# Stakeholders????



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Lundy posted a thread that mentioned "stakeholders" that spoke at recent meetings regarding the hunting proposals. Can someone please identify who they are, Im very interested.


----------



## sd136405 (Jan 19, 2015)

Farmers, hunters, business owners, gardeners, hikers, birders, naturalists, and anyone else who calls ohio home. The state manages resources in the best interest of the state and all Ohioans.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

I guess my thoughts were going elsewhere when I first read it, I sure hope thats all they meant.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Don't think we could consider the big insurance companies 'stakeholders' since other than political contributions to their fav. candidate, they give not one $ towards funding ODNR. But insurance companies pull enough weight in ODNR's decision making process you would think they finance the whole ODNR department . 

Guess their political contribution's make them a 'shareholder by proxy'. lol.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

fastwater said:


> Don't think we could consider the big insurance companies 'stakeholders' since other than political contributions to their fav. candidate, they give not one $ towards funding ODNR. But insurance companies pull enough weight in ODNR's decision making process you would think they finance the whole ODNR department .
> 
> Guess their political contribution's make them a 'shareholder by proxy'. lol.


They have a stake in the process due to claim pay outs of automobile/deer collisions that cost them money. The higher the deer population the greater risk for those collisions and loss of money.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

The heck with the insurance companies, I really dont care that it cost them money, they get enough trust me.


----------



## jray (Jan 20, 2006)

Saugernut said:


> The heck with the insurance companies, I really dont care that it cost them money, they get enough trust me.


Uh that sentiment is great and we all feel that way but it's not reality because insurance is mandated it does not function like a supply and demand system it is a public good. This means that if their cost of doing business goes up your cost of insurance goes up. They will not lose money but the common man that drives a vehicle legally and therefore has insurance will lose money. Same with farmers if their cost goes up groceries go up.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE (Jul 23, 2014)

Balance is the key in my opinion. Our numbers were getting out of control. The gray area is how large a herd can all those that want less deal with. Farmers and insurance are happy with less than what hunters would be happy with. Add to that the issue of the herd being too high in some areas due to lack of hunter access and too few left in areas with open access (public) and you have plenty of room for disagreement and or discussion. My view is the state has done pretty well except for the public lands. They have dropped the ball on the public lands by allowing over harvesting leaving some areas with poor hunting. This could have been avoided with some thought and action on their part. Other states have special regs for public land. why not Ohio?


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

I understand the reality of insurance companies having input on our or should I say the state's deer herd, however I simply do not agree with the way insurance companies work and could care less what they want or have to say about the topic.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE (Jul 23, 2014)

Got to say that with the sharply reduced herd I have not seen a cut in my car insurance.


----------

