Ohio Sportsman - Your Ohio Hunting and Fishing Resource banner
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Deer drives are great!!! Part of tradition. And should never be illegal.

Lundy. I understand that you want the deer #'s higher but I have three property's that I hunt often. All have high #'s. Tuesday a friend had 15 doe's under his stand. I have recent story's on the other 2 like this one.. I dont have a low Deer problem. So why should I be included in this. 3 separate counties.

I have an idea. People that have low Deer #'s don't hunt nevxt year. Manage your land. Problem solved. As Blackcat's idea goes, no state control. It's all on you guys. Do what you think should be done on your property's to bring up your #'s.

Blackcat, your idea has a grown a little on me...
 
Blackcat, how does your private land idea work out for the majority of hunters who hunt 100 acres or less? Maybe I'm not thinking of it in the right way but it would seem that the guy hunting 40 acres next to the 300 acres of farm owned by a guy who wants all the deer dead is going to be in sorry shape. 100 acres or less is just a fraction of a deer's home range. No way can someone make that amount of acreage attractive enough so that a deer stays on the property. Do I need to think this through differently?
 
Blackcat, how does your private land idea work out for the majority of hunters who hunt 100 acres or less? Maybe I'm not thinking of it in the right way but it would seem that the guy hunting 40 acres next to the 300 acres of farm owned by a guy who wants all the deer dead is going to be in sorry shape. 100 acres or less is just a fraction of a deer's home range. No way can someone make that amount of acreage attractive enough so that a deer stays on the property. Do I need to think this through differently?
The guy is going to put corn out and him and his buddy's are going to shoot the shi+ out of them. Since he rents the property he doesn't give a shi+.
 
Blackcat, how does your private land idea work out for the majority of hunters who hunt 100 acres or less?
Our little (55ac.) piece of paradise works just fine.

Maybe I'm not thinking of it in the right way but it would seem that the guy hunting 40 acres next to the 300 acres of farm owned by a guy who wants all the deer dead is going to be in sorry shape. 100 acres or less is just a fraction of a deer's home range.
Maybe I'm not presenting it the right way, although somehow you did glean the fact that I'm in "sorry shape." But that isn't my point.

We're located on the north side of a section of tilled, cash-crop fields. The 8 surrounding sections are identically arrayed, less homesteads and the occasional, small woodlot, usually on un-tillable ground (though that in itself is becoming a rare characteristic.) Fortunately, our little place has a ~35 acre wooded, year-round creek that runs its length. It's Highway 101 for deer. Our ~15 acre open field is in the CRP with warm- and cool-season grasses that would make Tom Bodett proud. Most years we have one, sometimes two, deer broods that hang around.

The landowners around us are anti-deer, goose, turkey and outsiders, to say nothing of most other winged or land-based creatures, though they like their cats...a lot. (I like them, too, but paper targets are so much easier to work with.)

100 acres or less is just a fraction of a deer's home range. No way can someone make that amount of acreage attractive enough so that a deer stays on the property.
You're right on your first point but our place is proof of the error in your second. We (family, friends) have taken deer every year that we've owned this place (1994) and the previous owners for several years prior.

Do I need to think this through differently?
The concept is easy to understand. It's the paradigm that is so difficult.
 
Once a landowner believes that they own and can fiddle unimpeded with the wildlife that uses their acreage....the wildlife begins to lose from the unpredictable nature of humans and choices.
But, the idea can work well for awhile in some scenarios with limits in place that aid the satisfaction along...ie Great Britain or patches of America.
It can also work well with the short span land ownership comparable to wildlife.
 
I would like to see us manage for better hunting for both quality and quantity on public land. Try buck only starting on Wednesday of gun season for the remainder of the season with a 4 pt one side restriction. We need to look at doing something for our public land. The experience of hunting a small private parcel doesn't compare to 1000s of acres of public to hunt and explore. When guys are camped out on their small parcels and choosing not to hunt the public there is reasons the state needs to consider. I just want to be able to take my kids camping somewhere they can hunt and explore and experience good hunting. The picking a new area and going part always was enjoyable for me. Public land access and wildlife management plays a huge part in hunter recruitment for the future. I guess my "deer camp" experiences came on public land, I don't see or hear of big deer camps on private land much anymore. At least I'm not invited lol big deer camps were responsible for a lot of new hunters. That was the tradition I experienced. One big camp I was invited to many years ago that occurred every year on a big state forest no longer goes due to hunting quality. That's what I don't want to continue to happen.
 
Our little (55ac.) piece of paradise works just fine.

Maybe I'm not presenting it the right way, although somehow you did glean the fact that I'm in "sorry shape." But that isn't my point.

We're located on the north side of a section of tilled, cash-crop fields. The 8 surrounding sections are identically arrayed, less homesteads and the occasional, small woodlot, usually on un-tillable ground (though that in itself is becoming a rare characteristic.) Fortunately, our little place has a ~35 acre wooded, year-round creek that runs its length. It's Highway 101 for deer. Our ~15 acre open field is in the CRP with warm- and cool-season grasses that would make Tom Bodett proud. Most years we have one, sometimes two, deer broods that hang around.

The landowners around us are anti-deer, goose, turkey and outsiders, to say nothing of most other winged or land-based creatures, though they like their cats...a lot. (I like them, too, but paper targets are so much easier to work with.)

You're right on your first point but our place is proof of the error in your second. We (family, friends) have taken deer every year that we've owned this place (1994) and the previous owners for several years prior.

The concept is easy to understand. It's the paradigm that is so difficult.
And you could easily wipe out the population in a hurry with your 55 acre paradise. Same that I could with my 6.4 acres as I own a chunk of highway. I wonder how anyone else on this highway would think of that...
 
They aren't making land anymore, it is a well defined and limited resource. The vast majority (94%+)is privately owned and the owners control access as they should.

There is always a common theme of having the state purchase more public lands. There isn't enough money or lands available to purchase to significantly increase public lands.

The other outcry is the difficulty in obtaining access to private land. Much of this restricted access can be directly attributed to the hunters lack of respect for private property and a changing culture over time. Many landowners now elect to lease their property for hunting to create a financial offset of some of the costs of property ownership and to provide a piece of mind about who is on their property and how they are treating their land.

Owning property is not inexpensive, from taxes to upkeep it is a lot of money. What incentive (changing culture) does a landowner have today to provide access to anyone to utilize his property? Leasing is a win win for the landowner and makes perfect sense today. So how do we curb the ever increasing access concerns to private property for recreation? I would like to see a plan that provides tax reduction incentives or even compensation from the state of federal funds for public access to private lands. The federal government has been paying land owners for CRP for years, why not compensate them for use of their private lands to the public for hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, camping, whatever. This would be less costly than the state purchasing and maintaining property and provides a real reason for farmer Joe to grant access to his lands.

The land owner would have to hit a minimum threshold of access to qualify and would still maintain the right of refusal to any hunter or group of hunters. I know there are some here that I would never want hunting on my land and the owner should always maintain that right or refusal.

The land is there, there is no reason to let anyone have access (free) today, thus the growth in leasing. Lets provide an access incentive that would expand public access and reduce the growth of leasing and the current reduction of access.

I don't think a landowner leases his property because he really likes the leaser, he does it to offset his cost of ownership. It is not the 60's or 70's anymore, the culture has changed, not just with hunter access but every facet of our lives. change with it and adapt or spend the rest of your time whining about how it has changed.

A special private land access permit needs to be established with a higher cost to fund the landowner compensation plan and access can only be granted to participating lands to those that purchase the permit. Farmer Joe enrolls in land access program, Tom and Bob show up and want to hunt but haven't purchased the private land access permit, farmer Joe sends them away. Susie shows up and want to hunt and has the permit and he grants access.
 
Deer drives are great!!! Part of tradition. And should never be illegal.

Lundy. I understand that you want the deer #'s higher but I have three property's that I hunt often. All have high #'s. Tuesday a friend had 15 doe's under his stand. I have recent story's on the other 2 like this one.. I dont have a low Deer problem. So why should I be included in this. 3 separate counties.

I...
No, no, no, not separate counties, 3 separate permits defined by weapon and season.

And I have no deer shortage where I hunt, not as many as years past but plenty running around.

I realize deer drives are tradition that is why I would apply a maximum to the number of participants when I would really like to see them all eliminated.
 
Discussion starter · #52 ·
There is an exemptions for some land owners that can use the computer, but the ones who aren't can only call in or go to a check station.

And yes, I stand corrected, muzzleloader season is for four days, but that still don't change the question why the DNR acts like they are so afraid to allow more days for it...Again, the bag limits stay the same.

And the other one I have problem with is checking deer on the last day before 11:30 at night on the last day of deer season....why dan't you check it in by noon the next day considering many have show the deer in late evening and never retrieved or found the deer until the next morning?
 
There is an exemptions for some land owners that can use the computer, but the ones who aren't can only call in or go to a check station.

And yes, I stand corrected, muzzleloader season is for four days, but that still don't change the question why the DNR acts like they are so afraid to allow more days for it...Again, the bag limits stay the same.

And the other one I have problem with is checking deer on the last day before 11:30 at night on the last day of deer season....why dan't you check it in by noon the next day considering many have show the deer in late evening and never retrieved or found the deer until the next morning?
It is both the limit and the opportunity to meet that limit that matter. Just because there is say a four deer limit in an area does not mean I have killed four deer by the end of the season. Give me more days with a gun and you increase my chances of filling all four tags.
 
Hands are still thrown up by many- years of "needing to change things" have gone on deaf ears........no one is listening..............hope for the best and look for greener "pastures" folks......
 
Discussion starter · #55 ·
It is both the limit and the opportunity to meet that limit that matter. Just because there is say a four deer limit in an area does not mean I have killed four deer by the end of the season. Give me more days with a gun and you increase my chances of filling all four tags.
So what, wth is the point of a bag LIMIT then?.....And most people I know very seldom ever try to fill the bag limits.well, before our counties were TWO.....they just usually get the meat they will or can use....
 
If limits were achieved on a regular basis by even a small percentage of hunters or fisherman the limits would need to be reduced substantially for most lands and waters.

The ODNR does not expect, nor want, the masses to get their limits every time they go hunting or fishing. Only 33% o deer hunters are successful. If that number was 60% the limits and opportunity would have to change

Example, take the number of deer hunters and multiply by the available limits and you get a number that is many many fold greater than there are deer in the state.

Controlling harvest is a combination of establishing limits and controlling opportunity.
 
Discussion starter · #57 ·
Where do you get this crap? This is why the state went from region / districts to county bag limits to better target areas to reduce the ACTUAL BAG LIMIT....Sure, not everyone tags out or, even fills a tag, but that doesn't mean the DNR is basing the actually bag limits on what they didn't want...If they did, they would lower the bag limit even more or raise it.....There is no logic to that what so ever.....

You control the herd by actual limits, not what you think MIGHT HAPPEN. Example: the state just authorized all hunters to kill more than what the state is intended for good managment, if that is the case then there are way more problems in the ODNR than I thought....smh

If limits were achieved on a regular basis by even a small percentage of hunters or fisherman the limits would need to be reduced substantially for most lands and waters.

The ODNR does not expect, nor want, the masses to get their limits every time they go hunting or fishing. Only 33% o deer hunters are successful. If that number was 60% the limits and opportunity would have to change

Example, take the number of deer hunters and multiply by the available limits and you get a number that is many many fold greater than there are deer in the state.

Controlling harvest is a combination of establishing limits and controlling opportunity.
 
So-called bag limits, of whatever time span, are probably more a factor as regards affecting deer populations than with other species....basically because of the nature and attitude of the hunters involved....and, why a hunter is hunting.
All species are simply not hunted to fill a freezer..... game reduced to food is respected, eaten and appreciated but more is often involved, past deer, than food on the table for the fam.

Beyond that, established bag limits are important for poaching ring convictions.
 
And you could easily wipe out the population in a hurry with your 55 acre paradise...
You may be assuming that our parcel has a significant impact on the combined habitat in which the deer that we see live. It would take a deliberate effort to "wipe out the population" and even that would only be temporary.

The deer that we see and shoot on our parcel are comprised of those that include our parcel within their home range; a variable whose size is between less than one to several square miles.

Did I mention the anti-any-grain-or-legume-consuming-animal crowd that lives and farms around here? They have tried to "wipe out the population" even with ODOW's mollifying support. I say "mollifying" because ODOW freely hands out damage permits to reduce the deer numbers in this township, then turns around and buys up more public accessible prime habitat in the same area that positively produces more deer.

Without a deliberate, collective effort, "wiping out the population" on this parcel or those within the surrounding sections ain't gonna happen because: (1) The deer adapt to the shooting pressure easily enough. Our farmers are getting older and won't/can't walk across their fields, so the deer skedaddle day or night at the sound of an ATV with a gun rack; (2) Migrate to an area where there is no or less shooting pressure. Plenty of year-round or seasonal sanctuaries in the township; or, (3) Die, and some do, but probably as many by vehicle as by damage permit around here.

I don't have real data to back up my anecdotal statements, but I'm sure we've all paid someone or some group to study this stuff; we've paid for a lot less important cra...information. Perhaps one of you techno-geeks can find some.
 
Our little (55ac.) piece of paradise works just fine.

Maybe I'm not presenting it the right way, although somehow you did glean the fact that I'm in "sorry shape." But that isn't my point.

We're located on the north side of a section of tilled, cash-crop fields. The 8 surrounding sections are identically arrayed, less homesteads and the occasional, small woodlot, usually on un-tillable ground (though that in itself is becoming a rare characteristic.) Fortunately, our little place has a ~35 acre wooded, year-round creek that runs its length. It's Highway 101 for deer. Our ~15 acre open field is in the CRP with warm- and cool-season grasses that would make Tom Bodett proud. Most years we have one, sometimes two, deer broods that hang around.

The landowners around us are anti-deer, goose, turkey and outsiders, to say nothing of most other winged or land-based creatures, though they like their cats...a lot. (I like them, too, but paper targets are so much easier to work with.)

You're right on your first point but our place is proof of the error in your second. We (family, friends) have taken deer every year that we've owned this place (1994) and the previous owners for several years prior.

The concept is easy to understand. It's the paradigm that is so difficult.
So you are saying that if the landowners surrounding you could do anything they wanted to eliminate deer from their property, that you would still have good hunting on yours? Deer may love your property and it may have everything they need, but I bet they sneak over to your neighbors' farms and eat crops all the time. Once they leave your land, they are fair game. No bag limits, hunt with rifles at night, anything, right?
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top