That podcast with Seek One he made mention of the deer hammering it. I rolled my eyes. But I can't say much because I haven't done much about the pike of it I have on my property.
To many deer odnr
- Thread starter Wiley E Coyote
- Start date
They may be hammering it, but that's because that's what's available, not because it's what they prefer. Most of our forest have virtually no understory left other then Bush Honeysuckle. Well besides the properties I work on
.
Yeah, he was talking about that inner city buck he killed. He didn't know the name of it "bright green leaves with red berries". HmmmmThey may be hammering it, but that's because that's what's available, not because it's what they prefer. Most of our forest have virtually no understory left other then Bush Honeysuckle. Well besides the properties I work on
. Like corn, shit nutrients for deer.Oh gosh. Those guys huh.Yeah, he was talking about that inner city buck he killed. He didn't know the name of it "bright green leaves with red berries". Hmmmm
at1010
*Supporting Member*
- 5,244
- 159
yes but you don’t have a huge audience (no offense). Not saying you shouldn’t care but certainly going on a podcast with a large audience or a YouTube channel and promoting invasive is poor conservation.
You want to talk about epigentic triggers relative to deer density and maximizing genetic potential of antler formations - let's start the talk with invasives species and poor timber and grassland mgt.
These not only set back our state on an ecological perspective but also from a deer quality perspective, over time. As well as deer density as the rate at which deer, grouse, etc. are predated on is exacerbated.
but who cares - if a dude can shoot a 200inch deer that means he knows all about deer and he likely won’t hunt the property again and he’s moved on to influence more hunters with statements like “deer love it” as he speaks about AO or BH holding a big deer.
this cycle isn’t sustainable and for those who are influenced by the nonsense, possibly detrimental for their land and families for generations to come.
Last edited:
- 39,066
- 274
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
My property is on the edge of a SE OH city and has more Honeysuckle than China.......you know what it doesn't have? Deer., let alone good bucks. It has been a war clearing some of this crap. Burning Bush is another deer are supposed to like...as well as Rose..... Ive got it all and not the deer to eat it. The city also opened up some more of their properties to hunting to hunting claiming "too many deer" and "tree damage" (while it is much more about the permit cost). Totally unjustified in areas and potentially substantiated in others but elsewhere....but they just opened all of them up the same, no population estimate, quota number, nothing....just a money grab.
Last edited:
Deer thrive in native habitat. If you see them eating or living in invasive infested habitat it's because that's what's available for them and not out of preference. Eliminating your invasive species will lead to your property being more desirable to deer. As far as opening city property to hunting, this is where a good drone survey protocol over course of time would be a wise investment for all parties.
I am thrilled to see this stuff getting removed on that premise alone (but the native regen and impending deer improvement are anxiously awaited). As some of you guys know, the piece I have was be the XXX version of a book on Invasives.
The City in this case wouldnt know the difference between a whitetail and a caribou- the woman in charge of this is literally the person that sets up basket weaving for the geriatric folks. We had a lengthy hat because they were listing other peoples properties and acreages as theirs on a map. Her supporting DNR chronie was a fresh from college, in a parks role (non wildlife) and only could repeat "deer eat all the trees and we have too many deer". This is not the case for the area i know well... not even near it.
The City in this case wouldnt know the difference between a whitetail and a caribou- the woman in charge of this is literally the person that sets up basket weaving for the geriatric folks. We had a lengthy hat because they were listing other peoples properties and acreages as theirs on a map. Her supporting DNR chronie was a fresh from college, in a parks role (non wildlife) and only could repeat "deer eat all the trees and we have too many deer". This is not the case for the area i know well... not even near it.
Hopefully as drones become more mainstream the use to determine actual deer numbers so we can make better choices for the goals/ carrying capacity of an area also becomes more mainstream. But as in many areas of life, it'll come through private lands first andfor at leasta decade before the .gov types even postulate using them.
Why wait for the government. Ohio is mostly private land owners.
- 25,126
- 261
The majority are really not that bright. I have shown a couple people every deer on their property and had them insist the thermal did not see them all. “There are a lot of deer here”. Yeah, yeah, and they live in a cave. Sometimes the reason folks do not see man is there just aren’t many to be seen vs. the deer’s uncanny ability to avoid hunters. Other areas have a lot… generally where there is zero or very little hunting pressure.
That's why I don't think Ohio has a deer population problem as much as a HUNTER access problem.
I think there should be a process to register for a lottery for private lands. Then any agricultural lands that apply for deer kill permits have to give out a number of permits into the lottery to receive kill permits in the future. The registration on the hunter's end links them to their access to minimize slob hunters ruining access, the agricultural end gives them the end result without the resource being wasted.
I think there should be a process to register for a lottery for private lands. Then any agricultural lands that apply for deer kill permits have to give out a number of permits into the lottery to receive kill permits in the future. The registration on the hunter's end links them to their access to minimize slob hunters ruining access, the agricultural end gives them the end result without the resource being wasted.
I like the idea. Not sure I'm a fan of forcing land owners to allow hunters in exchange for kill permits. I wouldn't want a bunch of random people on my ground.
The ODNR states the deer are property of the state, not the landowner. That's why you pay restitution to the state when you poach.
Allowing kill permits to be used without hunters is a waste of the resource imo.
Have the hunters go their training and/or they sign paperwork making them responsible for their actions. The state makes additional $ from the lottery and tags whereas they get no $ from kill permits AND deer kill numbers go up (increasing the number of deer in the herd allegedly) because you increased opportunity once again.
I think access is the issue everywhere for hunting. Most public area throughout the US are managed for everything but hunter/game quality. IMO, Ohio has some savage outfitting and leasing entities. Theyre the crack dealers of the deer world, ruining neighborhoods for their selfish profit.
There really is a disbursement problem. I fully agree here. Public grounds (from many comments here and elsewhere) sounds like it "can be" slim pickings. As mentioned above, the leases or large tracts of land often have big deer numbers due to selective numbers of hunters. Many private properties where you can gain access is littered with hunters because they let everyone hunt. Not sure there is an easy solution.
Without a program giving real life data on actual population numbers WITH habitat, I don't care to listen to what they say a healthy population is. Every piece of property is built different and can hold a different amount of deer. Decimated land does nothing for the lands not hunted at all or very little. But if the land is holding these pockets of high deer density, who is the government to say it's a problem? Especially if the landowner has the property for deer.
Is that funny. Most men will cringe when their spouse goes shopping....she doesnt know whats in the account but will be thrilled to find a sale on chit not needed and spend away. Deer biologists are the same...small sample size they project on something bigger, and say kill more without ever knowing how many are there. The darn things are transient especially in areas of OH. The guy who has a feed filled in late Feb could have pics or observations supporting an excessive number of deer for the area.....but in reality, Hes the only one offering food at that time and locale skewing the data to paint a picture of a falsehood.