Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.

[Jackalope]

Reread the thread and then you will see who is living in the make-believe world. Thinking that the hunting public is going to form a united front is a pipe dream IMO. It is actually senseless to debate this subject, because we will all agree to disagree. And we are a tiny segment of the hunting public. I wish I could be more optimistic, but I'd only be fooling myself.

You don't need all of them to be a force to be reckoned with. Hell you don't even need to get 10% participation. QDMA has about 60,000 members nationally. If you could get 10% participation in Ohio you would be close to that number in a single state.

 

[finelyshedded]

Lots of interesting reading on this thread.

Does anyone else find it ironic that so many want the DOW to help gain access to those pockets of high density deer? Doesn't it seem ironic that we want to get into those areas to kill off what remains? Ha. This is exactly why we need a DOW to limit the harvest.

Great point Brock!

 

[xbowguy]

I had heard that different places get money to put on "controlled hunts" is there any truth to this? And if so, is there any way to find out how much money? The city of Heath and Dawes Arboretum does such hunts. Our land happens to sorta lay in between those 2 spots. Since they started, numbers have gone down.

 

[Hortontoter]

I'm not saying what I do is right and what others do is wrong. I'm just trying to make the point that IMO not enough hunters will agree on things to make things change. Like someone said earlier, I believe it was Rick, if the state allows six deer per season most will think it is OK to take six deer. That is logical thinking, but that logic will not let the herd grow IMO. This can be debated forever, but I'm convinced it is really a waste time. I'm sure we all have better things to do, I know I do.

 

[hickslawns]

I'm not saying what I do is right and what others do is wrong. I'm just trying to make the point that IMO not enough hunters will agree on things to make things change. Like someone said earlier, I believe it was Rick, if the state allows six deer per season most will think it is OK to take six deer. That is logical thinking, but that logic will not let the herd grow IMO. This can be debated forever, but I'm convinced it is really a waste time. I'm sure we all have better things to do, I know I do.

I think a larger percentage on here agree with you than you might think. Even some who would like to see a unified voice know it is an uphill battle and our individual actions will likely have more impact than a unified voice. Personally, I try to teach conservation and educate hunters who hunt close to me. I believe it will be more beneficial for my hunting than an organized voice. Getting those around me on the same page would go a long way.

 

[cspot]

I'm not saying what I do is right and what others do is wrong. I'm just trying to make the point that IMO not enough hunters will agree on things to make things change. Like someone said earlier, I believe it was Rick, if the state allows six deer per season most will think it is OK to take six deer. That is logical thinking, but that logic will not let the herd grow IMO. This can be debated forever, but I'm convinced it is really a waste time. I'm sure we all have better things to do, I know I do.

Most hunters don't spend enough time in the woods to know how many deer they should take. Not saying that is a bad thing, but just a fact. Let's face it that the majority of hunters that post on these boards are not your typical hunter. Most on here are dedicated to the sport. The average hunter spends little time in the woods. That is why in my opinion it is the DNR responsibility to properly manage the resource by allocating the proper amount of tags per area.

 

[Lundy]

Most hunters don't spend enough time in the woods to know how many deer they should take. Not saying that is a bad thing, but just a fact. Let's face it that the majority of hunters that post on these boards are not your typical hunter. Most on here are dedicated to the sport. The average hunter spends little time in the woods. That is why in my opinion it is the DNR responsibility to properly manage the resource by allocating the proper amount of tags per area.

I agree, however, the vast, vast majority of hunters, all hunters, including most here, know nothing about deer densities, population trends, appropriate population management beyond the little piece of heaven that they personally hunt. What one hunter holds as absolute fact where they hunt could be completely different just a few miles away on another property. The ODNR can't manage population and set harvest limits on each individual piece of property in the state. They can only set general regulations and guidelines on larger control areas. It is up to each hunter to manage their own hunting area, some will, some won't. Nothing the ODNR can do about that.

 

[MK111]

I agree, however, the vast, vast majority of hunters, all hunters, including most here, know nothing about deer densities, population trends, appropriate population management beyond the little piece of heaven that they personally hunt. What one hunter holds as absolute fact where they hunt could be completely different just a few miles away on another property. The ODNR can't manage population and set harvest limits on each individual piece of property in the state. They can only set general regulations and guidelines on larger control areas. It is up to each hunter to manage their own hunting area, some will, some won't. Nothing the ODNR can do about that.

This is correct. Thursday evening at 6:45 PM I looked down at my food plot from my backyard overlook. There was at least 8 deer feeding in the food plot and more coming in but light faded and couldn't keep up the count.
So if one looked at this as being too many deer in this area they would probably be correct. But IMHO these deer are coming from a large area of brushed gullies to feed on my green clover, turnips bulbs and oats.
None of us have a true picture of a large area.
In the past the most I seen feed in the food plot was 16 and then hunting then I left at dark.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

I agree, however, the vast, vast majority of hunters, all hunters, including most here, know nothing about deer densities, population trends, appropriate population management beyond the little piece of heaven that they personally hunt. What one hunter holds as absolute fact where they hunt could be completely different just a few miles away on another property. The ODNR can't manage population and set harvest limits on each individual piece of property in the state. They can only set general regulations and guidelines on larger control areas. It is up to each hunter to manage their own hunting area, some will, some won't. Nothing the ODNR can do about that.

Maybe the majority. However, I know what the DOW has set as the population goal for the entire county that I hunt. I know because I went to their dog and pony show open house. It's 2000. I am also able to calculate the land mass for that same county. Eliminate municipalities and I get approximately 260,372 acres.

So, the DOW established goal for this county is .0077/acre. i may not know much about densities, trends and models. I do know that's not very many deer.

I also know who the DOW primary stakeholder is. I also know that is not likely to change any time soon. So, they can form their little group and everyone gets a seat at some random table, but at the end of the day folks, the Ohio Farm Bureau is driving the bus, and that insurance company not to be named is paying for the gas.

 

[cspot]

I agree, however, the vast, vast majority of hunters, all hunters, including most here, know nothing about deer densities, population trends, appropriate population management beyond the little piece of heaven that they personally hunt. What one hunter holds as absolute fact where they hunt could be completely different just a few miles away on another property. The ODNR can't manage population and set harvest limits on each individual piece of property in the state. They can only set general regulations and guidelines on larger control areas. It is up to each hunter to manage their own hunting area, some will, some won't. Nothing the ODNR can do about that.

I wasn't saying the ODNR is to manage on a local area basis. Yes they can really only manage on a larger level. However when the majority of the larger area has a low population, then it is their fault. I also think they should manage public land differently than private. Other states do it, so it isn't impossible to do.

Right now the ODNR really has no way to control how many deer are killed per county. Yes they only allow so many tags per hunter per county, but what happens overtime if more hunters hunt said county. There should be an allocation of antlerless tags per county or per wildlife management area. Just my opinion.

 

[cspot]

Maybe the majority. However, I know what the DOW has set as the population goal for the entire county that I hunt. I know because I went to their dog and pony show open house. It's 2000. I am also able to calculate the land mass for that same county. Eliminate municipalities and I get approximately 260,372 acres.

So, the DOW established goal for this county is .0077/acre. i may not know much about densities, trends and models. I do know that's not very many deer.

I also know who the DOW primary stakeholder is. I also know that is not likely to change any time soon. So, they can form their little group and everyone gets a seat at some random table, but at the end of the day folks, the Ohio Farm Bureau is driving the bus, and that insurance company not to be named is paying for the gas.

Yes 5 deer per sq mile is low. I think if I remember correctly that when the population is under 25 deer per sq mile generally hunters aren't happy.

 

[MK111]

Lets look at in a farms view. If there is only 25 deer per square mile I believe it's stated deer eat about 7 lbs per day.
25x7 is 175 lbs. Now take that on a yearly basis of 175X365 is 63875 lbs or almost 32 tons of food.
I realize that 32 tons is not all the farmers crops or waste. Plus it's not all natural grown food.

Now take into account areas that have a lot high deer numbers and the food poundage eaten rises through the roof.

I'm sure this is what the farmers look at in tough times that they are loosing a lot of saleable crops income.

I'm not taking the side of the farmer here only throwing out a idea.

 

[giles]

That's the cost of doing business. Kinda like buying a truck and bitching about putting fuel in it.

 

[Jackalope]

Lets look at in a farms view. If there is only 25 deer per square mile I believe it's stated deer eat about 7 lbs per day.
25x7 is 175 lbs. Now take that on a yearly basis of 175X365 is 63875 lbs or almost 32 tons of food.
I realize that 32 tons is not all the farmers crops or waste. Plus it's not all natural grown food.

Now take into account areas that have a lot high deer numbers and the food poundage eaten rises through the roof.

I'm sure this is what the farmers look at in tough times that they are loosing a lot of saleable crops income.

I'm not taking the side of the farmer here only throwing out a idea.

Per your graph only about 1000 farmers complained. At its peak about 2500 complained that year. Should 1000 farmers be able to dictate the deer population of the entire state? Does their opinion matter more than 600,000+ hunters? Why does the opinion of 1000 farmers mean that the wildlife population of an entire state gets decimated.

And what about coon and groundhog damage. A Purdue university study over multiple years found that the majority of crop damage was not caused by deer even though the majority of the farmers blamed the deer. The vast majority was coon and groundhog.

The farmer complaint excuse they're using in all this is just that an excuse . Farmers don't care in numbers that would cause such actions. Insurance companies care, the same insurance company that yanks the chain of farm bureau and politicians.

I'll never accept the farmer excuse until I see something being done to target the coon and groundhog populations. My personal opinion is that before a farmer gets a single crop damage permit he should have to provide 20 coon tails. But like I said, it's not about crop damage its the tens of millions per year that stays in the coffers of insurance companies that matters. Nice to see that DVAs have decreased so much since 2002. Funny thing is I don't recall insurance rates dropping despite the hundreds of millions that prevented from being paid out of their profits.

 

[cspot]

If farmers are having issues then they can shoot for crop damage. Also farmers should be able to give hunters tags to shoot deer as well. Fix the problem where the problem is.

 

[Lundy]

Certainly a complex issue with many interested and vested parties.

The one consideration that really provides landowners with potentially a bigger place at the table is the fact that they own the land we hunt on. Hard to get around that fact.

The farm bureau is an organized representative group that has a lot of clout. They have earned that clout through through organized efforts and lobbying for a long, long time. Hunters in Ohio have no such organization or even the ability to arrive a consensus of what a hunter organization in Ohio would do if it existed. Ohio hunters have spent decades fighting with each other over crossbows, crossguns to many of you. What a waste of energy and effort that could have been utilized in a much more productive manner. Now 30 some years after crossbows became legal you still can't get hunters on the same page with the same mission.

How can all hunters of Ohio reach a consensus and define goals to work towards if you can't even always reach agreement on topics on this site? Everyone likes to complain and whine that they know best, but very few ever attempt to actually get involved in some manner to effect change.

I will say that one of the more effective groups that does partially represent hunters in Ohio, although not specifically addressing deer populations, is the League of Dumbassville. I think I could safely say that Sunday hunting and for sure the pistol caliber rifle changes were a direct result of their long and tireless efforts. Maybe some active involvement from some of you concerned deer hunters with them might start to move your agenda forward.

I'm a 62 year old guy that has been hunting for over 50 years and I have heard the vocal outcry for so long, from so many, on so many varied hunting topics, but can think back to only just a very few people that have ever done anything, other than just be loud.

 

[Jackalope]

Farm Bureau has never shown one ounce of proof that the farmers they represent are screaming for the deer population to be decimated. Nor have i even seen farmers at the DNR town halls with their pitchforks demanding decimation. Nor do the number of damage complaints support that farmers are pissed. Even the farmer surveys that the DNR did say that some farmers would like to see a slight reduction. Nothing supports that farmers are demanding the decimation that we've seen. It's a farce and the farmer is a patsy. There's a reason that joining farm bureau gets you a discount at Nationwide.

 

[finelyshedded]

Per your graph only about 1000 farmers complained. At its peak about 2500 complained that year. Should 1000 farmers be able to dictate the deer population of the entire state? Does their opinion matter more than 600,000+ hunters? Why does the opinion of 1000 farmers mean that the wildlife population of an entire state gets decimated.

And what about coon and groundhog damage. A Purdue university study over multiple years found that the majority of crop damage was not caused by deer even though the majority of the farmers blamed the deer. The vast majority was coon and groundhog.

The farmer complaint excuse they're using in all this is just that an excuse . Farmers don't care in numbers that would cause such actions. Insurance companies care, the same insurance company that yanks the chain of farm bureau and politicians.

I'll never accept the farmer excuse until I see something being done to target the coon and groundhog populations. My personal opinion is that before a farmer gets a single crop damage permit he should have to provide 20 coon tails. But like I said, it's not about crop damage its the tens of millions per year that stays in the coffers of insurance companies that matters. Nice to see that DVAs have decreased so much since 2002. Funny thing is I don't recall insurance rates dropping despite the hundreds of millions that prevented from being paid out of their profits.

I agree 100% Joe!

 

[finelyshedded]

That last sentence reminds me of the question I had to the vending guy at our work and his response. I asked why his rates keep going up for no reason back when gas was up to $3.50-$4 a gallon. Said it was due to the gas prices and to offset his cost. The rates keep going up and product sizes keep getting smaller yet I filled my tank on the way to Daves house this weekend at $1.57 per gallon with a 30 cent gas credit. rotflmao

 

[mercercountyhunter]

Lets look at in a farms view. If there is only 25 deer per square mile I believe it's stated deer eat about 7 lbs per day.
25x7 is 175 lbs. Now take that on a yearly basis of 175X365 is 63875 lbs or almost 32 tons of food.
I realize that 32 tons is not all the farmers crops or waste. Plus it's not all natural grown food.

Now take into account areas that have a lot high deer numbers and the food poundage eaten rises through the roof.

I'm sure this is what the farmers look at in tough times that they are loosing a lot of saleable crops income.

I'm not taking the side of the farmer here only throwing out a idea.

Man if we had 25 deer per square mile in the open flatlands of west central Ohio the deer would be sleeping in bunk beds. Would be crazy to have that many around.