Been there, had an issue last year, lasted about 2 months and it sucked.... I did some physical therapy as well as massage therapy and the combo helped a ton....
Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
- Status
Here we go! Here is a summary of the first session of the stakeholders group. As a group we allowed Doug to write the summary rather than have 21 different versions, I received the draft of this several weeks ago, but we waited until all 21 had a chance to review it before releasing it. So grab a BIG cup of coffee and get at it, and then start firing the questions.
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals...d habitats/stakeholder/Workshop 1 Summary.pdf
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals...d habitats/stakeholder/Workshop 1 Summary.pdf
Now isn't that a outline.
The one statement that got me was reduce deer-vehicle accidents by 50%.
Only way i see doing that is to reduce the deer herd numbers by 50% or reduce the number of vehicle by 50%. Now we all know the vehicles will not be reduced in numbers but only will increase as time goes by. So I guess there goes the deer herd numbers towards downwards.
The one statement that got me was reduce deer-vehicle accidents by 50%.
Only way i see doing that is to reduce the deer herd numbers by 50% or reduce the number of vehicle by 50%. Now we all know the vehicles will not be reduced in numbers but only will increase as time goes by. So I guess there goes the deer herd numbers towards downwards.
- 39,068
- 274
I haven't read it yet. But I believe they've been reduced 30 percent or so since the peak around 2008. Another 50% would be a total of around a 70% reduction from 2008 numbers.
And you are correct in your assumption. The only real way to reduce DVAs with any measurable result statewide is to reduce the deer population and continue to reduce it as more people get on the road.
tracker 6
Junior Member
The 50% comment was only an example of what NOT to come up with at this stage.They aren't setting goals yet.JMHO.
Last edited:
Hate seeing someone on the council has this as an objective, from section 3.2 group 1:
5. Reduce deer herd by 2/3. (IMPACTS)
5. Reduce deer herd by 2/3. (IMPACTS)
- 39,068
- 274
While recommendations were made in a group setting, names should accompany the the fundamental objectives identified.
The individuals in those groups are representing the official stance of their orgnisations with regard to a resource that belongs to the people of Ohio. The people have the right to know what organisations are similarly aligned with their beliefs and which aren't.
The individuals in those groups are representing the official stance of their orgnisations with regard to a resource that belongs to the people of Ohio. The people have the right to know what organisations are similarly aligned with their beliefs and which aren't.
Deer herd reduced by 2/3, and adjust and add season days. Holy shit. The season needs shortened and the herd has already been reduced 2/3 IMO.
Agreed. I can see more access by adding public land but not more access by adding to the season. Too much stress on the herd already.
Am I the only person the link isn't working for? Says the site is down, and has said that all 3 times I've tried since posted.
- 39,068
- 274
Anyone see a trend. It's obvious those there don't understand how the herd has been reduced this far trough the addition of opportunity. Farm Bureau who advocated for the early muzzleloader season understood this and thats why they pushed for it. When it was removed and bonus gun put back in they sent their politicians after the DOW under the guise of "the hunters deserve more oportunity, dont do this to hunters." They even managed to force another meeting of the council. Luckily the wildlife counsil held their ground. Kinda. What I see happening is the individuals who still want a reduction rolling out the red carpet for anything that promotes more opportunity, more access, and more hunters all the while knowing that is exactly what's needed to further reduce the numbers. In short they don't have to fight to get their reduction. They simply have to fight to get the pro hunting orgs everything they want that will increases kills. The rest will take care of itself.
Good points there, Joe. More public land, more opportunities, and longer season might just reel those back in that might of hung their hats do to the reduced deer numbers, which then results in more kills.
Last edited:
You didn't actually think things would change did you? They only met for what, 4 days 8hrs each to hash this all out? Now they can try telling people " we gave you hunters a voice in the process" Makes them look like they cared lol. Still the same puppet masters pulling the strings. SMDH
No we've only met for two days:smiley_crocodile: The vehicle crash reduction effort was directed towards having more highways with high (deer) fences. As you read all 49 mean objectives within the four small groups, how many times do you see reduce the herd by 2/3. Only one person on one small group recommended that, it's not happening! Remember this group is all deer stakeholders not just hunters, page 13 lists all the involved parties. The first meeting was like most first meetings......things will start getting interesting in August.
Thank you Mike and Brent for the updates. Good to see the TOO members aren't shooting the messengers. Hopefully the messengers for what the hunters truly want will be heard. I fear they have you guys there just to appease the hunters. I hope they actually listen to the voice of the hunters.
Hope you mend quickly and fully as well. Doesn't sound like much fun.
Hope you mend quickly and fully as well. Doesn't sound like much fun.
- 39,068
- 274
Page 13 lists all the involved parties in a list. I was referring to the individual objectives that came out of the groups. The "stakeholders" represent their organisations desired results over a resource belonging to everyone, as such everyone deserves to know that orgnisations stance. I.e what specific stakeholder would like to see a 2/3 reduction. What stakeholders would like to see more access. I think thats crucial as the people whose resource they're haggling over deserve to know who they should support and who they shouldn't. Who they should contact to show support for the objective that means the most to them. There's a reason bills introduced to the legislature have sponsors.
- Status