So, how would you fix it?

[brock ratcliff]

All good points. The major flaw in this line of thinking; the DoW does not believe there is an issue to resolve. Those of you who sat in on the conversation with Mike T at Strouds heard that from his own lips. No one is interested in fixing a problem that does not exist, to them, it doesn't.

From my perspective the DoW has created a much larger problem than dealing with upset hunters. They have lost credibility with many. That's a huge hurdle to stride over. Sportmen NEED to have faith in the DoW as much as the DoW NEED hunters to fund their efforts. Its more difficult to feel part of the DoW/Sportsman team when you feel the other team member has different goals.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Schu nailed it. Where there are deer there is little to no access ans where there is open access the deer have been very nearly wiped out. Not thinned like the DNR guys like to say, but almost all gone. That is a HUGE problem. It will curtail recruitment to the sport and hurt hunter numbers. Leasing is exploding in popularity in this state. Hunters are anxious to secure land that won't be over harvested by the masses. This shuts out more land and allows the herd in that localized area to continue to be abundant. Thus, hunter there says, "no deer population problem here." It also drives demand/prices up so more farmers are lining there pockets with more coin. No wonder the farm bureau wants deer eradicated where access is easy.

If I were in charge, I would increase the efforts and penalties on poachers. Trophy restitution fines would be used to initiate a program to license outfitters and guides. Revenue generated from that program over and above sustaining itself plus future restitution fines would go toward aggressively obtaining more public land for hunting.

Most counties would be put at a 2 deer limit with only $24 tags available. Athens county would be at 4. That is not a joke. They have a deer population problem and can support that higher limit. Out of state license would be increased to $175 for a couple years. If participation doesn't drop off much then a possible increase to $195 a couple years later.

To appease insurance companies I would reinstate the urban deer program, but improve it. All previous zones would be expanded by about 10-15 miles. Urban tags only good for antler less deer and cost $5. No limit, but can only be purchased in person and no telechek for urban deer. They would have to be checked at specific check stations and detailed location information collected for the harvest.

Reinstate the farmer/hunter access program on ODNR website. No damage permits period unless you are enrolled in the program. Also, there would be a ratio of hunters to acreage requirement to be met before damage permits could be awarded. I would add a covenant of rules for land owners. Hunters proven guilty of violating a land owners rules could be suspended from the program and/or banned.

I would also consider data analysis software to better determine population densities and use more actual field observation to obtain data. A combination of biologist logs, hunter surveys and harvest results would be combined to generate comprehensive population models to use for management objectives.

Lastly, I would reach out to the other divisions of the DNR and other park services to gain access to some of these preserves, natural areas and parks. Some of these could be opened to archery only or limited access draw hunts. They do a little bit of that, but I think there is an opportunity to do more. This would get deer "thinned" in areas where they go unchecked.

Bonus: I would work with hunters rather than manipulate them with misinformation and blame of weather, mast, standing corn and weak participation.

 

[cotty16]

Dang Critter! That's well thought out and I like those ideas.

Not sure about Athens county since I'm so far away, but everything looks pretty good.

 

[bowhunter1023]

No damage permits period unless you are enrolled in the program. Also, there would be a ratio of hunters to acreage requirement to be met before damage permits could be awarded. I would add a covenant of rules for land owners. Hunters proven guilty of violating a land owners rules could be suspended from the program and/or banned.

I agree with all you said with the exception of the above. If the farmer can supple hunters from within his family, then he should not have to enroll his ground. The 260 acre farm I hunt is hunted by family, and me. He should not have to let outsiders hunt his land when family can fill the crop damage and enjoy the ground in the fall without fear of outsiders.

 

[brock ratcliff]

Why pick on Athens County? The numbers there are no more impressive than many other similar counties? Opportunity is what kills numbers of deer, not tag allocations. In counties that are "over run" with deer, it would make more sense to have additional seasons, such as an antlerless muzzy season. Low density counties cannot support the same number of hunting days as can higher density counties. I.E., Fayette, Mercer, Darke, Van Wert, Preble, and many others do not need ANY season directed solely to reduce population. We sure as heck never needed a "bonus gun" weekend in these areas. It all points directly to the 10 deer in a woodlot theory, given enough opportunity, you can kill them all.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

I agree with all you said with the exception of the above. If the farmer can supple hunters from within his family, then he should not have to enroll his ground. The 260 acre farm I hunt is hunted by family, and me. He should not have to let outsiders hunt his land when family can fill the crop damage and enjoy the ground in the fall without fear of outsiders.

In that program the land owner had control of who got granted access. A land owner could certainly choose all family members first. If that fills the ratio requirement then no worries. However farmer Bill who owns 3000 acres isn't getting away with just 2 family members and 3 buddies. Again, this would only be required to obtain crop damage permits. If farmer Bill didn't want damage permits then he doesn't have let anyone hunt.

I was under the impression there were lots of deer in Athens county. Though, I haven't counted them. I may need to rethink that objective.

 

[bowhunter1023]

I see. I never was familiar with that program. I'm all for not abusing the permits. The same farm I mentioned, they shot 100 deer in 2 summers on crop damage. Ain't many deer left there now...

 

[MK111]

Reinstate the farmer/hunter access program on ODNR website. No damage permits period unless you are enrolled in the program. Also, there would be a ratio of hunters to acreage requirement to be met before damage permits could be awarded. I would add a covenant of rules for land owners. Hunters proven guilty of violating a land owners rules could be suspended from the program and/or banned.

I would be against forcing a private landowner to enroll in any restricted program or put a ratio of hunters to acreage.
Punish the one's who abuse the program not everyone who wants into the program.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Reinstate the farmer/hunter access program on ODNR website. No damage permits period unless you are enrolled in the program. Also, there would be a ratio of hunters to acreage requirement to be met before damage permits could be awarded. I would add a covenant of rules for land owners. Hunters proven guilty of violating a land owners rules could be suspended from the program and/or banned.

I would be against forcing a private landowner to enroll in any restricted program or put a ratio of hunters to acreage.
Punish the one's who abuse the program not everyone who wants into the program.

They aren't forced to use the damage permits. That is an optional program. However to use it they should be able to prove they grant access to hunters. Right now, they're only required to make their contact info available. I contacted 14 of those individuals and two of them said they lease it. So, they restrict hunter access during hunting season and then shoot em with rifles in August. That's BS if you ask me.

 

[MK111]

They aren't forced to use the damage permits. That is an optional program. However to use it they should be able to prove they grant access to hunters. Right now, they're only required to make their contact info available. I contacted 14 of those individuals and two of them said they lease it. So, they restrict hunter access during hunting season and then shoot em with rifles in August. That's BS if you ask me.

Sorry I don't understand your hunter access problem. If the landowner is granted damage permits and the permits are used then the landowner is permitting someone access to hunt. It may not be to your liking.
Private land is private land and those rights should not be bounced on to benefit someone else not paying the bills. Owing and paying the bill is not cheap for a landowner.
Sorta sounds like Obama breading the wealth around.
Sorry but as a landowner I don't want anyone forcing me to do something the officials probably don't how to manage in the first place.

 

[Jackalope]

Sorry I don't understand your hunter access problem. If the landowner is granted damage permits and the permits are used then the landowner is permitting someone access to hunt. It may not be to your liking.
Private land is private land and those rights should not be bounced on to benefit someone else not paying the bills. Owing and paying the bill is not cheap for a landowner.
Sorta sounds like Obama breading the wealth around.
Sorry but as a landowner I don't want anyone forcing me to do something the officials probably don't how to manage in the first place.

Private land is private land. But the DNR has said consistently that deer belong to everyone. If you want damage permits you should first have to let people hunt. Private landowners shouldn't be given permits to waste a natural resource because their personal decisions prevent them from being used. They created the problem on their property, they should deal with the consequences of their decisions, not be given permission to take and waste what isn't theres to begin with.

 

[CritterGitterToo]

Sorry I don't understand your hunter access problem. If the landowner is granted damage permits and the permits are used then the landowner is permitting someone access to hunt. It may not be to your liking.
Private land is private land and those rights should not be bounced on to benefit someone else not paying the bills. Owing and paying the bill is not cheap for a landowner.
Sorta sounds like Obama breading the wealth around.
Sorry but as a landowner I don't want anyone forcing me to do something the officials probably don't how to manage in the first place.

Rifles in August isn't hunting access. Hunting access is regular methods during the actual fall hunting season. Joe made my point of why very well.

 

[Jackalope]

I look at it like this. Say I own 1,000 acres. And someone dumps 200 tires on it. I have a group of guys who are more than willing to come clean them up and take them away. But I refuse to let them. I instead go to the state and demand that I be given permission to burn them all. I don't care the air on my farm also belongs to my neighbors. Screw them. I want to burn the tires and nobody can have them, no matter how willing they are to take them. That's the farmers stance and our state EPA gives him a burn permit. Not only do they give him a permit they enact laws to reduce the number of cars as that will naturally reduce the amount of tires statewide that can be dumped. All the while the farmer not do anything to prevent more from being dumped. Instead He does the opposite he paves them a nice little road and clears an area that is enticing more to be dumped. This is lunacy. But this is exactly the argument the DNR is using to justify kill permits and the lowering of the deer population.

 

[Huckleberry Finn]

I look at it like this. Say I own 1,000 acres. And someone dumps 200 tires on it. I have a group of guys who are more than willing to come clean them up and take them away. But I refuse to let them. I instead go to the state and demand that I be given permission to burn them all. I don't care the air on my farm also belongs to my neighbors. Screw them. I want to burn the tires and nobody can have them, no matter how willing they are to take them. That's the farmers stance and our state EPA gives him a burn permit. Not only do they give him a permit they enact laws to reduce the number of cars as that will naturally reduce the amount of tires statewide that can be dumped. All the while the farmer not do anything to prevent more from being dumped. Instead He does the opposite he paves them a nice little road and clears an area that is enticing more to be dumped. This is lunacy. But this is exactly the argument the DNR is using to justify kill permits and the lowering of the deer population.

That is not your worst analogy, I kinda like it.

 

[bonemonger]

first of all I think to much focus is being put on private ground, if a private landowner wants the deer gone it will happen. what I would like to see is more focus put on public hunting areas. improve the deer numbers on them and then everyone will have a greater chance to be successful. what I would like to see is only one deer per year taken off public land, and how that could be done is your first deer of the year is a public or private tag. if you kill the first deer of the year on private land your public tag is gone for the year, but you can kill your first deer on public land and still hunt private. if all you hunt is private land then this wouldn't effect your ability to harvest deer as you see fit, but I think it would improve the public hunting experience for those that only hunt public. unless you own your own ground all of us might be hunting public in the future and I would gladly only take one deer a year to improve the public lands. Bob

 

[dante322]

I don't want to derail Dante's thread with this becoming an ODNR bashing session.

you're not "derailing" anything Phil. You made a good point, The dnr does need to pay attention to the ones who support them.

As far as a dnr bashing session, The truth is that any ideas that are tossed out there are all things that would need to be implimented by the dnr. I think for the most part we are all aware that we need to be careful how many does we shoot on the spots we hunt. If there are other people hunting the same property, compare notes with them and hope they feel the same way. We also need to kill as many coyotes as we can. That much is in our hands any way.

There were a lot of thoughts here concerning drives. I can't really comment either way because I have never really participated in a drive, ( there was this one day at strouds with beener, hedge, and redcloud, But that was more of a "get me out of these thorns" more than a drive) But I do feel that there should be some sort of a permit system for them. Not saying a monetary fee of any kind, But something to make sure its being done safely and legally. Who, where and when? Is everybody allowed to be on the property? Do they all have licenses and valid tags? Not allowed on public land that has less than 1000 acres. if the lot being pushed is near a residential area or a road way, what direction will the shooting be. That sort of thing.

It seems so far that the real problem is access. the places that can be hunted have been, for the most part, overharvested. The places that have abundant deer, can't be hunted and the deer have no reason to leave that kind of security as long as there is enough food and cover for them. That's a tough nut to crack for sure. If we can't get access to the land, how would you get the deer to leave? Food plots are helpful, but not an option to those of us who don't own the land. I have considered asking one of the farmers to let me "lease" a corner of one of his fields to put in a small plot.

 

[Milo]

Somehow I think the pressure on public land needs to ease up by forcing hunters to not drive the deer off the public ground and onto private. I would also like to see a much stiffer penalty for trespassing and people messing with the deer unnecessarily.

 

[Flatlander]

I look at it like this. Say I own 1,000 acres. And someone dumps 200 tires on it. I have a group of guys who are more than willing to come clean them up and take them away. But I refuse to let them. I instead go to the state and demand that I be given permission to burn them all. I don't care the air on my farm also belongs to my neighbors. Screw them. I want to burn the tires and nobody can have them, no matter how willing they are to take them. That's the farmers stance and our state EPA gives him a burn permit. Not only do they give him a permit they enact laws to reduce the number of cars as that will naturally reduce the amount of tires statewide that can be dumped. All the while the farmer not do anything to prevent more from being dumped. Instead He does the opposite he paves them a nice little road and clears an area that is enticing more to be dumped. This is lunacy. But this is exactly the argument the DNR is using to justify kill permits and the lowering of the deer population.

That is a great analogy!

 

[RedCloud]

Need to go back to the way it was years ago and bring back the 1 either sex tag and in areas of the county (micro manage county by county) that has an abundance of deer you can lottery for a $24 doe tag. After your deer are shot (possible total of 2 deer) you are done for the season. No more of this your total doesn't count for another counties total crap. That was completely stupid a couple years ago to have a max of 18 deer and even this year with a total of 9 deer for the season. The ONLY reason that was ever done was to show the FB and insurance that the DNR is giving the hunters every available tool to get the deer numbers down. Slight of hand move on the DNR's part knowing full well most hunters never harvest more then 2 deer a year. Kept the big 2 hushed and to the uneducated hunters looked really good and a glimmer of hope to go out and fill a bunch of tags and fill the freezer. It also made it look good to NR hunters with such huge bag limits there must be a bunch of deer and with the huge bucks plastered everywhere everybody wanted to hunt here, and it was cheap too.

1) reduce tag availability (Total of 2 with the lottery doe tag in certain areas)

2) raise NR and Resident tag prices.

3) no drives on smaller public grounds. ( some of the smaller public makes it hard and unsafe for others not in the group to hunt. Also takes away from the hunting experience for some that only have public ground to hunt. Larger public should have driving zones IMO and you should have to check in with the park office and sign in a day or more in advance for the day and area you want to drive)

4)No more crop damage permits if not allowing others the opportunity to hunt your property. (obviously the landowner and friends and family are unable to reduce deer numbers low enough to reduce the damage so if your unwilling to allow others to help, well, your SOL.) asked years ago for my counties list of farmers in the program and contacted half the list and was told NO by everyone of them I contacted. I knew 2 guys on the list and one of them only owned 2 acres of ground but his mom owned a good chuck of fields that was planted. Still have no idea how he pulled this off with the DNR to get 10 damage tags)

I will add more later but this is what is off the top of my head.

 

[hickslawns]

4)No more crop damage permits if not allowing others the opportunity to hunt your property. (obviously the landowner and friends and family are unable to reduce deer numbers low enough to reduce the damage so if your unwilling to allow others to help, well, your SOL.) asked years ago for my counties list of farmers in the program and contacted half the list and was told NO by everyone of them I contacted. I knew 2 guys on the list and one of them only owned 2 acres of ground but his mom owned a good chuck of fields that was planted. Still have no idea how he pulled this off with the DNR to get 10 damage tags)

I will add more later but this is what is off the top of my head.

I was told by our local WO this program was done away with simply because it was such a failed idea. The example you listed is the exact reason. Truthfully? I thought it sounded good on paper. The reality is we all found our responses worked out like yours. I signed up and contacted a couple and I also received "No's". I guess it is silly to offer it if none of the farmers who put their name on the paper were going to allow hunters anyway.