# Please Read



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

Fellows the DNR just made these new proposals. It would alllow each hunter to take an additional 3 does on top of what the bag limit in your county already is. This is in respounce to the farm bueros recent request to lower the statewide deer herd to 250,000 deer. I think most of us would agree that our deer herd can simply not handle this. Read the link to find out for yourself.

http://www.dispatch.com/outdoors/outdoors.php?story=248001

If you are concerned about this recent proposal send the DNR an email and let them know what you think.

click this link to send the DNR an email http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/contactform.asp

If this passes it could be the end of deer hunting as we know it. Alot of us over at OhioSportsman have already sent an email.


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

While lowering the deer herd is bad for deer hunters, It definitely helps out the ecosystem. Ohio's deer numbers are well above where they should be. I know people are going to say that they are healthly and what not, but the forests aren't, young trees get destroyed and browsed on too heavily and it results in an old and dying forest. But coming from a selfish deer hunters perspective myself, I want to see more deer!

And I can also see where the farmers are coming from as well.


----------



## big fish (Oct 9, 2005)

i wander if this could thin out the deer population, i havent hunted yet for deer in ohio (due to me being 15 and my parents dont hunt) and i want the deer population to be good for all generations to come. i do see the farmers point of view but if they want the population on there land less they should let more hunters hunt there land


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

The way this proposal is written up I really don't see it making much of a difference. How many hunters do you know that are interested in paying for 6 deer tags and harvesting 6 deer and eating 6 deer? Now of those who you know that would, how many are archery hunters? This proposal is for early season harvests.

Personally I don't see this nearly as threatening to the deer herd as what the potential is for when they continue to issue crop damage tags to farmers who go out and hunt them like groundhogs. They are asked to not keep them from what I understand (by the DNR) and thus they pile them in fence rows. I feel like the hunters for the most part will police themselves whereas the farmers will do everything they can to eradicate the "varmints". I recognize that is not the view of every farmer but I know of a few the only see it that way.

The state has increased the limits various times over the years and the herd has still flourished.

My county (Knox) has had far more impact from the farmers over the years than the hunter bag limits in my opinion. To give you an idea, farmers were issued and used roughly 33% of the total number of deer harvested by hunters. Another way of looking at that is that the farmers accounted for over 25% of the total kill. Those numbers are from 2006-2006 season and from everything I have heard those farmer numbers have grown even more.
When I hear about farmers piling up 300-400 deer throughout the summer I get much more concerned about that than the number of tags I am allotted.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

> if they want the population on there land less they should let more hunters hunt there land


Your exactly right. All these farmers whine but they dont allow anyone on their land. I mean these whiners already get crop damage permits, is that not good enough? 

Of course its not, so instead of managing that specific area of overpopulation they make it a statewide deal. I can guarentee im 100% sure that in my area in Highland and Clinton county the deer are not at all overpopulated. In fact they are are underpopulated. Sure there are pockets that hold more deer then others but your gonna have that problem everywhere.


----------



## lv2fish (Jun 23, 2005)

Wow, thanks for the post. I am not sure you will actually see that harvest number happen....my thoughts are this: I have a family and own land, we consume 2-3 deer per season, this year I only took 2 deer but I didn't get lucky enough to fill tag number 3. My point is that to think a hunter who actually pays for a tag will shoot more deer is going to be in the minority. I feel a more effective way to increase doe harvest is to require a doe be taken before you can fill your buck tag. We have a huge amount of trophy hunters in this state (and from out of state) that pass does all season waiting on a buck. If the state wants doe harvest to go up, it's as simple as that. My opinion of course, I don't intend on starting a heated discussion here.


----------



## lv2fish (Jun 23, 2005)

bkr43050 said:


> How many hunters do you know that are interested in paying for 6 deer tags and harvesting 6 deer and eating 6 deer?



Good point.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

On second thought I can actually get 18 under that proposal with me and my two oldest boys hunting. I would say that most families that would possibly eat say 4-6 deer most likely have more than one hunter in the family and thus they can get those numbers already if they so choose to.


----------



## rossdeerhunter (Nov 6, 2006)

I am starting to become a firm believer in the doe first outlook. if they want the doe numbers to go down then simply do a doe first season. shure this might make some of your TROPHY hunters mad but so be it. Another thing is i dont feel sorry for the farmers in my area at all i have personally asked several farmers in my area to hunt their property for this reason and they have simply told me no and that they did not allow hunting on their property. But in the spring and summer they were perfectly fine with me fishing their farm ponds. If they do pass this law i dont really think that its goin to affect this a whole lot just a stated in previous posts people arnt goin to pay for 6 tags unless they are the "if it brown its down" type of hunter that shoots all the deer they seen and never eat it. welp thats just my .02


----------



## Fishstix (Aug 16, 2005)

There have been many good points throughout this post. I am in favor of increasing the bag limit, but not 6 additional deer. I actually would like to see each county add 1 more Doe to their bag limit.

I hunt in an area where farmer's are issued many crop damage permits. There are 2 farmer's that pretty much own the property around the woodlot we hunt. One of the farmer's use their crop damage permits and refuse any hunters to hunt their property. This gentleman is notorious for complaining to the ODNR to try and get every tag he can get. The other farmer on the otherhand, has opened his property to the hunters who hunt the properties in the area. His only restriction is no bucks and no yearlings. Only mature Does can be shot. This makes it nice because it gives my father and I another property to hunt, even if it is for Does.


----------



## TPaco214 (Feb 16, 2005)

does first would piss off many people for sure. if it did happen I could live with is. i wouldn't complain....those bucks will still be in the woods.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Well boys, here it is. Read on........

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Hunting/proposedregs/2007-08 Proposed Deer Regulations.pdf


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

I guess I am a bit more confused now that I read those regulations.



> A hunter may take up to three deer but may not take:
> 1. More than one deer from Zone A
> 2. More than two deer from Zone B
> 3. More than three deer from Zone C
> 4. More than one antlered buck regardless of when or where it&#8217;s taken


That sounds to me like there is still a limit of 3. But:


> Up to 4 antlerless deer permits may be purchased. A hunter must purchase a regular deer permit prior to purchasing antlerless permits.


So if you can buy 4 antlerless permits along with the required regular permit then that makes 5. Can someone else make this make sense?

I think I answered my own question.

I see that the first limit is excluding antlerless permits. So yes I could get up to six in zone C but I could even get a 7th if I were to take another from one of the other zones.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Maybe this will help clear some things up. It explains it better.
http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/Hunting/proposedregs/deerfull.htm

2007-2008 DEER HUNTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED
Additional antlerless deer permits available to archery hunters​
Ohio archery deer hunters may have the opportunity to take additional doe deer this fall if a proposed regulation is accepted by the Ohio Wildlife Council.

Link to printable PDF summary of all proposed deer seasons and regulations. 

Under the proposal, hunters could buy additional anterless deer permits, currently known as urban deer permits, at reduced prices for hunting in an urban zone, participating in a controlled hunt, or hunting during the September 29 to November 25 portion of the archery season. The anterless deer permit would cost $15 and be good for doe deer only. 

Archery hunters would be required to purchase a regular deer permit before purchasing the anterless deer permits. Using the proposed permit system, hunters could take up to one additional antlerless deer in Zone A, up to two additional antlerless deer in Zone B and up to three additional antlerless deer in Zone C. Use of the anterless deer permit during the first part of the archery season would not count against the hunter&#8217;s zone bag limit (link to Zone Map). 

Archery season would run from Saturday, September 29 through Sunday, February 3, 2008. The popular youth deer-gun season is proposed for Saturday and Sunday, November 17-18. Regular deer-gun season will run Monday, November 26 through Sunday, December 2. An additional deer-gun hunting weekend is proposed for Saturday and Sunday, December 15-16. Statewide muzzleloader season will run Thursday, December 27 through Sunday, December 30. Special area muzzleloader hunts would be open Monday, October 22 through Saturday, October 27 at Salt Fork, Shawnee and Wildcat Hollow. Muzzleloader hunts at these areas are by special permit only, with a random drawing held prior to the season for a limited number of antlered bucks and unlimited number of antlerless or doe permits.

The proposed regulations maintain the same deer zones as the last two years. A three-deer limit (Zone C) would cover 38 central, south, southeastern and southwestern counties. The 30 counties of Zone B would have a two-deer limit, and the 20 northwestern counties of Zone A would have a one-deer limit. A hunter may take only one buck in Ohio, regardless of zone, hunting method or season.

During the youth deer-gun season, young hunters would be permitted to bag only one deer of either sex in any county of Ohio. Any deer taken would be part of the young hunter&#8217;s total season limit. 
During the 2006-2007 season, which concluded February 4, hunters bagged a record of more than 235,000 deer. Approximately 475,000 people hunted white-tailed deer in Ohio this year.

Open houses are scheduled for noon to 3 p.m. on Sunday, March 4 in each of the state&#8217;s five wildlife district offices. These forums will provide the public with an opportunity to view and discuss proposed hunting and trapping regulations with state wildlife officials. Directions to the meetings can be obtained online or by calling 1-800-WILDLIFE.

A statewide hearing on the proposed deer-hunting rules is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 8, at the District One Wildlife Office, located at 1500 Dublin Road in Columbus. After considering public input, the Ohio Wildlife Council will vote on the proposed rules and season dates during its April 4 meeting.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

That does pretty much clarify what I gotten from the last link.

I still don't see this having a major impact in total because I really don't see hardly anyone going above maybe 3 deer. The thing it will change for folks is that they can get the additional deer beyond the first tag at $15. That may inspire a few folks to get an extra deer but I just don't see it changing the numbers all that much. Especially when you keep in mind that these antlerless tags are for archery season. What I would hope would happen is that if this approach were successful in curbing the growth of the deer herd then it would make more sense to pull some of the drop damage tags back to somehow allocate to the antlerless permit program in some areas. I just hate seeing the 100's of deer being piled in fence rows on farms when they could fill a freezer.


----------



## fishnfool (Feb 8, 2007)

I think it would be great, there is too many deer, at least in our suburbs and the outlying areas where growth so rapid,which we really have no control over.I am a very dedicated deer hunter and love it when I go hunting and see 20 or 30 deer, but in reality the deer are over populated at least where I am, It seems that every year there are less and less gun hunters which kill most of the deer. and if you're like me and love deer meat but wouldn't be able to afford to get 6 deer processed anyway, maybe I'll have to learn to process myself.


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

I don't see this having any major effect on the deer herd. The second gun weekend had a much bigger effect IMO. But I do like the change! It is always good to have the options, even though the area I hunt it would be next to impossible to get my two deer limit let alone more. If it does have an effect it will be nothing but positive for the deer herd.


----------



## Snag06 (Mar 24, 2006)

Let's see here the farmers want less deer and get "FREE" crop damage permits but won't allow hunting on their land and the State of Ohio sides with them to reduce the # of deer but in stead of having them put their "FREE" permits to use by allowing hunters on their land they instead want to sell us more permits @ $15.00 each in which most will be probably be used on public land. Who wins in this proposal? The farmer that will continue to have an abundance of "protected" deer on his property? NO, The hunter who already pays out the @$$ for licenses? NO, Or the great State of Ohio ODNR that already makes a killing on us? YES! Do the math on 400000 deer hunters with JUST 1 deer permit and license. $17,200,000.00 (lot of zero's Huh) and to think that they can't help our grouse and pheasant populations!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Snag06 said:


> Let's see here the farmers want less deer and get "FREE" crop damage permits but won't allow hunting on their land and the State of Ohio sides with them to reduce the # of deer but in stead of having them put their "FREE" permits to use by allowing hunters on their land they instead want to sell us more permits @ $15.00 each in which most will be probably be used on public land. Who wins in this proposal? The farmer that will continue to have an abundance of "protected" deer on his property? NO, The hunter who already pays out the @$$ for licenses? NO, Or the great State of Ohio ODNR that already makes a killing on us? YES! Do the math on 400000 deer hunters with JUST 1 deer permit and license. $17,200,000.00 (lot of zero's Huh) and to think that they can't help our grouse and pheasant populations!


I am not discounting the fact that the state brings in a lot of cash from license and tag sales but your numbers are somewhat overstated. The 2005 harvest totals listed 515,181 permits sold. The cost of permits range anywhere from the full $24 for initial deer permit down to $15 for urban permits and $12 for youth and senior citizens. The data doesn't give the number of each tag but I would say the number is closer to $10,000,000. I don't know the details of what that money goes back in to but I am sure there are a lot of paychecks for ODNR folks that come out of that money. I just didn't want this topic to go a whole new direction and start criticizing the ODNR's spending practices. The intent of the thread was to discuss the impact on the deer herd from the changes in the limits.


----------



## Snag06 (Mar 24, 2006)

Excuse me for not having the ""exact" $ amounts (lets not forget your small game license)! Overstated or not I was only trying to make a point and I didn't even include any 2nd or 3rd permits in that #. The point is that the only one to benefit from this is the state! Instead of just charging "US" more to thin "Their" herd, it makes more sense to tell the farmers that if they want crop damage permits then they MUST allow hunting on their property in order to get them! I also agree with having to harvest a doe before you can take a buck. It seems the solution always comes down to something that hurts the sportsmans wallet! Why not keep the limits as they are and change they way we get to those bag limits, (shoot a doe 1st). I think they would be surprised at the numbers!


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2007)

> but in reality the deer are over populated at least where I am, It seems that every year there are less and less gun hunters


Please tell me where you hunt because that is the EXACT opposite from any place in Ohio that I have ever hunted.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2007)

> The point is that the only one to benefit from this is the state!


This is TRUE!!!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Snag06 said:


> Why not keep the limits as they are and change they way we get to those bag limits, (shoot a doe 1st). I think they would be surprised at the numbers!


That is a great point although I don't have the right answer. The doe first concept sounds great to some but others who are primarily trophy hunters would be very disappointed. Not to mention the poor guy who walks in to the woods and the first thing he sees is the buck of a lifetime. I know that would be me if they ever instituted something like that.

As you mentioned there are probably somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 deer hunters throughout the full season and they still only average out to less than a half a deer per hunter. That right there tells me that the problem is not going to be corrected by increasing the limits. Sure they will get a few more deer but probably not many.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

I do not agree with this proposal at all.
I live in Guernsey County near the Muskingum county line and we have a pretty decent Deer population, but not more than the land can carry.
You dont see small sickly Deer or an obvious browse line in the woods.
My area might even be able to take the additional kill,but there are many areas in the state that will get hit pretty hard.
I can imagine the toll on public areas which are the only areas some have to hunt.
Not to mention all the button bucks that will be killed!
I see the big powerful Farm Bureau behind this. 
If the farmers are doing all the bitching.....tell them to give permission to some of the many hunters that knock on their door wanting to hunt!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

traphunter said:


> Please tell me where you hunt because that is the EXACT opposite from any place in Ohio that I have ever hunted.


If that is your honest opinion of the deer population in the entire state then I say you need to get out more often. The numbers in some of these counties are such that it would take a blind person to not see it. When I see pictures of 30-40 deer together in fields that says a lot. Knox county killed a total of around 6,000 in 2005-2006. I don't have the overall numbers for this past season yet but that is a lot of deer. You said you hunt Highland county and they had over 2,600 which by numbers alone compares very well to the majority of the counties. I know you also mentioned Clinton which I will agree is quite low at less than 1,000. But if you were to go through some of the areas of the Zone C I really think you would have a different opinion on the state of the herd.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Lewis said:


> I see the big powerful Farm Bureau behind this.
> If the farmers are doing all the bitching.....tell them to give permission to some of the many hunters that knock on their door wanting to hunt!


Exactly!! From what I have heard the farmers and the bureau are directly behind this.

No offense Lewis but I hope you are wrong on your take of the effect of this change. If it does indeed change the harvest numbers like you said then I will be surprised and I will then reassess my view. I just don't see it doing much to the total. How many guys do you know are filling their entire 3 deer limit right now around you? Maybe I am wrong (I've been wrong before) but I just don't think there are that many in my area doing so. And of those I don't think many will choose to go for even more.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

At least in my area I have more confidence in the hunters controlling their harvest than I do in the DNR (local officers). They are issuing damage permits by the hundreds here and that gets my attention much more. I just don't like the fact that someone is getting a permit to kill hundreds of animals that he doesn't want ANY of around his property. I don't trust that they will give back those permits once they start struggling to fill them.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

You might have a point...how many would actually take the additional Deer?
Not sure,but I guess the ODNR figures many will participate otherwise why even make the proposal?
I think this is a great idea for urban areas that are severely overpopulated.

Lets face it though,there are quite a few Rambo type hunters with the "if its brown it's down" mentality.
Put a dozen of this type on a small public area and they can kill quite a few Deer pretty quickly.
Again,how many will be button bucks which are the stupidest Deer in the woods? 
I would bet it would be a large percentage of the harvest.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

I hope that the large majority of the hunters will pass on the buttons in that case. With archery season it is pretty easy to ID the buttons.


----------



## FishinDawg (Mar 9, 2005)

Before we get to far into this, check out the ohiodnr web site under 2007-2008 deer hunting perposals, I was there a few minutes ago and my understanding wasnt 3 does, it was one additional doe, I could be wrong, read thru it quickly, home noise.....LOL.


----------



## ab8jc (Feb 19, 2007)

You can take up to 3 deer during gun season.

You can take up to an additional 4 antlerless deer during archery season. One of those would have to be in an urban area; the other three could be elsewhere (same a/b/c/ zones as for gun season).


----------



## Papascott (Apr 22, 2004)

The way I see it is they just took the boundrys off of the Urban Tags. This to me seems great.


----------



## flypilot33 (Feb 9, 2006)

FishinDawg said:


> Before we get to far into this, check out the ohiodnr web site under 2007-2008 deer hunting perposals, I was there a few minutes ago and my understanding wasnt 3 does, it was one additional doe, I could be wrong, read thru it quickly, home noise.....LOL.


Exactly, you can't kill 6 deer up north, you can only tag 2 deer in zone A. SE Ohio, zone C is where the big numbers can be tagged. There are more deer in many places down there than food.


----------



## ohiobuck (Apr 8, 2006)

Sounds like more Deer jerky for me.


----------



## Flathead King 06 (Feb 26, 2006)

Here is my 2 cents...
I think hunters are fortunate that we are able to hunt here in ohio, but times change and it seems more and more, that if you want to kill a deer you have to either own land or lease it; because God knows farmers dont let you hunt. (dont want to offend anyone, but around here, thats how it goes) Then if you actually decide you want to go hunting you have to spend a bloody fortune in liscense/permits in addition to the necessities- and what do we have to show for it... less and less deer with no where to hunt. My thinking is that if farmers want the population cut, then they need to allow hunting. I'm not saying just let every Tom Dick and Harry on their property but just a few every year until they see as decrease in the herd numbers on their land. And another problem is the stupid kill permits the state grants to farmers/hunter to just kill off the entire population in that area that they see as a nusance... answer- LET PEOPLE HUNT. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, Clark county was just undergoing its transformation into a deer hunting county...I was born in 1987... and everything i have heard from my parents, grandparents and uncle, the deer herd around that time was very small. Then after a few years deer were everywhere, well the state recognized this and extended gun season statewide for 2 weeks...and of course there was a record kill that year just as there has been for the past 2 or 3 years... Well, the next couple of years after that, you couldnt even pay a deer to be seen, and the population was almost completely wiped out around my area. Thats what I believe will happen again due to this "proposed harvest" from the dnr.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Flathead King,

I can't remember exactly which year that was where they doubled up on slug season but I believe that the overall impact of adding that second week was found to be rather minimal. Perhaps someone else can elaborate on that.


----------



## FishinDawg (Mar 9, 2005)

After reading some of the comments, and talking to a few other fellow hunters around here, I have to kinda ask or make a general statement. 

If we are really ethical hunters in Ohio and want to really preserve our hunting heritage at the level we are currently at, than dosent each and every hunter owe it to themself as well as others to limit thier harvests each year, right now the DNr is saying each hunter can take 1 additional doe, If there are three hunters in my family and we all limit out with 1 each, i'm in Northwest Ohio, does that mean we need 3 more does, no it's up to the ethics of each and every hunter to determine if they can consume without wasting another doe. Myself, yes I have the right to shot another deer, but do I really have to, no, but that my situation, just because the state tells me I can harvest another deer, dosent mean I have to, maybe I'll do it every three years or everyother year, but to do it every year would just be killing just to kill, and as ethical hunters who want to continie to hunt in a state where the deer population leets us have sucess, than I must first look at what myself and what I'm doing before I can complaine about the state, 
remember just because the state gives us the oppurtunity to harvest another dosent mean we have to, We all owe it to each other and the young hunters to perserve this great deer hunting state, we have a perfect place to hunt here in Ohio, dont kill just because the DNR says ya can, dont take more from the land than what your gonna use, i know 99% of the people on this web-site feel as I do and the ones who waste dont take the time to read this, but after talking to a few guys, i just needed to pass it on.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

You will always have a few that will do their own thing and hunt with no respect for the land but I think as you said the large majority of the hunters are interested in the welfare of the deer herd. They will act accordingly if they feel their additional harvest will not be good for the future.

But I think there are some areas that are carrying more than enough deer for all hunters to increase. I have witnessed and have talked to others about areas that have such dense populations that they are seeing 30-50 deer per hunting day. I have seen fields with that many grazing in the winter. These areas are the ones that hopefully hunters will target more.

I know I am not one of the older guys on here  but I am old enough to remember what the deer herd was like back in the 70'-80's. What we have now is incredible as far as numbers and I think some of the younger folks don't realize that. Some states that boast great whitetail hunting do not hold a candle to us with what we have for deer densities. Many areas could take a substantial harvest to make the herd even healthier than it is already. Granted other areas can not afford those increases as well. Asking the state to distribute the harvest perfectly for every area within the state is an impossible request. I personally feel this proposal is fine. I don't foresee my area's yield changing much but I imagine some will. At this point I trust that the DNR will stay abreast of the impact and act accordingly. Some claim that are only in it for the money but it makes no sense long term for them to destroy a thriving deer population for instant reward. If they were to knock the population down drastically then they would lose a lot of future revenue. I believe many folks would give up on hunting if it became too much of a chore to fill a tag.


----------



## bigjohn513 (Apr 6, 2004)

guys, there have been some great post about this but one thing you need to remember before you start bashing the farmers for wanting deer permits
If your boss took say $.50 out of your daily pay every time a mouse ran across your place of employment..you be setting a lot of mouse traps
farmers make there living growing things like corn(deer love corn) they tear down fences (cattle escape) tromp down hay fields ect
I grew 2 acres of sweet corn last year...know how many dozen ears I got out of it?... 4 yes 4 dozen that's when the soil and water folks got a call (oh yea only got 100 bushels of field corn out of 8 acres ... should have been around 1000)
Point is most farmers make there living off there crops and when the heard numbers are as high as they are now a lot of damage occurs.
To clear up a few thing about nuisance permits for deer there were 12 issued for the land I farm and hunt (183 acres) 6 were for the land owner only and could be used day or night and 6 were for other hunters only to be used in season by legal means ( just like a regular doe permit only its free)all permits are doe only (for the record we used 4 of them out of the 6 people who hunt there)
I understand some people get angry when they take off work all week for deer season and only see a few deer...but the place I hunt is over run with deer and they need thinned out...just not wiped out (on a recent rabbit hunt I seen 40+ deer and 3 rabbits) Point is if your not seeing a lot of deer you hunting in the wrong place
As far as getting permission to hunt....now is the time of year to ask 
don't wait until the week before deer season because the answer is almost always going to be no..and when you ask offer to help do some chores around the farm and share your harvest this will go a long way to making sure you hunt in the future
oh yea one other thing, when you get permission to hunt if a gate is open then you walk thru leave it open, if its closed, close it behind you or climb over it on the hinge side (a 300 man will bend a gate if you climb it on the latch side...no fat jokes please)


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2007)

> My area might even be able to take the additional kill,but there are many areas in the state that will get hit pretty hard.
> I can imagine the toll on public areas which are the only areas some have to hunt.
> Not to mention all the button bucks that will be killed!
> I see the big powerful Farm Bureau behind this.
> If the farmers are doing all the bitching.....tell them to give permission to some of the many hunters that knock on their door wanting to hunt!


I am glad that someone else can see where I am coming from. I agree that some areas are overpopulated and can withstand more deer being killed, but its simply not a statewide problem. Us folks that hunt public lands in low deer counties are the ones that the state is skrewing over. Some of you dont hunt in those conditions though so you will never understand.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2007)

> Asking the state to distribute the harvest perfectly for every area within the state is an impossible request.


So what about the areas that are not overpopulated and will not be able to sustain the additional harvest? Are they just taking one for the team?


----------



## FishinDawg (Mar 9, 2005)

I do hunt public land, in northwest Ohio, were the population isnt what it is in southern Ohio, We dont see herds of 10-20+ deer in the fields, if we see 5 deer together in a field we get pumped, add a buck in that five and words cant discribe our feelings. Just in the last 3-4 years have we finally been able to see a nicer bigger quality of buck around this area, sure they are here in this area, but once the public lands start getting pressure and shot up, we all know where the bigger smarter deer head to, privet land, and if the deer arnt getting shot at on a farmers land who wont let hunters hunt thier, guess were these deer stay, yep right there, 

I'm not bashing farmers not one ioda, if not for them we wouldnt eat, and it's thier land it's up to them, I respect that, I wouldnt want people trampling all over my woods, fields, and ya never know those who are not responcible and just because they say they are dosent mean they are, ya never know. 

As said earlier if ya want to hunt a farmers land, ask now and dont expect a yes or no right away, tell the farmer you would be intrested if possible come fall, give him your name & number and tell him if he wants to ask around as to what type of person or hunter you are, you'd welcome that. Tell him up front who will be hunting with you, and keep it to one or two people, dont invite the whole hunting club, let him know if you plan on hunting archry, shot gun or both and if he perfers archery only, thats fine also. some farmers are worried thier property will get shot at. cant blame them. do these things now and if ya havent heard by June, acheck back, but after that move on if ya dont get and answer, dont push just be respectfull, farmers know each other and if one says no and your polite he might suggest ya go ask this other farmer and he will put in a good work for ya. but do it now and as said offer help and part of your harvest. 

I dont wanna see Ohio and North west Ohio loose any deer, but i am aware of the problem, I would be a shme going back to the days of sitting in the woods, for 3-4 days and only see one or two deer, it still happens on public land in northwestern Ohio, so maybe this one extra doe per year would really only be sensible in the counties, were thier is a big problem, but I'd hate to see it were I hunt.


----------



## FishinDawg (Mar 9, 2005)

As of 2-23-07


2007-2008 DEER HUNTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED
Additional antlerless deer permits available to archery hunters 

Ohio archery deer hunters may have the opportunity to take additional doe deer this fall if a proposed regulation is accepted by the Ohio Wildlife Council.

Link to printable PDF summary of all proposed deer seasons and regulations. 

Under the proposal, hunters could buy additional antlerless deer permits, currently known as urban deer permits, at reduced prices for hunting in an urban zone, participating in a controlled hunt, or hunting during the September 29 to November 25 portion of the archery season. The antlerless deer permit would cost $15 and be good for doe deer only. 

Archery hunters would be required to purchase a regular deer permit before purchasing the antlerless deer permits. Using the proposed permit system, hunters could take up to one additional antlerless deer in Zone A, up to two additional antlerless deer in Zone B and up to three additional antlerless deer in Zone C. Use of the antlerless deer permit during the first part of the archery season would not count against the hunters zone bag limit (link to Zone Map). 

Archery season would run from Saturday, September 29 through Sunday, February 3, 2008. The popular youth deer-gun season is proposed for Saturday and Sunday, November 17-18. Regular deer-gun season will run Monday, November 26 through Sunday, December 2. An additional deer-gun hunting weekend is proposed for Saturday and Sunday, December 15-16. Statewide muzzleloader season will run Thursday, December 27 through Sunday, December 30. Special area muzzleloader hunts would be open Monday, October 22 through Saturday, October 27 at Salt Fork, Shawnee and Wildcat Hollow. Muzzleloader hunts at these areas are by special permit only, with a random drawing held prior to the season for a limited number of antlered bucks and unlimited number of antlerless or doe permits.

The proposed regulations maintain the same deer zones as the last two years. A three-deer limit (Zone C) would cover 38 central, south, southeastern and southwestern counties. The 30 counties of Zone B would have a two-deer limit, and the 20 northwestern counties of Zone A would have a one-deer limit. A hunter may take only one buck in Ohio, regardless of zone, hunting method or season.

During the youth deer-gun season, young hunters would be permitted to bag only one deer of either sex in any county of Ohio. Any deer taken would be part of the young hunters total season limit. 
During the 2006-2007 season, which concluded February 4, hunters bagged a record of more than 235,000 deer. Approximately 475,000 people hunted white-tailed deer in Ohio this year.

Open houses are scheduled for noon to 3 p.m. on Sunday, March 4 in each of the states five wildlife district offices. These forums will provide the public with an opportunity to view and discuss proposed hunting and trapping regulations with state wildlife officials. Directions to the meetings can be obtained online or by calling 1-800-WILDLIFE.

A statewide hearing on the proposed deer-hunting rules is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 8, at the District One Wildlife Office, located at 1500 Dublin Road in Columbus. After considering public input, the Ohio Wildlife Council will vote on the proposed rules and season dates during its April 4 meeting.

Proposed bag limits and Deer Hunting Zones FOR THE 2007-08 SEASON:


2007/08 Deer Hunting Zones (Click to Enlarge) 
Zone A -- Hunters could take only one deer during the 2007-2008 seasons, which could be a deer of either sex. The zone includes 20 counties: Allen, Auglaize, Darke, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Henry, Lucas, Mercer, Miami, Montgomery, Ottawa, Paulding, Preble, Putnam, Sandusky, Shelby, Van Wert, Williams, Wood.

Zone B -- Hunters could take no more than two deer during the 2007-2008 seasons, of which only one could be an antlered deer. The zone includes 30 counties: Ashland, Ashtabula, Butler, Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Fayette, Geauga, Greene, Hancock, Hardin, Huron, Lake, Logan, Lorain, Madison, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Portage, Seneca, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Union, Warren, Wayne, Wyandot. 

Zone C -- Hunters could take no more than three deer during the 2007-2008 seasons, of which only one could be an antlered deer. The zone includes 38 counties: Adams, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carroll, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Gallia, Guernsey, Hamilton, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Lawrence, Licking, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pickaway, Pike, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Tuscarawas, Vinton, Washington.





© 2007 ODNR, Division of Wildlife


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

traphunter said:


> So what about the areas that are not overpopulated and will not be able to sustain the additional harvest? Are they just taking one for the team?


I guess you could say that unless you know of a better way that the state can manage it. My head hurts just thinking about the confusion that would come from issuing different numbers of tags for different townships, properties, precincts or whatever. And just because you feel that the number should set at one thing does not mean that your neighbor across the street agrees. Then what?

As I said there are some areas thinner in population than others but the end result will be far from wiping the deer all out in any area.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

bigjohn513 said:


> guys, there have been some great post about this but one thing you need to remember before you start bashing the farmers for wanting deer permits...(read the post above to get the rest)


Very good post John! I agree that the farmers have a lot more in stock when it comes to the effect on their property. Being able to do a little bit about it is one of the benefits of owning land. My comments about farmers are not to imply that they have no right having an action in it. What I don't like is that they (in my area) are being given 100's of damage permits of the variety of shoot em and leave em lay. That approach makes me a bit more nervous. I may be overreacting to that, who knows? Perhaps another year or two will tell the story in my area. As I mentioned before our county hands out over 1,000 damage permits. That is more than many counties yield from hunters all season. I wouldn't have a real problem with that number if the hunter's yield stays the same. But our county (Knox) dropped in slug season total last year to this year by over 40% from over 3,000 last year to around 1,800 this year. I have not yet seen the season totals which may or may not help that number. But if the farmers are issued the same tags this upcoming year and the reduced hunter yield was due to few deer then this following season could have a strong impact on the herd. The ridiculously high number of damage tags has only been going on in Knox county for about 2-3 years. As a side note Knox county in 2005-2006 made up over 10% of the total damage permits issued for the entire state. I just hope whoever is in charge here knows what he is doing.


----------



## Snag06 (Mar 24, 2006)

I know of a tree farmer that gets these permits and when asked to have a deer he shoots he said that unless you are at poverty level he was to bury them! I find that to be a crock of sh**. And he doesn't allow hunting. My question is what are they being told by the ODNR to do with the deer they shoot?


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2007)

> what are they being told by the ODNR to do with the deer they shoot?


It sounds to me like they go out and waste a deer, and then let it go to waste. Just to think that the deer they are "slaughtering" could have been a real trophy to some kid or new hunter.


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

traphunter said:


> . Just to think that the deer they are "slaughtering" could have been a real trophy to some kid or new hunter.


Very true, although I also hunt an area with low deer populations, it is sad that so many have great areas to hunt and share them with no one. But I can see if I had a great spot, I would only share it with my buddies


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

And with the crazy lawsuits flying around this country, I also know why people are reluctant


----------



## jiggin'fool (Dec 18, 2005)

Public lands all over can't handle any of the numbers that they are coming up with here! I would say about 1/4 of the deer killed in ohio are from public land! that is pretty much all I hunt and the private land i hunt gets more pressure than the public! I hunt near the border of washington and noble county on public land and the deer herd there is poor! yeah I might see a couple deer almost every time i go out but that is only cause I invest so much time to find them! and you know its the farmers(and insurance companies) complaining! and no a lot of them won't let people hunt! which is a crock of #[email protected]! if you ask me! why complain about something when you had 6 guys in one season aske to help you with the problem your are complaining about! instead of making new deer bag limits they should make new laws for the farmers and according to how much land they have and what counties they are in, determine how many hunters they should have to let hunt their land, and how many deer should be taken off their land.... it is definately not the public lands that are causing the rise of deer bag limits that is for sure!
and what about the state parks that won't allow hunting! I bet the cuyahoga national park makes up about 1/6th or better of ohio's deer population!!!!and the people that own land inside the park aren't even aloud to hunt it!!!! I am probably repeating all that has been said I didn't read all the posts it just pisses me off what the state comes up with! start youth and senior citezen hunts.... drawing hunts anything! Charge $5 for the drawing and then charge $10 once you get in you know how much $$$$$$$ the state would make in that! geeze!!!!!! I am all fired up about this subject..... look at PA and ove by synnamohoning(SP?) the national forrests over there that had deer out the freaking wazoo, did something like the same thing and now you can't hardly see a deer over there driving at night in the national forrests! yeah that is what everyone wants all over ohio! we need to start a petition now!!!!! the deer regs are good like they are.... make the farmers start giving a little in return to all that ohio does for them! I know some farmers that are amazing people! but when it comes to hutning most of their land you better start knocking and when your knuckles turn bloody you might find one that will let you hunt! sorry abotu the babbling and venting but I guess this woudl be the spot to do it!


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2007)

If you want to get this started I would be glad to get as many signatures as I can.

http://petitiononline.com/


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Jiggin'fool, you said it right. I used to hunt in Pa. for years and I would see 20-40 deer in a day sometimes. Dr Ault (Pa.'s Head Game Biologist) said the same thing Ohio is saying now "to many does". Pa. caved in to the farmers and Insurance companies (starting to sound fimiliar). So he started an all out assault on the does by allowing does tags to be handed out like candy. The last year that I hunted in Pa., I only seen 1 doe in two days of hunting. Now Sportsman Clubs in Pa. are suing the Pa. Game Commission for miss managing the deer herd. *Guys, be careful for what you wish for. * There is a lesson in there.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

Well,I keep hearing people say..."how many Deer will hunters kill?...they will police themselves etc".

If the ODNR did not think this proposal would make an impact on populations,then why would they even make it?

The Farm Bureau is already on record as saying they want the Ohio's Deer herd at 250,000 which is probably where we were in the early 1980's.
The Farm Bureau is a BIG powerful lobby.

Until I start seeing some statistics that show a declining overall health of Ohio's Deer I am against this proposal.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2007)

> If the ODNR did not think this proposal would make an impact on populations,then why would they even make it?


That is exactly what I am thinking. The DNR made this proposal because they knew it would impact that herd. If they thought that it wouldnt effect the herd then they never would have made the proposal. At least the insurance companys and farmers will be happy. Us hunters however, will be getting screwed over by our own organization.


----------



## rac123 (May 20, 2004)

Maybe we should all show up at that DW public meeting and raise a little smell? I think that some farmers are for this proposal but most hate turkeys more than deer around me?turkeys work a corn field over real good when the corn is about 2 in.and up? but I will bet a donut that the Insurance Lobby is really behind this?especially since State Farm and Others? have been taking a high property loss overall in the US, with all the storms and kooky weather?automobile insurance payouts on deer hits may be up too?just another way to squeeze them bucks outa your jeans!! I read someplace that an average damage from a deer collision is around 3000? I had one that was a door dent and it went 1550! That shooting deer and letting them rot is plain wrong!!look at all the food pantrys that could use that meat? less tax money for stamp program? are you listening Mr. Politician? plus some accountability at state level for permits should be addressed? that way the county good ol' boy syndrome could be circumvented? if you think getting a permit is tough try getting some of those farm programs in conservation?? the big boys have the little guys gutted and cut up before the money is even approved! and last but, could deer hunting become "big money" recreation? I think it is on its way? They had a sale lately that "deer farmers" [ Amish big business, and a money maker] buy genetics and semen at auction to improve herds and game preserves?? One day in the future you will go and pick out what one you want and have it processed? The world is a changin' and it ain't like it used to be? Glad I wont be around to see what it turns out to be? Just my opinion??


----------



## Snag06 (Mar 24, 2006)

We could start a whole different thread on the turkey population. But you are right the farmers hate them also. I love to turkey hunt but do think that they need thinned out. Think about this. Ever since the turkey have flourished where did the grouse go? If you find a woods with no turkey sign you'll find grouse. Sorry I got sidetracked. Anyway, I truly believe the ODNR look at the deer and turkey as a "Big Money" recreation. Look at it this way. When supply is up and demand is stagnent the price should go down. So allow us to shoot 3 deer on "1" $24.00 tag! To alot of people the add'l $24.00 per tag may be keeping them from shooting more than 1 deer! I mean really how much $ does it cost the state to maintain the deer herd? They are self supporting right? When was the last last time you saw the ODNR feeding them? The money the state makes on deer and turkey sure could be used to better manage our grouse and pheasant populations. But then they would charge a "premium" to hunt them! Look at other states license fees and what YOU get in return! IE: in Alabama for $24.50 you get freshwater fishing AND, ALL game hunting (including deer and turkey)!


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2007)

To say turkey need thinned out is even more ridiculous then saying deer need thinned out. Turkey are just now starting to come back in my area, and in many areas in western Ohio turkeys are almost non existent. Again this is a case like the deer. Just because they may be overpopulated in your area, do not assume they are overpopulated statewide.


----------



## Bassnpro1 (Apr 6, 2004)

Personally i can't stand turkeys, places that used to have grouse now have fields filled with up to 75 turkeys, sucks that they draw more money. i say kill them all haha


----------



## beatsworkin (Apr 12, 2004)

If some areas in the state have lower deer densities, how is this going to hurt? If you are in an area with lower deer totals, why would you and a significant part of the hunters in your area buy more tags if they cannot fill them? 

I speed read many of the posts and there are many good points, humor me with a few of my own (don't know they are good, though!)

1. Don't assume because a farmer says no, that nobody hunts there. Try to get permission in summertime. Offer to only kill does, offer to hunt/trap coyotes and wood chucks, buy 'em a ham at xmas, etc.... 

2. I have not seen many biological facts to contridicte the proposed rule. 

3. ODNR has, in the past, reduced bag limits when they see a population level come down to management goals.

4. I'm glad ODNR tries to keep ahead of FUTURE problems. How many deer will it take to make everyone happy? I think they do a good jpb of keeping most of us happy, most of the time.

5. Saying that this proposal will hurt the herd while offering NO evidence to support your position other than your own opinions is about as useful as others screaming that they have too many deer.

6. I feel that seeing fewer deer on public property is due more to hunting pressure, than hunting kills. It only takes a few posted acres with no access for the deer to go there and stay there.

7. I hit a deer for the first time this year, just outside of Lancaster. Everyday, I can expect deer to cross in front of me at any inch of my 20 mile drive to work and I include the city of Lancaster itself. I pass a couple of fields that hold 30 to 150 deer or more every evening.

8. I seriously doubt that this rule woould increase the kill by more than 10&#37;- 20-25,000 deer with the most in SE Ohio. At 25,000 deer that is a pee hair over 284 deer per county. Some of you will say that is more than many counties kill during gun season now. Having grown up hunting the Madison and Fayette county areas, I hear you but I also know that we might each kill a deer every year growing up, we would all see 15 or 20 more that we could not touch with a bean field rifle!


----------



## GOLDFISH (Mar 10, 2006)

This thread is nothing to worry about as for deer population each year there are almost a half million deer tags sold and you do the math on how many are checked in. Some people call themselves deer hunters but are not . Me on the other hand looks like I will get to enjoy my deer hunting while helping feed the hungry Because if that law passes I will donate a couple.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

GOLDFISH said:


> Me on the other hand looks like I will get to enjoy my deer hunting while helping feed the hungry Because if that law passes I will donate a couple.


Kudos to you with the feeding the hungry. I am curious to hear whether you have to pay the full processing fee to donate your deer? I was not aware of any program within the state that was subsidized. People are less willing to donate the deer considering that by the time they are done they pay the $15 for the tag and the $60 (estimate) for the processing.


----------



## Silver Streak (Sep 1, 2006)

I believe that if you locate a butcher that participates in the program, there will be no cost to the hunter. That is the way it works at Polansky Meats 440-988-2617. I would think that he is able to write off his labor as a charitable contribution. I would think that the hunter could also claim a charitable contribution. 

Farmers are not the only voice asking for a smaller deer herd, the insurance industry also backs that request. I think that the last statistic that I saw had Ohio ranked as number 3 or 4 in the country for motor vehicle accidents. 

Finally, the last ODNR guy that I spoke to said that only 4% of the deer hunters bought a third tag. If that is the case, you would think that allowing deer four five and six is not an offer that will be accepted very often. In fact, I would bet that this plan is going to lose as much revenue as it gains  think about it. If you were a bow hunter who took home three deer in 2006, each tag was a full price tag  in 2007 you will be able to take home the same number of deer with one full price tag and two doe tags.


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

I just talked to a WO at our district meeting, and he admitted that the deer/car collision number is actually -DOWN- from previous years. The main reason for this desire for addition kills is to honor crys from the OFB. I know we will always have the last say in how many are actually killed, but please do everything you can to help defeat this proposal before it gets in the books...


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2007)

The Dnr has already made up their minds that the proposals will pass. They hold all these public meetings but unless you have lots of money or are a big organization you will not accomplish much by just talking to them. I guess we will see how this all plays out, but I have a feeling it will not be to the average hunters favor.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

Lewis said:


> I do not agree with this proposal at all.
> I live in Guernsey County near the Muskingum county line and we have a pretty decent Deer population, but not more than the land can carry.
> You dont see small sickly Deer or an obvious browse line in the woods.
> My area might even be able to take the additional kill,but there are many areas in the state that will get hit pretty hard.
> ...


My take exactly and I let them know about it...... We'll see what happens as I am not a powerful farm group 

reo


----------



## GOLDFISH (Mar 10, 2006)

there are some processing plants that get paid to do so many deer per year 
by the state most will not let you know this and double dip the profits or keep the meat a resale it


----------



## GOLDFISH (Mar 10, 2006)

reo said:


> My take exactly and I let them know about it...... We'll see what happens as I am not a powerful farm group
> 
> reo


I must say I agree with this It makes me mad to know the state will allow all the permits for farmers and let them shoot with high powered rifles when there are hunters wanting a place to hunt


----------



## riverKing (Jan 26, 2007)

i think the bag limit should be raised for antlerless deer but i cannot understand anyone shooting and leaving a bunch of deer to rot. certain areas have so many deer its outrageous, back in cinci there are small paches of woods that hold huge herds of deer, i think those herds need to be thinned but theres nothing anyone can do about it. out in eastern ohio i almost hit atleast 20 deer during the rut and even watched some get hit, certain areas i grouse hunt look like they have been brushhogged because the deer eat everything so far down. from what i understand, if they are raising the limit for early season hunters only its a good thing. what i wouldnt want to see is a raised limit during shotgun season, just because the woods out here are scary enough as it is during gun season. if they are raising the limit because of farmers though, why dont they set up somthing where if you have a certain amount of acres/deer and you have deer problems, you have to let in a certain amount of hunters, keeps the deer from being wasted atleast


----------

