I'd be all for public land permit if it lead to better hunter and smarter management. I've been to several states public lands, and Ohio's are by far the most pitiful I have experienced. Most states have special restrictions/seasons/permits/bag limits on the public lands that is different then private land. This only makes since. It is one thing I talked to Tonk about before he thought I wanted to kill him.
More about deer numbers...
- Thread starter Beentown
- Start date
- 39,219
- 274
I have spoke to him in length via email and a few times in the phone. We spoke for hours in person at last years TOO bowhunting camp at strouds. And again this year at TOOs early muzzleloader camp at strouds. He came to the camp on the invite of Mrex just to talk to what Rex calls "his most vocal critics". It was a very good discussion but anyone there will tell you it's not going to matter what you say their mind is made up.
I agree it needs to get out to the masses. Brock and I started pushing this issue almost 5 years ago now when we saw populations in Vinton and Fayette county start to decline. Back then most people told us we were crazy. Throughout the years we have seen those same people join our voice as it finally caught up to them. You can search this website and find just about all the facts you want. From DVA numbers for the last decade to harvest number for the past two. Even the results of the annual hunter survey. The numbers have been crunched and gone over a thousand times. But the truth is people aren't going to listen until they see the impact with their own eyes and by then it's too late. The DNR will accomplish their goal. There isn't anything you can do about that. 5 years ago people thought brock and I were crazy. Today there few that hold the opinion that the deer are fine are looked at as the crazy ones. All that's left to do now is make sure when people do wake up that they know who to blame.
Last edited:
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
Reinvest monies..... LOL... TOOO funny.. isn't that the purpose of the lottery, etc for the school... These lying pieces of shit in Columbus could give a shit about of equally the schools.. JMTC
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
I hear ya Jack.. Well I guess it won't be long before I hunting turns to shit just like PA... Great....Guess I'll get more ATV trips in and more long range shooting in and just save up for big game hunts outwest then.. These politicians are real assholes. enough said. Thanks again for al the info...
Schu72
Well-Known Member
I don't mind. Hunting is my recreation time, my "clear your mind and soul" time. It's how a decompress from the daily grind. So the cost of the tag is worth it for me. However, the venision is somewhat of a "perk". There are folks out there who use venison as there main protein source for their families. They are the ones who will be affected by the tag increases.
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
Last years questionnaire asked if you would be in favor changing a some of the current public hunting areas to limited access, permit only, public hunting areas that would serve to enhance the quality of the hunting. I don't hunt deer on public grounds but I still answered no. What happens to the guys that hunt public land today that get shut out of the "managed" public hunting areas? Do they all have to go to one of the other unmanaged areas to hunt?
I contend they need to focus on enhancing the quality hunting experience on every public hunting area, not just a few areas for the fortunate that happen to get drawn for access.
I'm not sure how to accomplish the goal as I am not familiar with the areas. I'm sure those of you that hunt these areas have much better ideas of how to make them better.
Would a one deer limit and maybe no drives for a few years help?
Anyone have a guess as to how much the harvest would reduce if drives were not permitted? Public versus private? Just curious on your thoughts, not if they right or wrong, but just % or harvest for gun.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,189
- 171
i do not believe in a permit draw situation for public land. public means public and that is all i have to say about that. they COULD reduce the pressure on it by raising tag fees both resident and especially non resident. though that seem farthest from their agenda.
Schu72
Well-Known Member
I think they should put some kind of limits on the smaller areas....say the wildlife areas under 2000 acres. These areas are/have been hunted to near extinction. What's the point of having unlimited acess to something with no wildlife?
- 39,219
- 274
From what I understand that's the plan. The smaller state park places. They don't have the jurisdiction to do it on WNF. But places like Buck Creek here that has less than 1000 hunt able acres.
- 39,219
- 274
That's what they're trying to do. Increase the quality of hunting by reducing the over harvest on lands that get over hunted. In many places it doesn't matter what they do to make hunting better if it remains open access. They could go in and create bedding areas, plant crops. They could set it up as a mirror imago of the Kiskys place and it's not going to do a bit of good if they allow open access for everybody to fill every tag they can buy. I don't think they're trying to make it exclusive or invest money for plots and such. Instead if managing the deer they're going to manage the hunter as the hunter density is the problem. The deer will do the rest on their own. If they reduce the number of hunters they can reduce the kill and the deer will naturally populate. Like we've always said. Manage opportunity. More opportunity means more killed. Less opportunity means less killed. The deer follow closely behind both.
I agree with you, we special restrictions on every piece of public land, not just a select few. I would be all for a one deer limit, bowhunting only, but I may be slightly biased.:smiley_crocodile:
I honestly have a least a thousand ideas on the public land topic, as I grew up hunting public and still do, and it is something I think about quite often. I unfortunately do not have time or patience to type all about them, nor do I think typing on here will make any of them happen. At least not until we can get some type of organized concerted force. Until then we are just a bunch of complaining hunters in cyber space.
Immensely!!!
I hunt public almost exclusively and have for decades. Any way to limit harvest (not access) would help. Public has several drawbacks that I used to be able to work around and at times use to my advantage. 1) Uneducated, unskilled hunters just tromping around without purpose ruining hunting for themselves and others without even knowing. Aggravating but tolerable. 2) Hunters that know wtf they are doing and just go to public to rape it. Guys that would never drive the private that they have access to or have the "if its brown its down" attitude because they know what effect it has on their "private herd" will hop in the trucks loaded with others, head to public, drive the shit out of it and kill every deer they possibly can and just say its OK because its public.
Again, I am a public land guy and can say from lots of experience that the smaller areas have deer leak back in after until the masses hit during gun week and they are more easily repopulated after. This does not happen in the interior of the large areas. No drives and reduced harvest would probably do the trick. I specifically bought a place to stay just to hunt a state wildlife area and would be screwed if I could not hunt it. There are many others like me that have hunted public and bought places nearby. We are good neighbors to the locals, pay our taxes and keep our places nice and have done so for many, many years.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
I am strongly against any measure that limits access to public land. In fact, I think they need to increase access in state parks, nature preserves etc.
I don't know how they would regulate tactics, but I would be in favor of no drives allowed on public. Also, limit harvest to 1 per person but again that might be difficult to regulate.
I don't know how they would regulate tactics, but I would be in favor of no drives allowed on public. Also, limit harvest to 1 per person but again that might be difficult to regulate.
matthewusmc8791
Junior Member
It appears as I read this thread that most are losing focus.. A killed deer is killed, whether it be with a bow, gun a missile. there need to be an agreement first that there is a problem. Has Ohio publically stated that?? yes - no, if yes that great... moving on.. As a rule of thumb, one can say larger areas have larger number of deer, pretty obvious. The bottom line I the total number of deer being harvested, its not where they are. Yeah it would be nice to have a Balanced herd of something type, but with all seriousness, focus on bigger picture.
That being said, stop allowing hunter to harvest 9 damn deer throughout the state what ever that crazy number is. Make it 1buck with min of 4pt on one side and 1doe. Increase the nonresident hunting fees from $150 to $500. Make the fines for poaching and violations 10x what they are now. Terminate the asshole LEO we currently have.. On another note, sas anyone notice these asshole TV hunters are all over Ohio now. leasing the shit out of 1000s of acres.. Have you also seen how AEP and Coal companies are leasing lands to people and these people are subleasing the lands..
It think the focus should be away from person hunting agendas... There is a big picture...
JMTC
That being said, stop allowing hunter to harvest 9 damn deer throughout the state what ever that crazy number is. Make it 1buck with min of 4pt on one side and 1doe. Increase the nonresident hunting fees from $150 to $500. Make the fines for poaching and violations 10x what they are now. Terminate the asshole LEO we currently have.. On another note, sas anyone notice these asshole TV hunters are all over Ohio now. leasing the shit out of 1000s of acres.. Have you also seen how AEP and Coal companies are leasing lands to people and these people are subleasing the lands..
It think the focus should be away from person hunting agendas... There is a big picture...
JMTC