farms and CRP. In North Dakota public walk in access for hunting is a requirement to enroll in the CRP program.

 

[giles]

I'd like to see mandatory enrollment for any land receiving government funding or tax abatements through special programs such as tree farms and CRP. In North Dakota public walk in access for hunting is a requirement to enroll in the CRP program.

So if i build my dream hunting land and use a program, you think others should have access to my hard work and dedication? Nah homie. You have the same 24 hours a day I do, build your own.

 

[gjs4]

What would be a great place to start is the ability to see how many deer a legal business entity takes (through mandatory reporting). Outfitters, farms, etc. Brings facts to the math.

 

[Jackalope]

So if i build my dream hunting land and use a program, you think others should have access to my hard work and dedication? Nah homie. You have the same 24 hours a day I do, build your own.

Nobody is forcing you to apply for and accept taxpayer-funded land programs. If the taxpayer is paying then it's not so much "hard work and dedication" especially when it comes to CRP that's a lease agreement. In 2022 taxpayers spent 45 million dollars to lease 225,000 acres in Ohio. 15% of that was specifically for "State access for wildlife enhancement" where the state spent further money to improve habitat for wildlife. Yet the taxpayer never got to set foot on a single acre of it.

 

[at1010]

My farm is a registered tree farm - the idea of someone getting to hunt my farm because I get a small amount of money for treating invasives is comical. Come tote a 4 gallon backpack sprayer on the side of a hill, basal bark spraying TOH - in June, after buying the diesel and herbicide, and tell me if you think this govt. subsidy is so great.

Let us not forget the land owner is also paying taxes to support these programs, doing the work, fronting the cash, and then also is taxed again when they sell the timber (in case of a tree farm).

Even with CRP. I have buddies who drill 60+ acres in some years of crp. Anyone doing that work, with a 6ft or even 10ft drill - will tell you that the cost of it, plus the time, etc. is hardly worth the effort.

you remove those to help access and it’s simple - juice ain’t worth the squeeze. We further degrade habitat for wildlife and don’t incentivize landowners to work towards better practices for future generations.

ps. The programs not only help game species but all the way down to the watersheds.

my 2 cents.

we want better access - we push for the state to continue to buy more land, setup rules for outfitters, etc. or incentive landowners further to allow hunting through tax breaks (wildlife conservation hunting initiative - or something it could be called).