The fact that there is leased land shows the landowner has decided they needed income from their own property. I will never find fault in that and yes the NR willing to pay such fees sucks for the hunting guy who lost it but it sure helps the guy who owns it, not to mention the motel, the restaurant, party store, etc.. Does it put some properties into a tailspin where there are deer everywhere because the NR leasing hunter is only going to shoot one big buck (or in some cases any buck), it would seem it should. Neighboring properties would definitely benefit from that. Does all of this affect hunter recruitment?? That's the big question isn't it?? Yeah it's easy to blame the guy down the road who leases his property to someone from out of town, a property most wouldn't ever hunt anyway. Sure, access can be frustrating but there are plenty of people who are successful on public land. So I don't think that is really the reason for declining numbers. It's easy to blame so many other things related to actual hunting, but the fact is there are a million other things pulling those kids and potential hunters elsewhere and it isn't at all hunting related.
What kind of potential does Michigan hold, Chuck? I’d say it’s pretty darn good if there wasn’t a culture of killing a spike on November 15, and a forky a week later. Not implicating you here, just pointing out the obvious, again.
The problem in Michigan certainly isn't NR hunters, it is the every day
resident (sound familiar?) who has 2 buck tags and a shitload of antlerless (key word) tags that they can fill at leisure, not to mention gun seasons that basically run from mid November through the end of December. In Michigan that hunter not only can kill that small buck but he can keep hunting to fill that second buck tag. Some efforts have been made in places in Michigan where they are turning into great areas for hunting big bucks. Having antler point restrictions in the NE lower has made that area a destination. As well as southern Michigan due to people forming Co-Ops, people putting in the effort to work with neighbors, not waiting for the DNR. The DNR has anter point restrictions on most second buck tags now as well, a minor concession to going to a single buck tag. In the end though Michigan's problems are a result of the decisions made by residents, the "culture of killing" the first good buck and filling the second tag when they got the opportunity.
The thing that makes Ohio different from states like Michigan is that single buck tag. I think that is the one thing most forget how important that is for your quality. I look at it differently when it comes to Ohio, when that guy on the neighboring property kills that small buck he is done for the year killing bucks. Heck I'd be glad if that hunter did it every year and early in the season because those older deer get a pass from him after that. Getting to the point I am making, you are responsible for what you do on your own piece of ground. The ODNR places laws on a broad scale for people to abide by but that doesn't mean you fill every tag you are allowed to if you see your property is in decline. Can you blame the neighbors, the guy who leased the land down the road or the Amish for the current state your property is in? Perhaps it all is having an effect. Maybe it's time landowners got together and talked about the future and try to solve it on a small scale before trying to kill the beast. It's easy to blame everything on the NR when in my opinion that NR hunter is doing way less damage to hunting in Ohio than our own local hunters. Even the guy that leases.