# Ohio Deer Management Stakeholders Group



## bawana

I have been selected to represent social media groups on this panel. At this time I don't know much more than what the enclosed press release states. I have joined your site so I can keep you updated on the progress of this group and to relay your thoughts and feelings about the topics we will be covering.
Brent




7:00AM TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2017
The ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) has formed a Deer Management Stakeholder Organization that will be tasked with helping them develop Ohio’s 10-year deer management plan.

The list of organizations includes many of the most interested parties that are able to provide meaningful input regarding Ohio deer management recommendations.

A series of 5 quarterly meetings, taking place from May, 2017 until May, 2018 will take the place of the poorly-attended deer summits that were offered over the past 3 years.

One representative will be supplied from each group, which currently includes (in alphabetical order):

Buckeye Big Buck Club, Buckeye Firearms Association, League of Ohio Sportsmen, Ohio Bowhunters Association, Ohio Conservation Federation, Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio Forestry Association, Ohio Senate, Ohio Wildlife Council, Quality Deer Management Association, *Social Media*, The Nature Conservancy (Ohio), The Ohio State University Extension, The Outdoor Writers of Ohio, The Whitetail Deer Farmers of Ohio and Whitetails Unlimited.

Dr. Doug Dessette, an applied decision research specialist from The Ohio State University’s School of Environmental and Natural Resources will moderate the sessions. DOW biologists and administrators will play a technical role in the background to provide expertise when called upon by the committee to do so.

Planned topics of discussion will include timing of seasons, deer population goals with respect to their own historical perspectives, interests, but by maintaining a solid foundation of science-based management.

Sportsmen can still make their opinions and preferences known about Ohio’s fish and wildlife management, including our deer population and hunting seasons by attending the annual open houses, offered at each of the DOW District offices on Saturday March 4, 2017.


----------



## Lewzer

Thanks. It always good to have informed people posting what going on around the state.


----------



## bobk

Brent, did you attend the open house? If so how was the attendance?


----------



## bawana

Yes I attended the District 3 open house. I was there for about an hour and a half, there were probably about 20 sportsman there with about 10-15 DOW employeees.


----------



## bobk

So what's your gut feeling on how the group will help the odnr/ deer herd. Not much chatter on the subject here. Plenty of reading on other sites about it. 
Look forward to your updates from the meetings.


----------



## bawana

Right now I'm not sure. My take on the Stateholders group is that while we will make recommendations on various issues. The Ohio Wildlife Council will still have the final say on how the recommendations are applied. I do belief that if we have a topic and the vote is 17-3 in favor of the proposal, the OWC will be much more likely to agree with it as compared to a 11-9 vote. I also think we will be getting an education on Deer Management. While many of us have some ideas on the topic, I think we will hear "the rest of the story" as to how and why a lot of the management practices have been established in Ohio. And finally until I actually start attending the meeting much of this is just speculation on my part. The old hurry up and wait!


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

bawana said:


> I have been selected to represent social media groups on this panel. At this time I don't know much more than what the enclosed press release states. I have joined your site so I can keep you updated on the progress of this group and to relay your thoughts and feelings about the topics we will be covering.
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7:00AM TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2017
> The ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) has formed a Deer Management Stakeholder Organization that will be tasked with helping them develop Ohio’s 10-year deer management plan.
> 
> The list of organizations includes many of the most interested parties that are able to provide meaningful input regarding Ohio deer management recommendations.
> 
> A series of 5 quarterly meetings, taking place from May, 2017 until May, 2018 will take the place of the poorly-attended deer summits that were offered over the past 3 years.
> 
> One representative will be supplied from each group, which currently includes (in alphabetical order):
> 
> Buckeye Big Buck Club, Buckeye Firearms Association, League of Ohio Sportsmen, Ohio Bowhunters Association, Ohio Conservation Federation, Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio Forestry Association, Ohio Senate, Ohio Wildlife Council, Quality Deer Management Association, *Social Media*, The Nature Conservancy (Ohio), The Ohio State University Extension, The Outdoor Writers of Ohio, The Whitetail Deer Farmers of Ohio and Whitetails Unlimited.
> 
> Dr. Doug Dessette, an applied decision research specialist from The Ohio State University’s School of Environmental and Natural Resources will moderate the sessions. DOW biologists and administrators will play a technical role in the background to provide expertise when called upon by the committee to do so.
> 
> Planned topics of discussion will include timing of seasons, deer population goals with respect to their own historical perspectives, interests, but by maintaining a solid foundation of science-based management.
> 
> Sportsmen can still make their opinions and preferences known about Ohio’s fish and wildlife management, including our deer population and hunting seasons by attending the annual open houses, offered at each of the DOW District offices on Saturday March 4, 2017.


Hey Bawana, did you have your May meeting and if so any news to share?


----------



## bawana

I was there! Not much to share, This was basically a set the ground rules and decide what needed covered. All the topics near and dear to our hearts will be covered from public lands to bag limits to just about anything else involving deer in Ohio. There will be a post on the DOW website around the end of the month that will spell things out.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Thanks for taking the time to respond Banana. I have high hopes for your group! Keep us posted.


----------



## bawana

Here you go! Here is the summary of our first session. As a group we had Doug write the summary so there were not twenty one different versions out there. Pretty lengthy and wordy so grab a BIG cup of coffee and plow through it and then fire away with the questions.

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/pdfs/species and habitats/stakeholder/Workshop 1 Summary.pdf


----------



## 1977 walleye guy

I don't wish to assume so:
Would the goal of smaller DMU's be to better tune the management practice of the given area?
I believe this would be a welcomed improvement, imo for some of the areas I hunt.


----------



## OutdoorMediaCo

1977 walleye guy said:


> I don't wish to assume so:
> Would the goal of smaller DMU's be to better tune the management practice of the given area?
> I believe this would be a welcomed improvement, imo for some of the areas I hunt.


When we went from zones to counties it made it easier to take more deer from a smaller area. I used to shoot my 1 in western Ohio and had to drive to hunt for a second. They could use it as a positive but raising the state limit to 6-9 sent the message what the goal of going from zones to counties was.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

OutdoorMediaCo said:


> When we went from zones to counties it made it easier to take more deer from a smaller area. I used to shoot my 1 in western Ohio and had to drive to hunt for a second. They could use it as a positive but raising the state limit to 6-9 sent the message what the goal of going from zones to counties was.


Good point. My fear all along when they talked of management units was that they would be used only to further cull the herd.


----------



## 1977 walleye guy

I personally would like to see the limits reduced in certain areas as they have had a significant decline in numbers. I would think with smaller DMU's, one could fine tune the bag limits for that given area.


----------



## bawana

I agree that the smaller units would provide for better management, and not necessarily killing more deer. Second session is in the books. It's now my turn to start throwing some questions at you.
For starters.......How would you describe the tradition of hunting? As much as possible try to describe it from a deer hunting point of view.


----------



## Tyler8866

Tradition of hunting is in the eyes of the Hunter their selfs. I know a Lot of people who traditionally hunt and people who use all the technology... my self I like doing both as I do use trail cams and cover sents. Unfortunately with work and kids I can't spend as much time in the woods as I would like. I do look for heavy trails and that's were I put my cams I'm not a trophy hunter by any means just seeing what's there. I believe food plots are nice to have if you have time to manage them.. they give all animals a variety of things to eat. I shoot a compound bow because I thinks it's more of a challenge then a cross bow.. and trust me I've had hunts where I wish I had a cross bow because some deer wouldn't have got away. But with this said everyone has their own way of hunting tech equipment and if it works for u keep it up..


----------



## bawana

As a deer hunter what is your greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in Ohio?


----------



## Tyler8866

Being able to teach youth the sport and the benefits of harvesting these incredible animals. You no what it eats and it's not filled with a bunch of crap the government says u have to feed it... we need to start with the parents and getting the kids off the video games and showing them the benefits of nature


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

bawana said:


> As a deer hunter what is your greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in Ohio?


Potential loss of AEP ands and over harvest on traditional public lands such as Wayne National areas. Without access and deer on the areas you can access you cannot keep current hunters nor draw in the youth.


----------



## crittergitter

bawana said:


> As a deer hunter what is your greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in Ohio?


1. Lack of trust of the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
2. Lack of respect from the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
3. Lack of transparency from the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
4. Lack of access to sustainable populations of deer. To be specific, where there is a high level of access (public land) there is a low population of deer and where there is a low level of access (private land) there is a high population of deer. Farmers, well the Ohio Farm Bureau, wants the herd reduced. We know this. It was printed and publicized. Yet, they don't want them killed on their land. We know this. ODNR tried with the Farmer/Hunter access program on the website. So little volume of farmers signed up that they had to cancel the program. Thus, farmers want deer killed on public land which drives up leasing prices.


----------



## Tyler8866

Irresponsible hunters is y lots of land owners will not give out permission. People have no respect for land or for land owners afraid of getting fines and so on if someone gets hurt on their land. That's how the world works today... just so many immature people out there anymore.


----------



## FAB

Like many of the sports I enjoyed as a young boy, I have seen deer hunting greatly impacted by commercialization. Companies now find it all too rewarding to lease thousands of acres of prime hunting land and then turn around and use it to provide guided hunts to "Sportsmen" willing to pay thousands of dollars to kill an animal and sometimes sadly a certain animal. I don't understand the DNR concept that you can be required to pay to harvest a deer but once the deer is dead you can not sell it. What was the first transaction if not a sale of the animal. So very sadly, deer hunting has gone from a time honored family tradition to a highly commercial business that prevents the neighboring farm kid from hunting along side his brother on the farms that he many times has helped till all spring and summer.


----------



## bobk

Fab,Why would you want to sell the deer? Deer should be killed to eat not sell. If selling your kill was part of the equation the herd would even be in worse shape wouldn't it? Slobs would be out killing deer like crazy if they could sell them. 
You're paying to hunt the deer is how I look at it. Not paying to harvest it.


----------



## FAB

bobk said:


> Fab,Why would you want to sell the deer? Deer should be killed to eat not sell. If selling your kill was part of the equation the herd would even be in worse shape wouldn't it? Slobs would be out killing deer like crazy if they could sell them.
> You're paying to hunt the deer is how I look at it. Not paying to harvest it.[/QUOTE
> 
> Bob, I would never think of selling anything I take from hunting fishing or just plain old apple picking. My Point was that I feel that allowing outfitters to charge to kill a deer that they have patterned and enticed over a food plot all year is no less an offense against the sport than the person that as you point out kills the deer and turns around and sells it. It is I suppose my old school way of doing things. You go to the woods and take you chances. I guess that's why I hunt exclusively on public land even though I have 128 heavily wooded acres in Muskingum county at my disposal. And you are probably right the fee to the outfitter is to provide you the opportunity to kill a deer still don't like it, just my "Hard headed Old Fart ways". Don't worry you and I are sitting in the same pew when it comes to selling game. I have and still do give all but a couple of pound of burger for myself to people that I know that don't have the money to buy what the few pounds of venison can provide to their children.


----------



## bobk

Ok, I see where you're coming from now with the outfitters side of things. I missed that part earlier. I too don't like how commercialized deer hunting has become. 
I'm very glad I listened to my dad many years ago when he stressed to me how important it was to own land. At some point it will be next to impossible to have private land to hunt the way it's being leased up. Sad to watch.


----------



## OutdoorMediaCo

crittergitter said:


> 1. Lack of trust of the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
> 2. Lack of respect from the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
> 3. Lack of transparency from the people managing Ohio's deer herd.
> 4. Lack of access to sustainable populations of deer. To be specific, where there is a high level of access (public land) there is a low population of deer and where there is a low level of access (private land) there is a high population of deer. Farmers, well the Ohio Farm Bureau, wants the herd reduced. We know this. It was printed and publicized. Yet, they don't want them killed on their land. We know this. ODNR tried with the Farmer/Hunter access program on the website. So little volume of farmers signed up that they had to cancel the program. Thus, farmers want deer killed on public land which drives up leasing prices.


Spot on.


----------



## RMK

bawana said:


> As a deer hunter what is your greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in Ohio?


my greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in ohio is deer numbers getting any lower than they have already been brought down too. even with the skewed numbers and excuses given, harvest numbers have been on a steady decline. its hard to get more young hunters involved in hunting when the chance of seeing a deer, let alone shooting a deer has been decreased to such a low level. too many deer were taken in my area a few years ago and i have suffered from that for the past 3 years as far as deer numbers and deer sightings. i feel the bag limits are still to high and dont feel there is going to be a change made for the better anytime soon. time to decrease bag limits, allow the heard to rebound, and secure a future population of deer.


----------



## bawana

Here we go! Just back from our last session, I'm going to put a little background into where we are at. 
First we have 5 fundamental objectives. While they are numbered 1-5 they are each equally important.
1. Minimize landowner dissatisfaction
2. Maximize hunter satisfaction
3. Maintain a healthy deer herd
4. Improve communication (develop relationships)
5. Preserve traditions

With these objectives in mind Thursday was our day to listen and comment on various proposals from the Division Staff on various tools that can help them manage our deer herd. Basically we were considering what would help them build a better tool box of options. 
Here are the options we considered, once again in no particular order.

1. Deer Management Units (DMU) 
Pretty much a no brainer, it will allow the biologists to group like areas (habitat and deer densities) together. These units would be divided by physical barriers like roads and rivers and will do away with the county boundaries. This idea was shot down for political reason about three years ago, looks like it will not have any opposition this time. Expected to divide the state into 20+ DMU's.

2. Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP)
This program would be geared towards landowners who do have problems with deer damage or at least high populations of deer. This could be an area within a DMU, the DMU may limit harvest to one deer, but this may be a property with a lot of deer on it. After consultations and visits with a deer biologist/private lands biologists, the state could issue additional tags to the landowner with some restrictions. Antlerless tags only. Tags would only be good in season, and landowner could allocate tags to whomever he wants, but must keep records on the tags.

3. Antlerless permit allocations
This would go hand in hand with the DMU's. This would allow the division to issue a set number of antlerless permits for each DMU. The example we received here was Holmes County, Aerial surveys showed an extremely low deer population in eastern Holmes County, <5 deer/sq mile. western Holmes had some surveys over 25 deer/Sq mile.
A few points to remember: Everyone will still have one either sex permit that can be used anywhere. There will be some areas where the antlerless allocations may be oversubscribed, meaning you won't get any extra tags. Couple questions we had, Should people within those areas have first chance at those permits? Area of concern with understanding the areas and needing two or three or even more tags if you hunt several different areas.

4. Landowner Permits
Two major concerns with the current system. Number of landowner harvest vs actual landowners in the counties really doesn't match up. And there is no way of knowing just how many landowner hunters we actually have. They can take the overall percent success ratio and work that backwards, but it's still at best a calculated guess. If they want the Antlerless permits to work this would be a big help in determining numbers.

5. Separate Regulations for public land
Recent surveys have not been clear on this one. One question was do you want it managed differently that public, about 65% said yes, when asked about the changes less than 50% wanted any changes. Even with that in mind there will be changes coming. Several options to consider: 1) Limit either sex days 2) reduce bag limits 3) Limited or no antlerless permits 4) Season restricions.
Additionally there will be differences between public lands, 350 acre Public Hunting area versus larger areas, state forests and the Wayne national forest.
And something that was pretty much agreed upon was habitat improvement plans on a lot of the areas.

6. Outfitter Licensing 
Yes something will be coming on this.

7. Other states strategies
Earn a Buck
Conditional Seasons
Season specific bag limits/licenses
Permit Bundles

Each of these were considered, but at best got lukewarm responses. No one seemed to excited about earn a buck, conditional seasons means if we don't kill "X" number of deer, they will extend the season.
Season specific would mean you would have to buy separate licenses for each season you participate in....Bow, Gun, Muzzleloader.
Permit bundles would allow you to buy all the licenses at once.

That pretty much finished up the Thursday session, or at least the formal session. We continued talking about these topics after dinner until about 8-9 o'clock. When I say "we" I mean everyone. The division staff stays with us and offers to answer any questions that we have.


Enough for now! Fire away, I'll wait and post Fridays Topics in a few days, it was on a different direction than Thursdays.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Great info Banana! Thank you for taking part and sharing. Does my heart good to see public land issues being at least discussed.


----------



## buckeyebowman

It distresses me to see the ODNR use this method to introduce "revenue enhancement"! Separate tags for each mode of hunting?

This is exactly what PA does, nickel and dime you to death! Their base license package is not bad. You get your basic license, "buck" tag, and Fall and Spring turkey permits for like $106. This is the non-res rate, BTW. If you want an antlerless permit you send in for a drawing. Want to hunt muzzleloader? Another tag. Want to hunt archery? Another tag!

Heck, they've even introduced a "pheasant stamp", and now charge you 6 bucks for the regs booklet! You pay for it when buying your license, and they mail it to you!

Of course we haven't seen a price list yet. For PA residents pay less than a third for permits as compared to non-res. For many it's $6.90 vs $26.90!

I kind of like the idea of Wildlife Management units, but "earn a buck" is a flat no go with me! This was an idea that came out of Wisconsin, I believe, when they had way too many doe! I don't believe that's a problem many of us have these days.


----------



## bawana

The out of state options were just discussed, there was no movement or support for any of them.


----------



## buckeyebowman

That's good. Hope you guys hold your ground, and thank you for your efforts and your posts here.


----------



## Saugernut

Sick and tired of out of state "outfitters"
What a joke, get big "ohio" deer on camera mostly at night mind you all the while using bait and people flock to the state and pay stupid amounts of money to hunt mostly nocturnal deer.
Trail cameras have been one of the biggest problems facing resident deer hunters and have lead to the influx of the problem we have with the pay to play, got more money than brains guys coming here year after year to see maybe a couple of does or a small buck that will settle so they don't travel all that way to go home empty handed.


----------



## fastwater

Saugernut said:


> *Sick and tired of out of state "outfitters"*
> What a joke, get big "ohio" deer on camera mostly at night mind you all the while using bait and people flock to the state and pay stupid amounts of money to hunt mostly nocturnal deer.
> Trail cameras have been one of the biggest problems facing resident deer hunters and have lead to the influx of the problem we have with the pay to play, got more money than brains guys coming here year after year to see maybe a couple of does or a small buck that will settle so they don't travel all that way to go home empty handed.


You may be surprised at the amount of 'in state' , local outfitters that are doing the same. Currently, with no regulations, guidelines or licenses needed, anyone in the state can hang a shingle out as an outfitter. And they've done it around these parts in record number. Have several that I know of that have sprung up around here within a 20-30 mile radius. Know a couple of these guys and they are really whacking the out of state hunters. To see their webpage, it's looks as though they have acres and acres of prime hunting land. When in reality, one guy has about 14 acres that buts up to deep woods that he doesn't own. The other has 17. Both have box blinds built and a few tree stands set up selling to the customer that out of all the land, those are the places to hunt for that 'special' buck of a lifetime. 
Some of the stories have been very colorful to say the least.


----------



## Saugernut

bawana said:


> As a deer hunter what is your greatest concern involving the future of deer hunting in Ohio?


Leased land,so called outfitters and the cost people are willing to pay to hunt deer here from out of state.
What would be wrong with tackling these problems head on. For starters, TAX out of state "outfitters" make them purchase a license to be one, this would include an application process and an annual review and I don't mean charge them a small fee either. This would bring money in which we all know odnr needs.


----------



## Saugernut

fastwater said:


> You may be surprised at the amount of 'in state' , local outfitters that are doing the same. Currently, with no regulations, guidelines or licenses needed, anyone in the state can hang a shingle out as an outfitter. And they've done it around these parts in record number. Have several that I know of that have sprung up around here within a 20-30 mile radius. Know a couple of these guys and they are really whacking the out of state hunters. To see their webpage, it's looks as though they have acres and acres of prime hunting land. When in reality, one guy has about 14 acres that buts up to deep woods that he doesn't own. The other has 17. Both have box blinds built and a few tree stands set up selling to the customer that out of all the land, those are the places to hunt for that 'special' buck of a lifetime.
> Some of the stories have been very colorful to say the least.


Yes you are right I've heard of that many times regarding the small tracks of land being passed off as prime hunting land.


----------



## bawana

Keep the comments coming especially in regards to public land options, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?


----------



## Deadeyedeek

bawana said:


> Keep the comments coming especially in regards to public land options, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
> Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?


Any pushback from the insurance lobby, and Farm Bureo they have a big say with DNR$$$$$


----------



## ostbucks98

We should only offer so many non-res deer tags. 25k in a lottery. The Non-Res pays a non-refundable $10 entry into drawi g.


----------



## buckeyebowman

bawana said:


> Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?


Well, for one thing, Ohio public land is for Ohio residents only. We pay taxes here. Another thing might be to allow ATV's or some such for the recovery of deer. 

My BIL used to hunt Mosquito Wildlife Area and has told me that there are some awesome bucks in there! The last one he shot he almost abandoned in the woods because he just couldn't drag it any further by himself. Luckily, he managed to get hold of a friend who could come and help him.


----------



## crittergitter

Each public land area should have a drawing for a set number of access tags. No hunting allowed in that public area without one. Limit access to the areas for any and all hunters. Drawing and tag should be free. We don't want pay to play. We just want less people on those areas for 1 or 2 years so the herd in those areas can rebound. 


Also, Brent, I've seen a lot of chatter on FB about low deer numbers. I tried to direct people to this site and the OS site, but the Admin removed my post. Are you sharing this information on the various Ohio Deer Hunting FB groups as well? I know one of them has 14k members which is a decent membership. Thanks!


----------



## reo

bawana said:


> Keep the comments coming especially in regards to public land options, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
> Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?


One deer per year off of public land.


----------



## reo

Deadeyedeek said:


> Any pushback from the insurance lobby, and Farm Bureo they have a big say with DNR$$$$$


Their representatives are sitting on this committee.....


----------



## reo

buckeyebowman said:


> *Well, for one thing, Ohio public land is for Ohio residents only. We pay taxes here.* Another thing might be to allow ATV's or some such for the recovery of deer.
> 
> My BIL used to hunt Mosquito Wildlife Area and has told me that there are some awesome bucks in there! The last one he shot he almost abandoned in the woods because he just couldn't drag it any further by himself. Luckily, he managed to get hold of a friend who could come and help him.


This would be fantastic but I cannot see it ever becoming reality. A lottery type system for NR's good for specific public area(s) would be tough enough to get implemented but better than we have now


----------



## fastwater

reo said:


> One deer per year off of public land.


...and what would that accomplish???


----------



## reo

fastwater said:


> ...and what would that accomplish???


It would allow for numbers to grow


----------



## Fishfood

I had a thought a few years back when the ODNR had its Farmer/Hunter access program and figured I would post it here to get your thoughts.

It seems to me that we have a large pool of farmers who would benefit by reducing the deer population on their property. We also have a large population of hunters who are willing to perform the task of reducing the deer population on that property. The question is – how do you bring the two groups together?

I’m not a farmer, but if I were, I may be in favor of controlling the deer population on my land, however, I would be hesitant to let “strangers” hunt on my property for several reasons:

1 – No real idea about the character of the person

2 – Liability – seems people sue each other for anything these days and do I want to take the chance that someone I let hunt my land sues me – even though I am protected by the Recreational User Statute. The possibility of dealing with a lawsuit is just something I’m not willing to risk.

3 – Possible damage to my property and how I could be compensated if damage did occur. 

Here is how I propose to bring farmers and hunters together to provide a positive outcome for all involved:

Develop a state managed, hunter funded, Farmer/Hunter access system that:

1 – Requires a background check, at hunter expense, for anyone wishing to participate.

2 – Requires a drug test, at hunter expense, for anyone wishing to participate.

3 – Requires the Hunter to carry a bond for X dollars to be used to compensate farmers for potential hunter damage.

4 – Requires a hunter to specifically waive any rights to sue the farmer for injury or accident that occurs on the farmer’s property.

5 – First deer harvested goes to the farmer (if he doesn’t want it, it goes to Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry)

6 – Reduces or eliminate nuisance permit availability farmers not willing to participate in the program.

So, a hunter would be required to jump through hoops 1 through 4 every year, and when they successfully complete all 4 requirements, the state issues them a list of the 5 or 10 farmers closest to their desired hunting location who have chosen to participate. The hunter is required to meet with the farmer and the farmer ultimately has final say if he will grant the individual permission to hunt. They agree to hunting times/days, where to park, off limit areas, hunting method, etc. and complete and sign a form detailing the agreement.

The number of hunters a farmer needs to allow access would be based on acreage. Maybe 1 hunter on a 100 acre farm, 2 on 500 acres and so on. The farmer can allow more but once they have agreed to access by the required number of hunters, the farmer can close his farm to new applicants and the state will no longer issue that farm as a potential hunting location to new hunters. In return, the state works with the farmer to grant him a reasonable number of nuisance permits based on the problem the farmer is facing.

It always bothered me that deer are harvested under the nuisance program when there are ethical hunters who would love to have access to that state resource. I think this program could realistically make that happen.

If you managed to read all this, what do you think?


----------



## crittergitter

That Farmer/Hunter access program failed miserably because so few farmers signed up. It was a CLEAR sign that farmers don't want deer dead. They want them dead on public land which drives up demand for private land, ie lease $. More money, more money. That's what has been driving this ever since the Ohio Farm Bureau came out and said they want the deer population in Ohio to be cut in half. Farmers love deer. They just want to see them wiped out on all public land!!


----------



## FAB

I looked into that program at the time and found that it was necessary to join the Farm Bureau in the county that you wanted to hunt, attend the meetings and meet the farmers before hand. Might have been one of the requirements that caused it's demise.


----------



## RMK

crittergitter said:


> That Farmer/Hunter access program failed miserably because so few farmers signed up. It was a CLEAR sign that farmers don't want deer dead. They want them dead on public land which drives up demand for private land, ie lease $. More money, more money. That's what has been driving this ever since the Ohio Farm Bureau came out and said they want the deer population in Ohio to be cut in half. Farmers love deer. They just want to see them wiped out on all public land!!


i could be wrong but i feel that is a very far fetched statment. i would find it very hard to believe that any farmer would want public land deer populations to be depeleted to increase the demand for deer on private land. i d also be very interested to find a factual number of how many actual farmers lease land. i d imagine most leasing, especially in ohio, is done by landowners other than farmers. 3rd 4th generation family members (propery owners) removed from the bussiness that lease the farm ground as well. as well as ground owned by corpations (big bussinesses) that lease the ground on the side. just my thoughts on that. no facts to my post either...


----------



## fastwater

reo said:


> It would allow for numbers to grow


With respect...I believe you are barking up the wrong tree.
ODNR's objective is, and has been for many years is to reduce the herd size in Ohio...NOT let numbers grow.
I promise you you will not get anyone from ODNR to admit(as far as a number goes) as to what they want the herd reduced to, but they surely want it reduced further. Current bag limits are sure fire proof of that.


----------



## reo

fastwater said:


> With respect...I believe you are barking up the wrong tree.
> ODNR's objective is, and has been for many years is to reduce the herd size in Ohio...NOT let numbers grow.
> I promise you you will not get anyone from ODNR to admit(as far as a number goes) as to what they want the herd reduced to, but they surely want it reduced further. Current bag limits are sure fire proof of that.


Agreed but I answered the question that was asked, *"Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?"*


----------



## reo

fastwater said:


> With respect...I believe you are barking up the wrong tree.
> ODNR's objective is, and has been for many years is to reduce the herd size in Ohio...NOT let numbers grow.
> I promise you you will not get anyone from ODNR to admit(as far as a number goes) as to what they want the herd reduced to, but they surely want it reduced further. Current bag limits are sure fire proof of that.


Also it would be pretty difficult for them to say what they want the herd reduced to since they, to my knowledge do not have a clue what the herd is now. I have not seen a population estimate in decades. They manage by numbers of dead deer which is quite a stretch since they keep on adding and removing seasons, changing bag limits, etc.


----------



## buckeyebowman

reo said:


> This would be fantastic but I cannot see it ever becoming reality. A lottery type system for NR's good for specific public area(s) would be tough enough to get implemented but better than we have now


That's a point. I have to enter a lottery to draw a doe tag in PA., but if I buy a license there I'm allowed to hunt PA. State Game Lands.


----------



## crittergitter

Here's another thing to consider. Regulating private land and public land differently is a VERY slippery slope that would be difficult to manage. 

For example: a blanket regulation that says only 1 deer per person off public land. How do you enforce that? You can't, at least not successfully. There aren't enough WO to do that.

For example: a blanket regulation that says no doe harvest from public land. Same problem. 


Thus, limiting access to public land areas is the only way to effectively regulate it differently than private land.


----------



## FAB

crittergitter said:


> Here's another thing to consider. Regulating private land and public land differently is a VERY slippery slope that would be difficult to manage.
> 
> For example: a blanket regulation that says only 1 deer per person off public land. How do you enforce that? You can't, at least not successfully. There aren't enough WO to do that.
> 
> For example: a blanket regulation that says no doe harvest from public land. Same problem.
> 
> 
> Thus, limiting access to public land areas is the only way to effectively regulate it differently than private land.


I do not believe that states reciprocity agreements will allow such an exclusion to out of state hunters.


----------



## crittergitter

FAB said:


> I do not believe that states reciprocity agreements will allow such an exclusion to out of state hunters.


There are LOTS of other states that have drawings for deer tags. Only difference is ours would only be for public land. People hunting private land there would be no change. My regulation proposal isn't for non-residents only. It's for everyone.


----------



## bawana

Well the first round of gun season is behind us and the comments have pretty much followed the same direction. As promised I want to update you about what went on the second day of the session.
We were introduced to the I and E section of the Division. Information and Education. We wanted to hear what they were involved with along the lines of recruitment, reactivation and retention. More on that in a minute.
Myself and several others had talked the night before about surveys and how to get more participation in surveys. Most all the division surveys are getting less than a 20% response rate. You can look at that one of several ways, only the people who who are upset are responding, if only 20% are responding the other 80% are happy, or people just won't fill out surveys. Our suggestions were to go to the people. By that we are suggesting they man booths at various major events and shows like the deer and turkey expo, state fair, farm science review, and yes ohio farm bureau convention. My belief and many of the others is that many farm bureau members are hunters and are supportive of our goals rather than the policy board of the farm bureau.
We also talked at length about the tradition of deer hunting and how it is incorporated into the three R's (recruitment,reactivation, and retention). Two things that were cussed and discussed over and over were check stations and deer camps. I don't see a change coming in the check stations as things currently exist. Right now the Division gives the licensing agent $1.00 for each license they issue. You can go to any licensing agency and check in a deer. But you are not required to bring the deer with you. They will do basically the same thing you can do at home and give you a sheet of paper with you're harvest number on it. I don't see the division offering any additional money to do this and when you have some stations that might be checking in several hundred deer in a weeks time, as the saying goes time is money and I don't think a lot of our licensing locations want to be a check station. Additionally while I haven't heard it on most sites, a lot of people prefer to be able to check in online or by phone.
As far as the deer camp portion of tradition and the three R's once a gain that nasty word TIME rears its ugly head in two ways. first many people don't have the time to spend a week in camp, secondly many people because of time constraints are hunting closer to home. And as a result many deer camps are dying out. And one last topic along those lines, Leasing and Outfitters are also involved in this .
Just briefly back to the I and E section, they are responsible for all the information that comes from the division whether on social media, press releases or written form. They have some ideas and programs in the works, but all in all I was not impressed with where they are at right now.......and that's all I'm going to say about that right now.

Lastly.....while we have been making progress on these topics, two days every three months isn't getting things done the way I would like to see them done. I've asked repeatedly for these sessions to be live streamed or set up as a podcast. To date none of this has happened. The sessions we had Friday should have been available for everyone to see. I still believe in the process, but am seeing some ways that improvements can be made and they aren't.


----------



## jray

reo said:


> Also it would be pretty difficult for them to say what they want the herd reduced to since they, to my knowledge do not have a clue what the herd is now. I have not seen a population estimate in decades. They manage by numbers of dead deer which is quite a stretch since they keep on adding and removing seasons, changing bag limits, etc.


So you missed the OPs statement about herd samples by air in Holmes county? They are doing that everywhere as well as using tons of metrics that all provide an idea of what the herd is. Just because they didn't call you and tell you how many deer we have doesn't mean they don't know or care.


----------



## reo

jray said:


> So you missed the OPs statement about herd samples by air in Holmes county? They are doing that everywhere as well as using tons of metrics that all provide an idea of what the herd is. Just because they didn't call you and tell you how many deer we have doesn't mean they don't know or care.


Was not aware they were doing it everywhere. Could you post a link to these results? Or anything else that documents recent aerial surveys or any live population estimates? I would love to see them. Thanks


----------



## reo

crittergitter said:


> Here's another thing to consider. Regulating private land and public land differently is a VERY slippery slope that would be difficult to manage.
> 
> For example: a blanket regulation that says only 1 deer per person off public land. How do you enforce that? You can't, at least not successfully. There aren't enough WO to do that.
> 
> For example: a blanket regulation that says no doe harvest from public land. Same problem.
> 
> 
> Thus, limiting access to public land areas is the only way to effectively regulate it differently than private land.


How would the limiting access be any more enforceable than the other two? To be clear I would be in favor of any or all of them.


----------



## crittergitter

reo said:


> How would the limiting access be any more enforceable than the other two? To be clear I would be in favor of any or all of them.


They can create a pass that you the hunter put in the windshield of your vehicle. If you have the pass, you're good. If you don't and a WO drives by, then he can wait for the hunter to return to vehicle and then give a warning and make note of the license plate. If he sees that vehicle again, then that guy gets a ticket. It's simple to enforce. You have a pass or you don't.


----------



## lawrence1

Herd dynamics, public land complaints, hunter access/recruitment are all valid concerns but it will just be business as usual till Deer hunting bottoms out. At that point Deer hunting will just be a business as the state as already broken the public trust and classified native game as livestock to allow private ownership.

Deer farmers sitting on this board are the Judas at the table. Their 25 year plan is farm animals.


----------



## M R DUCKS

Thanks Bawana !


----------



## jray

crittergitter said:


> They can create a pass that you the hunter put in the windshield of your vehicle. If you have the pass, you're good. If you don't and a WO drives by, then he can wait for the hunter to return to vehicle and then give a warning and make note of the license plate. If he sees that vehicle again, then that guy gets a ticket. It's simple to enforce. You have a pass or you don't.


Limited access to land we seem to forget we all pay to use? no thanks. It exists to be used by all and it should stay that way. Buck only, one public land deer per year, limited seasons heck close season on deer for public land but don't create a situation where some can and some can't.


----------



## CFIden

jray said:


> Limited access to land we seem to forget we all pay to use? no thanks. It exists to be used by all and it should stay that way. Buck only, one public land deer per year, limited seasons heck close season on deer for public land but don't create a situation where some can and some can't.


I agree with jray. I would be perfectly happy with any of his options. Although I don't see the ODNR doing any of them. As stated throughout this thread their goals don't seem to be in line with the sportsman and woman that provide their salary's.


----------



## Harry1959

Was at tar hollow grouse hunting today. No flushes. 
I hadn’t driven through the forest for over 10 years. The big thing that I noticed; mile after mile of beautiful large mature forest. That stinks for deer as well as grouse. Very sparse cover and no low growing vegetation. 
Spoke to a warden and he said he hadn’t seen a grouse in years. I told him that with no younger clearcuts, that I doubted if their could be many deer either, he said they are declining fast in that area.
I have felt the pain of having my favorite deer hunting ridge clearcut and I didn’t like it at all. However it’s vital to a healthy forest and deer habitat.
I know some other forests have been clearcuting again over the past 10 years or so. Hopefully this will help the deer heard. It may be too little too late for grouse in some of these areas. As outdoorsman and hunters we should educate those that will listen on the importance of new growth to wildlife.


----------



## Saugernut

Why does it always have to be clear cut only to grow back so thick you can't craw through it and take 20 years to become huntable again. I can see select cutting and cleaning up afterwards which most logging companies never do which is why I'm totally against it.


----------



## Burkcarp1

The thicker it is the more wildlife will be there. Select cut is better than no cut but clear cut is better if you want wildlife around. It workes great if they do it in small sections. Then you have both.


----------



## Harry1959

Yes sauger,the clearcut areas are difficult to hunt, impossible to actually hunt in them for many years. However, if we want more deer they need more habitat that benifits deer and wildlife and not to the hunter. Like burkcarp said smaller clearcut areas are supposed to be better. Like less than 50 acre areas and probably more like 20 acres from what I’ve read. 
I think I need educated on the mess that the loggers leave behind. I’ve never really hunted private owned clear cut land. Hunted mostly ohio and Michigan state land. Now in Michigan sometimes they leave big chunks of stumps, wood and debri and it stays there for a long time. terrible to walk in even after 10 years. Is that the kind of mess you are talking about? If so, I just haven’t seen it in the areas I hunt in ohio. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Others opinions helps me learn


----------



## fastwater

Harry1959 said:


> Yes sauger,the clearcut areas are difficult to hunt, impossible to actually hunt in them for many years. However, if we want more deer they need more habitat that benifits deer and wildlife and not to the hunter. Like burkcarp said smaller clearcut areas are supposed to be better. Like less than 50 acre areas and probably more like 20 acres from what I’ve read.
> I think I need educated on the mess that the loggers leave behind. I’ve never really hunted private owned clear cut land. Hunted mostly ohio and Michigan state land. Now in Michigan sometimes they leave big chunks of stumps, wood and debri and it stays there for a long time. terrible to walk in even after 10 years. Is that the kind of mess you are talking about? If so, I just haven’t seen it in the areas I hunt in ohio. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Others opinions helps me learn


Waste high stumps are good to leave on many trees for wildlife, especially deer. New Sprouts/shoots will grow out of the stumps creating perfect head level new browse for deer. Tree tops left creates secure bedding spots and wind breaks for deer as well as rabbit and other wildlife cover. 
On clear cut areas that have grown too thick for a hunter to get through, scout and hunt the entrance and exit spots(deer runs) of these thickets. Make sure and play the wind when hunting these entrance/exit runs especially in bow season cause if thicket is really tall and thick and the deer are using these thickets for bedding areas, since they often can't see out anymore than you can see in, they really use their nose as a means of defense.
While some of the new ways we are seeing properties being cut that makes it harder for hunters to get through, these properties aren't being cut and left with the main goal in mind to make the area easier for the Hunter to hunt. They are being cut and left the way they are with the main objective of what's been proven best for wildlife in means of new browse and cover.


----------



## Saugernut

I'm just not a fan but I do understand the benefits to wildlife I'm not disagreeing with that but I've never seen a logging company hold up their end of the bargain they promise the world but once they get what they've came for they move onto the next and leave the property in shambles never building the roads they promised clearing tops, plant seed nothing. I can say without a doubt I've never met an honest one that actually did what they said they would do.


----------



## fastwater

Saugernut said:


> I'm just not a fan but I do understand the benefits to wildlife I'm not disagreeing with that but I've never seen a logging company hold up their end of the bargain *they promise the world but once they get what they've came for they move onto the next and leave the property in shambles never building the roads they promised clearing tops, plant seed nothing*. I can say without a doubt I've never met an honest one that actually did what they said they would do.


Are you talking about loggers/timber outfits used in Fed., state, county or city owned woods? Or are you referring to loggers/timber outfits used in private owned property?
The reason I ask is if you are referring to loggers/timber outfits used to cut on public properties, these timbers outfits must be licensed , approved outfits and are on a registered list held by the Fed. gov. that enables them to timber. If your not on that Fed. list, you can't bid on the job. These outfits are held to strict specifications when doing cuts on public lands and the job these outfits do is strictly supervised from beginning to end by the Fed. Master Forester in that particular area. Including logging Rd repairs, seeding and proper contouring to keep road erosion down. Same with state owned grounds.
Also, on these public grounds, when the Master Forester makes a decision as what's best to do, clear cut or select, there are many things that goes into that decision. Existing canopy, undergrowth(or the lack thereof), and what the undergrowth consists of etc.

If you are talking about outfits that do private land, you bet there are a lot of fly by night outfits out there. I learned this the hard way on a section of property I had cut by a local, so called timber outfit. He was(and still is) licensed to timber in the state of Ohio but is surely not on our counties list of timber outfits qualified to work on public lands. I didn't know the ins and outs back then and I surely paid for it. My woods ended up looking like a bomb went off in it and when he was done cutting, packed his equipment and left.
I didn't know he was supposed to take care of smoothing, seeding log roads or anything like that.
Ended up doing all my roads myself.
About three years later, I had our county extension agent out for some thoughts on other areas as to whether select or clear cut would be best. As we walked the old grass covered logging rds., he asked me what outfit I used to do my prior cutting. He said that they did an excellent job on recovering the rds.
When I told him that I had done the roads myself, he asked why the logger didn't do it. I told him I thought that wasn't part of his job but was something the property owner was responsible for when logger was done.
He explained that this was the loggers responsibility and in the state of Ohio, if logger pulls off the job without taking care of the roads(including seeding)his state logging license can be revoked.
One of many lessons learned over the years on the subject.
My advice to anyone that owns property and is considering getting timber cut is to get your counties extension agent out to your land before ever contracting a logger and walk your property with them. Tell them your long range goals for your woods. Ask them what your expectations are of the logging outfit and the requirements by law these outfits must perform. Most generally, the extension agent will provide a list of reputable loggers in your area. Many of which are on the same list that are qualified to do work on public lands.


----------



## Muddy

That should all be part of the contract before they start cutting. Just remember, the more time that they spend repairing everything, the less money that goes in your pocket. Somewhere in the middle is a comfortable middle ground.


----------



## Saugernut

Locals is whom I'm referring to.


----------



## fastwater

Saugernut said:


> Locals is whom I'm referring to.


Yep...like I stated, I learned the hard way about not checking out a local, so called timber outfit on that first section I had done. At the time, just didn't know anything about forestry and put blind trust of my land in someone that knew I didn't know what was going on. My ignorance cost me. Didn't even have a written contract.

They even cut two huge walnuts off my neighbor's that ended up costing them $ that was paid to my neighbor. That really made me mad cause I walked the whole property line with the owner of the timber outfit and marked the line at least 15-20' inside my line and told him not to cut anything beyond were I had marked.
When he called me at work telling me one of his cutters had fell two walnuts on neighbor's property, I was livid. I gave him neighbor's phone number and told him to call him and work it out with him.
When I got home, I went down to see where these trees were at and had to walk right past the line of ribbon and painted trees marking where they weren't supposed to cut beyond.


----------



## Tim67

State needs to step in on behalf of the hunters, farmers are profiting from the public state of Ohio Whitetail Deer resources The farmer is al4á!fg#ñ, , ,


----------



## fastwater

Tim67 said:


> State needs to step in on behalf of the hunters, farmers are profiting from the public state of Ohio Whitetail Deer resources The farmer is al4á!fg#ñ, , ,


???^^^???
Not sure what you mean Tim.


----------



## TheKing

I'd like to see deer drives ended. It is an extinctifier.


----------



## Tim67

fastwater said:


> ???^^^???
> Not sure what you mean Tim.


Fastwater and all on this thread please disregard 1:06 a.m. post. Honestly was dead asleep and have no recollection of being online, let alone writing a encoherient response


----------

