Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Proxy hunting/fishing

giles

Village idiot and local whore
Supporting Member
26,936
22,916
171
In a bar
#1
I’ve lived in other states that this was a thing. I never really gave it much thought until today when it hit me that dad won’t be able to go get his own meat this year. It sure would be nice if someone was able to take his license and go get it for him.

Doing some searching online, I couldn’t find that this has been brought up here in Ohio. How do you guys feel about it? Do you think it’s worth pushing ODNR? We know it happens already, why not make it legal?

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=805
 

Chass

Active Member
2,177
1,204
52
The Hills
#2
They could just give you the cash to buy a permit. Cant you kill like 6 deer now?
The thing I don't like about this is it will take up resources for the extra processes. So you have admins creating the entire process. Then wardens running checks and more leg work. And since were taking about the government, they're gonna try as hard as they can to use the resources they already have so somewhere else man hours and resources are getting skimped.
Easier to have whoever pay for your tag, and then you can donate the meat if you are successful.
 

giles

Village idiot and local whore
Supporting Member
26,936
22,916
171
In a bar
#3
They could just give you the cash to buy a permit. Cant you kill like 6 deer now?
The thing I don't like about this is it will take up resources for the extra processes. So you have admins creating the entire process. Then wardens running checks and more leg work. And since were taking about the government, they're gonna try as hard as they can to use the resources they already have so somewhere else man hours and resources are getting skimped.
Easier to have whoever pay for your tag, and then you can donate the meat if you are successful.
If one was to travel. But let’s say I hunt a 2 deer county and I take a doe for myself. If I take another, I’m done hunting that place.
 

Chass

Active Member
2,177
1,204
52
The Hills
#4
I'm sure they have thought about it. At the end of the day it's all about the cost to implement the process which is steep because that means new laws, new forms, altered systems, and then the cost of enforcement. Divide this by the amount of people that would use this new system and you get your cost per participant which I'm guessing is quite high.
Not saying you have a bad idea. Just feel that the state would tell ya drive yer happy ass to the next zone if you want another deer.
Theres also the presumption that most that would benefit from this would rack em up on the families back 40 instead of expanding their hunting grounds to not over harvest as that's the easiest. Till theres nothing left on the back 40. Cause at the end of the day those zone limits are there for a reason, whether good or bad it creates a loophole.
 

giles

Village idiot and local whore
Supporting Member
26,936
22,916
171
In a bar
#6
I'm sure they have thought about it. At the end of the day it's all about the cost to implement the process which is steep because that means new laws, new forms, altered systems, and then the cost of enforcement. Divide this by the amount of people that would use this new system and you get your cost per participant which I'm guessing is quite high.
Not saying you have a bad idea. Just feel that the state would tell ya drive yer happy ass to the next zone if you want another deer.
Theres also the presumption that most that would benefit from this would rack em up on the families back 40 instead of expanding their hunting grounds to not over harvest as that's the easiest. Till theres nothing left on the back 40. Cause at the end of the day those zone limits are there for a reason, whether good or bad it creates a loophole.
Nah, because more deer were killed with multiple people hunting the same land. Now less people are hunting it because that’s the way the sport is working. The older generation is getting out of the game. This would keep those guys buying tags and such.
 

giles

Village idiot and local whore
Supporting Member
26,936
22,916
171
In a bar
#7
I like it for your old man, but not as a state policy. It's something else to be administered and abused. I'd rather it be "rural law" and a community taking care of one of their own.
I agree, but how would you draw the line? What are we gonna do when we get old and can’t make it happen anymore? Are we going to beg for meat? Expect our kids to possibly do something illegal. I feel like this is something this generation can change.
 

bowhunter1023

Administrator
Staff member
43,361
12,664
205
Appalachia
#8
Yes, when I'm too old and/or feeble to hunt, I'll beg for meat. That's if I don't need helping getting dressed and wiping my ass, too. I foresee many other things that'll concern me at that state of being than access to venison.

We have mechanisms in place to "gift" meat currently, so we have the power to pay it forward should we choose. I don't like the idea of people hunting just to give away meat, certainly not as a state-supported program; and I'm not fond of the "killers for hire" side of the coin either. I like the line where it is: you hunt, you kill, you do so from a predetermined allotment of tags, then you do with the meat as you see fit within those confines.
 

Chass

Active Member
2,177
1,204
52
The Hills
#9
Nah, because more deer were killed with multiple people hunting the same land. Now less people are hunting it because that’s the way the sport is working. The older generation is getting out of the game. This would keep those guys buying tags and such.
Were killed, not are killed now. They cant control how many people you allow onto your ground to hunt and harvest, they can only control how many each person harvests and hopes the landowner manages their property responsibly.
With the argument of "we can just bring more hunters in to harvest more" that is exactly what could be done and one of the additional hunters can harvest for whomever.
The cost unfortunately outweighs the benefit before we even look at the negative side of the change.
I'm 100% positive though that if anyone here had a family member in need of venison they would find themselves a shooter if they also had land available. I get asked at least once a year but they never have land to hunt on.
I don't see this as being nearly as bad, but it's too similar to crop damage permits for me. Had too many awesome hunting grounds decimated because of that. Therefore I just dont like increasing the bag limit per hunter in the same zone. Zone hop and you're golden.
 
Likes: giles
#10
Personally I don't really see the need since there are so many available tags now a days, so it isn't that hard to kill a deer and give to someone.

From what I have been seeing I think next year possibly in Ohio there will be management areas with only a certain allotment of tags per area instead of having bag limits. Based upon what I have read it will be similar to what we have in PA.