Ohio deer population
- Thread starter Steelheadtracker
- Start date
Here is a really good test of the proposed system.
Let unknown people stay in your house for weekend visits when your not there. Then report back to us 12 months later and let us know how it worked out. There will be problems.
That's exactly what what's happening when you sign up for a program like this. No one is willing to take the risk and neither would I. It sounds fine and dandy if your not the one taking the risk by are on the receiving end.
I would say 99.99% of the people using your property would be no risk but the .01% would destroy you.
Let unknown people stay in your house for weekend visits when your not there. Then report back to us 12 months later and let us know how it worked out. There will be problems.
That's exactly what what's happening when you sign up for a program like this. No one is willing to take the risk and neither would I. It sounds fine and dandy if your not the one taking the risk by are on the receiving end.
I would say 99.99% of the people using your property would be no risk but the .01% would destroy you.
Last edited:
Lundy
Member
- 1,312
- 141
No it is not, landowner rights do and should always supersede forced public access by hunters
Nobody is forcing anything. The landowner has the right to decide to allow hunting or not when applying for nuisance permits in this scenario.
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
Problem is the wildlife is not the property of the landowner. They own the land. What happens to the wildlife effects everyone. I always hate when people refer to "my deer". There is no such thing.
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
The other thing I've never understood about nuisance permits is why are they not forced to follow normal hunting laws? Follow the seasons, no night hunting, etc... It just seems ridiculous they can kill deer at night in the summer with a rifle. That happened at a farm in NY I used to hunt in the 90's. They even asked if I wanted to help. I said no thanks.
Last edited:
They allow it to be that way for the simple fact it's EASY and can rid the problem faster as well as get the issue fixed as the crops are growing in hopes of saving the yield at the end of growing season.
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
Just to be clear the current use program in NH is not the same as public access. You still have the say to remove people who are not following the rules. I know a landowner who was told any treestands placed on his property without written permission are his for the taking. That's just one example. It's not complete access like public land. The landowner just has to allow access to those that follow the rules.
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
Oh and liability for injuries that occur on the property falls on the state. You also can pick and choose which parts of your property are in current use. This allows you to keep some land posted. So if you have a big unused woodlot, thicket or swamp on your property you can put it in current use and get a big tax break on that portion of your property.
motorbreaker
*Supporting Member I*
Seems to me that it would be a better deal for the farmer to lease his land to a few hunters and get enough money to pay all his taxes and then some. It would also be better for the farmer cause he would know the people who are on his property. Plus if theres a problem, He knows who to talk to about it.
That sounds good in a way.
So you let strangers stay in your house and they only have permission to use the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and family room. It works good for 10 or so guest then #11 comes along and trashes the house so you deny #11 permission in the future.
But opps too late the damage is already done. See where I'm coming from as a landowner. That's how I see it anyway.
So you let strangers stay in your house and they only have permission to use the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and family room. It works good for 10 or so guest then #11 comes along and trashes the house so you deny #11 permission in the future.
But opps too late the damage is already done. See where I'm coming from as a landowner. That's how I see it anyway.
ajupsman
*Supporting Member*
I see what your saying and a program like this is not for everyone. I do know a lot of people around here do it so they can still afford to keep land that has been in their family for generations. Due to high property taxes some people have to choose between selling some of their land because they can't afford the taxes or keeping the land and putting it in current use.
Yes I can see why a lease might be a better option but I know some lease companies require that 100% of the hunting rights go to the people leasing the property.
To hell with the lease companies. Set the lease up your way or no way and there will more than enough takers.
So what's the difference in the way it is now? You know how many farms I have lost over the years because of #11 screwing it up for the rest of us? A couple of farms the damage was done by a neighbor that had no permission to be on the property but that didn't matter either because the LO blamed the people that had permission because they was the only ones that was allowed there so he assumed it had to be us doing the damage. Even after we told him who it was it didn't matter because he could only see red and kicked everybody out. I'm sure the problems continued but we was already kicked out.
- 39,223
- 274
And deer belong to the people of the state. Not landowners. As such they shouldn't be allowed to wantonly slaughter and waste them. If they don't want to allow hunting that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to slaughter deer that don't belong to them because of that decision.
- 39,223
- 274
Allowing landowners the ability to slaughter deer that belong to the people of ohio because they chose not to allow hunting is ridiculous.
That's like allowing a landowner to burn tires and disregard the air quality of surrounding citizens for miles just because he has 100s of them, disregard the fact that he put a sign out by the road that says "wanted old tires".
He made a choice to collect those tires, he shouldn't be allowed a free pass to burn and screw everyone's air quality because of that decision.
That's like allowing a landowner to burn tires and disregard the air quality of surrounding citizens for miles just because he has 100s of them, disregard the fact that he put a sign out by the road that says "wanted old tires".
He made a choice to collect those tires, he shouldn't be allowed a free pass to burn and screw everyone's air quality because of that decision.