DOW Survey
- Thread starter CritterGitterToo
- Start date
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
I too started hunting deer on public in Ohio in the early '80s when you had to hunt your ass off to hopefully have a chance at filling the ONE SINGLE TAG you were allowed for the entire state/season. And I enjoyed every last damn second of it!
I don't think some folks these days would be happy even if they saw 100 deer per outing.
I meant you can't take the numbers at face value . I had a typo. I couldn't edit my post to correct it .
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,789
- 137
I hate to say I agree with you even though this would basically ruin some peoples hunting (literally no where to hunt) if they are not drawn
- 39,183
- 274
Imagine if we had the same opinion about waterfowl. I grew up hunting ducks in the 80s where we had to hunt our ass off to hopefully shoot a single one. And i enjoyed every last damn second of it.
I don't think some folks these days would be happy if they saw 100 ducks per outing.
Just because something used to be far shittier does not justify the current level of shittiness, nor does it somehow excuse the massive damage the DOW has done to deer hunting in Ohio over the last decade. And like dialup intetnet, just because you put up with it back then, doesn't mean we should today.
$5 for residents to enter and you basically get at least one tag.
$20 for nonresidents and use a point system like other states. They can only get a buck tag, no antlerless deer taken by NR's.
Take that money and put it towards buying more land/taking care of what we have.
Duck hunting was killer around here back in the 80's! I'm thinking it just depended where you lived. Same as now. Some parts of the state suck for deer but around here it has been awesome!
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
Image if we had the same opinion about waterfowl daily bag limits vs. deer limits. Wouldn't it be great to be able to shoot multiple deer every day of the season!
Sorry - I just don't see the correlation between big and small game.
The only point I was trying to make was it seems some folks really don't enjoy the hunt if there is any type of challenge. Just because there were more deer a while back does not mean that was the correct number in everyone's eyes. Not too many people hitting ducks on the road these days either.
The same thing happened here in Iowa. There were fewer deer and it was buck only for 1st shotgun season when I first started deer hunting here in the mid 90s. By the early 2000s they couldn't hardly give enough tags away to keep the population under control. Now they are at a manageable level but lots of folks complain there are not enough. I assume most of those started hunting at the population spike.
Is the issue people want to kill more deer, or just see more deer? As those desires are at odds with each other.
- 39,183
- 274
The correlation is imagine if a DNR came out and said they wanted to reduce waterfowl population numbers by 30-50%. And the justification used was the population was once far shittier. They would have a lynch mob on their hands. This is the exact reason why our DNR never once stated the true extent of their plans to decimate the deer population. Instead they relied on misleading statements like "overpopulated" and "beyond carrying capacity" to make hunters think there were too many and they should kill with wonton disregard. For years they even refused to say that the population was shrinking, most years they claimed it was still growing or the same. It wasn't until the truth was flat out undeniable that they admitted it had decreased. By then it was too late, even still they never once stated the limit to their decimation agenda.
Never once has our DNR published a population estimate backed by sound science or data gathered from common population estimation methodologies.
Never once have they shown that the 2008 carrying capacity was scientifically unsustainable.
Never once have they shown that the 2008 levels were scientifically beyond the carrying capacity of the land.
Instead they purposefully led a campaign of misinformation and lies to sportsmen so they could use them to accomplish their agenda.
The only people this benefited was insurance companies as deer vehicle accident rates have fallen i believe around 40% since 2008. Yet insurance premiums have continued to rise.
You can both kill and see more deer, the two are not at odds with each other. You can increase the kill by 100% as long as the population can withstand a 100% increase without depleting.. For this to happen you would need a larger population to begin with. 20% of 500k is 100k. 20% of a million is 200k. In the second you have double the deer to be seen and double the deer killed. Wala. Seen and killed more.
Never once has our DNR published a population estimate backed by sound science or data gathered from common population estimation methodologies.
Never once have they shown that the 2008 carrying capacity was scientifically unsustainable.
Never once have they shown that the 2008 levels were scientifically beyond the carrying capacity of the land.
Instead they purposefully led a campaign of misinformation and lies to sportsmen so they could use them to accomplish their agenda.
The only people this benefited was insurance companies as deer vehicle accident rates have fallen i believe around 40% since 2008. Yet insurance premiums have continued to rise.
You can both kill and see more deer, the two are not at odds with each other. You can increase the kill by 100% as long as the population can withstand a 100% increase without depleting.. For this to happen you would need a larger population to begin with. 20% of 500k is 100k. 20% of a million is 200k. In the second you have double the deer to be seen and double the deer killed. Wala. Seen and killed more.
And Zehringer is pissed off because the chief got an increase for fees on the backs of nonresidents who harvest the majority of their kill on public land. We can't deter them from hunting!!!!! That's bad for business if you're in the business of driving up deer hunting lease rates on private land owned mostly by farmers. OBF agenda and he is former department of Agriculture.
This ain't rocket science folks.
This ain't rocket science folks.
The reduction in license sales has nothing to do with the number of deer on the landscape.
Last edited by a moderator:
The reduction in license sales has nothing to do with the number of deer on the landscape.
How so Mike?
I can't see the image or how the reduction of the deer herd has nothing to do with the drop in license sales.