ODNR field survey

[Buckslayer]

Has anyone been chosen to participate in this survey? I received the actual survey in the mail today. Some interesting questions for sure.

Where did you hunt deer in 2012? Private or public in varying degrees
What public did you hunt?
Where did you do the majority of your hunting?
How many days did you bow hunt, gun hunt, bonus gun,or muzzleloader hunt? and how many deer did you kill?
How would you rate the acorn crop?
Deer herd status? increasing, slightly increasing, unchanged, slightly decreasing, decreasing
Deer hunter status? same choices as above

And the best question.. Would you support the establishment of a limited number of "quality hunt" areas on DOW owned wildlife management areas that were accessible only to those hunters drawn in a lottery?

It also says that creating one lottery area in each district would increase hunters and hunting pressure on all other wildlife areas. Im curious to what everyone's opinion is especially on the last question.

 

[Lundy]

Well I think their goal should be to provide "quality hunt" opportunities on all public hunting areas, open to all hunters.

I am a big supporter of the ODNR but this one seems really really stupid to me. I'm guessing there is a application fee for the lottery

 

[Buckslayer]

I think if they are worried about over hunting or poor quality of deer on the public lands then they should place all non residents on a lottery system or only allow residents on public hunting land. I think the system is fine now other than the price of non res tags being TOO low.

 

[Rutin]

I got a package from them saying they were sending me one but havent checked the mail in a few days. Prob should get on that lol

 

[Jackalope]

Well I think their goal should be to provide "quality hunt" opportunities on all public hunting areas, open to all hunters.

I am a big supporter of the ODNR but this one seems really really stupid to me. I'm guessing there is a application fee for the lottery

Imo a pay to play public hunting system is coming. It's been kicked around before.

 

[letsgobowhunting]

I reveived the survey in an email but haven't filed it out. I put in for certain drawing each year (Plumbrook, Revanna, etc.) it costs $3.00 per each and your only allowed to enter once. The names that usually are selected end with Yoder, Miller, Keim etc. I've never been selected. These drawings are money makers. They aren't put together to preserve quality hunting areas. It's all about the$$$$.

 

[jagermeister]

I reveived the survey in an email but haven't filed it out. I put in for certain drawing each year (Plumbrook, Revanna, etc.) it costs $3.00 per each and your only allowed to enter once. The names that usually are selected end with Yoder, Miller, Keim etc. I've never been selected. These drawings are money makers. They aren't put together to preserve quality hunting areas. It's all about the$$$$.

Actually, the hunts you mentioned are put together in order to help reduce the deer herd in a few fenced-in areas. The $ is just a byproduct.

 

[LonewolfNopack]

I think if they are worried about over hunting or poor quality of deer on the public lands then they should place all non residents on a lottery system or only allow residents on public hunting land. I think the system is fine now other than the price of non res tags being TOO low.

If you think our public lands are fine now, you obviously do not hunt them. I talked to Tonk two years ago about implementing better quality hunting on our public lands, sounds to me like we will be seeing some changes soon. All we would be doing is playing catch-up to almost every other state who already has special public land regulations. Long over due. Most states are on a complete different level than Ohio when it comes to the quality and amount of their public lands.

Also, I would expect we will be seeing some zone changes in the next 2-3 years, as well as an early statewide doe only muzzleloader season.

 

[woodyw333]

I personally like how a few of the public lands are set up in Northern KY. Its all free but they are bow only so that reduces the number of hunters a lil bit, and as big as the WMA's are you rarely walk up on someone. Not to mention no motorized traffic aloud on grounds. Aka quads, tractors, lawnmowers (yes I have seen people dragging deer with their riding lawn mowers). Personally I think the heard on those grounds are pretty strong. JMO

 

[Jackalope]

If you think our public lands are fine now, you obviously do not hunt them. I talked to Tonk two years ago about implementing better quality hunting on our public lands, sounds to me like we will be seeing some changes soon. All we would be doing is playing catch-up to almost every other state who already has special public land regulations. Long over due. Most states are on a complete different level than Ohio when it comes to the quality and amount of their public lands.

Also, I would expect we will be seeing some zone changes in the next 2-3 years, as well as an early statewide doe only muzzleloader season.

Zone changes, bag limit changes, and antlerless permits. Yes. early-season muzzleloader, no.

 

[bthompson1004]

I received the email as well, but no packet in the mail (yet)...I was wondering if I was going to be "randomly" selected this year or not...I have not bought a tag yet this year, a license yes, but no tag...As of now I hunt state forest land, but hoping my wife accepts her new job offer where I'll have access to some private land...If I had to pay to hunt public land I guess that would all depend on how it was set up and then I would go from there. I kind of like the idea actually, just depends on how it would be set up.

 

[Lundy]

It is called "public" hunting because of equal access.

If they were to take existing areas and restrict access to a only a selected group in an effort to enhance the public hunting area experience in those areas only that only enhances for a few. The rest of the hunters that depend on access to public lands are screwed in that process.

If they want to enhance the quality of the hunting experience on public hunting areas do so through regulation change on bag limits. Increase the huntable population on these PUBLIC lands through harvest restrictions. It would only take a couple of years to grow the populations to levels that hunters would appreciate. Manage these PUBLIC land through improved access, food plots, managed logging, etc, etc, to sustain the increased populations.

I just think there are a lot of actions that could be taken to improve the "quality hunt" on public lands, but they all require some effort to accomplish. The easy way out is to say rather than doing the work to help the masses that utilize the public hunting lands in Ohio let's take the easy route and just reduce access to some areas and only allow the hunters in on a lottery drawing basis. Lazy,lazy,lazy in my opinion

 

[nis1]

I got the e-mail. Just submitted it. I just want the dnr to stop allowing us to kill more and more deer. I've noticed a serious decrease in deer number where I hunt over the last two years.

 

[Jackalope]

It is called "public" hunting because of equal access.

If they were to take existing areas and restrict access to a only a selected group in an effort to enhance the public hunting area experience in those areas only that only enhances for a few. The rest of the hunters that depend on access to public lands are screwed in that process.

If they want to enhance the quality of the hunting experience on public hunting areas do so through regulation change on bag limits. Increase the huntable population on these PUBLIC lands through harvest restrictions. It would only take a couple of years to grow the populations to levels that hunters would appreciate. Manage these PUBLIC land through improved access, food plots, managed logging, etc, etc, to sustain the increased populations.

I just think there are a lot of actions that could be taken to improve the "quality hunt" on public lands, but they all require some effort to accomplish. The easy way out is to say rather than doing the work to help the masses that utilize the public hunting lands in Ohio let's take the easy route and just reduce access to some areas and only allow the hunters in on a lottery drawing basis. Lazy,lazy,lazy in my opinion

Very good points lundy and I think you are spot on. I don't see large areas becoming restricted or done by lottery. But rather limiting the usage of tags on the property. Some of our smaller WMA's and state parks may be restricted use through lottery though. This is all speculation.


I did mention to Tonk in our conversation two weeks ago that if they want to reduce deer numbers due to crop damage or insurance issues I understand that.. But at the same time we should try to increase them on state lands where there aren't really any major interstates or farmers. I can see where they may want them reduced around say the I-70 corridor.. But last I checked there aren't any major highways through Tar Hollow or the majority of WNF. If the insurance companies still complain then make them come out of pocket for fencing. There is no reason they can't make an investment to reduce their liability. Instead they pressure the DNR to reduce numbers but don't want to put any skin in the game. They put in tall fences around the Bypass in Athens. Why can't Nationwide and Farmers insurance make a grant to the ODNR for to install more deer proof fencing.

Increasing the population through management is really strange for the DNR though. They've never really had to "manage" the deer in a QDMA sense. Really all they did was let them go, tell people not to kill them, and let them breed. The deer we have today are here due to a simple formula. "How many are born a year? kill less than that." In 50 years you'll have deer everywhere.

 

[whack]

I'll sit this one out since I am a NR and my views may not be well received. But I will say this if they make it a lottery system and start jackin costs for NR it will keep me away I don't participate in the states that do that crap. Go ahead and jack the NR's around Ohio has so few of them compared to a state like WV that the increased income won't even be worth it.

 

[bthompson1004]

Very good points lundy and I think you are spot on. I don't see large areas becoming restricted or done by lottery. But rather limiting the usage of tags on the property. Some of our smaller WMA's and state parks may be restricted use through lottery though. This is all speculation.


I did mention to Tonk in our conversation two weeks ago that if they want to reduce deer numbers due to crop damage or insurance issues I understand that.. But at the same time we should try to increase them on state lands where there aren't really any major interstates or farmers. I can see where they may want them reduced around say the I-70 corridor.. But last I checked there aren't any major highways through Tar Hollow or the majority of WNF. If the insurance companies still complain then make them come out of pocket for fencing. There is no reason they can't make an investment to reduce their liability. Instead they pressure the DNR to reduce numbers but don't want to put any skin in the game. They put in tall fences around the Bypass in Athens. Why can't Nationwide and Farmers insurance make a grant to the ODNR for to install more deer proof fencing.

Increasing the population through management is really strange for the DNR though. They've never really had to "manage" the deer in a QDMA sense. Really all they did was let them go, tell people not to kill them, and let them breed. The deer we have today are here due to a simple formula. "How many are born a year? kill less than that." In 50 years you'll have deer everywhere.

More specifically, this is what I am talking about...I believe that if the state wants to evaluate "quality hunting" on public lands, then each area should be evaluated independantly and NOT lumped into one category and dealt with as such...

I know from hunting the state forest in my area (Urban zone) that too many hunters is the issue and not the lack of quality deer.

 

[Jackalope]

I'll sit this one out since I am a NR and my views may not be well received. But I will say this if they make it a lottery system and start jackin costs for NR it will keep me away I don't participate in the states that do that crap. Go ahead and jack the NR's around Ohio has so few of them compared to a state like WV that the increased income won't even be worth it.

NR fees are a whole other discussion. But you can't compare Ohio to WV.

 

[bowhunter1023]

NR fees are a whole other discussion. But you can't compare Ohio to WV.

Yep. We undervalue our resources as opposed to some states overvaluing theirs. I'll be happy when the NR license and tag fees actually reflect the value of this state...

 

[whack]

NR fees are a whole other discussion. But you can't compare Ohio to WV.

It was brought up prior to my post. Wasn't trying to step outta line. I am not trying to compare the states just saying in the grand scheme of things oh doesn't have very many nr hunters. Jackin the rates up on them would be a very minimal lift in income even if they tripled the price.

 

[bowhunter1023]

You say we don't have many, yet the amount of WV plates I see in our county grow more and more each year. It's unreal how many WV hunters are here in gun season. The state as a whole may not have a huge number, but counties like Washington, Athens and other along the borders are getting pounded by NR hunters...