Down

[brock ratcliff]

If we are indeed killing too many deer (the DOW does not think so), gun season should be shortened. Why? Because more available days to shoot them with a gun equates to higher deer kills. That's just the way it works. Even if every hunter in the state was allowed only one deer, with enough gun days, every hunter could kill a deer. If every hunter killed just one deer, would there be any left? The opportunity MUST be limited to some degree. I don't know where those limits will be, but if I were in charge, gun days, particularly weekend gun days would be the first I'd cut.

 

[Jackalope]

Now that I am in Jacksonville and not in airports typing on my phone I actually read everything.

No, I do agree that Ohio is an archery first state. I do not agree that the gun season is just for mop up duty.

I strongly believe that it is about providing opportunity to the hunters of Ohio to hunt a resource in the state. I have heard a wide range of numbers in regards to hunters that participate in the gun seasons, 440,000 - 480,000. That is a lot of paticipation from hunters that has never been taken lightly by the ODNR and I don't expect them to take them lightly anytime soon. A large number of these hunters want the weekend days to hunt. A large reason the MZ season was moved back to Jan again was to provide the assurance that there would be weekend days to hunt. Hunters compalining was one of the reasons for the move. The ODNR is not going to wipe out 33% of the currently available weekend days to gun hunt without a great reason to do so. I don't think that they think they have cause for such action.

I suppose we could just eliminate the week long gun season and have 3 -4 consecutive 2 day weekend seasons in a row starting right after Thanksgiving

Everyone is so quick to eliminate opportunity, be careful what you wish for. We are not hunting too much we are killing too many deer.

We are just going to agree to disagree on this one

You can't fix it by simply reducing tags as a whole. That is unless you want many areas of this state to be a 1 or 0 antlerless deer area for 2-3 years. The only real way to build the herd back is to limit opportunity. The same opportunity that was originally increased to reduce it. If they added new tags and a new gun to reduce the deer.. Then at a lower population level reducing tags and leaving bonus gun isn't going to work.

Say you have 700,000 deer and wanted to reduce them. You add bonus tags and more gun days.. Now you're at 400,000 deer and want to maintain them. At a MINIMUM you need to remove both factors you put in to play when you tried to reduce them.. If you could maintain 700,000 without those factors. They you can not maintain 400,000 by leaving either of them. And the "great reason to do so" would be they killed too many deer in areas. They can sit there and say they didn't.. But they can't back it up.. All signs point to they did.. How they can have a target population goal of live deer without ever knowing the actual population of live deer is beyond me. They have no clue how many live deer they started with. So how will they know when they've reached their live deer target. To put it simply, they don't have a clue about live deer. They have no clue if they overshot their target, hell, they can't even see what their target is. It's just some hocus pocus number based on dead deer. But hey.. They think they reached it.. Good.. Then remove the methods you put in place to reduce the population. You can't keep throwing gas on a fire to "maintain" it.

Removing a week long gun season and making it 3-4 weekend seasons is also increasing opportunity.. You took 5 business days and 2 weekend days and made it 6-8 weekend days. That's a massive increase in opportunity which will lead to an increase in harvest day for day. You trade a Wednesday for a Saturday and you'll see a kill increase. Logic would dictate that if you want a decrease in kills you limit opportunity.. The same opportunity you increased to increase kills.

Like brock said above. You can put the tag limit at one.. If you allow enough opportunity like extending gun season more people will shoot that one than have before. And you may actually end up with an increase in harvest. Opertunity is the key. It sucks. Yes. Nobody want's to have their opportunity limited or hunting time taken away.

Maybe If people fought to stop the DNR / Insurance partnership deer reduction as hard as they do for two gun days then we likely wouldn't be having this discussion at all; and deer hunting would be the awesomeness it was.

 

[Ohiosam]

Ohio has always been an archery priority state, gun season is the clean up crew to make the numbers.

Always is a long time. Archery wasn't in that big of deal in Ohio in the seventies. I knew a few archery hunters in the 70's but they were the exception. Improvements in equipment, trail cameras, baiting have allowed archery hunting to evolve to what it is today.

 

[Jackalope]

Always is a long time. Archery wasn't in that big of deal in Ohio in the seventies. I knew a few archery hunters in the 70's but they were the exception. Improvements in equipment, trail cameras, baiting have allowed archery hunting to evolve to what it is today.

By "archery Priority state" i mean from a DNR preference. Not a hunter preference.. If you surveys hunters today i bet most would preference high powered rifles. lol


How many archery days were there back then compared to gun days?

 

[Lundy]

If, I were to agree with the premise that both of you use to reduce kill and look at the 10 year harvest data increases, why would I go the gun season to reduce the harvest increase over the last 1O years when the increase has NOT come from the gun harvest? Why wouldn't I want to reduce the harvest where the increase has taken place?

Today we have about a 30-35% hunter success rate for deer. 6-7 deer hunters out of every 10 do not kill a single deer in a year. Set the harvest limit at 2 deer, one buck one doe for everyone. If you don't achieve sufficient harvest in a high population county you add more days, maybe more permits the following year. This provides more opportunity for a couple of the 6-7 guys that don't kill a deer a chance to harvest one.

I've have had these conversations with some people in the ODNR on more than one occasion, I just don't think reducing opportunity, especially for the largest segment of hunters in Ohio,the license and permit buyers, is how you manage harvest

I don't care that I don't bowhunt anymore or not. My opinion is based upon utilizing a shared resource with all of the hunters in Ohio

 

[Lundy]

I don't remeber the exact dates, but when I started bowhunting in the Mid 70's I think it started in early Oct, all of Nov and Dec. I think it closed on like Jan 3 rd of something like that. I think the only real change from then to now in the bow seasons has been the addition of the month of Jan.

The gun season was 6 days, along with a 3 day "primitive weapons" season in Jan. Sunday hunting was not legal

Cross bows were at first only legal during the 3 day "primitive weapons" season

 

[Jackalope]

It took gun hunters 2 days to kill 20,000 deer last year.. It took archery hunters the first 18 days of season this year to kill 19,000 And this is comparing the first 18 days to a middle of the season 2 days.. If we we're to compare it on the same time in the season, I bet it takes archery hunters almost the whole month of December to kill what gun hunters do in 2 day of bonus gun in december. So if you're looking to reduce opportunity while reducing kills it only makes sense that you'll lop off 2 days.. A two days that was originally added primarily to reduce deer numbers anyway.. Archery is the the fastest growing segment of hunters and gun numbers are dwindling. So 2 or 20+? To me that's a no brainer. And make no mistake. The stick and string is the cash cow in Ohio when it comes to the almost billion dollar industry hunting is in this state. Archery hunters likely have more money in one arrow than Mr. Gun Law only spent on slugs.

 

[Lundy]

I would love to sit down with a couple of you and discuss this over some beers sometime. Probably still wouldn't agree on some of the stuff but that's Ok, it sure would be fun.

 

[Gordo]

I would love to sit down with a couple of you and discuss this over some beers sometime. Probably still wouldn't agree on some of the stuff but that's Ok, it sure would be fun.

Everyone would be holding hands singing 'koombya' in no time...

 

[hickslawns]

Everyone would be holding hands singing 'koombya' in no time...

Not "Everybody". I have no desire to hold hands with any of you. Plus, "singing" is a loose term in regards to my vocal abilities. lmao

Here is what I found interesting. In the article it mentioned population 400,000. Are they finally admitting lower population totals or was this a number the author of the piece put in there?

Lundy and Jackalope? Interesting duel of opinions.

 

[Huckleberry Finn]

I would love to sit down with a couple of you and discuss this over some beers sometime. Probably still wouldn't agree on some of the stuff but that's Ok, it sure would be fun.

We've never had a fight at a TOO outing. Lord knows if anyone would deserve getting their ass kicked, it'd be me. Thankfully it was just a quick dry hump and a honey brown.

 

[Jackalope]

Not "Everybody". I have no desire to hold hands with any of you. Plus, "singing" is a loose term in regards to my vocal abilities. lmao

Here is what I found interesting. In the article it mentioned population 400,000. Are they finally admitting lower population totals or was this a number the author of the piece put in there?

Lundy and Jackalope? Interesting duel of opinions.

That 400,000 was number of hunters.

 

[Lundy]

Maybe If people fought to stop the DNR / Insurance partnership deer reduction as hard as they do for two gun days then we likely wouldn't be having this discussion at all; and deer hunting would be the awesomeness it was.

Drunken driver fatalities are on the rise the last 10 years so we better restrict driving opportunity of the sober drivers to reduce this big increase.

 

[Ohiosam]

The ODNR keeps talking about an early ML doe season. If they think they need that there is about zero chance of them eliminating the extra weekend.

 

[Jackalope]

Drunken driver fatalities are on the rise the last 10 years so we better restrict driving opportunity of the sober drivers to reduce this big increase.

Preschool debate tactics. Nice! That always makes people take you points seriously. lmao

what I said above is an absolutely true statement. If people fought as hard to stop the reduction as they do for a two day gun season we wouldn't even be in this situation and Nationwide wouldn't be leading our deer hunting management.

It's the same problem as with welfare reform. If you give someone something you will never take it away because even though it is unsustainable and the right thing to do they will forever feel entitled, right up until the point of collapse. It's like telling the fire department they can't put out your house that's on fire because you'll be cold.

 

[Hedgelj]

Joe,

At this point in the discussion I can see good points made by both you and Lundy. However, I don't know what end point either one of you are debating for. Where do YOU want the deer herd to go? What changes do you want made?

I can agree that in some areas the deer herd has been hit very very hard and the numbers are down because of it. I also think its very shortsighted of the ODNR to just keep slamming away at the deer in some areas. However I think the biggest problem we also have to go at is Hunter Access to areas where the deer population is still up and growing.

I'm very serious that I would love to see some sort of program where you cannot get kill permits unless you have documented that you gave permission to hunters the year before for deer. I'd also love to see something instituted where its illegal for municipalities to hire in hunters if there are some of us willing to do the job. I know Newark was trying that and I don't know what came of the program.

 

[Jackalope]

Joe,

At this point in the discussion I can see good points made by both you and Lundy. However, I don't know what end point either one of you are debating for. Where do YOU want the deer herd to go? What changes do you want made?

I can agree that in some areas the deer herd has been hit very very hard and the numbers are down because of it. I also think its very shortsighted of the ODNR to just keep slamming away at the deer in some areas. However I think the biggest problem we also have to go at is Hunter Access to areas where the deer population is still up and growing.

I'm very serious that I would love to see some sort of program where you cannot get kill permits unless you have documented that you gave permission to hunters the year before for deer. I'd also love to see something instituted where its illegal for municipalities to hire in hunters if there are some of us willing to do the job. I know Newark was trying that and I don't know what came of the program.

I want to see the DNR pop Nationwides tit out their mouth and return the deer numbers to what they were around 2007 before they began operation kill. How they accomplish that is up to them. They are after all the ones who reduced it, we should hope they know how to fix it. But that might be hard considering they have no clue how many live deer they started with or currently have. Really I'm looking for a change in attitude. Finally, just finally, have they even admitted they might be at "target levels" in some counties. (Which is odd because I have never once gotten a straight answer on how they figured up those numbers in the first place and reminds me, i need to do another Freedom of information act request today). But really I'm looking for a culture change along these lines..

KILL, KILL, KILL----> Ok stop killing -----> We killed too many -----> Regrow the population..

Just recently have they gotten to step 2 and halfheartedly admitted step 3 in "some areas".. It's a good start.. It's progress.. But the end-zone is still a long ways off.

And I agree. I would love to see the DNR force more access through program cuts to those who refuse access. Like allowing hunting in order to receive kill permits. I don't think a kill permit should be given to a landowner in the form of a poacher pass. But rather in the form of a permission slip with a vetted hunters name attached. I think a lot of the problem we are seeing combined with high tag limits and increased opportunity is hunters are being condensed into smaller and smaller areas. Thus they are killing too may deer for that location.. Drive 8 miles away towards town and you see more deer. I would be in favor of the DNR redoing the "urban" area maps to include a set distance from any city with a population above 50,000. I also think cities should be made to pay a per deer fee to the DNR for deer they cull via sharpshooters if that city doesn't allow bowhunting. The list could go on.. But first you're going to need a mentality change at the DNR.

 

[brock ratcliff]

Unless they have changed things, "Urban Zones" are entire counties. Franklin County covers the Columbus area, however some municipalities have "no hunting rules" that supercede. I too feel there should be more pressure applied to those small towns that do not allow archery hunting within city limits. But, it is a difficult situation. If I lived in one of those areas, I don't think I would want to find arrow shot deer in my flower bed either. Those areas are not the places I'm overly concerned about. Rural, traditional hunting areas, are the ones hardest hit. And really, I don't care that the population is lowered. I really don't...what troubles me most is the fact that the DOW has spent so many years stating the same population estimate when people all over the state are now saying their numbers are down dramatically. The DOW is faced with challenges now they were not faced with just 20 yrs ago. When they gave an estimate, we had no benchmark to measure against. Today, people are better "managers" than they once were. Locally, hunters KNOW what they have available, through trail cams, more time spent afield, etc. Years ago, no one had a buck "named" before season, you relied on what you saw while hunting and that was about all the information you had.... along with whatever the DOW said. These days, when the DOW says "We have the highest population we've ever had", people are there with good information to call BS! The DOW is not the only source of information now, we as hunters gather our own, and if we are unbiased, and take just the facts we can gather, we can come up with a pretty accurate observation of our own. That leaves quite a few sportsmen ready to call BS on the DOW rather than just to write things off as a "bad year".

To a point, I think we are spoiled. Years ago, deer hunting was something people did for maybe a week out of the year. The dressing up in coveralls, wearing silly hats, and carrying well-oiled guns was fun enough in itself. If a few deer were seen, maybe a shot was fired, it was all a bonus. I remember one old guy in our church that had killed 8 deer...he was a legend. I've killed more than that in a season. Thing is, we have come to expect great hunting. It takes a pretty high population of deer to keep so many hunters happy. It's what we are accustomed to. It's what we feel we are entitled to, afterall we pay the bills at the DOW. Having seen the deer hunting improve so much from the early 80's into the mid-90's, I want those levels back. I don't remember any great hardships suffered when we had that great deer herd of the mid-90's, but my perspective was not of the tree farmer, I'm just a hunter.

Sorry, I ramble...

 

[brock ratcliff]

I mentioned a tree farmer in the ramble above...

When I was about 16, a buddy and I shot a ton of groundhogs off a tree farm for a guy. He owned the largest tree farm in Pickaway County. It was loaded with deer, probably one of the best properties I've ever set foot on. He whined about deer damaging his Christmas trees constantly, talked about them as vermin. The deal we made was that we would shoot groundhogs all summer long and bowhunt deer once season came in. When bow season finally arrived, Jim changed his mind. He didn't want us hunting deer. We spent a lot of time doing him a favor by shooting groundhogs...and it was work because at the time my buddy Jon and I only had .22's! That guy had no business whining about deer damage because it obviously didn't bother him enough to let us go shoot them!

 

[Jackalope]

I mentioned a tree farmer in the ramble above...

!

Some tree farm stats.

1,850 woodland owners are tree farmers In ohio.. Those 1,850 people manage 383,647 of Ohio's 8.1 million forested acres. 500 of those people grow Christmas trees.

So when the DNR says """the biggest factor in declining deer harvests appears to be fewer deer, a situation not welcome to every hunter but certainly OK with many of the state’s farmers and tree growers."

The last "farmer attitude survey" was completed over a decade ago in 2002 and they stated they wanted a 15% reduction.... I believe less than 1,000 farmers responded.. So those combined with a maximum 1,850 "tree farmers" are the excuse the dnr uses to decimate 600,000+ hunters deer population.. Nice..