ODNR Proposals released

[Milo]

We were only 20 deer short from last year and the other counties around me were close to their harvests last year. They just want more deer dead cause apparently we haven't killed enough.

which doesn't make sense to me.. your harvest trend peaked last year and a 20 deer decline is approximately 1% of your county total. This is when they should be pulling back on the regulations to stabilize. if 2% is significant enough to mention about buck harvest then your 1% is surely enough to say hey wait a minute...they are playing games

 

[Milo]

lets look at a couple more counties

Delaware 2011-12 1943
2013-14 1516

THATS A 21- 22% DROP AND ITS STILL A 4 DEER COUNTY?

Franklin 2011-12 879
2013 -14 719

180 less deer - 20 % drop AND STILL A 4 DEER COUNTY

 

[Milo]

Knox county is down 16% in the same time period but they get the reigns pulled back?

 

[Milo]

i should give them the benefit of the doubt...maybe its too many deer vehicle accidents in delaware and franklin...except

http://outdoorswithfrischkorn.blogspot.com/2013/10/ohios-deer-motor-vehicle-accidents-on.html

When looking at Ohio's 88 individual county-by-county statistics for 2012 the counties with the highest number of deer-motor vehicle accidents were: Stark (559), Richland (535), Hamilton (522), Clermont (472), and Lorain (470). And of these five counties only Clermont County's numbers were up, says the Insurance Institute.


crap there goes that theory
heck lorain is a 3 deer county....and richland cant even use the anterless tags and they are in the top 5 from last year

 

[Jackalope]

Milo. Remember me saying Fayette was the bellwether for when enough is enough and they'll pull back . I wasn't joking. They're going to continue until harvest numbers are pre 1994 levels.

 

[Milo]

Milo. Remember me saying Fayette was the bellwether for when enough is enough and they'll pull back . I wasn't joking. They're going to continue until harvest numbers are pre 1994 levels.

this proves to me that they have a number of deer per county they want to see and its balls to the wall till they get to that number. I'm a fairly educated individual and have yet to see a pattern or figure out what criteria they are actually using other than scorched earth...

 

[CritterGitterToo]

It's all just a big money grab.

* No more $15 tags, they think you'll still go out and buy 2 or 3 tags, but they're getting you to pay more for them now.
* PCR proposal generates more gun, ammo, barrel sales right here in OH. More Pitmman Robertson funds and possibly adding more hunters (youth and women).
* Increase NR license cost slightly

All a big money grab to recover funds lost due to overall lower tag sales the last three years (and likely this year too).

 

[Milo]

joe maybe its deer damage issues........NOPE both franklin and delaware deer damage complaints have been cut in half from 2008 to 2012...yet we have the same "number" of deer....how does that happen? its statisically impossible...

 

[Curran]

this proves to me that they have a number of deer per county they want to see and its balls to the wall till they get to that number.

Bingo... :smiley_clap: Yet, we'll never see what those numbers are because it would infuriate hunters across the state.

You wanna road trip to the open house again? rotflmao That was about the biggest waste of time spent... Maybe I'll give it another visit this year though.

 

[Milo]

Bingo... :smiley_clap: Yet, we'll never see what those numbers are because it would infuriate hunters across the state.

You wanna road trip to the open house again? rotflmao That was about the biggest waste of time spent... Maybe I'll give it another visit this year though.

i would probably be further ahead if i let you come over and kick me in the nuts and tell me i'm stupid.

 

[Joel]

Knox county is down 16% in the same time period but they get the reigns pulled back?

That's where I live and hunt so I noticed that too. We still get one antlerless tag but down to three deer. 3 deer is plenty if not too many IMO so I don't have a problem with the reduction but it makes no sense how they came up with these new limits and rules. Just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. One thing I am pleased with is they seem to be saying they want to maintain the current deer population. Whether that's true or not we'll see, but at least they are saying they don't want the herd to get any smaller at the moment.

On the 2 properties I hunt I have seen lots of deer and a good ratio of bucks to does which is awesome for me but I've heard a lot of local hunters complain about no big bucks, deer are all the size of dogs, no deer sightings etc.

 

[Boone]

I don't see how the new proposal will reduce the number of deer killed, especially if about 90% of hunters kill 2 deer or less and 97% of all hunters kill 3 deer or less. These same harvest percentages can be achieved with the new proposal. Now a guy only has to buy a few more either sex tags for a few more dollars instead of antlerless tags in some counties. There is an appearance of change, but no substantive change.

Reduced harvest will come simply because there are a lot less deer available to be killed. How can there be any recovery or even stability with the new proposal?

It is so much easier to reduce the herd like they have, but it is going to take way more than these regulations to stop the train wreck.

 

[bowhunter1023]

Smoke and mirrors. You think anyone in Washington County gives a shit about antlerless tags? No. If people want to shoot a doe, they'll do it with or without spending $24, and a lot will be killed without. Pretty damn easy to buck the system when Tele-check is involved...

 

[hickslawns]

I will give them some benefit of the doubt in regards to counties. I have heard Brock and Redcloud speak of counties decimated. I have heard both speak of pockets of those counties with deer. I feel Allen county is similar. Not "decimated", but greatly reduced. Keep in mind, I am a mile north of Auglaize county border. Drive north on I75 and you will see many more road kills on the north end of the county than my end. I do believe the counties need to be managed better but I do not think this is a reality. Just too confusing and not enough resources to do it. No way I see a county subdivided into different 2-3-4 deer segments. This is where we need to do it as the hunters.

So I give benefit of the doubt above. Overall, I do believe this is a "feel good" effort. Majority of hunters will read this and say "it is about time" and think things are improving. Mental games. The DNR isn't pandering to people on forums like us. They are looking to make the masses think things are better. Sit around a gun show, an auction, sportsman's event, and you will hear people in a couple years say "Yep. Things are getting a little better since they reduced the limits." Overall, I agree with you guys. This is an effort to increase revenue. This will not reduce harvest. Not having deer will be the reason for future reduced harvests. Many hunters will feel good about it though. Will the forums quiet down? Probably not. Why? Because nothing really changed.

 

[Lundy]

The reduced cost antlerless tags were introduced when the population was high and they wanted to provide incentive for hunters to kill more does, thus the reduced cost.

Now, they are wanting to reduce that incentive apparently (and raise more $$). If you still want to kill more deer in the higher limit counties you can do so just not with the reduced cost tags. It is not like they are changing the cost of a tag that has been in place from day one. They reduced cost tag was introduced with a goal in mind, looks like it worked well. With the population reduced they are now longer offering the incentive and reverting back to previous tags and costs.

Everyone that wants less deer killed should be happy, right?

 

[Milo]

The reduced cost antlerless tags were introduced when the population was high and they wanted to provide incentive for hunters to kill more does, thus the reduced cost.

Now, they are wanting to reduce that incentive apparently (and raise more $$). If you still want to kill more deer in the higher limit counties you can do so just not with the reduced cost tags. It is not like they are changing the cost of a tag that has been in place from day one. They reduced cost tag was introduced with a goal in mind, looks like it worked well. With the population reduced they are now longer offering the incentive and reverting back to previous tags and costs.

Everyone that wants less deer killed should be happy, right?

if it were equitably handled then yes ...but its not

 

[MK111]

The State wants to lower the overall number of deer to appease the FB and Insurance Companies. So permit PCR's which will bring a few new tag buyers. Not many in my mind as most of the PCR hunters are already using shotgun of ML. But a few always helps income bottom line.
Also they want to raise income. So they raise NR cost which is overdo. Sorry NR's.
Also discontinue the lower doe only tag and raise the cost slightly. Hell most hunters will say it's only couple dollars.

Just think about it all us legal sportsmen are going to buy tags and hunt anyway with the lower deer numbers and slightly higher cost.

The State gets everything it wants.

Us sportsmen can't control the illegal hunters as all we can do is report them when we are know of it. Yes deer hunting overall is in a down turn but it sure isn't like the 1960-70's when I had to drive 4 hrs. to deer hunt. But I surely don't want the State to screw things up so bad that we are back into the 1960-70"s.

 

[Schu72]

In my hunter's survey, I did comment on the lack of deer in Geauga county. Apparently I wan't the only one. It dropped from a 4 to a 3 with no antlerless permits being allowed. Minimal impact, I know, but maybe by the following year they will be a 2 or 1.

 

[Bigslam51]

which doesn't make sense to me.. your harvest trend peaked last year and a 20 deer decline is approximately 1% of your county total. This is when they should be pulling back on the regulations to stabilize. if 2% is significant enough to mention about buck harvest then your 1% is surely enough to say hey wait a minute...they are playing games

You got that right. Games they are playing.

 

[Bigslam51]

i should give them the benefit of the doubt...maybe its too many deer vehicle accidents in delaware and franklin...except

http://outdoorswithfrischkorn.blogspot.com/2013/10/ohios-deer-motor-vehicle-accidents-on.html

When looking at Ohio's 88 individual county-by-county statistics for 2012 the counties with the highest number of deer-motor vehicle accidents were: Stark (559), Richland (535), Hamilton (522), Clermont (472), and Lorain (470). And of these five counties only Clermont County's numbers were up, says the Insurance Institute.


crap there goes that theory
heck lorain is a 3 deer county....and richland cant even use the anterless tags and they are in the top 5 from last year

At least stark county is in the top five for something lol