Don't you think that factoring the hunter population into a county's bag limits would be common sense Brock? Come on.
Changes ahead
- Thread starter jagermeister
- Start date
I agree. I would also hope that they would take how much public land is in that county. I hope this new system coming in 2016 works better than this county system now. Highland county in my area is a joke, but the farther south you drive, the better it gets. I think the new system will help with this known problem.
- 24,859
- 247
Where we going? And yes, I would think it would be common sense. Then again, stating that the DOW wants to cut back on the pressure applied to the herd and then re-instating the "bonus weekend" is not. Call me crazy...
Yea, that's a tough point to argue. Time will tell. We typically killed 15-20k deer during the bonus gun weekend. It'll be interesting to see how the proportion of anterless harvests changes next season without the option of $15 tags. Will that expected decrease in anterless harvest be negated by the reinstatement of bonus gun? We'll see.
Hortontoter
Senior Member
I couldn't agree more. $9 don't buy much today. I don't see that stopping anyone from shooting a doe. Especially a meat hunter.
If most hunters shoot only one deer, why not have a one deer limit per year.
If most hunters shoot only one deer, why not have a one deer limit per year.
One deer per hunter won't kill enough deer in the DOW minds. They only want a reduced herd numbers and that takes max kills.
Let me back this train up and slow it down a little and see if this clears up anything.
1) I don't believe Crawford County should be a 3 deer county. My comparison to Richland County is only to show that I don't understand how the DOW can put these counties into the same category. I hunt and live in Crawford and have driven all over this county for years and work mainly in Richland County that has me driving all over that county. Let me also add in Ashland,Wayne,Holmes, and Knox counties as I have spent many hours over the past 3 years driving there as well. I have seen 3-4x the amount of deer in Richland,Ashland,Wayne,Holmes and Knox counties then in Crawford so, it makes no sense to me that the DOW would be setting bag limits off of deer density and have these counties ranked the same. I would also venture to say Richland has a higher hunter density then Crawford does so, again, it makes no sense to me to have them with the same bag limits. I thought this new county by county thing was being setup to stop this kind of thing from happening.
2) I could give a rats behind what the printed bag limit is. On a personal level, I have never killed more then 1 deer a year since I started deer hunting. Make it 50 for all I care, it wouldn't change the way I hunt or the amount of deer I harvest a year. The thing that does matter about the bag limits is that there are people out there that will and do fill every tag they have available for whatever reason and granted it is a very small percentage of hunters. There are also many nonhunters and hunters out there that believe that since the DOW says we can kill x amount of deer that there must be an abundance of deer running around and that there is one behind every tree. Us hunters that have been hunting for years know better and many, myself included, that have noticed a decline in the recent years. There are many reasons why the DOW will never drop the printed bag limits back to only 1 deer. They are BSing the FB, Insurance, and hunters all in one fell swoop. They can show the FB and Insurance that they are giving the hunters the opportunity to kill 6,9,18 deer a year. At the same time that gives hunters especially new deer hunters or people that are thinking about starting deer hunting a false sense that there are a great number of deer out there and that it's easy to kill one or 6,9,or 18 deer. Again, we know better and know that it's just not that easy and this is where I get the false advertisement from. This again goes back to what I was saying about lumping counties like Richland and Crawford together in the printed bag limits. You take a county that harvests around 3k deer a year and then a county that only harvests just over 1k deer a year and put them at the same amount of tags and it makes it look to new hunters or hunters that have never hunted either county and don't bother to look at past yearly harvest numbers the sense that both counties hold the same amount of deer because you can kill the same amount in either county. We know that's not true but as Tonk said, most hunters aren't smart enough to figure that out. For crying out loud, How many people shot bucks the last 2 years during the doe only early muzzy season? I am surprised by the amount of hunters that don't bother to read the reg book or if they do read it they don't follow up on something they don't fully understand. They just go out there and follow the bag limits, weapon used, and dates.
1) I don't believe Crawford County should be a 3 deer county. My comparison to Richland County is only to show that I don't understand how the DOW can put these counties into the same category. I hunt and live in Crawford and have driven all over this county for years and work mainly in Richland County that has me driving all over that county. Let me also add in Ashland,Wayne,Holmes, and Knox counties as I have spent many hours over the past 3 years driving there as well. I have seen 3-4x the amount of deer in Richland,Ashland,Wayne,Holmes and Knox counties then in Crawford so, it makes no sense to me that the DOW would be setting bag limits off of deer density and have these counties ranked the same. I would also venture to say Richland has a higher hunter density then Crawford does so, again, it makes no sense to me to have them with the same bag limits. I thought this new county by county thing was being setup to stop this kind of thing from happening.
2) I could give a rats behind what the printed bag limit is. On a personal level, I have never killed more then 1 deer a year since I started deer hunting. Make it 50 for all I care, it wouldn't change the way I hunt or the amount of deer I harvest a year. The thing that does matter about the bag limits is that there are people out there that will and do fill every tag they have available for whatever reason and granted it is a very small percentage of hunters. There are also many nonhunters and hunters out there that believe that since the DOW says we can kill x amount of deer that there must be an abundance of deer running around and that there is one behind every tree. Us hunters that have been hunting for years know better and many, myself included, that have noticed a decline in the recent years. There are many reasons why the DOW will never drop the printed bag limits back to only 1 deer. They are BSing the FB, Insurance, and hunters all in one fell swoop. They can show the FB and Insurance that they are giving the hunters the opportunity to kill 6,9,18 deer a year. At the same time that gives hunters especially new deer hunters or people that are thinking about starting deer hunting a false sense that there are a great number of deer out there and that it's easy to kill one or 6,9,or 18 deer. Again, we know better and know that it's just not that easy and this is where I get the false advertisement from. This again goes back to what I was saying about lumping counties like Richland and Crawford together in the printed bag limits. You take a county that harvests around 3k deer a year and then a county that only harvests just over 1k deer a year and put them at the same amount of tags and it makes it look to new hunters or hunters that have never hunted either county and don't bother to look at past yearly harvest numbers the sense that both counties hold the same amount of deer because you can kill the same amount in either county. We know that's not true but as Tonk said, most hunters aren't smart enough to figure that out. For crying out loud, How many people shot bucks the last 2 years during the doe only early muzzy season? I am surprised by the amount of hunters that don't bother to read the reg book or if they do read it they don't follow up on something they don't fully understand. They just go out there and follow the bag limits, weapon used, and dates.
Hey! Those different tags are confusing. I know a guy who misinterpreted one year and was done buck hunting before gun season ever opened. Lmao
Joel
Senior Member
I'm not disagreeing but I don't think new hunters are looking over the County bag limits to try and determine deer density. Maybe I'm wrong.
From my limited knowledge it looks like ODNR is trying to level out or stabalize the deer population until you see that bonus gun weekend added again. That I think is going to mean a bigger harvest next season and from what I've seen of their news releases, they will probably say look there's still plenty of deer because even more were killed this time.
I think I've gained more knowledge of deer hunting on this forum than anywhere else and even though I do see plenty of deer around here I am probably going to only shoot one deer next season. Listening to everyone on here has opened my eyes a little and I'll do what I can to not shrink the population any more around here.
From my limited knowledge it looks like ODNR is trying to level out or stabalize the deer population until you see that bonus gun weekend added again. That I think is going to mean a bigger harvest next season and from what I've seen of their news releases, they will probably say look there's still plenty of deer because even more were killed this time.
I think I've gained more knowledge of deer hunting on this forum than anywhere else and even though I do see plenty of deer around here I am probably going to only shoot one deer next season. Listening to everyone on here has opened my eyes a little and I'll do what I can to not shrink the population any more around here.
Agreed.
Post script -
wow I screwed up that posting - sorry for the way it reads - but yeah, I agree with his comments.
I'll probably get bashed, but I was thinking (from a pro-repopulation standpoint), what about a season or two of buck-only harvests?
ODNR would never go for it, but what would you guys think?
Last edited:
Lumber head 75
Member
- 1,560
- 0
I would go for that, I think it would help. I would also go for no does after October for a couple of years. I can't believe nobody has mentioned when doe's are killed post rut a lot of them are pregnant. When we shoot a doe late season we likely kill 2 or 3 in one shot, just throwing that out there.
IMO it doesn't matter when in the season a doe is killed. Pregnant or not, your still taking out more than one deer with one shot.
Lumber head 75
Member
- 1,560
- 0
I think you guys are onto something now, regardless what the bag limits are we as hunters don't have to try to take that many. I am fortunate in my little farm in vinton county myself and my neighbors are all doing things to grow more and bigger deer. We do not shoot antler less deer period. I flew up from frorida after thanks giving and hunted with my son and son in law , I went home without a deer , could have shot a doe the first morning but passed.
Now I know everyone is not as fortunate as I am and they don't have their own land, but wether you hunt private with permission or lease or hunt public land no one is going to make you shoot antler less deer! One deer pee year for me would be enough anyway but if you are tight on money or have several kids that is a different story , but to just kill them because you can is part of the problem! There aren't a really lot of people on this forum but we can talk to our hunting friends and anyone who hunts and spread the word. Every doe that survives to breed has the potential for at least one or two and I have seen a doe with three all of those fawns won't be female so there will be bucks to hunt in the future and all of the does have the potential to breed the following year. Do the math this can and would make a difference in a few years
Now I know everyone is not as fortunate as I am and they don't have their own land, but wether you hunt private with permission or lease or hunt public land no one is going to make you shoot antler less deer! One deer pee year for me would be enough anyway but if you are tight on money or have several kids that is a different story , but to just kill them because you can is part of the problem! There aren't a really lot of people on this forum but we can talk to our hunting friends and anyone who hunts and spread the word. Every doe that survives to breed has the potential for at least one or two and I have seen a doe with three all of those fawns won't be female so there will be bucks to hunt in the future and all of the does have the potential to breed the following year. Do the math this can and would make a difference in a few years
Good point. I believe I read that it averages out to 1.7 fawns per doe per year over a large number of does. Then figure in fawn deaths and the numbers really add up overall. Not every fawn makes it to grow up to be a shooter.
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,585
- 127
What I really do not understand is why NR licenses are so cheap compared to other states surrounding us. If I wanted to hunt an invasive species (hogs) in NC or SC, I would pay $400 a day plus license fees. I swear there is a conspiracy with the state and farmers for the hunters from the south to lease all good hunting land in Ohio and completely push out us state hunters.
Bigcountry40
Member
- 4,585
- 127
I also think our state needs to go back to checking in tag system, instead of having hunters call in tags. I think there are people out there that kill 2 or 3 deer without tagging. The new system makes it very easy to cheat the system. I know poacher will always cheat, but I think even the more honest hunter sometimes take advantage of the new tagging system. "shoot a deer put a temp on it, get it home, bone it out and keep the tag"