What would be your plan?

brock ratcliff · Dec 11, 2015

I do not have a plan for the entire state, and I have not seen another proposed here that makes sense. What I have learned, and hope others have as well, is that the DOW is not in the business of making sure each person has a decent population of deer to hunt. I once believed it was their intent to allow the herd to prosper across the state. I was wrong. The herd grew to a point that they were nervous they would not be able to control their expansion. They decided to cut it by any means necessary, and they cut it too deep in areas. I saw that here, and saw it early on as this wasn't a high density area to start with. Now, I don't hear nearly as many hunters bragging about filling all available tags... it would be mighty hard to do. What I do see happening is more of the "good ol boys" shooting fewer deer. Its obvious we do not have the excess numbers to harvest. The influx of Amish into the immediate area ... well, they are getting blamed by a lot of locals, but they were not here in numbers at the time we really did the damage. They will fill every tag they can, they seem to be behind the ball on conservation, still listening to what the DOW suggests.

My whining started years before most, and it started due to what I saw in Fayette Co. Anyone that has looked at my hunting logs over the last few years knows that I have it made up there now. The landowner kicked all others off the place. I don't shoot much, and it has made a big difference on that property. A few years of letting them live to breed makes a big difference, if you are fortunate enough to fall into a situation like that, you will see a rebound if you do your part and let them go. I do not see deer in that area like I once did, but my particular property up there is as good as it ever was.

CritterGitterToo · Dec 11, 2015

I would change many things. For the most part I would look to simplify the regulations and implement conservative guidelines that are designed to protect the resource and promote the sport in a positive light. It's not about money or making special interests happy. It's about doing what's right for the resource and the sport.

1. Shorten archery season to begin on the first Saturday in October and end on the last Saturday in January.

2. Only 3 gun seasons: youth gun, the traditional 1 week long season and the traditional 3 day muzzy season.

3. Statewide bag limit of 1 buck and 1 anterless.

4. Non-resident deer tag rate hike to $49. Still a bargain compared to other states.

5. Outfitters - anyone taking money from a hunter for access to hunting land that they do not personally own. Must get a 1 time certification and pay an annual fee of $250 in order to operate each year. (this would not affect direct lease agreements).

That would be a good start.

Bigcountry40 · Dec 11, 2015

Jackalope said:
I don't see outfitters and leases being the problem. Sure it forces other hunter into a more condensed area where the deer get hammered harder. But it also locks up land and gives a lot of deer a sanctuary to hold up, breed, and populate the surrounding area. If it wasn't locked up the hunter population would just decimate the population there too like we have on open lands. So I see them providing more help than harm when it comes to rebounding the population. Almost a necessary evil in today's era of low deer numbers and liberal regulations. Besides, it just comes with the times, the leasing train is leaving the station in the future you'll either be onboard or left In the cold.

I am personally fine with leasing, but when people have to start considering paying 10% of their income, I think you have reached a place of ridiculousness. Somewhere there is a happy medium just like everything else in life. Not everyone makes as much money as some of us on this website ( I do fairly well and fortunate that I can afford to pay a little bit if need be), but they still deserve to have opportunity to hunt decent land without running into 8 people on public land they hunt. I like leasing, I just think there should be reasonable cap implemented by the state. Will this ever happen? no, is what I am saying going to change anything? NO. Its sort of like unions and big businesses to me, both want maximum profit without compromise, Union workers got $30 an hour at G.M (90's) and full benefits for sweeping floors or pressing a button., result was lost jobs overseas or replaced by $12hr workers who are temp hires with no benefits. Why not pay $20 with decent benefits and compromise? Both sides make money, factories can still employ good workers and workers can feed their families. But we as society don't do this, it either one extreme or the other. I think leasing is basically becoming the same way and we are losing the true idea of hunting (its supposed to enjoyment and fun). How this plays in to deer population mangement, basically I think deer herd will be fine because only upper middle class will be only once able to participate and sanctuaries will naturally be created. I am more concerned with actual opportunity, than population.

hickslawns · Dec 11, 2015

CritterGitterToo said:
I would change many things. For the most part I would look to simplify the regulations and implement conservative guidelines that are designed to protect the resource and promote the sport in a positive light. It's not about money or making special interests happy. It's about doing what's right for the resource and the sport.

1. Shorten archery season to begin on the first Saturday in October and end on the last Saturday in January.

2. Only 3 gun seasons: youth gun, the traditional 1 week long season and the traditional 3 day muzzy season.

3. Statewide bag limit of 1 buck and 1 anterless.

4. Non-resident deer tag rate hike to $49. Still a bargain compared to other states.

5. Outfitters - anyone taking money from a hunter for access to hunting land that they do not personally own. Must get a 1 time certification and pay an annual fee of $250 in order to operate each year. (this would not affect direct lease agreements).

That would be a good start.

I haven't put tons of thought into how "i" would implement change.

CG seems to have a basic outline of what seems plausible and would promote a slow rebound.

I would add one caveat: positive propaganda to the "uneducated hunters". Explain why the changes are being implemented. Talk to the public. Tell them if they are upset about their local deer densities, THEY need to be wise stewards of the land. ODNR cannot do it on their own. They cannot be eyes and ears everywhere. I know many will feel I am sticking up for them. Maybe I am. Or maybe I am simply being a realist. If we truly want a change, it is on us and ODNR propaganda like I mentioned "could" help speed it up a bit. It took years of preaching "shoot does to make your hunting better" before we came to our current state. It may take 3-5-10yrs to get back to a happier level.

I also believe access to parks and non-hunting govt owned areas might help.

Lastly (this one might stir the pot and get me flamed) I say leave management in place. Why change the figure head? It might only be replaced by someone worse. They decimated the herd. They are slowly acknowledging this and making adjustments. This will not be fixed in a year. So long as adjustments are going the right direction, I say leave them in office. ANY DNR person in any state is on the hot seat if they are hearing what Ohio hunters are saying. We aren't the only state dealing with this. Let them stay in office. Let them speak amongst each other state to state and benefit from what IS working in other states. This is NOT an exact science. It will take some time to fix. Only the last few years have states began implementing these changes. They are learning and slowly adjusting.

One from left field: coyote bounty? Might help. Might not. Just a thought. Do we really know if it is predators? Some studies point this way as ONE factor. They aren't solely responsible in my opinion. Just saying, predator control could potentially help speed up a rebound. Seems logical but I truly don't know.

Jackalope · Dec 11, 2015

hickslawns said:
Lastly (this one might stir the pot and get me flamed) I say leave management in place. Why change the figure head? It might only be replaced by someone worse. They decimated the herd. They are slowly acknowledging this and making adjustments. This will not be fixed in a year. So long as adjustments are going the right direction, I say leave them in office. ANY DNR person in any state is on the hot seat if they are hearing what Ohio hunters are saying. We aren't the only state dealing with this. Let them stay in office. Let them speak amongst each other state to state and benefit from what IS working in other states. This is NOT an exact science. It will take some time to fix. Only the last few years have states began implementing these changes. They are learning and slowly adjusting.

And you've fallen for the exact trap they wanted you too. They knew full well of the impact their methods would have the entire time. The goal was always to mislead hunters to e them to do it. They just hoped they could keep up the charade long enough to reach their goals. Once people started to wake and realize they got screwed it's time to turn on the "we're listening" "we care" we're going to slack off" "we're going to pull back the reins". They're selling you this line of BS like they're doing you a favor. The reality is they're transitioning from a reduce the population plan to a maintain the reduced population plan. They're just billing it as they're making good changes. I said years ago to be watchful of this crap. I also said they would shuffle the deck so the head of the snake and those responsible are no longer "responsible". At Tonks level he put in some kid out of college to be the face of the deer program. Zody is now gone. The transition from decimate to maintain also comes with leadership changes. This way they can say "it was that guy" "I'm here to help" same as Barack still blames bush.

hickslawns · Dec 11, 2015

Maybe so. Or maybe not. It is a complex system. We don't truly know which ones have good intentions, which ones are puppets, and who is telling the truth or lying to us. In some cases? Maybe we do. I don't think this is true 100% of the time though. We could have some people higher up who are going to bat for the hunters. Sadly, those people will never be promoted to a point where they will help us.

Jackalope · Dec 11, 2015

hickslawns said:
Maybe so. Or maybe not. It is a complex system. We don't truly know which ones have good intentions, which ones are puppets, and who is telling the truth or lying to us. In some cases? Maybe we do. I don't think this is true 100% of the time though. We could have some people higher up who are going to bat for the hunters. Sadly, those people will never be promoted to a point where they will help us.

Do you think the black lives matter group cares who is and isn't actually responsible. Do you think Rham Emanuel or the now removed police chief were actually responsible for that black kid getting shot. Nope. But they're going to pay the price. The reality is they've been extremely effective at removing individuals from their positions. 99% of the time the person that replaces them are far more willing to work with them. In turn they get a lot of what they ask for. To include recognition and preferred treatment. Look at furgerson, from the mayor, police chief, and almost the majority of the city council was removed and replaced with blacks, blacks that the black lives matter group wanted there. Instead of blacks we should replace the ones at the DNR with hunters and those who are on our side.

hickslawns · Dec 11, 2015

I agree in replacing them with "qualified to do the job" hunters. No doubt there. I also believe many who work up thru the ranks have (or had at one time) a true passion for the outdoors. This is why I say leave them in place. Why swap them out with someone from farm insurance bureau or insurance lobbyist position?

I also believe you are correct in the fact some of this is simply smoke and mirrors.

jagermeister · Dec 11, 2015

I'd keep the current regs in place and maintain population at or close to the current level. Everywhere I go, there are plenty of deer to be had. I talked to over a 100 guys during deer gun week and none complained about low deer numbers. A stark contrast from last year and the year before. Lots of big deer being killed too. My honest opinion, we're in good shape. There sure is a ton of success stories on this forum... You wouldn't know it based on this thread though. Lol

Jackalope · Dec 11, 2015

hickslawns said:
I agree in replacing them with "qualified to do the job" hunters. No doubt there. I also believe many who work up thru the ranks have (or had at one time) a true passion for the outdoors. This is why I say leave them in place. Why swap them out with someone from farm insurance bureau or insurance lobbyist position?

I also believe you are correct in the fact some of this is simply smoke and mirrors.

They wouldn't be replaced with lobbyist or farm bureau cronies. Name one instance where the black lives matter group removed a person of power that was subsequently replaced with KKK member. Doesn't happen. It's not about whose right, wrong, whose fault it was etc. It's about removing people and daring the next guy not to listen to your group. From then on out you're a forced to be reckoned with, you have who you want in the position, and they roll out the carpet when you makes suggestions. Today lobbyist and farm bureau has that benefit with our DNR. Hunters need to turn that power. But it take an org mission to do it. And I've seen none willing. Because the ugly truth is they need friends at the DNR, they enjoy having this contacts, friends, and DNR partners and would never do anything to damage that.

Flathead76 · Dec 11, 2015

Truth is most hunters are stupid and put way too much trust in the DNR. The DNR did not kill the deer. The blood thursty trigger happy hunters did. Now instead of looking in the mirror at who is to blame they point thier finger at the DNR. So not only did the DNR trick fuck the hunters into thier harvest goal but they got the dumbass hunters tag money as well. Where I grow up thats called killing two birds with one stone while hitting a lick. This is not a new concept here. Anyone who knows anything about Pennsylvania deer hunting knows that Gary Alt invented this whole concept.

Hunters are going to point the finger at someone else. Gun hunters blame the bow hunters. Bow hunters blame the gun hunters. Pretty much everyone blames the crossbow hunters. The blame should go to who ever is the one pulling the trigger.

Heres my suggestions.........keep all the season exactly the way that they are. Separate private and public. For private make the zone the entire state. One buck and one doe. For public grounds one buck and a lottery application for a doe tag. Once the quota is filled no more will be sold. The combined private public land state wide season bag limit of two deer.

Jackalope · Dec 11, 2015

Flathead76 said:
Truth is most hunters are stupid and put way too much trust in the DNR. The DNR did not kill the deer. The blood thursty trigger happy hunters did. Now instead of looking in the mirror at who is to blame they point thier finger at the DNR. So not only did the DNR trick fuck the hunters into thier harvest goal but they got the dumbass hunters tag money as well. Where I grow up thats called killing two birds with one stone while hitting a lick. This is not a new concept here. Anyone who knows anything about Pennsylvania deer hunting knows that Gary Alt invented this whole concept.

Hunters are going to point the finger at someone else. Gun hunters blame the bow hunters. Bow hunters blame the gun hunters. Pretty much everyone blames the crossbow hunters. The blame should go to who ever is the one pulling the trigger.

Heres my suggestions.........keep all the season exactly the way that they are. Separate private and public. For private make the zone the entire state. One buck and one doe. For public grounds one buck and a lottery application for a doe tag. Once the quota is filled no more will be sold. The combined private public land state wide season bag limit of two deer.

The blame should be placed with the people who engaged in a deceitful program and misled the hunters against their best interest. Hunters are killers. It's what we do. That's OUR job. The entire reason that we have a DNR is to keep us from slaughtering the population back to 0. That's THEIR job. So when our DNR said we have too many, we need to scale back, people trusted them and did what we do. What the DNR failed to be honest about was "we have to many and need to scale back" REALLY meant. "People at insurance companies want more profits and less deer, so we at the DNR are going to help them by having y'all kill off 40% of the deer population". Deceit is the culprit here. Not hunters who fulfilled their role.

If a broker mismanaged an investment portfolio and reduced it's value by 40%, all the while misleading the investors that everything was fine, his ass would be in jail for fraud. It's no different that what out DNR did. Lied to their investors thus causing them to make decisions against their best interest.

Here is the legal definition of fraud.

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

jlane · Dec 11, 2015

most of you guys have great ideas, BUT the bottom line is it;s up to the man holding the weapon,if you hunt an area that dosen;t have many deer, then why would you shoot anything rhat you feel is less than mature, we all see a lot of small young deer being killed,let them walk for a few years,eventually they start having twins, doubling the population, it doesent take that many years to see improvment,if you have 100 acres and have 5 does on that property that lives to start having twins in 5 years you possibally could have 1215 does providing that they would only have twin fawn does, cut that in half for bucks and you still end up with 607 does, so management releys on the hunter who can restrain himself from pulling the trigger on what is in front of him ,it only takes patience from us not what the dnr is telling us to do, if they said it would make you a millionare to stand in front of a simi that was running 75 mph would we beleive them, put a simple problem in the hands of politicians,(and that is what they are)and i garranty they will screw it up to the point of no return, so the solution with deer management lies in the hands of the man with the weopen in his hands

Jackalope · Dec 11, 2015

jlane said:
most of you guys have great ideas, BUT the bottom line is it;s up to the man holding the weapon,if you hunt an area that dosen;t have many deer, then why would you shoot anything rhat you feel is less than mature, we all see a lot of small young deer being killed,let them walk for a few years,eventually they start having twins, doubling the population, it doesent take that many years to see improvment,if you have 100 acres and have 5 does on that property that lives to start having twins in 5 years you possibally could have 1215 does providing that they would only have twin fawn does, cut that in half for bucks and you still end up with 607 does, so management releys on the hunter who can restrain himself from pulling the trigger on what is in front of him ,it only takes patience from us not what the dnr is telling us to do, if they said it would make you a millionare to stand in front of a simi that was running 75 mph would we beleive them, put a simple problem in the hands of politicians,(and that is what they are)and i garranty they will screw it up to the point of no return, so the solution with deer management lies in the hands of the man with the weopen in his hands

So why do we have speed limits? Is it because everyone is capable of making smart educated decisions? Nope. It's because as a whole we can't. Maybe some can. But as a group we can't. Thus we trust the ODOT to set them for us. It's not up to the person to set their own speed limit

I understand what you're saying. But what you have to understand is that's impossible on a large scale that would amount to any kind of change. If hunters as a whole were capable of self management and preservation we wouldn't have a DNR at all. There wouldn't be a need for them. But that's not reality. Nor is expecting the guy behind the trigger to have the mental ability to understand the big picture.

MK111 · Dec 11, 2015

jagermeister said:
I'd keep the current regs in place and maintain population at or close to the current level. Everywhere I go, there are plenty of deer to be had. I talked to over a 100 guys during deer gun week and none complained about low deer numbers. A stark contrast from last year and the year before. Lots of big deer being killed too. My honest opinion, we're in good shape. There sure is a ton of success stories on this forum... You wouldn't know it based on this thread though. Lol

Talk about going to be tossed under the bus, well get ready. LOL

Well I guess I'll join you under the bus now.
I was born in Ottawa, OH Putman County in 1944. There was not ONE deer then. In 1961 when I was 17 a buck jumped across the road in front of our school bus and a article was written in the Ottawa paper 'buck deer jumps across road in front of a school bus'. Big news.
In 1972 I shot a buck in Willard, OH and the local newspaper heard about and called me if they could do a article on the kill. In 1972 there was less than 5900 deer taken the entire year in OHIO. Yes 5900 and no more zeros.
When I moved to Hamilton, OH Butler County in 1976 there was no gun hunting here only bow hunting.
A few years latter the entire state went to gun season.
Every year the deer kill increases to when it peaked out 5-6 years ago. Then the reduced kills started.
Ohio still has a damn lot of deer harvested every year according to the old days.

Do I want to see the old days return, of course not. But with the deer numbers harvested each year it's a damn lot better than in the past except when it peaked.

I don't ever expect to see the deer harvest numbers ever as high as it was at the peak.

Does this help put a plan in effect to correct the numbers. NO, it just explains somewhat that things aren't really that bad overall right now. Yes some areas have been hit harder than others.
You younger guys lived through the good hay days of deer hunting and now there's a down turn. I lived through the days of ZERO deer and seen the steady increase to what what we have today.

I'm just a old country hick from up north that doesn't have a gift of the written word so be easy on this old guy when I'm throwed under the on coming bus.

As to getting deer hunters to band together. It won't happen as there is too many that will keep shooting deer until the last one is gone. I believe if you check the past records in 1900 it was reported that deer was extinct in Ohio. I wish this was not the case but it is.
Also members of TOO are a cut above the average hunter. Also I would expect we above average hunters for the most part talk to a above average type of hunters so that will give us a false sense that everyone agrees with our ideas of making things better and are doing the same good things. I wish it wasn't this way but I do believe it is.

jlane · Dec 11, 2015

Jackalope said:
So why do we have speed limits? Is it because everyone is capable of making smart educated decisions? Nope. It's because as a whole we can't. Maybe some can. But as a group we can't. Thus we trust the ODOT to set them for us. It's not up to the person to set their own speed limit

I understand what you're saying. But what you have to understand is that's impossible on a large scale that would amount to any kind of change. If hunters as a whole were capable of self management and preservation we wouldn't have a DNR at all. There wouldn't be a need for them. But that's not reality. Nor is expecting the guy behind the trigger to have the mental ability to understand the big picture.

very well spoken, but most of us want to point fingers at others for the problems, when most of the problems could be solved with educating the hunters,have we thought about having group meetings, (i know that would seem impossible on a large scale)but one hunter at a time would get the point across, and teach the upcoming generations what the repercutions on not management is doing to the deer herds, people are creatures of habit, it;s hard to change a persons mind long term,if he/she has always done it a peticular way,they mostly go back to the old ways,(not everyone but most),if we can teach one hunter in each of our areas, that would be a start,reason i think like this is up til about 8 years ago around where i live we had the older generation that beleaved if it was brown it was down, now that they have gotten too old or passed, we are starting to see more and better deer in our area, now with all this being said how many that;s reading this hunt for food,sport, or just the kill,(please don;t answer that to me)ask yourself do you kill for someone else,more than you can eat in a year,do you enjoy the hunt or the kill,(i don;t judge anyone for whatever they do) it;s just some ?one needs to ask itself,do i let this walk and see more next year, or do i kill it now,to me unless it;s a mature buck i;ll point a finger and say i got you ,walk on and let;s play another day, i won the battle today,the area i hunt in ohio, i;ve hunted for 4 yeaqrs the first year i had less than 200 acres, had 8 trail cams running, had apr. 8/10 does going from cam to cam, this year i estmate about20/25 does and fawns on only 80 acres, gave up 117 acres,got least out to others that have hunted only 4 days this year,big improvement in less than 3 years, we have yet to pull nthe trigger on a deer

bowhunter1023 · Dec 11, 2015

Spencie said:
It my little piece of the state there are not a lot of does. I personally would like to see:

1) Archery season open first Saturday in October
2) Archery season end on January 31
3) Bucks only in January
4) Gun season opening on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and running 9 days through the following Sunday
5) Muzzy season be in December...not January
6) Limited doe permits be sold per unit population has been restored

My thoughts are along this line. When I have a few minutes to sit down and put my thoughts on paper, I'll elaborate on my thoughts.

reo · Dec 11, 2015

Gun season 5 days Monday to Friday. Buck only on opening day.

Two weeks off beginning of archery. Two weeks off end of archery. For a one month reduction total.

One deer on public land. Period. Either sex but only one.

Kaiser878 · Dec 11, 2015

The property by my house is 800 acres..... it is just shy of being public... it was infested with dirty amish during gun season along with about 5-8 other guys.. it has shitty deer numbers compared to other places I hunt. The amish that were dragging out 2 little doe fawns that might have weighed 60lbs made a pretty comical comment.... the said, "these were the only deer we saw, where did they all go?"

I gave em a pretty uncensored piece of my mind..... I also informed them that as long as they were shooting every deer they saw, they would continue to see very few deer. They are like a disease..... they take over a host, and suck it dry till there is nothing left of it.... I have nothing good to say about 90% of amish.... they rape and pilage everything they touch.....

With that being said, I'm not concerned about seeing huge numbers of deer. I hunt that same property and still manage to see deer. And there are not many on it... I promise you that... I don't see 5-10 a night like I do on other properties.... it doesn't matter if I see 10, or if I see 1, if none of them are the deer I'm looking for... so it's all the same.

Ya it's great to see large numbers of deer, I get it.... but I don't need that... this property I speak of is 800 acres, and I bet there isn't 30 deer on it.... it's raped bad.....

The deer numbers are fine by me.... but some may disagree.. different mind sets and expectations i guess.

It boils down to one thing... common sense... if you are seeing less deer, and complaining about it... don't shoot any....

Also, people who are tired of the numbers on the property they hunt, how many doors have you knocked on in the last 8 months to acquire new land? Personally, I am always looking for new land.... im working different avenues on a weekly basis. Making ties here, making ties there... trapping has been a very beneficial.... u am negotiating on a few properties as we speak....

Flathead76 · Dec 11, 2015

My suggestions were in the last paragraph in what you quoted me on. You sound like you would fit in my old hunting camp in Pennsylvania. Yes the DNR duped the hunters. The hunters were the ones that did the killing. Then when the deer pretty much disapeared the hunters realized that they got screwed over. By that time its too late. So what we did was apply for every single doe tag that we could. Then the sunday before the rifle opener we would have doe tag burning party.

Jackalope said:
The blame should be placed with the people who engaged in a deceitful program and misled the hunters against their best interest. Hunters are killers. It's what we do. That's OUR job. The entire reason that we have a DNR is to keep us from slaughtering the population back to 0. That's THEIR job. So when our DNR said we have too many, we need to scale back, people trusted them and did what we do. What the DNR failed to be honest about was "we have to many and need to scale back" REALLY meant. "People at insurance companies want more profits and less deer, so we at the DNR are going to help them by having y'all kill off 40% of the deer population". Deceit is the culprit here. Not hunters who fulfilled their role.

If a broker mismanaged an investment portfolio and reduced it's value by 40%, all the while misleading the investors that everything was fine, his ass would be in jail for fraud. It's no different that what out DNR did. Lied to their investors thus causing them to make decisions against their best interest.

Here is the legal definition of fraud.

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

What would be your plan?

Dignitary Member

Junior Member

Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Dignitary Member

Junior Member

Dignitary Member

Junior Member

Dignitary Member

"Happy Hunting Grounds in the Sky"

Junior Member

Owner/Operator

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member