# The perfect managed and prospering Ohio deer herd



## hopin to cash

This thread is for all those tired of the whiners and just want to talk about the great job being done in managing Ohio's deer herd with out sorting through all the negatives in other threads. Have at it guys and enjoy the bountiful deer herd provided to you by the fine efforts of the ODNR. The quality and quantity of the herd is exactly where we want for years and years to come.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Well due to an estimated 41 deer per square mile, The National Park Service in Ohio is hiring sharpshooters to cull the deer in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/national_park_service_oks_shar.html

Avon Lake is doing the same thing.

http://www.cleveland.com/avon-lake/...ins_process_to_al.html#incart_related_stories


----------



## Flathead76

Snakecharmer said:


> Well due to an estimated 41 deer per square mile, The National Park Service in Ohio is hiring sharpshooters to cull the deer in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
> http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/national_park_service_oks_shar.html
> 
> Avon Lake is doing the same thing.
> 
> http://www.cleveland.com/avon-lake/...ins_process_to_al.html#incart_related_stories


Its because people can not hunt there. Waiting for hopin2cash 2,3,4, or 5 to chime in.


----------



## Lundy

The ODNR is very good at deer management. 

They have stated their intentions to reduce the population from what it was in 2008, 2009 and have effectively done so easily with the hunters gleefully participating.

Many of these same hunters (the tools of the ODNR management plan) that enjoyed the higher populations and partook of the higher bag limits are the ones now crying the loudest. 


Can the ODNR manage the deer herd effectively, you bet they can, they have proven that beyond any doubt.


----------



## kayak1979

Flathead76 said:


> Its because people can not hunt there. Waiting for hopin2cash 2,3,4, or 5 to chime in.


LOL Every single complaining deer population thread starts with hopin2cash


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Lundy said:


> The ODNR is very good at deer management.
> 
> They have stated their intentions to reduce the population from what it was in 2008, 2009 and have effectively done so easily with the hunters gleefully participating.
> 
> Many of these same hunters (the tools of the ODNR management plan) that enjoyed the higher populations and partook of the higher bag limits are the ones now crying the loudest.
> 
> 
> Can the ODNR manage the deer herd effectively, you bet they can, they have proven that beyond any doubt.


Can you make this HopintoCash(*) signature? haha


----------



## ostbucks98

The loudest criers also harvested doe's in the last couple years.


----------



## fishingful

I would be happy with getting one a season. Struck out the last 2 seasons.


----------



## Shed Hunter 365

Hoping that I see more deer this year.
Hoping the DNR does not have a second gun season.
Hoping EHD does not run rampant through our state.
Hoping that deer are managed on private and public lands separatetly.
Hoping that more public ground and hunter access to private ground increases.
Hoping I am able to think positively while I watch the neighbor trespass on our property.
Hoping that hunter recrutement increases to save our fine sport.


----------



## FAB

Well I for one am quite pleased, I saved a ton of money on ammunition and the barrel of my rifle is clean as the first day of season. And short of a quick oil swab I didn't have to touch it. Didn't have to wash blood out of the bed of my truck or clean up my deer cart. Or make those trips to distribute processed deer to moms with kids that really needed it. Oh well like the good "Browns Fan" that I am, "There's always next year."

Thanks Mike for a wonderful trouble free deer season.


----------



## kayak1979

No complaints here. Killed one buck and two does. Saw many more does and bucks after as well on trail camera. Life is good thanks ODNR.


----------



## CRAPPIECOMMANDER

I just want an antler restriction that isn't enforced for special youth only seasons to try and even up the buck to doe ratio. I would love to see more bucks during the rut and also see more kids getting the opportunity to harvest bucks.


----------



## ostbucks98

Im not a fan of antler restrictions


----------



## Bonemann

Right now it seams that the our state has pockets full of deer and places where deer are thinned out. The county by county way of managing is probably a good thing but IMO the process is too slow. By the time they cut back on tags the area has already been depleted.

I surly would not want that job, trying to appease, the farmers, the insurance companies and the hunters.

I'm in Jefferson County and we used to be over run with deer. You could go into any patch of woods (in the 90's and 00's) find a trail sit down and expect to see many deer pass on that trail usually within the first hour or so. Now if you can find a good trail you might sit there for a couple of days and only see 1 or 2 come by.

I sit here and read the stories of people that see next to none and others who are still seeing plenty.

My warning to those who see a lot of deer now: It used to be like that here and no one would have or could have ever imagined that it would become the way it is now, few and far between.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Bonemann said:


> Right now it seams that the our state has pockets full of deer and places where deer are thinned out. The county by county way of managing is probably a good thing but IMO the process is too slow. By the time they cut back on tags the area has already been depleted.
> 
> I surly would not want that job, trying to appease, the farmers, the insurance companies and the hunters.
> 
> I'm in Jefferson County and we used to be over run with deer. You could go into any patch of woods (in the 90's and 00's) find a trail sit down and expect to see many deer pass on that trail usually within the first hour or so. Now if you can find a good trail you might sit there for a couple of days and only see 1 or 2 come by.
> 
> I sit here and read the stories of people that see next to none and others who are still seeing plenty.
> 
> My warning to those who see a lot of deer now: It used to be like that here and no one would have or could have ever imagined that it would become the way it is now, few and far between.


Excellent points. There are still plenty of deer around my buddy's place and it's not for lack of hunting pressure! He's had permission to hunt the farm behind his place for about 50 years. Another local farming family, and their friends, also hunt it but only during gun season. They bring about 3 truck loads of drivers and standers! Last season they pushed the farm twice, Tuesday and Saturday. Tuesday they bounced 2 doe, got none. Saturday they saw nothing. Saturday evening my buddy and I decided to take the portable spotlight down back just to see what was around. There were 10 deer in the picked cornfield behind his house! Where'd they come from?

My BIL has permission to hunt a large farm in SE Ohio. There's a creek valley with pasture, some crops (corn for cattle), and timbered ridges on either side. The last outbreak of EHD down there whacked the deer hard! The creek dried up to few pitiful mud holes, and all the little feeders coming off the ridges were bone dry! We went down for the first 3 1/2 days of gun last season and saw one deer! Yet, there was a lot of sign. Rubs, scrapes and tracks galore, but we didn't see them.

That area's deer population has been knocked down, or "depleted", to use your word. It's been coming back slowly. The thing about deer populations is, once they hit a certain "critical mass" they can grow like topsy! I'm all for the county by county management and reduced limits. I think the ODNR realizes that they've knocked the herd back and need to let it grow a little in some places. We'll see if that's the case when the actual regs come out. 

What really interested me was in the title of the post. The "perfectly" managed deer herd! Unfortunately, there ain't no such thing. Not in the real world anyway. No matter what you do, somebody's going to bitch about it, as you alluded to. For an example read about the early "management" of Yellowstone National Park. Nobody knew what to do! They had all kinds of ideas, but no one really "knew"!


----------



## Captain Kevin

CRAPPIECOMMANDER said:


> I just want an antler restriction that isn't enforced for special youth only seasons to try and even up the buck to doe ratio. I would love to see more bucks during the rut and also see more kids getting the opportunity to harvest bucks.


I am yet to understand the need for youth seasons at all. If you have a kid, everyday should be youth season.


----------



## Captain Kevin

Bonemann said:


> Right now it seams that the our state has pockets full of deer and places where deer are thinned out. The county by county way of managing is probably a good thing but IMO the process is too slow. By the time they cut back on tags the area has already been depleted.
> 
> I surly would not want that job, trying to appease, the farmers, the insurance companies and the hunters.
> 
> I'm in Jefferson County and we used to be over run with deer. You could go into any patch of woods (in the 90's and 00's) find a trail sit down and expect to see many deer pass on that trail usually within the first hour or so. Now if you can find a good trail you might sit there for a couple of days and only see 1 or 2 come by.
> 
> I sit here and read the stories of people that see next to none and others who are still seeing plenty.
> 
> My warning to those who see a lot of deer now: It used to be like that here and no one would have or could have ever imagined that it would become the way it is now, few and far between.


My question to you is this. Do you have any adjoining properties who do not allow hunting? If the answer is yes, go there, and I bet deer will trample you.
All about the access thingy.


----------



## garhtr

Captain Kevin said:


> I am yet to understand the need for youth seasons at all. If you have a kid, everyday should be youth season.


It gives our youth hunters a chance to gun hunt with uncrowded conditions and before deer are highly pressured. I am a huge proponent of the seasons and see the proposed change as selfishness. Let the kids have some fun now and they are more likely to stick with hunting in the future. Just my opinion.


----------



## Captain Kevin

garhtr said:


> It gives our youth hunters a chance to gun hunt with uncrowded conditions and before deer are highly pressured. I am a huge proponent of the seasons and see the proposed change as selfishness. Let the kids have some fun now and they are more likely to stick with hunting in the future. Just my opinion.


My point is, that as a parent, you shouldn't put your hunt ahead of a kids. If you can't sacrifice your opener for your child, THAT is a sign of selfishness. Every day of the season should be "youth day" if you're a parent.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Captain Kevin said:


> I am yet to understand the need for youth seasons at all. If you have a kid, everyday should be youth season.





garhtr said:


> It gives our youth hunters a chance to gun hunt with uncrowded conditions and before deer are highly pressured. I am a huge proponent of the seasons and see the proposed change as selfishness. Let the kids have some fun now and they are more likely to stick with hunting in the future. Just my opinion.


It's kind of like having a basketball hoop 8' high for the young'uns.


----------



## Captain Kevin

buckeyebowman said:


> It's kind of like having a basketball hoop 8' high for the young'uns.


And then bragging how your 15 year old can jam 2 handed. LOL!!!


----------



## garhtr

It's a little difficult to take a child deer hunting EVERDAY when there's no open gun season.
I guess I just fail to see the problem with letting children hunt a few days before 650000 adults hit the woods.
Just because a child kills a deer in youth season sure doesn't mean they couldn't Hunt Opening Day of the regular season but My children normally had school on Monday. 
Good luck and Good Hunting


----------



## hopin to cash

kayak1979 said:


> LOL Every single complaining deer population thread starts with hopin2cash


Find it humorous that every sarcastic statement on OGF comes with a yak on the avatar... js

Yes I am concerned about the deer population...

Yes a youth hunt is good thing... we have lost so many hunting traditions over the years to so called technology etc... maybe it is time to try and start some new traditions...:good:


----------



## Lundy

I am not a huge proponent of a dedicated youth season and doubt that it has any lasting impact on keeping a youth interested in hunting as he grows older. There was no youth season when I was growing up or when my son started hunting with me. I created a youth season for my son by taking him out of school to participate in the first day of the deer season.

I would really like to see the deer gun season open on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and run for 9 days giving everybody 4 weekend days to hunt. If the kids can hunt with everybody else on an Saturday opening day it would be better than a dedicated youth season in my opinion.

The dynamics involved with instilling the tradition of hunting in our youth is a much more complex problem than just giving them 2 days of season.


----------



## Bonemann

Captain Kevin said:


> My question to you is this. Do you have any adjoining properties who do not allow hunting? If the answer is yes, go there, and I bet deer will trample you.
> All about the access thingy.


There are such places (close to some of my areas) but I am speaking more broadly about my entire county. The decline is not at one farm or one area that I hunt. And I'm not saying that we are free of deer.

I have seen the full cycle from almost none to over run back to only a few. When I started hunting it was buck only and there were very few hunters (even fewer bow hunters). Many of which only caught a glimpse of a buck.

Then in the late 70's and early 80's it was coming on. They started giving out doe permits lottery style (they might not have been the county that you lived in). Then came the either or tags. Then multiple either or tags and so on.

In the late 80's and through the 90's Jefferson County was always in top 5 for deer harvest. I saw more out of state and out of county plates than you could believe. Most didn't have permission they found a place to park and went into the woods to hunt. And for the most part people didn't care (we knew they would get they're deer and go home).

Mid 00's is when I noticed that there just wasn't as many around any more. Folks on here belittled me big time when I mentioned it, IE: "I didn't know how to hunt", "I was caught up in old habits" and so on and so on. "There were plenty of deer" and "There's nothing to worry about", "I needed to change my methods".

Well it took several years but now the sky is falling for others around the state. And yes there are pockets of deer in places, some seeing plenty and they couldn't be happier but let the "Orange Army" find out where that is and they will come and help with the over population problem in your area.

I'm not sure if it's some kind of cycle, over harvest, coyotes, disease or a combination of everything. But right now (around here anyways) it seams like we are back in the late 70's early 80's. 

The deer are still here but not in the numbers they were. I stopped harvesting doe a couple of years ago (to try and do my part). But I'll say it again "Don't think it can't happen where you are" , that's what we all thought.


----------



## ostbucks98

I think the idea of a youth season is its safer than gun season amd I agree.


----------



## Bonemann

Lundy said:


> I am not a huge proponent of a dedicated youth season and doubt that it has any lasting impact on keeping a youth interested in hunting as he grows older. There was no youth season when I was growing up or when my son started hunting with me. I created a youth season for my son by taking him out of school to participate in the first day of the deer season.
> 
> I would really like to see the deer gun season open on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and run for 9 days giving everybody 4 weekend days to hunt. If the kids can hunt with everybody else on an Saturday opening day it would be better than a dedicated youth season in my opinion.
> 
> The dynamics involved with instilling the tradition of hunting in our youth is a much more complex problem than just giving them 2 days of season.


Well said Lundy. And that's how most of us grew up, learning and hunting with adults that took the time to show us.

When I look at some youth hunt photo's and see a small child with a buck of a lifetime. When the gun is as tall as they are, what exactly is this teaching the young one ?


----------



## garhtr

I sure can't see the downside of a youth season. If a child isn't successful in the youth time frame --take him or her on opening day .
Every young Hunter(many) I've had experience with looked forward to youth waterfowl, the youth upland season and the youth deer hunt, almost like a Birthday, their special day. Maybe you made the sacrifice to take your child or grandchildren on opening day but sadly, Many won't and the young Hunters loose out. 
I would like to see the youth season stay in mid Nov and not moved to Oct, giving youngsters a Good chance for success. I know some bowhunters don't like this time for the Hunter but IMO the have plenty of days to hunt.
Good luck and Good hunting


----------



## ostbucks98

Bonemann said:


> Well said Lundy. And that's how most of us grew up, learning and hunting with adults that took the time to show us.
> 
> When I look at some youth hunt photo's and see a small child with a buck of a lifetime. When the gun is as tall as they are, what exactly is this teaching the young one ?


A memory of a lifetime. My first buck during youth is the greatest memory of them all. Having my dad by myside is priceless.


----------



## garhtr

ostbucks98 said:


> A memory of a lifetime. My first buck during youth is the greatest memory of them all. Having my dad by myside is priceless.


Exactly ! I'm willing to bet it's your fathers Greatest memory also. 
The more time you can spend together In the field the better.
Youth harvest numbers remain fairly low and I would think youth season has little impact on herd numbers.
Good luck and Good hunting.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Captain Kevin said:


> And then bragging how your 15 year old can jam 2 handed. LOL!!!


I'm sorry, but you took my meaning entirely wrong. And if your 15 year old can't get the ball up to a ten foot hoop then something is extremely wrong! I'm talking more about 8 to 12 year olds, and I have no problem holding a special season for youth. 



Lundy said:


> I am not a huge proponent of a dedicated youth season and doubt that it has any lasting impact on keeping a youth interested in hunting as he grows older. There was no youth season when I was growing up or when my son started hunting with me. I created a youth season for my son by taking him out of school to participate in the first day of the deer season.
> 
> I would really like to see the deer gun season open on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and run for 9 days giving everybody 4 weekend days to hunt. If the kids can hunt with everybody else on an Saturday opening day it would be better than a dedicated youth season in my opinion.
> 
> The dynamics involved with instilling the tradition of hunting in our youth is a much more complex problem than just giving them 2 days of season.


You have some good points. There's nothing that makes a day more "special" for a kid than being allowed to play hooky from school! And your idea of the "double weekend" with a week in between has merit. As long as the "extra" weekend is eliminated. 

However, one place your argument falls short is your idea that we're only giving youth a 2 day season. You could take your kids, or grandkids, hunting during the youth season, and take them out again during the regular season no matter how it's constructed. After all, there are no rules prohibiting youth participation in such seasons.


----------



## Lundy

Certainly wasn't implying that they only get two days, just stating that them getting an extra two days won't make any difference in a youth developing and maintaining the desire to hunt. They will either get it or they won't

If they are hunting with dad Sat, Sun of youth season or Sat Sun the first two days of gun season shouldn't make a difference.

Youth or no youth or when it would occur really makes no difference to me either way. However to hang the future on hunting tradition on a youth season is a little over stated


----------



## ostbucks98

All the kids in my area look at it like a holiday. Its talked about in school and has a big build up. Its their piece of the pie. I would have to think kids who have shown no interest in hunting may over hear other kids talking and ask their parents to take them hunting. Then at lunch time at the local eateries is a bunch of kids talking it up. It does nothing but good for hunting.


----------



## garhtr

Lundy said:


> Certainly wasn't implying that they only get two days, just stating that them *getting an extra two days won't make any difference in a youth *developing and maintaining the desire to hunt. They will either get it or they won't
> 
> If they are hunting with dad Sat, Sun of youth season or Sat Sun the first two days of gun season shouldn't make a difference.
> 
> Youth or no youth or when it would occur really makes no difference to me either way. However to hang the future on hunting tradition on a youth season is a little over stated


It sure can't hurt . Most young Hunters I known , as Ostbucks pointed out,consider it "Special.Just another tool in the box of ''tricks'' to get kids hooked. Kinda like the Cherry on top of the Sundae.
Another good thing about youth day --- what about the poor dad who can not wiggle of work on Monday to take a youth hunting or has multiple children to take hunting&#128527;. Youngest hunts youth day and maybe the older goes on the opener.I hear Many hunters complain about working the opener.
Some just are unable to go and kids don't get the opportunity. I'm all in on all the youth events. 
Good luck and Good hunting


----------



## Captain Kevin

We all have our opinions of youth season, but if you want to do some good for our youth and hunting, take them video games away and throw them in the trash. Why would a kid go outside when it's cold, when they sit on the couch and play "Hunt" ?


----------



## Snook

My best hunts ever had been on the youth hunts. I really like the fact that the primary focus is on them. I think it gets more kids in the woods because folks are available to take them that otherwise may be hunting themselves. Not all kids have a father or family member that hunts. The only thing I would like to see change is there be a one deer limit. Most kids are very happy shooting "a deer". I don't think shooting 2,3 or 4 deer makes them any happier. I have always practiced this with my son. IMOP shooting up the woods...even though it's lawful...is NOT a good practice to teach our youth. Just my opinion.


----------



## buckeyebowman

There are pros and cons to each position, but I tend to lean in the direction of giving the young'uns their shot. It doesn't impinge on us very much, other than time, which is the most precious wealth you can spend in the raising of a child. 

As Lundy said, "They will either get it or they won't." Back in the day my best friend was one of 4 Sons. His Dad hunted. Particularly rabbits over a brace of Beagles. But, he hunted everything and fished as well. Of the 4 Sons, two of them "got it" and two of them didn't. At any rate they all turned out to be successful in their own right. 

But back then there weren't so many distractions. We were outside constantly. Our parents had to come chase us indoors, not chase us outdoors! In Summer we'd play basketball all evening under a street light on a hoop we had mounted to a telephone pole. When the nightly news signed of at 11:30 our folks had to yell at us to get in the damn house!

It's not like that any more.


----------



## hopin to cash

Things are getting better by the year!!! '14 -175,801, '15- 191,503, '16- 188,329, so far in '17- 154,000!!! lets all celebrate...lol


----------



## Shad Rap

hopin to cash said:


> Things are getting better by the year!!! '14 -175,801, '15- 191,503, '16- 188,329, so far in '17- 154,000!!! lets all celebrate...lol


Celebrate what?..less hunters??


----------



## Richman

From 2007 news release

Ohio deer hunters took a record 237,316 deer during the 2006-07 hunting season and for the third year in a row the harvest surpassed 200,000, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife. The total number of deer taken was 13 percent above last year's season total of 209,513.

Ahhhh the good ole days!


----------



## Shad Rap

Richman said:


> From 2007 news release
> 
> Ohio deer hunters took a record 237,316 deer during the 2006-07 hunting season and for the third year in a row the harvest surpassed 200,000, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife. The total number of deer taken was 13 percent above last year's season total of 209,513.
> 
> Ahhhh the good ole days!


Would be interesting to know the number of hunters from then til now...had to drop also...saw over 30 deer, with 4 of them being bucks, on my 45 minute drive to work the other day...the deer are still out there, thats for sure.


----------



## hopin to cash

Shad Rap said:


> Would be interesting to know the number of hunters from then til now...had to drop also...saw over 30 deer, with 4 of them being bucks, on my 45 minute drive to work the other day...the deer are still out there, thats for sure.


So they are looking at a draw for non-residents? Imagine the commercials "come to a state where the harvest numbers are down nearly 50% over the last 7 years"!!! I have a sneaking suspicion this will end up benefiting the lease and outfitters.


----------



## chatterbox

Three weeks ago, the corn was harvested on the 400 acre farm across the road and 80 acre farm beside my house. Now food barren ground. Ohio farm bureau wants the deer herd held at 250,000 state wide. Drought the last two years have cut mast crops severely in my area. There are only 3 deer in 6 sq. mile of my house. In 2012 EHD hit my area hard. My ignorant neighbor still hunted the three deer left. AMAZING! If You have a good population of deer, God bless YOU, do everything possible to keep it that way. If not, do everything You can to allow it to return.

I am 100% with Lundy, ODNR interest is not the same as the hunters. Go ahead and listen to ODNR statistics and bag limits, when You should be looking with your own eyes.


----------



## roundheadjig

Snakecharmer said:


> Well due to an estimated 41 deer per square mile, The National Park Service in Ohio is hiring sharpshooters to cull the deer in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
> http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/national_park_service_oks_shar.html
> 
> Avon Lake is doing the same thing.
> 
> http://www.cleveland.com/avon-lake/...ins_process_to_al.html#incart_related_stories


Do these folks allow public deer hunting in the season.....?


----------



## chatterbox

roundheadjig said:


> Do these folks allow public deer hunting in the season.....?


No. Most are in high populated areas and have No Projectile Ordinances. Not even a slingshot. These deer are still figured into the population figures. They justify the slaughter by saying the meat is donated to food banks.

A lot more going on state wide than most people know about. Notice, Snakecharmer did not say ODNR, but National Park Service. They could do the same on Wayne National Forest.


----------



## miked913

chatterbox said:


> No. Most are in high populated areas and have No Projectile Ordinances. Not even a slingshot. These deer are still figured into the population figures. They justify the slaughter by saying the meat is donated to food banks.
> 
> A lot more going on state wide than most people know about. Notice, Snakecharmer did not say ODNR, but National Park Service. They could do the same on Wayne National Forest.


There are a lot of things that you don't know in that paragraph. 1st you can bow hunt in Avon, there are definitely hoops to jump through but you can. And the is a HUGE difference in a national park and national Forest. You're on the computer spend a few extra minutes and look some facts up 1st then make a post.


----------



## chatterbox

miked913 said:


> There are a lot of things that you don't know in that paragraph. 1st you can bow hunt in Avon, there are definitely hoops to jump through but you can. And the is a HUGE difference in a national park and national Forest. You're on the computer spend a few extra minutes and look some facts up 1st then make a post.


It is impossible to cover every municipality in a simple statement. My point is it is being done in many different locations and not in control of ODNR. Solon is a prime example. Now if You want to nit pick my posts, then notice I said most municipalities. As well, national park or national forest is still federal land the gov't can and will do as they want. If the decision to eliminate deer is made the public sure isn't capable of stopping it on either.


----------



## hopin to cash

Not going to lie... years ago (200k) plus years myself and my group were eating venison twice a week year round... we bought and filled many tags because the ODNR said the quality of the herd was in jeopardy. We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR. The results are in now for our own ignorance. We trusted the biologists and law makers. They were even making diversified wild life ares by totally clear cutting public lands. It was going to make hunting great for years to come!!!


----------



## chatterbox

hopin to cash said:


> Not going to lie... years ago (200k) plus years myself and my group were eating venison twice a week year round... we bought and filled many tags because the ODNR said the quality of the herd was in jeopardy. We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR. The results are in now for our own ignorance. We trusted the biologists and law makers. They were even making diversified wild life ares by totally clear cutting public lands. It was going to make hunting great for years to come!!!


I will be the last person to thumb my nose in the air. Yes, the public was deceived. Just learn and don't let them trick You again.


----------



## Shad Rap

chatterbox said:


> Three weeks ago, the corn was harvested on the 400 acre farm across the road and 80 acre farm beside my house. Now food barren ground. Ohio farm bureau wants the deer herd held at 250,000 state wide. Drought the last two years have cut mast crops severely in my area. There are only 3 deer in 6 sq. mile of my house. In 2012 EHD hit my area hard. My ignorant neighbor still hunted the three deer left. AMAZING! If You have a good population of deer, God bless YOU, do everything possible to keep it that way. If not, do everything You can to allow it to return.
> 
> I am 100% with Lundy, ODNR interest is not the same as the hunters. Go ahead and listen to ODNR statistics and bag limits, when You should be looking with your own eyes.


3 deer within 6 square miles???..that sucks...I still see plenty of deer across several counties...seeing it with my own eyes...I do notice a drop in deer movement because of less hunters during the season though...but the deer are still there.


----------



## Shad Rap

hopin to cash said:


> Not going to lie... years ago (200k) plus years myself and my group were eating venison twice a week year round... we bought and filled many tags because the ODNR said the quality of the herd was in jeopardy. We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR. The results are in now for our own ignorance. We trusted the biologists and law makers. They were even making diversified wild life ares by totally clear cutting public lands. It was going to make hunting great for years to come!!!


The sun will come up tomorrow...its ok really...go kill a deer.


----------



## miked913

I don't understand any of this, during the so called hay days of the deer hunting the odnr were trying to reduce the deer herd. It was never any kind of a secret it was and always has been the plan. The whole idea is to have enough deer to hunt and few enough deer that there is not an economic strain on the farmers or people driving in their cars. It was and still is the whole point of the management system. The odnr has meetings open to the public every spring and they wait get this ENCOURAGE people to attend and give their thoughts. I encourage people that have opinions to please go.


----------



## Lundy

I have never understood how hunters blame their immediate local deer populations levels on the ODNR. The ODNR didn't shoot any deer.

You would think that any hunter or group of hunters would have a much better understanding of the population on any given piece of land they hunt than the ODNR would. The ODNR, the same ODNR that has never set foot on the property you hunt tells you that you have too many deer and to shoot more and you do it because they said to? It is really difficult to understand how anyone that is even remotely educated about deer populations of the land they hunt could so blindly follow a directive that was counterproductive to their now loudly stated whining of wanting more deer because they killed them all. They now want the ODNR to now fix what the ODNR didn't break to begin with, they did.

_"We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR"_

This begs the question of why were you selective on your private lands but not on public lands? Was the ODNR directive different for private harvest versus public?.Of course not in fact it was just the opposite.

" The ODNR made me do it" , no credibility, sad and funny at the same time


----------



## hopin to cash

We did they listened... less permits last 3 years but the damage was done... haven't shot a doe in 3 years trying to do my part. Don't miss the point that this is hunter forum. I believe the farmer and insurance company forum is ODNR.com


----------



## chatterbox

Lundy, the local deer around my place have not recovered from EHD, but some people just are not diciplined enough to not hunt them for awhile. If the ODNR would allow deer season all year with no bag limits, there are people who would hunt to the last deer was killed. Look what has happened in the past.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy, I can't believe anyone can blame hunters for what has been done to our public land deer herd. In my opinion anyone with an open mind can understand the reason why we set limits is to control hunters for the best interests of the game and fish they seek. Imagine Lake Erie with no Walleye limits. Same with ducks. We sportsmen need protected from ourselves like it or not it is a fact.To blame hunters makes no sense. You can blame the land owner/farmer that can control what comes off his private land but public is a free for all and without limits you get what we got. A resource that has been over harvested and an agency that does not care!


----------



## hopin to cash

Lundy said:


> I have never understood how hunters blame their immediate local deer populations levels on the ODNR. The ODNR didn't shoot any deer.
> 
> You would think that any hunter or group of hunters would have a much better understanding of the population on any given piece of land they hunt than the ODNR would. The ODNR, the same ODNR that has never set foot on the property you hunt tells you that you have too many deer and to shoot more and you do it because they said to? It is really difficult to understand how anyone that is even remotely educated about deer populations of the land they hunt could so blindly follow a directive that was counterproductive to their now loudly stated whining of wanting more deer because they killed them all. They now want the ODNR to now fix what the ODNR didn't break to begin with, they did.
> 
> _"We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR"_
> 
> This begs the question of why were you selective on your private lands but not on public lands? Was the ODNR directive different for private harvest versus public?.Of course not in fact it was just the opposite.
> 
> " The ODNR made me do it" , no credibility, sad and funny at the same time


Last time I checked ODNR was a government organization funded with my tax money and wild life fees. I could only assume they had hunters, farm owners and unfortunately insurance companys in mind when setting limits. They had the latter in mind but never the hunters. You posted for years how you controlled your private land... so your saying the millions in ODNR salaries isn't necessary?


----------



## Lundy

hopin to cash said:


> Last time I checked ODNR was a government organization funded with my tax money and wild life fees. I could only assume they had hunters, farm owners and unfortunately insurance companys in mind when setting limits. They had the latter in mind but never the hunters. You posted for years how you controlled your private land... so your saying the millions in ODNR salaries isn't necessary?


ABSOLUTLEY they had hunters in mind when setting those limits. Hunters were the only means to the end, they could do nothing without hunters killing the deer. They counted on masses of hunters just like you. They had you in mind when they set those limits. They named it the hopin to crash the deer population program

They set limits with whatever evaluation they choose to use and you said _"myself and my group were eating venison twice a week year round... we bought and filled many tags"
_
Allstate was in good hands with you.

I don't care that you were part of the problem then I only care that you complain so loudly now but with no personal accountability about the situation you complain about.


----------



## Pooch

I sit and read these post and absolutely love how certain people , not saying just in this thread, are uneducated to all the workings that goes into odnr's processes on managing not only wildlife but all resources, and continue to bitch and complain about EVERYTHING. ODNR has a website and headquarters where you can visit for an application or submit your resume. I don't claim personally to know more than odnr in the field or the office that's why I work heavy construction. But hey from what it reads lately in way too many threads is if alot of the people here complaining and saying they know more than the state all applied and were hired we'd have the best management of resources in the country. Go ahead and jump me now.


----------



## Flathead76

I love how these blood thirsty hunters blame the ODNR for less deer. Just because they say you can kill "X" number of deer does not mean that you have to. Not only did these hunters slit thier own throats by slaughtering every antler less deer they could they also padded the ODNRs pockets 24 dollars each time they did it. The state didn't kill these deer greedy hunters with zero self control did. The best part is they never made it a secret that they wanted the herd reduced. They knew exactly what was going to happen when they set high limits. So instead of looking in the mirror as to who is to blame these hunters point fingers at the state. If the state next year said that we could kill 5 antlered deer a year these same hunters would do it. Then the following year after that they would cry about not seeing any mature antlered deer. Some people just can not open thier eyes. The only thing that you can control in life is what you do.


----------



## chatterbox

Flathead76 said:


> I love how these blood thirsty hunters blame the ODNR for less deer. Just because they say you can kill "X" number of deer does not mean that you have to. Not only did these hunters slit thier own throats by slaughtering every antler less deer they could they also padded the ODNRs pockets 24 dollars each time they did it. The state didn't kill these deer greedy hunters with zero self control did. The best part is they never made it a secret eoples interestlimits. So instead of looking in the mirror as to who is to blame these hunters point fingers at the state. If the state next year said that we could kill 5 antlered deer a year these same hunters would do it. Then the following year after that they would cry about not seeing any mature antlered deer. Some people just can not open thier eyes. The only thing that you can control in life is what you do.


All well and good. Now I have not hunted my area since 2012 because of EHD, but I have a neighbor who hunted the 3 deer left. I cannot control that. Also, I cannot control what people do on public or private land I don't own. So yes, a lot of us are at the mercy of what the ODNR decides to do as an agency, so it is not too much for people like me to expect our interest be looked after as well.


----------



## hopin to cash

I'm going to check out of this one for now... nice play on words Lundy... you want to blame me? I've hunted with a damn camera over the past few years mostly. Have culled a few scrub bucks on our secret piece of heaven though. That's fine you blame me though could you send me the money you're given the ODNR over the years now. I enjoy that the ODNR has gotten into the logging and even oil industry also it's all to benefit the hunters... lmao at the people who think it's all the public fault... none of us got rich only shot deer to improve the herd as we were told!!!


----------



## bobk

Man up. You pulled the trigger. Coming here crying once a year won't help a damn thing.

Everyone that pulled the trigger helped with the current deer population. The odnr didn't make anyone pull the trigger. Keep blaming everyone but yourself if it makes you feel better. The blame game is suppose to end in grade school. It's time to accept responsibility for what you and every other hunter has done. We all make our own decisions in life and should expect to admit the results of those actions. 
The discussion should be more about how the heck to fix the problem not to keep blaming the odnr. They have a much different agenda than the hunters do.


----------



## Shad Rap

hopin to cash said:


> I'm going to check out of this one for now... nice play on words Lundy... you want to blame me? I've hunted with a damn camera over the past few years mostly. Have culled a few scrub bucks on our secret piece of heaven though. That's fine you blame me though could you send me the money you're given the ODNR over the years now. I enjoy that the ODNR has gotten into the logging and even oil industry also it's all to benefit the hunters... lmao at the people who think it's all the public fault... none of us got rich only shot deer to improve the herd as we were told!!!


Quit using the word 'we' or 'us'...because you obviously are the minority...I'm not saying the deer herd is anymore abundant now than it has been in the past...but I've never felt the need to kill more than 1 deer a year anyway...even when bag limits were raised...and if I did, I definitely wouldnt be bitching about the population...most hunters are lucky to kill one deer a year...and thats how it should be...it's called hunting for a reason.


----------



## Flathead76

bobk said:


> Man up. You pulled the trigger. Coming here crying once a year won't help a damn thing.
> 
> Everyone that pulled the trigger helped with the current deer population. The odnr didn't make anyone pull the trigger. Keep blaming everyone but yourself if it makes you feel better. The blame game is suppose to end in grade school. It's time to accept responsibility for what you and every other hunter has done. We all make our own decisions in life and should expect to admit the results of those actions.
> The discussion should be more about how the heck to fix the problem not to keep blaming the odnr. They have a much different agenda than the hunters do.


Exactly! I'm lucky in the fact that I have multiple places to hunt. In a few of the areas I will not shoot a doe. They just do not have the amount of deer to kill a doe on. Why hammer deer on places that do not have the numbers. It only takes beans off your plate in future years.


----------



## Lundy

hoping to cash,

Please don't miss my intended point. I am not always in agreement with the management polices of the ODNR, but I am fully aware of the difficult job that they have to managing all of the wildlife resources and balancing for the needs of all vested interests. 

They, through their evaluation process determined that the deer population needed to be reduced. They never hid that population management plan, they openly promoted the harvest of many more deer statewide to reduce the population through public announcements, increased bag limits and reduced tag pricing. The intent was loud and clear. 

They certainly tried to sell the benefit of less deer to hunters as beneficial to the deer itself. Charts and graphs with deer densities, how antler size was declining, over browsing, etc, etc, etc. I am sure what they presented was factual but feel it was oversold to the hunting community to create enthusiasm for the task ahead, which was killing more deer, lots of more deer.

The problem arises, and also creates a huge challenge to the ODNR is how to evenly reduce a deer herd that is not evenly distributed across the state. They can't, which leads to different reductions in different areas even different areas withing the same county. Their changes in the bag limits and managing now more by county versus by huge zones should show that they are no managing the results of the initial statewide mass reduction they set out to achieve.

I am not trying to be overly critical of a hunter that killed a bunch of deer during the times of high population and increased opportunity if they believed they were doing it for all of the right reasons that the ODNR laid out to them. However If the ODNR tells you there are too many deer on the property you hunt I think the hunter can make a more informed assessment than the ODNR and manage their deer harvest accordingly. 

My single biggest problem isn't the hunter participation in the herd reduction plan it is the attempt by these same hunters to now lay total responsibility and accountability on anyone but themselves for the current status of their local deer population (EHD aside, that is all on to itself a different problem). Many say they didn't know what they were doing, they were mislead by the ODNR. I say that would serve to illistrate either a blatant lack of understanding of the resource or a less than honest position. When someone states that on public lands "brown it's down" on our private lands "more selective" has a problem selling to me that their efforts were a result of the ODNR plan. The ODNR never said the population is way too high on public lands, kill more, but not as many on private properties. 

Again, The ODNR clearly stated their goals, hunters gleefully participated, the reduction has occurred, recent regulation change is in place to manage the reduced population, hunters are going to see less deer today as a whole than previously. Going forward only hunters, not the ODNR(minus a closed season), can have any impact of the future of their local deer populations, higher or lower.

I'm sure you are a really nice guy *so please forgive my frustration *towards those that continue to blame the ODNR. I just can't get there and have trouble understanding those that do.


----------



## hopin to cash

You sir bobk hit it right on the spot when you said ODNR and hunters are not on the same agenda... that alone is a man up statement... I will man up... hell I'm using a damn camera most of the time... until next year fellas Merry Christmas and Happy New Year


----------



## bobk

Merry Christmas to you as well.

Good post Kim.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> hoping to cash,
> 
> Please don't miss my intended point. I am not always in agreement with the management polices of the ODNR, but I am fully aware of the difficult job that they have to managing all of the wildlife resources and balancing for the needs of all vested interests.
> 
> They, through their evaluation process determined that the deer population needed to be reduced. They never hid that population management plan, they openly promoted the harvest of many more deer statewide to reduce the population through public announcements, increased bag limits and reduced tag pricing. The intent was loud and clear.
> 
> They certainly tried to sell the benefit of less deer to hunters as beneficial to the deer itself. Charts and graphs with deer densities, how antler size was declining, over browsing, etc, etc, etc. I am sure what they presented was factual but feel it was oversold to the hunting community to create enthusiasm for the task ahead, which was killing more deer, lots of more deer.
> 
> The problem arises, and also creates a huge challenge to the ODNR is how to evenly reduce a deer herd that is not evenly distributed across the state. They can't, which leads to different reductions in different areas even different areas withing the same county. Their changes in the bag limits and managing now more by county versus by huge zones should show that they are no managing the results of the initial statewide mass reduction they set out to achieve.
> 
> I am not trying to be overly critical of a hunter that killed a bunch of deer during the times of high population and increased opportunity if they believed they were doing it for all of the right reasons that the ODNR laid out to them. However If the ODNR tells you there are too many deer on the property you hunt I think the hunter can make a more informed assessment than the ODNR and manage their deer harvest accordingly.
> 
> My single biggest problem isn't the hunter participation in the herd reduction plan it is the attempt by these same hunters to now lay total responsibility and accountability on anyone but themselves for the current status of their local deer population (EHD aside, that is all on to itself a different problem). Many say they didn't know what they were doing, they were mislead by the ODNR. I say that would serve to illistrate either a blatant lack of understanding of the resource or a less than honest position. When someone states that on public lands "brown it's down" on our private lands "more selective" has a problem selling to me that their efforts were a result of the ODNR plan. The ODNR never said the population is way too high on public lands, kill more, but not as many on private properties.
> 
> Again, The ODNR clearly stated their goals, hunters gleefully participated, the reduction has occurred, recent regulation change is in place to manage the reduced population, hunters are going to see less deer today as a whole than previously. Going forward only hunters, not the ODNR(minus a closed season), can have any impact of the future of their local deer populations, higher or lower.
> 
> I'm sure you are a really nice guy *so please forgive my frustration *towards those that continue to blame the ODNR. I just can't get there and have trouble understanding those that do.


Excellent post Lundy. I agree with just about all of it. Can you give us your thoughts on why the DOW threw the baby out with the bath water so to speak by not coming out with different tag numbers or regulations for public lands in the past several years. They know full well and saw that that the result of the cheap and plentiful tags would impact public lands the most but never did a thing to remedy this. Are we to believe the public lands then needed more deer reduced than private? Did they not care? I just can't grasp this lack of management action. The one size fits all approach has decimated many areas of public lands. Would you agree they could of, should of done better by the land we all own (public) and none of us as individual hunters can do much to control? Where they were needed the most they dropped the ball in my view. I agree hunters as a whole are responsible but just as responsible is the organization paid by our tax dollars to manage and they failed to truly manage the public herd with any thought to those that primarily hunt it.


----------



## Lundy

As I stated, I don't always agree with the ODNR. The management of public versus private lands is one I struggle to underrstand. I am sure however that they don't just blindly set regulation, I'm sure it is a long and thoughtful process, I just dont't know the criteria used to arrive at their conclusions.

I do know that on one of the hunter surveys a couple of years ago there was a question asking about "would you be in favor of limiting access to some public lands to improve the hunting experience" I don't know the outcome of the survey or where they are going in the future with that but I am 100% sure they recognize the disparity between hunting private and public and will try and do something to improve public hunting at some point.


----------



## ostbucks98

Some of you could make up a flyer and drop it in your neighbors mailbox to open discussion to help your individual herd. 

Human's are a goofy bunch. I stopped to help one of my neighbors a few years ago and we started talking hunting. I revealed that I'm mostly a trophy hunter and go years between kills. He then explains He used to be that way but the next neighbor down from him was shooting all the deer. So his logic changed to kill them before his neighbor does...lol. Well it took awhile but I think we are all on the same page now and the results are starting to show. Sometimes you just have to get out and open some dialogue.


----------



## bobk

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Excellent post Lundy. I agree with just about all of it. Can you give us your thoughts on why the DOW threw the baby out with the bath water so to speak by not coming out with different tag numbers or regulations for public lands in the past several years. They know full well and saw that that the result of the cheap and plentiful tags would impact public lands the most but never did a thing to remedy this. Are we to believe the public lands then needed more deer reduced than private? Did they not care? I just can't grasp this lack of management action. The one size fits all approach has decimated many areas of public lands. Would you agree they could of, should of done better by the land we all own (public) and none of us as individual hunters can do much to control? Where they were needed the most they dropped the ball in my view. I agree hunters as a whole are responsible but just as responsible is the organization paid by our tax dollars to manage and they failed to truly manage the public herd with any thought to those that primarily hunt it.


Absolutely they could have and should have done more for the public land.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> As I stated, I don't always agree with the ODNR. The management of public versus private lands is one I struggle to underrstand. I am sure however that they don't just blindly set regulation, I'm sure it is a long and thoughtful process, I just dont't know the criteria used to arrive at their conclusions.
> 
> I do know that on one of the hunter surveys a couple of years ago there was a question asking about "would you be in favor of limiting access to some public lands to improve the hunting experience" I don't know the outcome of the survey or where they are going in the future with that but I am 100% sure they recognize the disparity between hunting private and public and will try and do something to improve public hunting at some point.


Thanks for taking the time to reply. Good input. Helps me understand where folks are coming from on this one. They did a survey again recently regarding public land deer hunting sad part is the survey results are in and the majority of hunters did not agree with the ideas offered to reduce the pressure on public lands. I felt part of that is to be expected (hard to find hunters willing to give up opportunities to hunt) the other part is they did not offer very good options. They then took these results and with them in hand said "hunters don't support changes to public lands". Not a good reason to take no action in my view. All of a sudden they seem to need or want hunter support? Made no sense to me. Bottom line I am doing my part this season. Does are getting a pass so I will be hunting small game only the remainder of the season. Gives me a chance to walk more as god knows I need the exercise.
Merry Christmas to you and yours!


----------



## chatterbox

Guys, I have total respect for any one to have their own opinion, but as far as I am concerned the ODNR is out in left field when it comes to game resource management. I don't know if it is the governor, or the head of the agency, or the biologist. I don't mean just deer either. I can take You to public hunting areas that are just appalling. They were purchased and have never been managed. I find the do nothing attitude they have is an insult. I have no confidence in them at all.


----------



## bobk

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Thanks for taking the time to reply. Good input. Helps me understand where folks are coming from on this one. They did a survey again recently regarding public land deer hunting sad part is the survey results are in and the majority of hunters did not agree with the ideas offered to reduce the pressure on public lands. I felt part of that is to be expected (hard to find hunters willing to give up opportunities to hunt) the other part is they did not offer very good options. They then took these results and with them in hand said "hunters don't support changes to public lands". Not a good reason to take no action in my view. All of a sudden they seem to need or want hunter support? Made no sense to me. Bottom line I am doing my part this season. Does are getting a pass so I will be hunting small game only the remainder of the season. Gives me a chance to walk more as god knows I need the exercise.
> Merry Christmas to you and yours!


Do you get the survey each year? I still don't understand why everyone doesn't get the survey.


----------



## garhtr

The perfectly managed deer herd ? Perfectly managed for who, farmers,insurance co or hunters?
If Odnr want's lower deer numbers we'll get lower numbers. If farmers around me want lower numbers there are always going to be hunters willing to shoot deer regardless of what I do. If landowners can't find hunters willing to do the job they will do it themselves or get nuisance/ damage permits, Odnr is in control of deer numbers, sport hunting has always been the most effective and least expensive but there are other ways to control numbers and they will do what it takes to accomplish the task.
GOOD luck and Good Hunting !​


----------



## chatterbox

bobk said:


> Do you get the survey each year? I still don't understand why everyone doesn't get the survey.


What survey? I have hunted Ohio since 1965 and have never heard of a survey. Sorry. They don't want a deer to come out of a public hunting area and get hit by a car or eat a soy bean from some one's cash crop.


----------



## bobk

I've never got one either. I've read several posts on different sites where guys get surveys.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

bobk said:


> Do you get the survey each year? I still don't understand why everyone doesn't get the survey.


The survey that was aimed at public land options was a paper survey passed out at the ODNR table at last years Deer and Turkey Expo in Columbus. The results are posted on the DOW website as a part of their deer summary I think.


----------



## Fishballz

I have only got a survey one time. It was under the windshield wiper after hunting public land all day..


----------



## hopin to cash

Cash 2 would be upset if I didn't put a disclaimer on our harvest years back... we never harvested more than 2 per person but there were times when we had 5-7 guys for a week of gun season also. So if you want to call me part of the problem have at it.


----------



## roundheadjig

Lundy said:


> I have never understood how hunters blame their immediate local deer populations levels on the ODNR. The ODNR didn't shoot any deer.
> 
> You would think that any hunter or group of hunters would have a much better understanding of the population on any given piece of land they hunt than the ODNR would. The ODNR, the same ODNR that has never set foot on the property you hunt tells you that you have too many deer and to shoot more and you do it because they said to? It is really difficult to understand how anyone that is even remotely educated about deer populations of the land they hunt could so blindly follow a directive that was counterproductive to their now loudly stated whining of wanting more deer because they killed them all. They now want the ODNR to now fix what the ODNR didn't break to begin with, they did.
> 
> _"We were selective on our private lands but brown down on public. Hell its what was preached to us by the ODNR"_
> 
> This begs the question of why were you selective on your private lands but not on public lands? Was the ODNR directive different for private harvest versus public?.Of course not in fact it was just the opposite.
> 
> " The ODNR made me do it" , no credibility, sad and funny at the same time


Odnr doesn't shoot the deer they use midges to transmit EHD very effective management tool that makes farmers , insurance company's and people driving on roadways very happy..........


----------



## Lundy

roundheadjig said:


> Odnr doesn't shoot the deer they use midges to transmit EHD very effective management tool that makes farmers , insurance company's and people driving on roadways very happy..........


[
Are you being serious?


----------



## miked913

I get several surveys from the odnr every year, usually deer and trapping but have also had others for waterfowl etc. And when I'm fishing I always stop for the creel surveys too. If you take the time to answer their questions they will send you more. I grew up with my dad being a hunter & trapper education instructor and now I do nuisance trapping work. I deal with the division 3 office mostly and have had many experiences with the odnr over the past 30 years, all very positive. When I go to the office to tag otters I am usually there quite some time just talking with people there from all facets of the department. Some have the same views as me or eachother and some don't but each time I leave with more than I came with! Once again I highly recommend getting involved in the process. They are just like everyone else there is really no "us" & "them". Of course some people are grumpy a$$ old farts who are incapable of realizing that their opinion may just not be a fact or true??


----------



## Lundy

Here is a sheet that I put together years ago and try an keep up to date to keep some information straight in my head.


----------



## skiff

Interesting discussion! The ODNR certainly made it clear their intent was to reduce the deer herd via harvesting does. Being an old school hunter from the days of bucks only I never really bought in, but I do understand we can't have a herd to large for the available food and habitat. There are certainly other factors at play here such as coyote predation. Back in the "70's" & "80's" we never saw a coyote. Even in the "90's" they were much scarcer then now. Also I read an interesting piece in an outdoor magazine that said the prevalent use of roundup ready corn and beans has reduced the amount of weeds found in fields. Some of these weeds are or were important sources of brouse for deer. ODNR has a tough job trying to balance the herd. I would like to see a season or two with buck only again but that's not likely. So it's up to us to try to determine if herd numbers in the area you hunt is sufficient to justify harvesting a doe. I for one have seen too many posts complaining about not seeing any deer for 3,4,5 or more days but then shooting a doe! Just my 2 cents worth!


----------



## P-NUT

Lundy said:


> Here is a sheet that I put together years ago and try an keep up to date to keep some information straight in my head.


Interesting numbers to be sure! Looks like the record harvest in 2009 saw a success rate of 41.8%. In following years it dropped as low as 35.5% in 2014, but rebounded to a success rate of 40.4% in 2015. It would be interesting to see the success rates of other states .


----------



## Lundy

I don't think we have enough information to determine hunter success rates. We only know how many tags were sold but not how many hunters there actually were that may have purchased more than one tags.


----------



## fastwater

roundheadjig said:


> Odnr doesn't shoot the deer they use midges to transmit EHD very effective management tool that makes farmers , insurance company's and people driving on roadways very happy..........


I heard ODNR once air dropped condoms to the deer but had trouble getting the bucks to use them. 
...and no Lundy, I am not serious.


----------



## brian5x3

Captain Kevin said:


> I am yet to understand the need for youth seasons at all. If you have a kid, everyday should be youth season.


WELL SAID


----------



## P-NUT

Lundy said:


> I don't think we have enough information to determine hunter success rates. We only know how many tags were sold but not how many hunters there actually were that may have purchased more than one tags.


Good point. I guess there isn't enough info to show harvest rate per hunter, only enough to show the percentage of tags that were successfuly filled? Am I looking at this right?


----------



## chatterbox

My gripe is the way they let the population be decimated in some areas and some hunting lands, and hardly touched in others. One size fits all in the zone You hunt in. Does anyone realize how long it will take for some areas to have a hunt able population, if ever? I see people on this forum bragging how good the hunting is on their private managed property, well what about the guy that hunts alone on public land that had to sit and watch his deer hunting taken away, or for years does not hunt at all to allow the herd to recoup just to have people from large metro areas to keep killing any deer left. I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE ODNR. I want the wrong that's been done fixed now, not after I am dead!


----------



## bobk

Bragging?


----------



## Bprice1031

skiff said:


> Interesting discussion! The ODNR certainly made it clear their intent was to reduce the deer herd via harvesting does. Being an old school hunter from the days of bucks only I never really bought in, but I do understand we can't have a herd to large for the available food and habitat. There are certainly other factors at play here such as coyote predation. Back in the "70's" & "80's" we never saw a coyote. Even in the "90's" they were much scarcer then now. Also I read an interesting piece in an outdoor magazine that said the prevalent use of roundup ready corn and beans has reduced the amount of weeds found in fields. Some of these weeds are or were important sources of brouse for deer. ODNR has a tough job trying to balance the herd. I would like to see a season or two with buck only again but that's not likely. So it's up to us to try to determine if herd numbers in the area you hunt is sufficient to justify harvesting a doe. I for one have seen too many posts complaining about not seeing any deer for 3,4,5 or more days but then shooting a doe! Just my 2 cents worth!


Very well said about harvesting does. By the time gun season rolls around the first stage of the rut has usually come and gone. A lot of the mature does have come into estrus and have been breed, by this time of the year. Now as outdoorsman, it is our responsibility to think before we pull the trigger on that "really nice doe." I have no problems with hunters harvesting whatever deer they see fit and is legal game. We as sportsman should always think twice before pulling that trigger, because it maybe a "really nice doe" but remember it's also carrying next years fawns.


----------



## P-NUT

bobk said:


> Bragging?


If this is directed at me, no I am not bragging. I moved just over a year ago. Did not hunt ohio last year. Also, did not harvest an animal where I live now. 
I do like to keep tabs on what's going on "back home" though, and use this site to do so. I just found the numbers Lundy posted to be pretty interesting, seeing that 40% of tags were filled in 2015.


----------



## garhtr

chatterbox said:


> My gripe is the way they let the population be decimated in some areas and some hunting lands, and hardly touched in others. One size fits all in the zone You hunt in. Does anyone realize how long it will take for some areas to have a hunt able population, if ever? I see people on this forum bragging how good the hunting is on their private managed property, well what about the guy that hunts alone on public land that had to sit and watch his deer hunting taken away, I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE ODNR. I want the wrong that's been done fixed now, not after I am dead!


 Welcome to deer hunting, not deer shooting. If your not seeing deer hunt for an area that has some, they're out there.
I'm trusting Odnr and biologist not opinions on a hunting forum, they know what they're doing. 
If they sell tags hunters will harvest deer, that's how it is supposed to work.
If we ( hunters)don't harvest the numbers they want Odnr will find other methods to accomplish the task so you may as well kill deer.
Good luck and Good Hunting !


----------



## roundheadjig

Lundy said:


> [
> Are you being serious?


IMO yes, how do hunters in a state where they do not have access to farm land reduce 
The number of deer on farm land? They don't.


----------



## roundheadjig

garhtr said:


> Welcome to deer hunting, not deer shooting. If your not seeing deer hunt for an area that has some, they're out there.
> I'm trusting Odnr and biologist not opinions on a hunting forum, they know what they're doing.
> If they sell tags hunters will harvest deer, that's how it is supposed to work.
> If we ( hunters)don't harvest the numbers they want Odnr will find other methods to accomplish the task so you may as well kill deer.
> Good luck and Good Hunting !


Well said


----------



## supercanoe

roundheadjig said:


> IMO yes, how do hunters in a state where they do not have access to farm land reduce
> The number of deer on farm land? They don't.


I agree with you on this. The states solution to this is deer damage permits, which is a sad answer to the problem in my opinion. I have lived and hunted in other states with very good hunter access programs. Ohio tried and failed at this. If other states can do this effectively, why can't Ohio? Damage permits aren't always carried out in an ethical manner. Shooting deer from the truck and throwing them in the woods to rot does not sit well with me. This may not always be the case, but it happens a lot. It is an easy and effective option. If this option was eliminated, and land owners were forced to use hunters to control the population, more sportsman would be able to utilize the resource and help the land owner at the same time.


----------



## Lundy

In 2014 there were 4244 deer reported killed on damage permits. The sheet I posted yesterday shows the damage permit kills per year


----------



## Lundy

roundheadjig said:


> IMO yes, how do hunters in a state where they do not have access to farm land reduce
> The number of deer on farm land? *They don't.*


I would agree, they don't and can't. That is what there is not even distribution of deer on all properties. Property, private or public that provides hunter access will have potential for lower populations through hunter harvest. If those lands have high hunter concentrations and harvest (public land) the population will be less.


----------



## supercanoe

Lundy said:


> In 2014 there were 4244 deer reported killed on damage permits. The sheet I posted yesterday shows the damage permit kills per year


I saw the numbers on your spread sheet. Thanks for posting that, it's interesting to see the numbers over the years. Kill permits are down, but those 4244 dead deer could have brought joy to many hunters rather than being executed. The damage kill numbers are not real accurate either. Some shooters prefer to gut shoot the deer so that they run off and die elsewhere. These deer don't get tallied. I'm not saying that all land owners and shooters operate this way, but it's not uncommon.


----------



## P-NUT

Montana has a block management program where private land owners are compensated financially for allowing hunter access. A win win situation. This also serves to distribute hunting presource more evenly. They also have a lottery to hunt "nuisance " populations on private property with little access. A lot of this is geared toward elk, and may not be an apples to apples comparison. 
At any rate, ohio could definitely handle nuisance deer situations in a better way.


----------



## Lundy

I think it would be great if there was a way to utilize hunters to fill needed damage permits.


----------



## P-NUT

There is definitely a way. I think the hard part is getting people to open their eyes, let go of old mindsets and be open to more options.


----------



## bobk

P-NUT said:


> If this is directed at me, no I am not bragging. I moved just over a year ago. Did not hunt ohio last year. Also, did not harvest an animal where I live now.
> I do like to keep tabs on what's going on "back home" though, and use this site to do so. I just found the numbers Lundy posted to be pretty interesting, seeing that 40% of tags were filled in 2015.


 No, it was directed at chatter.


----------



## P-NUT

bobk said:


> No, it was directed at chatter.


No worries. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Flathead76

Lundy said:


> I would agree, they don't and can't. That is what there is not even distribution of deer on all properties. Property, private or public that provides hunter access will have potential for lower populations through hunter harvest. If those lands have high hunter concentrations and harvest (public land) the population will be less.


Many of these public lands do have a decent amount of deer around me. The problem is that the pressure from hunters is so intense that the deer get blown off of them. I can go a 1/4 mile from the house and be on more public land than I could hunt. I don't waste any of my time on it. Behind my house I hardly saw any deer until holloween. Then the non resident rut hunters come in the first two weeks of November followed by gun season hammering the piss out of it. Now there is a pile of deer behind the house. If you over pressure deer in an area they will move on to an area where they do not get pressure.


----------



## hopin to cash

P-NUT said:


> Montana has a block management program where private land owners are compensated financially for allowing hunter access. A win win situation. This also serves to distribute hunting presource more evenly. They also have a lottery to hunt "nuisance " populations on private property with little access. A lot of this is geared toward elk, and may not be an apples to apples comparison.
> At any rate, ohio could definitely handle nuisance deer situations in a better way.


I'm not going to bash the farmers but... IMO the areas I hunt have seen less farming and more hunting lease posted properly... these same farms that have been compensated for crop loss along with no plant compensation and now huge oil lease money have no interest in sharing anything with the public... hell why would they?


----------



## hopintocash2

This is all too funny. We keep beating this dead horse and nothing happens. Until we get a new horse, things will get worse for the hunter. But, from the numbers Lundy posted, vehicle/ deer collisions are on the decline. Which IMO was the goal.


----------



## Lundy

Vehicle collision were up over 6% in 2015 from 2014

Deer herd is coming back!!


----------



## hopintocash2

Lundy said:


> Vehicle collision were up over 6% in 2015 from 2014
> 
> Deer herd is coming back!!





Lundy said:


> Vehicle collision were up over 6% in 2015 from 2014
> 
> Deer herd is coming back!!


Or, more people are on the roads with cell phone in hand.


----------



## P-NUT

hopin to cash said:


> I'm not going to bash the farmers but... IMO the areas I hunt have seen less farming and more hunting lease posted properly... these same farms that have been compensated for crop loss along with no plant compensation and now huge oil lease money have no interest in sharing anything with the public... hell why would they?


Maybe they wouldn't. But possibly, if there were no nuisance tags issued and no crop loss compensation unless a farmer allowed hunting also , the tide could be turned? If landowners are getting oil money, block management could still be an incentive to open access. More money to the landowner.


----------



## hopintocash2

Lundy said:


> Vehicle collision were up over 6% in 2015 from 2014
> 
> Deer herd is coming back!!


But down 8% from 2002. I say cell phones to blame now.


----------



## fastwater

hopintocash2 said:


> This is all too funny. We keep beating this dead horse and nothing happens. Until we get a new horse, things will get worse for the hunter. But, from the numbers Lundy posted, vehicle/ deer collisions are on the decline. Which IMO was the goal.


Said it before on other threads and gonna say it again...

Remove the many thousands of 'non huntible' deer in the cities, suburbs and parks which are included in ODNR's guesstimate of Ohio's total herd and setting bag limits, remove the thousands of accidents caused by these non huntible deer which is also figured in when setting bag limits, and maybe we can then get a much clearer picture of what's really going on overall. 

I will say this...the City of Cols. has a guy that does nothing but pick dead animals off, and alongside the roads inside the 270 interstate corridor. All city area and no hunting. From dogs to cats to raccoons and deer. From the start of the chase phase of the rut till the end of the rut, he'll average anywhere from 5-12 deer a day. The rest of the year he will average 2-5 deer a week.
Again, this is just within Cols. city limits around 270. 
No doubt all the drivers turn in insurance claims.
Would be interesting to know the tally of other major city's in Ohio as well. 

These non huntible deer, nor the damage they cause should be used by ODNR in the equation when setting bag limits to appease the big insurance machine in Ohio.


----------



## hopintocash2

Fastwater, I agree with you. I had this argument many, many years ago with Mike T, via email, about killing deer in the huntable areas won't help the nuisance areas. I wish I still had his response. But basically they are hoping spill over from hunting areas will help the nuisance areas. I don't think it's working. I am a portage county resident, and for the life of me, can't figure out how this is a 3 deer county. There are not that many deer here. That's what they (odnr) keep doing, they shuffle the regs and bag limits, but really they change nothing. We had bonus gun, they removed it, added early mz, they removed early mz, added bonus gun. It's nothing more than a bunch of bs. I am not sure how things will go in the future, but I'm glad I got to hunt before, and thru the good times.


----------



## hopintocash2

My brother and I seen this coming a long time ago, we are not biolists, not college educated in deer management. Just hunters who see what we see, and our eyes did not lie to us.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Wonder if in 25 years the herd size takes off again where are they going to find the hunters to reduce the herd. Interest is falling off. Should be interesting.


----------



## fastwater

hopintocash2 said:


> Fastwater, I agree with you. I had this argument many, many years ago with Mike T, via email, about killing deer in the huntable areas won't help the nuisance areas. I wish I still had his response. But basically they are hoping spill over from hunting areas will help the nuisance areas. I don't think it's working. I am a portage county resident, and for the life of me, can't figure out how this is a 3 deer county. There are not that many deer here. That's what they (odnr) keep doing, they shuffle the regs and bag limits, but really they change nothing. We had bonus gun, they removed it, added early mz, they removed early mz, added bonus gun. It's nothing more than a bunch of bs. I am not sure how things will go in the future, but I'm glad I got to hunt before, and thru the good times.





hopintocash2 said:


> My brother and I seen this coming a long time ago, we are not biolists, not college educated in deer management. Just hunters who see what we see, and our eyes did not lie to us.


A group of us Tried to have the same discussion with Mike as well, some 4-5 yrs back. Just got blown off. Like you, saw this coming as well.
What is really baffling is there are those that still yet today don't see it. Maybe it's cause they still have deer in their own neck of the woods. They can't seem to realize that just like animals follow the food chain, hunters will do the same.
When their areas start drying up, they will realize some of their comments like " you just need to hunt harder" or " quit shooting the deer in your area" was not the answer to the problem.
For many, many years, I've bought my tags but never left my property to hunt deer. Depending on how the freezer looked, killed one or two deer every year here using property owner tag.
Just this past two day shotgun season and Come BP season, I made up my mind to go someplace claiming to have more deer. May as well put those tags to use. And who knows, maybe I'll run into someone that scoffed their comments as I'm dragging my deer out of their hunting area. 
Four family members that are neighbors of mine are not hunting their farm but heading down to Athens. They are considering a lease of an 80 acre farm down that way that belongs to a relative of a friend of theirs.

So....just like the migration of animals goes, so goes the migration of hunters.


----------



## bobk

hopintocash2 said:


> My brother and I seen this coming a long time ago, we are not biolists, not college educated in deer management. Just hunters who see what we see, and our eyes did not lie to us.


Any person that hunted with a group of 5-7 guys and each shot 2 deer a piece should have had no problem seeing this coming. Pretty simple to figure out where it was heading for ya. Yep, your eyes don't lie when you're looking at a big pile of dead deer.


----------



## Flathead76

fastwater said:


> Four family members that are neighbors of mine are not hunting their farm but heading down to Athens. They are considering a lease of an 80 acre farm down that way that belongs to a relative of a friend of theirs.
> 
> So....just like the migration of animals goes, so goes the migration of hunters.


Anytime that I talk to anybody about deer hunting I tell them the place to hunt is in Hocking county. Then I will show them a picture of "the Bobk Buck" to seal the deal. After that they can't get on 33 west fast enough.


----------



## crittergitter

I didn't read all the posts, but I read some of them. 

I have been one of the loudest criers against this course of action by the ODNR since approximately 2008 or so. I haven't harvested a doe since then. I don't harvest doe. When the population was high, I would take one per year as that was all I ever needed. 

The crux of the problem has always been deer distribution. Where many hunters have access there are few to no deer. Where few hunters have access, the deer are plentiful. 

So, what the ODNR has done is fulfill an agenda item of the Ohio Farm Bureau. They wanted higher prices for leasing land in Ohio for deer hunting. Now they have that. They don't care about the population one bit! They can always get damage permits if the deer get out of control. Then, charge the guys from MI thousands to hunt the farm after rifles took out many in August. I know this happened on a couple different properties over in Knox county. 

Another thing that bothered me to a degree. I heard from a few hunters that had access to private land that hunted the public grounds in central back when the cheaper $15 bonus doe tags were available for gun season. They were loading up on public land doe while protecting their farm for future years of harvest. That's pretty classless IMO. Legal, but classless! 

The ODNR has basically created "the haves" and the "have nots" in the state of Ohio for deer hunting. So, do I think they can manage Ohio's deer herd. Sure, so long as conservation isn't part of the equation.


----------



## supercanoe

Where did the money go from all of the antlerless tags that were sold? For multiple years there was a huge influx of additional revenue from 160,000 bonus antlerless tags.


----------



## bobk

Flathead76 said:


> Anytime that I talk to anybody about deer hunting I tell them the place to hunt is in Hocking county. Then I will show them a picture of "the Bobk Buck" to seal the deal. After that they can't get on 33 west fast enough.


There's a big flashing light for them. They can't miss the driveway. I live north on 33 though.


----------



## Flathead76

bobk said:


> There's a big flashing light for them. They can't miss the driveway. I live north on 33 though.


Then you should be good then. Probably a different story for the people west of you though.


----------



## fastwater

Flathead76 said:


> Anytime that I talk to anybody about deer hunting I tell them the place to hunt is in Hocking county. Then I will show them a picture of "the Bobk Buck" to seal the deal. After that they can't get on 33 west fast enough.


Yea...Hocking has their share of deer for sure. But so do a few other counties. But I'll also add that there are areas in those counties as well that are starting to feel the pinch just a little as we have here in our area of Fairfield. 
I lived in Hocking for several years and have hunted much of it. Know many property owners throughout the county. Some I've stayed in contact with over the years. Out of those people, deer herd reports are different. Some report just as many deer as always, others have seen a drastic reduction. Still seeing deer but not nearly as many. Two adjoining farms totaling 170acres I used to hunt in Hocking that were once deer havens, the owners/hunters report a drastic reduction in deer and sign. There are only three guys that hunt those properties. Two of which I know as they hunted those properties for the last 30yrs. when I did. Both these guys are dedicated, respectable hunters/outdoorsman that would usually shot a doe for the freezer, then buck hunt the rest of the year. Most often, never shooting a buck cause they had a PB they were trying to top. There has been no real change to the land...no land clearing, clear/select cutting in the woods, new construction etc. to properties in the area and with the limited deer harvest there, it just doesn't stand to reason why the reduction in deer numbers.
Lots of 'why's' left unanswered.

While I totally agree that over harvest by hunters is most likely the number one culprit in deer reduction, which is obviously the very reason ODNR set their bag limits as they have in the past (especially targeting does...how long did we hear ODNR selling the reason for all the doe tags was 'balancing the buck/doe population' ) there are certain areas of private property that do regulate the harvest on their land that are showing signs of significant deer reduction as well. 

In other threads ( and not wanting to get into a big discussion again on the topic)there's been ongoing arguments as to the extent of deprivation that coyote's have on the deer herd. 
One thing this area I'm at (corner of Fairfield, Hocking and Pickway Co's.) and the two above farms (North central Hocking Co) have in common is all seeing a huge increase in yote population over the last few yrs. 

So...I guess the big question is 'why'.

Is it just Mother Nature taking care of its own?
Is it something else that we have control over?
Is it the increasingly massive yote population that is doing nothing but expanding wider and wider? 
After all, most of the studies I've read on yote deprivation on deer usually end with something to the effect of ' it's too early to tell the exact affect yotes are having on the overall deer population and wildlife in general'. 

What's the reason?


----------



## hopin to cash

bobk said:


> Any person that hunted with a group of 5-7 guys and each shot 2 deer a piece should have had no problem seeing this coming. Pretty simple to figure out where it was heading for ya. Yep, your eyes don't lie when you're looking at a big pile of dead deer.


Any person that's owns there own little piece of heaven and doesn't really care about the public land should just find another forum. Yes there were days when we did leave with 10 deer but thank God we didn't take the lead of the ODNR and come back for 3 more each! Bobk you can blame anybody you want but let me ask you this? If the bank was giving away money would you let people cut in line?


----------



## bobk

You just can't grasp the hypocrisy in your posts. 

So what time next year will you be back to blame the odnr for deceiving you.


----------



## Northern Reb

I believe the ODNR works for us...the hunters...the people who pay their salaries. Our tags and all the taxes on our equipment/gas/hotels/meat processing etc. etc. goes back to the state and pays for their livelihood. Our interests should be not only their number 1 priority, but their only priority.

I could care less about insurance companies and farmers and their special interest lobbyist. I keep hearing them and other public officials and outdoor media saying we need to "balance the deer herd". Or in other words lower the herd number. Why? Who does a high herd number hurt?

Typical Excuses:

Healthy Herd -The excuse that the herd will be more healthy if 'controlled' is for trophy hunters or bleeding hearts to worry about. If a deer can't find a food source then they will leave the area and find it elsewhere. If they can't, then it wasn't meant to be...its called life. Nature has a way of regulating itself. In my entire hunting life I have never seen a skinny, sick or unhealthy deer while in the stand or on camera even when the herd was much higher than it is now.

Farmers - Come on. This is the lamest excuse of em all. Farmers drop on the ground more grain/corn/beans in a typical *day* than what they lose in an entire yr from crop damage caused by deer. Ask one who you know and they will probably tell you the truth.

Car/Deer Collisions - We live in OH. It is going to happen. Just like its going to get cold and snow in the winter. Its part of life, deal with it or don't drive. I jokingly tell my family and friends to keep their foot in the gas then call me 

I understand there are hundreds of factors that go into the regulations and I do not envy those making those decisions, but ultimately it comes down to the resident hunters of this state who pays the ODNR to protect and advance our interests. Any opinions or money aside from ours should not influence ODNR's decision making process.

I'm off my soapbox now


----------



## Lundy

Northern Reb said:


> I believe the ODNR works for us...the hunters...the people who pay their salaries. Our tags and all the taxes on our equipment/gas/hotels/meat processing etc. etc. goes back to the state and pays for their livelihood. Our interests should be not only their number 1 priority, but their only priority.


Absolutely not! 

The ODNR stands for Ohio Department of Natural Resources and represents ALL residents and resources of the state, not just hunters or fishermen.

The interests of all must be considered equally as vested partners in the process.


----------



## Flathead76

Northern Reb said:


> I believe the ODNR works for us...the hunters...the people who pay their salaries. Our tags and all the taxes on our equipment/gas/hotels/meat processing etc. etc. goes back to the state and pays for their livelihood. Our interests should be not only their number 1 priority, but their only priority.
> 
> I could care less about insurance companies and farmers and their special interest lobbyist. I keep hearing them and other public officials and outdoor media saying we need to "balance the deer herd". Or in other words lower the herd number. Why? Who does a high herd number hurt?
> 
> Typical Excuses:
> 
> Healthy Herd -The excuse that the herd will be more healthy if 'controlled' is for trophy hunters or bleeding hearts to worry about. If a deer can't find a food source then they will leave the area and find it elsewhere. If they can't, then it wasn't meant to be...its called life. Nature has a way of regulating itself. In my entire hunting life I have never seen a skinny, sick or unhealthy deer while in the stand or on camera even when the herd was much higher than it is now.
> 
> Farmers - Come on. This is the lamest excuse of em all. Farmers drop on the ground more grain/corn/beans in a typical *day* than what they lose in an entire yr from crop damage caused by deer. Ask one who you know and they will probably tell you the truth.
> 
> Car/Deer Collisions - We live in OH. It is going to happen. Just like its going to get cold and snow in the winter. Its part of life, deal with it or don't drive. I jokingly tell my family and friends to keep their foot in the gas then call me
> 
> I understand there are hundreds of factors that go into the regulations and I do not envy those making those decisions, but ultimately it comes down to the resident hunters of this state who pays the ODNR to protect and advance our interests. Any opinions or money aside from ours should not influence ODNR's decision making process.
> 
> I'm off my soapbox now


These commercial farmers are using combines that when they are done mowing a bean field you are lucky to find a single bean on the ground. They are so efficient compared to the older combines. The farm that I used to hunt mowed beans were just as good as standing beans. When the commercial farmer bought it you mine as well have been hunting over concrete. When he harvested corn there was much less waste compared to the older combine.


----------



## hopin to cash

bobk said:


> You just can't grasp the hypocrisy in your posts.
> 
> So what time next year will you be back to blame the odnr for deceiving you.





bobk said:


> You just can't grasp the hypocrisy in your posts.
> 
> So what time next year will you be back to blame the odnr for deceiving you.


You just can't grasp that when officials that are paid by our tax money make laws and regulations you assume they are for the good of all. I would say starting in about 2009 we were already questioning what was going on. We pulled back than becoming a little more selective with our harvest. It took the great biologist 4 more years to make any type of pull back. That is absolutely ludicrous with what we were seeing going on from Gurnsey to Portage county. It was a minimal pull back at best. Again I ask... if the bank was passing out money are you going to stay at home?


----------



## hopin to cash

crittergitter said:


> I didn't read all the posts, but I read some of them.
> 
> I have been one of the loudest criers against this course of action by the ODNR since approximately 2008 or so. I haven't harvested a doe since then. I don't harvest doe. When the population was high, I would take one per year as that was all I ever needed.
> 
> The crux of the problem has always been deer distribution. Where many hunters have access there are few to no deer. Where few hunters have access, the deer are plentiful.
> 
> So, what the ODNR has done is fulfill an agenda item of the Ohio Farm Bureau. They wanted higher prices for leasing land in Ohio for deer hunting. Now they have that. They don't care about the population one bit! They can always get damage permits if the deer get out of control. Then, charge the guys from MI thousands to hunt the farm after rifles took out many in August. I know this happened on a couple different properties over in Knox county.
> 
> Another thing that bothered me to a degree. I heard from a few hunters that had access to private land that hunted the public grounds in central back when the cheaper $15 bonus doe tags were available for gun season. They were loading up on public land doe while protecting their farm for future years of harvest. That's pretty classless IMO. Legal, but classless!
> This guy gets it... My hand up as a little classless... but when we started hunting some of the public wildlife areas we were the only ones we saw for many years... we new that as the packs came the numbers were going to go down and quickly... one deer for us now but watched the multiple tag abuse go on for years... wondering why the state didn't react quicker? It took basically another 5-6 years for the sate to realize "oh know public land numbers have been hammered bad" WHY WHY WHY did it take so damn long? Oh wait for some here it was the hunters fault, I forgot...
> The ODNR has basically created "the haves" and the "have nots" in the state of Ohio for deer hunting. So, do I think they can manage Ohio's deer herd. Sure, so long as conservation isn't part of the equation.


----------



## bobk

Yep, the bank is only passing out $1.00 so I'm staying home.


----------



## supercanoe

hopin to cash said:


> Any person that's owns there own little piece of heaven and doesn't really care about the public land should just find another forum. Yes there were days when we did leave with 10 deer but thank God we didn't take the lead of the ODNR and come back for 3 more each! Bobk you can blame anybody you want but let me ask you this? If the bank was giving away money would you let people cut in line?


So now you don't like responsible land owners either?


----------



## hopintocash2

Flathead76 said:


> Anytime that I talk to anybody about deer hunting I tell them the place to hunt is in Hocking county. Then I will show them a picture of "the Bobk Buck" to seal the deal. After that they can't get on 33 west fast enough.


 I want to book my hunting plans for next year, but I can't seem to find a pic of the "bobk buck". Any help with this and the location of this deer goldmind would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Flathead76

hopin to cash said:


> Cash 2 would be upset if I didn't put a disclaimer on our harvest years back... we never harvested more than 2 per person but there were times when we had 5-7 guys for a week of gun season also. So if you want to call me part of the problem have at it.


I could but some people just don't have any discipline when it comes to thier trigger fingers. Would hate to ruin a slice of heaven that a person with self control made happen.


----------



## bobk

Have at it hopin cash or 2


----------



## hopintocash2

Flathead76 said:


> I could but some people just don't have any discipline when it comes to thier trigger fingers. Would hate to ruin a slice of heaven that a person with self control made happen.


That's ok, I would like to come early so I could learn there names first, maybe even get to feed them.


----------



## hopintocash2

Merry Christmas and Happy New year. Maybe we'll play again next year.


----------



## Northern Reb

Lundy said:


> Absolutely not!
> 
> The ODNR stands for Ohio Department of Natural Resources and represents ALL residents and resources of the state, not just hunters or fishermen.
> 
> The interests of all must be considered equally as vested partners in the process.


Thank you for your comment. You make my point for me. 

The dept has its hands in too many pots and its interests are not strictly ours as you restated. Hunters and fishermen contribute many, many millions of dollars to the state economy...probably closer to a billion. I would say we have just a little bit of political clout with our pocket books.

Why would you only want to be equal to another group or person? That sounds like my union buddy


----------



## Lundy

I am about as far from a equal for all kind of guy as you can get. I'm afraid that I may be lacking in my means to present it in a manner that you may understand.

However, I will try. It is for exactly the same reasons that we use use an electoral college and not the popular vote to elect the President.


----------



## hopin to cash

supercanoe said:


> So now you don't like responsible land owners either?


I never said anything about the responsible land owner... only that those that hunt private land and make there own harvest decisions and never hunt public lands should not become the voice of reason for regulations. Ohio set the speed limit at rural highways to 70 even though statistics show higher traffic death rates at higher speeds. So do you all still drive 55 because its the conscious thing to do to save lives? There is a separation between ODNR regulations and hunting expectations. I won't pretend to have the answers but I know when the financial support of the ODNR has gone heavily dependent on other entities more than just the sportsmen there is a problem. I didn't create this Bobk competition he did. I started bitching about the deer population declining a long time ago. If BobK thinks the 30 deer we harvested in a 3 year period while hunting over 4000 acres of public land is the issue he can continue to drive 70 until he kills somebody!!!


----------



## hopin to cash

Lundy said:


> I am about as far from a equal for all kind of guy as you can get. I'm afraid that I may be lacking in my means to present it in a manner that you may understand.
> 
> However, I will try. It is for exactly the same reasons that we use use an electoral college and not the popular vote to elect the President.


I thought the electoral college was put in place based on demographic population to protect all from themselves? To bad the state didn't look at this when setting deer regulations back in the late '90 early '00!!


----------



## hopin to cash

I present to you all the reason Bobk feels the ODNR is the most responsible organization for hunting ever... nice deer by the way... has been fun this year nothing personal... see you next year at 155K harvest numbers... http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/threads/opening-day-buck.307114/


----------



## garhtr

hopin to cash said:


> I thought the electoral college was put in place based on demographic population to protect all from themselves? To bad the state didn't look at this when setting deer regulations back in the late '90 early '00!!


You are missing the point of the current regulations and Odnr's goals, they want fewer deer and that's what we now have. They set a goal to reduce deer numbers regardless of what hunters want, they aren't going to "shout it out" and alienate hunters but those are the facts, less deer. I said this once before but I believe if hunters fail too kill enough deer Odnr will resort to other methods to keep numbers at the desired level. They are pretty effective at controlling numbers in the parks near me without sport Hunting. God forbid they ever start selling the venision that is taken at night to off set the fewer numbers of hunters and it becomes a "for profit game", talk about a herd reduction ---- look- out.
GOOD luck and Good Hunting !


----------



## Snakecharmer

Wow...it's only December, cant wait until cabin fever hits in February and March...


----------



## bobk

hopin to cash said:


> I present to you all the reason Bobk feels the ODNR is the most responsible organization for hunting ever... nice deer by the way... has been fun this year nothing personal... see you next year at 155K harvest numbers... http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/threads/opening-day-buck.307114/


Man you have some serious issues.


----------



## c. j. stone

kayak1979 said:


> No complaints here. Killed one buck and two does. Saw many more does and bucks after as well on trail camera. Life is good thanks ODNR.


Didn't you hunt in a metropark or someplace trying to reduce their herd?? This is entirely different from the rest of the State. Don't believe ODNR has any input in park lands?


----------



## c. j. stone

Lundy said:


> I am not a huge proponent of a dedicated youth season and doubt that it has any lasting impact on keeping a youth interested in hunting as he grows older. There was no youth season when I was growing up or when my son started hunting with me. I created a youth season for my son by taking him out of school to participate in the first day of the deer season.
> 
> "I would really like to see the deer gun season open on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and run for 9 days giving everybody 4 weekend days to hunt"! If the kids can hunt with everybody else on an Saturday opening day it would be better than a dedicated youth season in my opinion.
> 
> The dynamics involved with instilling the tradition of hunting in our youth is a much more complex problem than just giving them 2 days of season.


Yeah, and besides that, "maybe" one of those weekends wouldn't be miserable, freezing rain with high winds which keeps the deer bedded all day with only nocturnal feeding and movement!i Our last few deer seasons, the weather has "sucked"!


----------



## kayak1979

c. j. stone said:


> Didn't you hunt in a metropark or someplace trying to reduce their herd?? This is entirely different from the rest of the State. Don't believe ODNR has any input in park lands?


This post you quoted was from the 2014/15 season. All on Geauga properties (non park land). The previous season I took two, and this season was my first time hunting Cuyahoga county, and it is private land.


----------



## Snakecharmer

All I know is I have seen more road kill in Geauga and Cuyahoga County than ever before. Lots of "sleeping" deer on I271 and I71 too.


----------



## ldrjay

Snakecharmer said:


> All I know if I have seen more road kill in Geauga and Cuyahoga County than ever before. Lots of "sleeping" deer on I271 and I71 too.


I still get to eat all the deer I want thanks to all the people that don't want the deer they kill with those fancy cars!


----------



## fastwater

Kill numbers must be down this year.
Got this advertisement in email from ODNR.



The window of opportunity is still open.
Ohio’s deer muzzleloader season is
Jan. 7-10.

Don’t miss out!
CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR LICENSE AND TAGS ❯


----------



## M R DUCKS

kill numbers or number of tags sold....sorry, couldn't help myself, just saying it before someone else does........


----------



## fastwater

M R DUCKS said:


> kill numbers or number of tags sold....sorry, couldn't help myself, just saying it before someone else does........


Yep...one or the other. 
Haven't had to buy mine for the last 15yrs as long as I hunt my own property but always have bought them. This year, for the 1st time in that 15 yrs., I'm gonna do my best to use my bought tag to help further reduce the overpopulation of deer in other counties that many are talking about.
Overpopulation in our area seems to have been corrected nicely per the parameters and goals ODNR has set.

Who knows, if I get lucky on Sat. May have to break out the ole' cell phone and purchase me another tag. Man...I love this new tag buying and check in system. As long as you get cell phone reception, Don't even have to leave the field.


----------



## hopintocash2

Snakecharmer said:


> All I know is I have seen more road kill in Geauga and Cuyahoga County than ever before. Lots of "sleeping" deer on I271 and I71 too.


I have seen a lot less, from portage to Cuyahoga. 14-480-271. Portage, summit, southeast Cuyahoga.


----------



## kayak1979

Well I couldn't resist...


----------



## hopin to cash

kayak1979 said:


> Well I couldn't resist...
> 
> View attachment 227341


But wait... you poke fun but isn't this exactly how Ohio manages the herd? Some guy says statistics shows vehicle:deer accidents up in the city areas so let's give out more deer tags so they can be killed in the rural public lands!!!


----------



## hopintocash2

I did see 6 deer inside the arseanal fence the other day. Guess that is a good indicator that the herd across the road in West Branch is getting better.


----------



## jray

So the get cash fast crowd believes that spillover kill does not exist. Killing deer in one area does nothing to reduce the herd in others and those of us seeing deer (saw 6 Saturday public land a buddy saw 20 in southern o public land) just have a small piece of deer paradise. I don't understand then how your deer got killed. And I guess since they couldn't spill over to areas where others were hunting because that doesn't happen, and since you didn't shoot them cause your responsible land managers, the jerks at the odnr must have stolen them. Gentleman your logic is circular. You are saying the deer leave your area and don't leave others areas. How??


----------



## jray

I really just wish you guys could stop trashing the odnr long enough for all of us to find some common ground. The odnr's bag limits are not what is going to ruin hunting for future generations. There are plenty of issues that have far more to do with it. Educating young people, growing popularity of land leasing, habitat loss, anti hunters, coyotes, just to name a few. Even if they lowered it to one deer per person, that would just be a bandaid not a solution. And moreover, if we worked on these other issues, we might actually be able to accomplish something.


----------



## bobk

Don't be talking common sense on this site jray. Some are just hopin to blame the odnr for everything.


----------



## hopin to cash

jray said:


> I really just wish you guys could stop trashing the odnr long enough for all of us to find some common ground. The odnr's bag limits are not what is going to ruin hunting for future generations. There are plenty of issues that have far more to do with it. Educating young people, growing popularity of land leasing, habitat loss, anti hunters, coyotes, just to name a few. Even if they lowered it to one deer per person, that would just be a bandaid not a solution. And moreover, if we worked on these other issues, we might actually be able to accomplish something.


Dear Mr. jray, please find that over the last 5 years we have made numerous attempts to educate the fine folks on OGF and ODNR on both deer and habitat management... We have seen significant changes in the amount of tags passed out. We watched as some hunters were filling 3,4 and sometimes 5 tags and asked the same questions you do... why shoot so many deer and the reply was always the state lets me... I know the numbers suggest that people shooting more than 1 or even 2 deer is very low... but somebody is... the herd was to be downsized... great that happened along with coyote population increasing, leased land lock ups, habitat mismanagement (total clear cutting for profit is not management) along with hunter pressure that was not well distributed through out the state... take a look at the deer harvest numbers for Jefferson county over the last 10 years... see something wrong? We did long before any action was taken at all. If you want to sack with bobk that is fine. I only pick on him because he consistently calls me out. I would imagine this forum is read by about .1% of the total hunters in Ohio. So with that being said do we really believe that the hunters are to blame for the decline in total deer harvest and better yet trophy buck decline? If the sate was passing out $100 bills and you were aloud to have 5 would you really say no I'm good with 1 because sooner or later your run out?


----------



## Lundy

hopin to cash said:


> please find that over the last 5 years we have made numerous attempts to educate the fine folks on OGF and ODNR on both deer and habitat management...


 What qualifies you as the educator?

ed·u·cate
ˈejəˌkāt/
_verb_

give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone, especially a child), typically at a school or university.
"she was educated at a boarding school"
synonyms: teach, school, tutor, instruct, coach, train, drill; More
provide or pay for instruction for (one's child), especially at a school.
give (someone) training in or information on a particular field.
"the need to educate people to conserve water"


----------



## bobk

Going to be wet today. I'm staying out.


----------



## Shad Rap

hopin to cash said:


> Dear Mr. jray, please find that over the last 5 years we have made numerous attempts to educate the fine folks on OGF and ODNR on both deer and habitat management... We have seen significant changes in the amount of tags passed out. We watched as some hunters were filling 3,4 and sometimes 5 tags and asked the same questions you do... why shoot so many deer and the reply was always the state lets me... I know the numbers suggest that people shooting more than 1 or even 2 deer is very low... but somebody is... the herd was to be downsized... great that happened along with coyote population increasing, leased land lock ups, habitat mismanagement (total clear cutting for profit is not management) along with hunter pressure that was not well distributed through out the state... take a look at the deer harvest numbers for Jefferson county over the last 10 years... see something wrong? We did long before any action was taken at all. If you want to sack with bobk that is fine. I only pick on him because he consistently calls me out. I would imagine this forum is read by about .1% of the total hunters in Ohio. So with that being said do we really believe that the hunters are to blame for the decline in total deer harvest and better yet trophy buck decline? If the sate was passing out $100 bills and you were aloud to have 5 would you really say no I'm good with 1 because sooner or later your run out?


Look at the declining number of hunters...less hunters, less deer killed...and nothing has 'ran out' so your little reference to a bank is kinda stupid...I see deer every year...its called not pulling the trigger everytime you see one...if the ODNR told you to jump off a bridge would you?


----------



## ldrjay

lol I keep hearing about lower trophy numbers...... I see lots of pice every year


----------



## hopin to cash

Richman said:


> From 2007 news release
> 
> Ohio deer hunters took a record 237,316 deer during the 2006-07 hunting season and for the third year in a row the harvest surpassed 200,000, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife. The total number of deer taken was 13 percent above last year's season total of 209,513.
> 
> Ahhhh the good ole days!


Yep you guys are right... just look at this post... the state has done an absolutely fabulous job... we are currently at less than 165K for 2017... this thread has had 6988 views over the last 2 years so it will certainly make a difference also... (never mind that 500 are mine, 500 cash2, 500 Lundy and 500 bobk)... decline in hunters you say... closing of small mom and pop check station business you say... decline in youth hunting... decimation of public hunting land numbers... increase in locked up hunting places due to leasing... yep you guys are right... just an absolutely fabulous job!!! Did I mention its raining today and wet?


----------



## mmtchell

amen ... couldn't say it any better myself...it seems they only worry about the out of state tags being sold ...


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Snakecharmer said:


> All I know is I have seen more road kill in Geauga and Cuyahoga County than ever before. Lots of "sleeping" deer on I271 and I71 too.


I saw a bunch on Rt 30 between massillon and I71 Christmas night. Was at least 5 fresh ones.


----------



## bobk

Quite a few doe killed during muzzy season the last 4 days. Someone pulled the trigger and I bet it wasn't the odnr boys.


----------



## hopin to cash

bobk said:


> Quite a few doe killed during muzzy season the last 4 days. Someone pulled the trigger and I bet it wasn't the odnr boys.


Lets get this straight... you honestly believe that the hunters who legally killed does over the last 7 years are to be blamed for the decrease in deer population?


----------



## Flathead76

bobk said:


> Quite a few doe killed during muzzy season the last 4 days. Someone pulled the trigger and I bet it wasn't the odnr boys.


Don't feed the trolls Bob. If you let it die the Cash family will disappear for another 10 months. Then next year after gun season they will kick start this thread again because they were forced by the DNR to slaughter all the deer out of thier hunting spots. The DNR forced them to do it so it has to be the states fault.


----------



## Flathead76

hopin to cash said:


> Lets get this straight... you honestly believe that the hunters who legally killed does over the last 7 years are to be blamed for the decrease in deer population?


Yes they killed the deer. Not the state.


----------



## Shad Rap

hopin to cash said:


> Lets get this straight... you honestly believe that the hunters who legally killed does over the last 7 years are to be blamed for the decrease in deer population?


Lets see, for every single doe thats killed you can count that as at least 3 deer killed and in some cases 4 deer killed so...doesnt take long to add up really...not blaming anyone...the rules were the rules...but there are still a lot of deer out there considering...


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Flathead76 said:


> Don't feed the trolls Bob. If you let it die the Cash family will disappear for another 10 months. Then next year after gun season they will kick start this thread again because they were forced by the DNR to slaughter all the deer out of thier hunting spots. The DNR forced them to do it so it has to be the states fault.


Flathead I am in agreement that larger blocks of private lands that have been over harvested have nothing much more to blame than the hunters of that private land. However there are many more instances where the state is responsible due to their own regulations or lack thereof. Public land is clearly the case. I can let does pass forever on public but when the brown its down crew has a fist full of tags the herd will suffer. Only the state can reduce this kill. Also lets say one has access to a fairly small private parcel. With generous tags those surrounding this parcel if over harvesting will be affecting the population on said parcel. That is out of my control. In my view you are way out of line calling people that have a view different than yours trolls. Come on.... I don't agree with all the posts on here nor do I expect others to agree with my views... but to call them trolls???? There are many many more than a few hunters that are looking hard and directly at the DOW and questioning there inaction with regard to the public land herd and their views regarding how deeply to cut the herd size overall. If you feel those that are speaking out about this are "trolls" then it says much about your lack of understanding of the experiences and feelings of many of your fellow hunters. Can't we just disagree?


----------



## bobk

Flathead76 said:


> Don't feed the trolls Bob. If you let it die the Cash family will disappear for another 10 months. Then next year after gun season they will kick start this thread again because they were forced by the DNR to slaughter all the deer out of thier hunting spots. The DNR forced them to do it so it has to be the states fault.


You have a good point. Lol. When I saw the numbers for the last 4 days I couldn't help myself.


----------



## bobk

You're right Mike. The brown and down crowd is still out there. They will never go away I'm afraid. I just left a hunting shop (Morgan County) and a girl was so mad at the odnr that she could only kill 2 deer this year. I talked with her a bit and found out she got 2 and so did her husband. There is much of the problem. 4 deer for 2 people. They have no kids. That's over-harvest in my opinion but perfectly legal. 
I don't have the numbers still in front of me but I'm thinking it was a 35% increase on doe during muzzy. ( I may be wrong on that) That's a lot of baby makers gone.


----------



## crittergitter

A guy my uncle works hunts public land central Ohio. It got hammered and the numbers were decimated. He and his wife kept buying 3 tags each and doing everything they could to fill each and every one of them, even though he knew that land was decimated. He said, "hey man, conservation is the ODRN problem and not mine." Now, I don't share that same view, but he is doing what is legal and it was a detriment to the greater good. 

So, who is responsible for that?


----------



## Flathead76

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Flathead I am in agreement that larger blocks of private lands that have been over harvested have nothing much more to blame than the hunters of that private land. However there are many more instances where the state is responsible due to their own regulations or lack thereof. Public land is clearly the case. I can let does pass forever on public but when the brown its down crew has a fist full of tags the herd will suffer. Only the state can reduce this kill. Also lets say one has access to a fairly small private parcel. With generous tags those surrounding this parcel if over harvesting will be affecting the population on said parcel. That is out of my control. In my view you are way out of line calling people that have a view different than yours trolls. Come on.... I don't agree with all the posts on here nor do I expect others to agree with my views... but to call them trolls???? There are many many more than a few hunters that are looking hard and directly at the DOW and questioning there inaction with regard to the public land herd and their views regarding how deeply to cut the herd size overall. If you feel those that are speaking out about this are "trolls" then it says much about your lack of understanding of the experiences and feelings of many of your fellow hunters. Can't we just disagree?


You should look back on some of thier posts then before saying that I am out of line. Many have the attitude that if they are on public and have tags that they mine as well shoot every single deer that they are legally allowed. It's not thier private land so why not. They can not manage it and if they don't the next guy will shoot them anyways. When I hunted in Pennsylvania when we started to see a reduction in deer numbers we did our own management plan as non-residents. In our zone they only allowed x number of antlerless tags. They usually sell out in two days. Our group of 10-12 would try to get the max of 2 tags each. The Sunday before rifle season we would have a tag burning party on all the antlerless tags that we purchased. That's a lot of money that we were sending up in ashes trying to do our part to save the huntable deer population on the state game lands that we hunted. Just because you can kill x amount of deer does not mean that you have to. The hunting got so bad there that the last time our group hunted we saw 5 deer in 5 days of hunting. We finally gave up and sold the cabin. So comparing big blocks of private to public is an apples to apples argument IMO. The greedy hunters kill the deer not the state.


----------



## Flathead76

crittergitter said:


> A guy my uncle works hunts public land central Ohio. It got hammered and the numbers were decimated. He and his wife kept buying 3 tags each and doing everything they could to fill each and every one of them, even though he knew that land was decimated. He said, "hey man, conservation is the ODRN problem and not mine." Now, I don't share that same view, but he is doing what is legal and it was a detriment to the greater good.
> 
> So, who is responsible for that?


The hunter because he could see that that the numbers were down and he went for it anyways. That's what you call slicing you own throat. I won't feel bad for him next year when he does not see hardly any deer. He got his now so let's blame the state for killing the deer in the future. People like that are what the state is counting on. When people get fed up and only purchase one deer tag per season is when the DNR will wake up. That's where there money is coming from.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Flathead76 said:


> You should look back on some of thier posts then before saying that I am out of line. Many have the attitude that if they are on public and have tags that they mine as well shoot every single deer that they are legally allowed. It's not thier private land so why not. They can not manage it and if they don't the next guy will shoot them anyways. When I hunted in Pennsylvania when we started to see a reduction in deer numbers we did our own management plan as non-residents. In our zone they only allowed x number of antlerless tags. They usually sell out in two days. Our group of 10-12 would try to get the max of 2 tags each. The Sunday before rifle season we would have a tag burning party on all the antlerless tags that we purchased. That's a lot of money that we were sending up in ashes trying to do our part to save the huntable deer population on the state game lands that we hunted. Just because you can kill x amount of deer does not mean that you have to. The hunting got so bad there that the last time our group hunted we saw 5 deer in 5 days of hunting. We finally gave up and sold the cabin. So comparing big blocks of private to public is an apples to apples argument IMO. The greedy hunters kill the deer not the state.


I have followed a lot of the back and forth between many on this site. I do not condone others comments any more than yours. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your points about P.A. make no sense to me. You said your group tried to keep up the herd size by not taking does but failed. The same is occurring to some here in this state. Hunters will take take and take and take until they can take no more. This was proven at the turn of the century and again just as you say in P.A. and now happening in Ohio. Only the State with the power to regulate can control this to any degree. Blaming hunters for over harvest is just a way of letting the state off the hook. The state is getting what they want... a significantly decreased deer herd. Hunters are blaming each other. Time marches on.


----------



## Flathead76

UNCLEMIKE said:


> I have followed a lot of the back and forth between many on this site. I do not condone others comments any more than yours. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your points about P.A. make no sense to me. You said your group tried to keep up the herd size by not taking does but failed. The same is occurring to some here in this state. Hunters will take take and take and take until they can take no more. This was proven at the turn of the century and again just as you say in P.A. and now happening in Ohio. Only the State with the power to regulate can control this to any degree. Blaming hunters for over harvest is just a way of letting the state off the hook. The state is getting what they want... a significantly decreased deer herd. Hunters are blaming each other. Time marches on.


if only a certain amount of tags are issued it does make sense. If you buy them up and burn them it takes them out of the hand of hunters that have zero discipline. In Ohio you can not do this because it's all over the counter.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Let me try one last time (at least for now) to voice my thoughts regarding the states part vs the hunters part in the recent reduction of the deer herd. Those that want to blame hunters seem to ignore the fact that there is a need for regulation and it is only due to regulation that we enjoy what we have today. It is not due to the great restraint of hunters doing what is best for the future of the game animal they choose to hunt. If it were like that we would have no need for regulation of weapons used, numbers allowed to be taken, start and stop times, seasons and the like. Let us just have at it with lights at night, all summer long, out of car and truck windows ect. No problem as we expect that we will police ourselves. We as hunters would be to blame then if there were no regulations and we wiped out the critters... which we would in very short order. However we do have regulations and have a right to expect that our game animals are managed thru these regulations to ensure what we are taking is sustainable. It is just not reasonable to expect hunters as a whole to do what is in their own best interests. Again if that were the case we would need no regulations at all. Hunters pull the trigger but the states liberal regulations and tags are adding opportunity to do so. Think bonus gun, 4 month archery, hunt till half hour after sunset, straight walled cartridges, telecheat etc. As individuals we need to try and make a difference and do what we feel is right. What I feel is right for me is to pass on does and share my unhappiness regarding the states failure to preserve the resource on public lands with any who will listen.


----------



## hopin to cash

I suggest you look back at the entire 3 years worth of threads fathead. I will reply to your B.S. after work tonight while I'm sipping some scotch to keep me calm! Can somebody find me a total harvest count that has actually been reported as of now while I go in here serve the lazy people I work for in America and abroad


----------



## jray

And everyone continues to wholeheartedly disregard the FACT that very few hunters ever take more than one and very very few ever more than 2. Don't concern yourself with facts I'm sure your emotions are so much more accurate. 17.7% of hunters killed 2. 3.2% killed 3 and .8% killed more than 3 last year. With just under 75000 successful hunters last year, 13,275 "extra" deer were harvested by 2 deer hunters, and 4,950 were "extra" killed by 3 deer hunters. That means the outrageous practices of the ODNR were responsible for killing roughly 18,225 deer last year. Give me a break. I realize it's really easy to riot in the streets and shout f the police but there's no truth to your theory!


----------



## jray

Deleted


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Flathead76 said:


> if only a certain amount of tags are issued it does make sense. If you buy them up and burn them it takes them out of the hand of hunters that have zero discipline. In Ohio you can not do this because it's all over the counter.


Agreed and I understand that. However as you shared even with this option it failed to make a difference and you moved on from hunting there.
Here in Ohio what can the individual hunter do? Don't shoot does? How many public land hunters are going to pass deer. Many I know are lucky to get a shot each season they are sure not going to pass on it because its a doe. Kind of a circle. You see few deer so you shoot what you see leading to less deer. Same is happening to the bucks. See fewer so less selective.... that 1.5 year old that may have gotten a pass a few years back is going to taste real good so down he goes.
There is a short term solution and that is find another place to hunt with a better herd size. I have been doing this the past four years. Each year though the hunting on the public lands within the distance I want to drive (up to two hours) gets tougher and tougher. I will be fine but I feel for those just coming up as I would be leaning towards another hobby. Not much fun hunting deer when you rarely see any. Responsibility for this decline is on the state not the hunters in my view.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

jray said:


> And everyone continues to wholeheartedly disregard the FACT that very few hunters ever take more than one and very very few ever more than 2. Don't concern yourself with facts I'm sure your emotions are so much more accurate. 17.7% of hunters killed 2. 3.2% killed 3 and .8% killed more than 3 last year. With just under 75000 successful hunters last year, 13,275 "extra" deer were harvested by 2 deer hunters, and 4,950 were "extra" killed by 3 deer hunters. That means the outrageous practices of the ODNR were responsible for killing roughly 18,225 deer last year. Give me a break. I realize it's really easy to riot in the streets and shout f the police but there's no truth to your theory!


I am not sure what theory is being talked about but if it takes making public land buck only to allow for a rebound then so be it. It is not that guys are taking two or three does now days its the herd cannot rebound with whatever the number being taken is. If ten of us each take three deer of our farm and the next farm over thirty guys each take one the end result is the same..... TOO MANY DOES BEING TAKEN


----------



## Flathead76

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Agreed and I understand that. However as you shared even with this option it failed to make a difference and you moved on from hunting there.
> Here in Ohio what can the individual hunter do? Don't shoot does? How many public land hunters are going to pass deer. Many I know are lucky to get a shot each season they are sure not going to pass on it because its a doe. Kind of a circle. You see few deer so you shoot what you see leading to less deer. Same is happening to the bucks. See fewer so less selective.... that 1.5 year old that may have gotten a pass a few years back is going to taste real good so down he goes.
> There is a short term solution and that is find another place to hunt with a better herd size. I have been doing this the past four years. Each year though the hunting on the public lands within the distance I want to drive (up to two hours) gets tougher and tougher. I will be fine but I feel for those just coming up as I would be leaning towards another hobby. Not much fun hunting deer when you rarely see any. Responsibility for this decline is on the state not the hunters in my view.


I do agree with everything in your second paragraph. On the mountain that we were hunting there were also three other camps as well having tag burning parties with us. In total around 30 hunters burning all of thier doe tags. For two years nobody in four camps killed an antlerless deer. These were all rifle camps that only got hunted for opening week of rifle and some of flintlock season. The reason it didn't work is the area is a heavily populated Amish area. Even if they only had one tag they were going to keep slaughtering.
As far as Ohio my house is literally surrounded by public land here in athens. My back yard butts up against public land. I won't see hardly any deer until November when people start pounding the piss out of it. Since gun season ended I have been putting out corn for the few deer that are left. I have 8-10 deer coming in every evening to feed there. I have zero plans or intentions of killing one off that pile. That would be cutting my own throat for next season if I chose to hunt back there.


----------



## hopintocash2

How did the herd get as big as it was way back when? You know the glory days. It was quite small, way way back when. Then it got crazy big. How did that happen? And when does it bottom out? Does odnr have a number when they pull back the reigns on anterless deer?


----------



## Flathead76

hopin to cash said:


> I suggest you look back at the entire 3 years worth of threads fathead. I will reply to your B.S. after work tonight while I'm sipping some scotch to keep me calm! Can somebody find me a total harvest count that has actually been reported as of now while I go in here serve the lazy people I work for in America and abroad


Fathead can't wait. I will take one for the team BobK.


----------



## fastwater

bobk said:


> Quite a few doe killed during muzzy season the last 4 days. Someone pulled the trigger and I bet it wasn't the odnr boys.


Well I hope they were all killed in the counties that people have said to have plenty of deer. We hunters are much like coyotes....we will go where the deer are....and many will shoot as many as the ODNR allows us. After all...if ODNR says we can kill that many,it must be ok. Right!
Wasn't going to post anymore in this thread and am not going to get into a long winded debate but we've had many voicing opinions on whether or not ODNR is to blame or hunters are to blame for the reduced deer herd.
Here my take while ODNR is not out there pulling the triggers on these deer, they know good and well when they set the bag limits they do, most people are gonna do their level best to fulfill each and every tag they buy.
While we've had some very good discussions on the topic, out of the thousand of people that hunt, how many really belong to a site such as this or any other deer hunting informational site for that matter to get information on Ohio's deer, what's going on with them or if they should be taking does,bucks or whatever. I'd be willing to bet that out of all the thousands of hunters, the people on this site as well as people on other sites are a small percentage of the total number of hunters. I'd also bet that the vast majority buy their tags and go kill within the parameters that ODNR sets and that's it. These hunters aren't into the preservation of the deer herd cause they believe the ODNR has that completely under control...if ODNR says we can shoot 1 buck and 10 doe a year than that must be ok. I'd also be willing to bet that ODNR banks on this as well.
Then there's thise that may know that shooting 3-4 does a year is killing our deer herd but don't really care. All they see is meat in the freezer. 

Sooo...while the hunters are shooting the deer... and are mostly to blame for taking ODNR's bag limit as being the best thing for our herd and not educating themselves to the contrary, ODNR plays that card and sets bag limits according. Therefore, ODNR does sholder some of the blame. I can remember not to awfully long ago ODNR encouraged shooting more does than bucks claiming we needed to balance the doe to buck ratios. Don't hear that talk much anymore...they just continue to allow the killing of many more does than bucks per year.


----------



## fastwater

hopintocash2 said:


> How did the herd get as big as it was way back when? You know the glory days. It was quite small, way way back when. Then it got crazy big. How did that happen? And when does it bottom out? Does odnr have a number when they pull back the reigns on anterless deer?


I saw a small article several years ago in the Cols. Dispatch that stated they wanted to get the numbers back to where they were in the mid 70's. That may have changed by now but with the current bag limits...I doubt it.

Have asked Mike Tonkovich this same question myself on a couple different occasions and have heard it directly asked to him several other times and not once has there ever been an answer. Question always danced around.


----------



## hopintocash2

Well, I guess if that happens, they'll have to change there annual letter about how much money deer hunting brings into the state. Of course, I think that is already as inaccurate as there herd size estimate.


----------



## roundheadjig

crittergitter said:


> A guy my uncle works hunts public land central Ohio. It got hammered and the numbers were decimated. He and his wife kept buying 3 tags each and doing everything they could to fill each and every one of them, even though he knew that land was decimated. He said, "hey man, conservation is the ODRN problem and not mine." Now, I don't share that same view, but he is doing what is legal and it was a detriment to the greater good.
> 
> So, who is responsible for that?


 The ODNR said that they are going to reduce the number of deer in Ohio , they didn't say how or how many...........?


----------



## roundheadjig

Flathead76 said:


> The hunter because he could see that that the numbers were down and he went for it anyways. That's what you call slicing you own throat. I won't feel bad for him next year when he does not see hardly any deer. He got his now so let's blame the state for killing the deer in the future. People like that are what the state is counting on. When people get fed up and only purchase one deer tag per season is when the DNR will wake up. That's where there money is coming from.


The


roundheadjig said:


> The ODNR said that they are going to reduce the number of deer in Ohio , they didn't say how or how many...........?





roundheadjig said:


> The ODNR said that they are going to reduce the number of deer in Ohio , they didn't say how or how many...........?


I wish you all would put together a large coyote hunt . This would help us and the deer.........?


----------



## hopin to cash

Flathead76 said:


> Fathead can't wait. I will take one for the team BobK.


Dammit I just realized you are now my best supporting information... you left a state that had poorly managed deer regulations to come to a state that copied exactly what happened in PA, NJ, NY and others... is that not what the settlers did years ago... no regulations so kill as many as we can... oh no they are all gone let's move west!!! Thank you fathead I couldn't have said it any better


----------



## jray

So I post proof of bag limits having essentially nothing to do with number of deer taken and it is followed immediately by more talk of "ridiculous" bag limits. You guys are something else.


----------



## hopintocash2

Bottom line in my eyes is, the state wanted to lower the herd which they have done. How low? Nobody knows. They have done nothing to try and increase it, in fact they do everything to continue to decrease it. Do they want revenue coming into this state, or not? I bet Ohio businesses would like to see it come here. Do we want a great deer hunting state? Or is mediocre ok? Don't matter to me, I get my deer every year in my back 20. Maybe I should jump the fence and join the bobkaa gang. I get my deer every year,. I really don't like that attitude.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

hopintocash2 said:


> How did the herd get as big as it was way back when? You know the glory days. It was quite small, way way back when. Then it got crazy big. How did that happen? And when does it bottom out? Does odnr have a number when they pull back the reigns on anterless deer?


Way back gun season was buck only in much of the state. Guns were smooth bore inaccurate at distance. Sunday hunting was not allowed. No bonus season. Archery was weeks shorter. Bows were slow and cross bows were unheard of. Tree stands were unsafe home built. No such thing as a store bought ladder stand. Camo was military surplus or plaid. Ground blinds were home made. Calls were unheard of and rattling was little known. To see a yote would have been unheard of.I have seen all of this change in my 40 plus years of hunting. It is a wonder there are any deer left.


----------



## fastwater

hopin to cash said:


> I suggest you look back at the entire 3 years worth of threads fathead. I will reply to your B.S. after work tonight while I'm sipping some scotch to keep me calm! Can somebody find me a total harvest count that has actually been reported as of now while I go in here serve the lazy people I work for in America and abroad


http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/hunting...y-species/deer/deer-harvest-yearly-comparison


----------



## fastwater

UNCLEMIKE said:


> Way back gun season was buck only in much of the state. Guns were smooth bore inaccurate at distance. Sunday hunting was not allowed. No bonus season. Archery was weeks shorter. Bows were slow and cross bows were unheard of. Tree stands were unsafe home built. No such thing as a store bought ladder stand. Camo was military surplus or plaid. Ground blinds were home made. Calls were unheard of and rattling was little known. To see a yote would have been unheard of.I have seen all of this change in my 40 plus years of hunting. It is a wonder there are any deer left.


Yep...and my predictions is that this state will see those days again if many things don't change... IE reduced doe bag limits, price of coyote pelts to increase trapping again etc? Most likely in the few years I have left to hunt, I won't see it at its worse. But surely my and your G-kids, as well as some younger hunters here probably will.


----------



## Flathead76

hopin to cash said:


> Dammit I just realized you are now my best supporting information... you left a state that had poorly managed deer regulations to come to a state that copied exactly what happened in PA, NJ, NY and others... is that not what the settlers did years ago... no regulations so kill as many as we can... oh no they are all gone let's move west!!! Thank you fathead I couldn't have said it any better


 congratulations. You make even less sense when you are drinking. I have always lived and hunted in Ohio. Have family in Pennsylvania. Learned to hunt deer out there as a kid because there were lots of deer there to hunt. Plus you could hunt with a rifle. I only have one uncle who hunt there anymore. Most of my family there have quit because there are not many deer left to hunt there. They don't move west to hunt in Ohio like the settlers did.


----------



## Lundy

hopintocash2 said:


> Bottom line in my eyes is, the state wanted to lower the herd which they have done. How low? Nobody knows. *They have done nothing to try and increase it*, *in fact they do everything to continue to decrease it.* .


See this is where I think you lose much of your credibility. You arguments aren't all bad you just present them in a manner that is very difficult to endure.

You make broad sweeping statements that just are not even close to factual intermixed with other statements and observations that are pretty good, but you diminish your entire message.

Of course the ODNR has taken steps to effect change in the populations in a positive manner. Have you even looked at the regulations and bag limits changes over the last year. Much smaller management areas to regulate and manage harvests is a pretty obvious change. If they wanted to continue the reduction you would not have seen the regulation changes that were enacted.


----------



## Snakecharmer

jray said:


> So I post proof of bag limits having essentially nothing to do with number of deer taken and it is followed immediately by more talk of "ridiculous" bag limits. You guys are something else.


Why confuse them with facts when their minds are made up?


----------



## Snakecharmer

I need to make some more popcorn.


----------



## ldrjay

Lundy said:


> See this is where I think you lose much of your credibility. You arguments aren't all bad you just present them in a manner that is very difficult to endure.
> 
> You make broad sweeping statements that just are not even close to factual intermixed with other statements and observations that are pretty good, but you diminish your entire message.
> 
> Of course the ODNR has taken steps to effect change in the populations in a positive manner. Have you even looked at the regulations and bag limits changes over the last year. Much smaller management areas to regulate and manage harvests is a pretty obvious change. If they wanted to continue the reduction you would not have seen the regulation changes that were enacted.


I'm gonna say boom. that sums it up. lol this thread is great entertainment for these slow days.


----------



## UNCLEMIKE

Lundy said:


> See this is where I think you lose much of your credibility. You arguments aren't all bad you just present them in a manner that is very difficult to endure.
> 
> You make broad sweeping statements that just are not even close to factual intermixed with other statements and observations that are pretty good, but you diminish your entire message.
> 
> Of course the ODNR has taken steps to effect change in the populations in a positive manner. Have you even looked at the regulations and bag limits changes over the last year. Much smaller management areas to regulate and manage harvests is a pretty obvious change. If they wanted to continue the reduction you would not have seen the regulation changes that were enacted.


I would suggest that the changes made this season are more smoke and mirrors than anything real. How can you add a bonus gun season and in the same breath claim to be slowing down the reduction. As others have noted few take more than one deer so until seasons are cut or does in particular are protected it is all just for show. How about a two deer limit only one of which can be a doe for a season. No does off public land. No more bonus gun and cut three weeks of the bow season. Fix the telecheat to stop the rampant copying of tags.Now we would be talking change. Then in a season or two make adjustments as needed.


----------



## hopintocash2

Lundy said:


> See this is where I think you lose much of your credibility. You arguments aren't all bad you just present them in a manner that is very difficult to endure.
> 
> You make broad sweeping statements that just are not even close to factual intermixed with other statements and observations that are pretty good, but you diminish your entire message.
> 
> Of course the ODNR has taken steps to effect change in the populations in a positive manner. Have you even looked at the regulations and bag limits changes over the last year. Much smaller management areas to regulate and manage harvests is a pretty obvious change. If they wanted to continue the reduction you would not have seen the regulation changes that were enacted.


Lundy, I get what you are saying. But, REALLY, they have done nothing to reduce doe kill. As we all know, very few hunters shoot more than 2 deer a year. So changing a 3 deer area to a 2 deer area does what? No restriction on doe. Used to have urban areas, got rid of that and made whole county urban. No restriction on doe. Increased hunting seasons and times. No restriction on doe. Get rid of bonus gun, add early mz. No restriction on doe. Get rid of early mz, add bonus gun. No restriction on doe. So, I guess I don't get what they have done to ACTUALLY increase the herd. They shift things around and change some names, but have they REALLY done anything to increase the herd?


----------



## fastwater

UNCLEMIKE said:


> I would suggest that the changes made this season are more smoke and mirrors than anything real. How can you add a bonus gun season and in the same breath claim to be slowing down the reduction. As others have noted few take more than one deer so until seasons are cut or does in particular are protected it is all just for show. How about a two deer limit only one of which can be a doe for a season. No does off public land. No more bonus gun and cut three weeks of the bow season. Fix the telecheat to stop the rampant copying of tags.Now we would be talking change. Then in a season or two make adjustments as needed.


And I would have to add another unfair element ODNR uses to set bag limits that I've stated before in other threads. That is ODNR including into the state total deer herd the many thousands of non huntible deer and the accidents they cause in suburban and city parks throughout the state. Plus the deer in some of the state/fed. parks in urban areas off limits to hunting.


----------



## hopin to cash

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any body on here that feels personally attacked by my post... including you bobk, hell I'm 50 years now and getting way to old to waste time debating who's at fault for anything. Full disclosure and my opinion on what the ODNR needs to do to make me happy with management efforts coming tonight after work... most can read while taking their morning poop as I work 2nd shift


----------



## hopintocash2

Bobk, Lundy, myself, and others, as private land hunters, we manage our lands by not taking doe unless we see fit. This is our choice to keep our hunting areas prime. IF odnr wanted the same, they would start enacting the same practice. Public lands have taken a good hit over the years.


----------



## hopin to cash

hopintocash2 said:


> Bobk, Lundy, myself, and others, as private land hunters, we manage our lands by not taking doe unless we see fit. This is our choice to keep our hunting areas prime. IF odnr wanted the same, they would start enacting the same practice. Public lands have taken a good hit over the years.


Your certainly not going to control the public lands with public sentiment to stop killing brown things... anybody that thinks that is way over confident in man kind to control themselves. Has to be controlled by tag limitations period!


----------



## Snakecharmer

jray said:


> And everyone continues to wholeheartedly disregard the FACT that very few hunters ever take more than one and very very few ever more than 2. Don't concern yourself with facts I'm sure your emotions are so much more accurate. 17.7% of hunters killed 2. 3.2% killed 3 and .8% killed more than 3 last year. With just under 75000 successful hunters last year, 13,275 "extra" deer were harvested by 2 deer hunters, and 4,950 were "extra" killed by 3 deer hunters. That means the outrageous practices of the ODNR were responsible for killing roughly 18,225 deer last year. Give me a break. I realize it's really easy to riot in the streets and shout f the police but there's no truth to your theory!


+ another 20,000 due to cars & trucks....


----------



## hopintocash2

jray said:


> And everyone continues to wholeheartedly disregard the FACT that very few hunters ever take more than one and very very few ever more than 2. Don't concern yourself with facts I'm sure your emotions are so much more accurate. 17.7% of hunters killed 2. 3.2% killed 3 and .8% killed more than 3 last year. With just under 75000 successful hunters last year, 13,275 "extra" deer were harvested by 2 deer hunters, and 4,950 were "extra" killed by 3 deer hunters. That means the outrageous practices of the ODNR were responsible for killing roughly 18,225 deer last year. Give me a break. I realize it's really easy to riot in the streets and shout f the police but there's no truth to your theory!


So with all your facts and figures, how many of those 18225 extra deer were doe? If half of those are doe, that's probably 18000 less deer in the herd next year. Some of those doe might have twins. So that number could be bigger. So yes, that 18225 doesn't sound like much, but depending on how many were doe. That could amount to more missing deer than you think.


----------



## Shad Rap

jray said:


> So I post proof of bag limits having essentially nothing to do with number of deer taken and it is followed immediately by more talk of "ridiculous" bag limits. You guys are something else.


I tried explaining that a while back too in this thread and it didnt work...I was hopin they would understand.


----------



## Lundy

hopin to cash said:


> Can somebody find me a total harvest count that has actually been reported as of now


I have attached the most up to date information that I have available to me including the harvest numbers for the 4 day MZ season that ended yesterday.


----------



## Shad Rap

hopintocash2 said:


> So with all your facts and figures, how many of those 18225 extra deer were doe? If half of those are doe, that's probably 18000 less deer in the herd next year. Some of those doe might have twins. So that number could be bigger. So yes, that 18225 doesn't sound like much, but depending on how many were doe. That could amount to more missing deer than you think.


You need to think this way when you have a doe in your crosshairs next time...


----------



## Lundy

I think the problem is hunters and the ODNR are using different criteria to determine the viability of the deer herd. Hunters want more deer, the ODNR seems to have reached it's goal set forth in their stated population reduction plan and appears to be trying to regulate for stabilization of the population, neither further decrease or increase. Therein lays the problem, Many hunters are asking for regulation and efforts to increase the population and I don't think they ever intend for the population to raise much from where it is today and certainly not to the previous levels. I think the plan may be for the current population to be the new normal.

The one exception where I think you may see some additional efforts and regulations to enhance deer density and the hunter experience may be on the public hunting lands. There is no doubt that they realize the disparity between public and private hunting opportunities. I am not sure what they will try or what they can accomplish but without a doubt it is a hot topic of discussion in the appropriate circles of the ODNR.


----------



## hopin to cash

Has the ODNR stated at this point the fictional number they believe the herd is now is just right? I never read that anywhere!


----------



## hopin to cash

Shad Rap said:


> You need to think this way when you have a doe in your crosshairs next time...


You need to pass out flyers at McDonald's on Monday morning of gun with your expectations!


----------



## hopin to cash

Here goes full disclosure:

I am 50 years young and have harvested 37 deer in my lifetime (I believe that number to be correct).

Started hunting deer at 14 but it took a few years to get the my first one. Have shot more than 1 deer a few of those years. Had a few years that I didn't harvest any.

I have had 2 years that I pulled the trifecta bow, gun and muzzle. (the muzzle was used during gun one of those years)

Have hunted both public and private land over those 36 years. Not sure we should count last year, I hunted with my camera for most of it. Did not harvest a deer last year chose to pass does on public land and never had a perfect shot on private.

I realize I have played devils advocate on here many times ("give us tags we kill deer") but my group and I tried our best over the years to do our part to be as respectable sportsmen as possible. ( I do remember that one day in Jefferson county (1998 I believe) we had 7 guys hunting on Saturday and by days end everyone had harvested one deer. I believe 3 of us in that group may have shot 2 deer that year earlier that week. I remember 3 nice bucks and a few smaller ones but not sure of the ratio after that. (all taken on public land)

So there you go... If I am the problem than so be it... now how do we fix it??? Next post will have my 2 cents on that.


----------



## hopin to cash

1. The entire state of Ohio will have a one deer limit per person on public land. (buck or doe but just one)

WHY: The numbers say the % of people harvesting more than one deer is very low any way so it just works

2. Non-resident hunters will only be given one tag (public or private land you choose) you only get one tag again buck or doe

WHY: The state respects that you have come and invested your money here and we want to provide you with every opportunity year and year out to be successful. Increase your opportunity to harvest a trophy deer.

3. Land owners who choose to hunt there own land will be limited to 2 deer per eligible family member. If you choose to hunt public land or others private land you again will be limited state wide to only 1 deer. 

WHY: The state recognizes that it is your land and will allot you every opportunity to control the deer to your expectations. Basically if you own your land you could harvest 3 deer state wide.

4. Bow season will now be limited to buck only state wide from Sept. 1 (or opening day) - until the Friday before Thankgiving. Bow hunters may shoot bucks or does after that until Feb. 28 or 29 (leap year)

WHY: The state recognizes that crossbows have possibly put a strain on our numbers of breading does during that time. We also respect our bow hunters who would like there state back for harvesting trophy deer.

5. Gun season will be 7 days state wide and muzzle loader will now begin the day after Christmas and last 5 days.

WHY: Many of our hard working citizens and sportsmen generally have the day after Christmas off and many years it will also include a weekend. 

Ok there you go... not even going to start on this kill permit thing...


----------



## gumbygold

I probably tagged the most deer in the state this year. I'm seeing plenty, including on public. Some really nice bucks came off of alum creek this year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hopintocash2

Shad Rap said:


> You need to think this way when you have a doe in your crosshairs next time...


I haven't shot a doe in a very very long time.


----------



## bobk

Flathead76 said:


> Fathead can't wait. I will take one for the team BobK.


Be careful out there. The insults will start piling up on you. I should have just stayed out of this mess. You get tired of people accusing you of things you never said. Oh well, that's how people are.


----------



## beaver

"Never enter a battle of wit with an unarmed man."


----------



## Bprice1031

Wow this thread has been better then the Sunday comics in the newspaper.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Ohio could use more of these......










And maybe some if these


----------



## Pooch

Here ya go.


----------



## crittergitter

I've been to that dog and pony show. 

I did take action. In 2009 - 2014 I bought only 1 tag each of those seasons. I went further in 2015 and bought NO tags. That's right! I took a year off. Then, this year, I bought 1 tag. I haven't harvested a doe since 2008. 

The DOW goals are vague and unclear. Oh, I know they have their little charts that show an actual county wide goal for the population of each county. Problem is they don't truly know what the population is. IMO, they don't even have a clear cut estimate. They have a number, but it's at best a wild guesstimate. I could probably do better throwing darts at random numbers on a wall. Anyway, even if they had that as a concrete number. They can't get the population to what it is for each county. The vast majority of that land is owned by private land owners. They don't want the deer dead. That's a fact! They want high lease prices. Dadadada! That's the end game folks. It's all about the money! 

So, it is virtually impossible for the DOW to reach this unsubstantiated goal anyway. Thus, deer on public land continue to get slaughtered pushing more and more hunters to private land driving up the demand and the lease price.


----------



## roundheadjig

crittergitter said:


> I've been to that dog and pony show.
> 
> I did take action. In 2009 - 2014 I bought only 1 tag each of those seasons. I went further in 2015 and bought NO tags. That's right! I took a year off. Then, this year, I bought 1 tag. I haven't harvested a doe since 2008.
> 
> The DOW goals are vague and unclear. Oh, I know they have their little charts that show an actual county wide goal for the population of each county. Problem is they don't truly know what the population is. IMO, they don't even have a clear cut estimate. They have a number, but it's at best a wild guesstimate. I could probably do better throwing darts at random numbers on a wall. Anyway, even if they had that as a concrete number. They can't get the population to what it is for each county. The vast majority of that land is owned by private land owners. They don't want the deer dead. That's a fact! They want high lease prices. Dadadada! That's the end game folks. It's all about the money!
> 
> So, it is virtually impossible for the DOW to reach this unsubstantiated goal anyway. Thus, deer on public land continue to get slaughtered pushing more and more hunters to private land driving up the demand and the lease price.


There was a state that had a land full of golden geese that laid golden eggs........ That state decided to kill off half of the geese that laid golden eggs then expected the remaining golden geese that laid golden eggs to make up for the difference of laid golden eggs ..... Well they didn't , so the state killed off all the geese that laid golden eggs but one then the state expected the one goose to make up the difference of the golden eggs ...... It could not..... So the state killed and ate the last goose that laid a golden egg . And now complains
About not having any golden eggs...........


----------



## bobk

I'm not sure it's worth going to the meetings. Odnr already stated they are too busy working on "their" next 10 year plan. No deer summit this year.


----------



## Lundy

crittergitter said:


> Problem is they don't truly know what the population is. IMO, they don't even have a clear cut estimate. They have a number, but it's at best a wild guesstimate. I could probably do better throwing darts at random numbers on a wall.
> .


Do you have any first hand knowledge of the model the ODNR uses to estimate population? Could you share what you know of this model and the details please.

After you share the mechanics of the current model perhaps you could share what you would change in methodology to arrive at what you believe to be a more accurate population estimate..

Maybe you just think the ODNR is less skilled at throwing darts than you are


----------



## crittergitter

Lundy said:


> Do you have any first hand knowledge of the model the ODNR uses to estimate population? Could you share what you know of this model and the details please.
> 
> After you share the mechanics of the current model perhaps you could share what you would change in methodology to arrive at what you believe to be a more accurate population estimate..
> 
> Maybe you just think the ODNR is less skilled at throwing darts than you are


Haha! You and I have been in these discussions long enough to know better. 

I won't claim to be better able to determine the actual population. The point remains, the state has an objective of reducing the population. However, the vast majority of the state is "locked up" by a few hunters. They aren't killing enough to reduce the population to the level the state feels is the goal for each county. 

This entire thread is a great representation of what has been going on. For the most part, folks that hunt private land that is well managed see no problem. Why would they? Those that hunt heavily pressured and/or public land have seen it change dramatically and are upset.


----------



## hopin to cash

Lundy said:


> Do you have any first hand knowledge of the model the ODNR uses to estimate population? Could you share what you know of this model and the details please.
> 
> After you share the mechanics of the current model perhaps you could share what you would change in methodology to arrive at what you believe to be a more accurate population estimate..
> 
> Maybe you just think the ODNR is less skilled at throwing darts than you are


ODNR is very skilled... 6 people on here that don't hunt public land very often feel the current management practices are just fine. The others on this thread think much tighter restraints are necessary to improve the management. So the shell game the ODNR has played the last 10 years not seemingly having a clue about the numbers or distribution there of... was just perfect!!! NOT!!!


----------



## hopintocash2

How does the odnr estimate the herd now? I know back in the day, they would physically count deer by aircraft.


----------



## hopintocash2

Deleted


----------



## hopin to cash

hopintocash2 said:


> How does the odnr estimate the herd now? I know back in the day, they would physically count deer by aircraft.


The insurance companies and farm bureau come in with $500M and the hunting license and permits bring in 50k... there you have your deer count... there I go again with my damn sarcasm... I get replies to this... put up a serious post about possible solutions and changes the entire right side vanishes...


----------



## hopintocash2

Your damn sarcasm. So really, how does odnr estimate the herd now?


----------



## hopintocash2

bobk said:


> I'm not sure it's worth going to the meetings. Odnr already stated they are too busy working on "their" next 10 year plan. No deer summit this year.


Any idea when the next deer summit will be?


----------



## Lundy

hopin to cash said:


> ODNR is very skilled... 6 people on here that don't hunt public land very often feel the current management practices are just fine.


I think you might be making broad statements again that have no basis in fact. If you are including me in the 6 people you refer to, and I'm guessing you are, could you please show me where in this entire thread I have said that I am fine with the current management practices. 

Are you and Hopintocash really just the same person but with a split personality? One that drinks heavily and one that doesn't


----------



## Lundy

Never mind I see you are both on a roll tonight.


----------



## hopin to cash

Sorry Lundy, I'm out until next year... am going to forward my plan though... I think it gathers all we been talking about rather nicely... fact remains again... the majority of the deer population is currently on land not easily accessible by the common Joe.


----------



## Lundy

I don't disagree with you at all on the deer distribution and accessibility by hunters. It is a problem for sure


----------



## chatterbox

Lundy said:


> I don't disagree with you at all on the deer distribution and accessibility by hunters. It is a problem for sure


It won't take long for me to get a belly full of this nonsense! Bet there are more people like me than not. Just more of the haves and have nots because of unfair practices.


----------



## bobk

Lundy said:


> I think you might be making broad statements again that have no basis in fact. If you are including me in the 6 people you refer to, and I'm guessing you are, could you please show me where in this entire thread I have said that I am fine with the current management practices.
> 
> Are you and Hopintocash really just the same person but with a split personality? One that drinks heavily and one that doesn't


He won't find where you said you are fine with the current management practices. The problem with some here is that if you disagree with them they assume you are happy with the current management plan.


----------



## bobk

hopintocash2 said:


> Your damn sarcasm. So really, how does odnr estimate the herd now?


FLIR, DVA and harvest. One last post. I hope that didn't insult you.


----------



## Lundy

chatterbox said:


> It won't take long for me to get a belly full of this nonsense! Bet there are more people like me than not. Just more of the haves and have nots because of unfair practices.


I'm confused. what did you think was nonsense? I stated that I agreed Hopeincash that deer aren't evenly distributed across public and private and that not all hunters have equal access to private lands and that it is a problem.


----------



## chatterbox

Lundy, I totally agree with Your post. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Fed up with the handling of the deer herd.


----------



## hopin to cash

bobk said:


> Be careful out there. The insults will start piling up on you. I should have just stayed out of this mess. You get tired of people accusing you of things you never said. Oh well, that's how people are.


How many deer you shot bobk? Come on do tell... looks like I averaged just about 1 per year how about you big guy?


----------



## bobk

None, I don't even deer hunt.


----------



## beaver

I shoot two a year now, just because that's about what my family will eat. I could shoot 6 a year if I wanted too. I quit deer hunting for fun because it got boring. Deer are easy. 

I agree that deer aren't distributed evenly, but that's life. It's just the way it is. You have land that is restricted from pressure surrounding land that is wide open hunting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the deer are going to go. It isn't a population issue. You raise the population, you'll still have the same issue with more deer. The only difference would be that instead of me having a healthy population while the public land hunters are having trouble killing deer, I'll have an unhealthy overpopulation while the public guys are still having trouble seeing deer. 

Until you can convince other hunters to think about everyone else instead of just themselves , and until you can convince the round hat clans not to rape the land of everything they can, public lands will be how they are. It isn't anything the dnr can do. Setting a no doe law, or a one deer limit won't stop people from shooting what they want anymore than the 6 deer limit and one buck limit didn't stop people from killing 10 deer and several bucks a season. It's a people problem.


----------



## fastwater

beaver said:


> I shoot two a year now, just because that's about what my family will eat. I could shoot 6 a year if I wanted too. I quit deer hunting for fun because it got boring. Deer are easy.
> 
> I agree that deer aren't distributed evenly, but that's life. It's just the way it is. You have land that is restricted from pressure surrounding land that is wide open hunting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the deer are going to go. It isn't a population issue. You raise the population, you'll still have the same issue with more deer. The only difference would be that instead of me having a healthy population while the public land hunters are having trouble killing deer, I'll have an unhealthy overpopulation while the public guys are still having trouble seeing deer.
> 
> Until you can convince other hunters to think about everyone else instead of just themselves , and until you can convince the round hat clans not to rape the land of everything they can, public lands will be how they are. It isn't anything the dnr can do. Setting a no doe law, or a one deer limit won't stop people from shooting what they want anymore than the 6 deer limit and one buck limit didn't stop people from killing 10 deer and several bucks a season. It's a people problem.


There is no doubt laws are made for those that choose to obey them. And we would like to think that most are law abiding citizens. But we also know there are those that aren't. We can't quit making laws that are beneficial to the topic simply because of those that choose not to obey the law. If we start doing that then we should just abolish all laws and just let everyone have at it.

But once again, does it really matter what law is made if there are not enough LEO's to adequately enforce the laws...even the laws that currently exist? And with one GW per county, which is laughable,we all know our current laws are not being enforced even a small percentage as it should.


----------



## jray

I love the broad ridiculous statements the hopin boys make. I'm 75% public land and not because I don't have access to a couple private properties but because the public has better hunting. I've put a lot of blood and sweat into actually learning the areas of public land I hunt and I reap the benefits. Ya it's a lot of work ya you have to be mobile and hunt different areas and ya I see a ton of deer and I'm not alone. No I don't agree with all the odnr does but I do disagree that bag limits have destroyed our deer herd. And I also disagree that we are in a crisis of deer numbers. I do disagree with the way the odnr acts about coyotes and some other things. Quit drunk posting and check your facts.


----------



## garhtr

Other than those who own property, every hunter in Ohio has equal access to private property, some are willing to put in the time and hard work to gain access but sadly most just sit around and complain about being *forced* to hunt on public property.
Maybe tracking down and actually Talking to landowners ( before Sept- Oct) would be helpful. Be polite,respectful and with a little time and effort hunters can find places to hunt but you won't find better places to hunt sitting around complaining about how bad the hunting is on public land.
I personally believe that in my area the public lands hold good numbers of deer and even though I have private property to hunt I often hunt on public areas with good success. If you find the hunting on public land unproductive find some private property to hunt and help reduce the pressure on the public areas. 
Good luck and Good hunting !


----------



## crittergitter

beaver said:


> I shoot two a year now, just because that's about what my family will eat. I could shoot 6 a year if I wanted too. I quit deer hunting for fun because it got boring. Deer are easy.
> 
> I agree that deer aren't distributed evenly, but that's life. It's just the way it is. You have land that is restricted from pressure surrounding land that is wide open hunting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the deer are going to go. It isn't a population issue. You raise the population, you'll still have the same issue with more deer. The only difference would be that instead of me having a healthy population while the public land hunters are having trouble killing deer, I'll have an unhealthy overpopulation while the public guys are still having trouble seeing deer.
> 
> Until you can convince other hunters to think about everyone else instead of just themselves , and until you can convince the round hat clans not to rape the land of everything they can, public lands will be how they are. It isn't anything the dnr can do. Setting a no doe law, or a one deer limit won't stop people from shooting what they want anymore than the 6 deer limit and one buck limit didn't stop people from killing 10 deer and several bucks a season. It's a people problem.


I disagree. There was actually a time when public land hunting was very good. I recall 1995 - 2005 to produce fantastic public land hunting in central Ohio which has some of the heaviest hunting pressure there is. When I started hunting, I was only interested in bucks. In a typical season if going out 15-20 times, I'd see 30-35 deer most of which were doe. I accept that number might be a little high. I passed on doe all the time. However, the last 10 years, it's been a struggle to even see deer.


----------



## Shad Rap

crittergitter said:


> I disagree. There was actually a time when public land hunting was very good. I recall 1995 - 2005 to produce fantastic public land hunting in central Ohio which has some of the heaviest hunting pressure there is. When I started hunting, I was only interested in bucks. In a typical season if going out 15-20 times, I'd see 30-35 deer most of which were doe. I accept that number might be a little high. I passed on doe all the time. However, the last 10 years, it's been a struggle to even see deer.


Why do you disagree??..what he said is 100% true IMO...were you the only one hunting that public land and passing on doe?


----------



## crittergitter

Shad Rap said:


> Why do you disagree??..what he said is 100% true IMO...were you the only one hunting that public land and passing on doe?


He's basically saying that the deer will leave public land for the private land all the time. That's not true. I saw lots of deer on some of the heaviest hunted land in the state from 1995-2005.


----------



## beaver

I'm saying the deer will leave heavily pressured land for a safer space every time. 

Until recently, private lands weren't so private. Landowners and farmers were more willing to allow others to hunt. Thanks to slob hunters, wannabe TV hosts , "outfitters", and the Era of leasing, that isn't the case anymore. 

What was once heavily pressured land, surrounded by slightly less pressured land has become heavier pressured land surrounded by land with almost no pressure , manicured cover, all the corn they can eat , and nobody shooting at them until they're at the end of their lives anyway.


----------



## fastwater

Shad Rap said:


> Why do you disagree??..what he said is 100% true IMO...were you the only one hunting that public land and passing on doe?


Which brings us full circle once again to the fact that while we here on OGF (and others on like forums) are interested and concerned in this topic(or we wouldn't be here having this discussion) , we, and people like us, are just a very, very small percentage of the hunting populace that is interested and pay attention enough to even see that there is a problem. Most are just buying their tags and shooting deer.
Bottom line is we can preach, argue and voice our opinions all day long amongst ourselves, but with the exception of creating a few hard feelings amongst ourselves...in reality we aren't changing a thing. And, not that people would listen to us, we don't have the public format to start spreading the word of killing less does like ODNR has. And I assure you, that's not going to come from ODNR anytime in the near future.

On another note, ODNR has an article in Cols. Dispatch pertaining to getting publics help with coyote control. Seems to many yotes being spotted in and around city's and people are starting to complain.
Have food...will travel:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...-asks-for-help-curbing-coyote-population.html

The thing about this yote ordeal is we all know yotes are very adaptable. We also know they WILL be where the foods is at. 
The ironic thing is...hunters have proven to be the same as yotes. We WILL travel to where the deer are at regardless of whether hunters in that area want hunters not from that area coming there or not. If the deer get depleted or lower in numbers in my county for whatever reason, I'm gonna look at ODNR's website and the counties that have been producing deer. Guess where Ill be that next hunting season? I'll be sitting next to you in the woods you've hunted all your life. I'm not talking about me specifically. Im talking about hunters in general. It's the nature of the beast. 
So for those that are still enjoying good numbers of deer with moderate to low hunting pressure on public hunting areas, that's great. Enjoy it while it last. If history repeats itself, you will soon show up in the woods along with the heavily increased 'orange army' to help out with that fun that was once enjoyed. And most of those counties I'm referring to still have a 3 deer limit.


----------



## fastwater

beaver said:


> I'm saying the deer will leave heavily pressured land for a safer space every time.
> 
> Until recently, private lands weren't so private. Landowners and farmers were more willing to allow others to hunt. Thanks to slob hunters, wannabe TV hosts , "outfitters", and the Era of leasing, that isn't the case anymore.
> 
> What was once heavily pressured land, surrounded by slightly less pressured land has become heavier pressured land surrounded by land with almost no pressure , manicured cover, all the corn they can eat , and nobody shooting at them until they're at the end of their lives anyway.


Absolutely!
Have watched that scenario unfold many times over the years.


----------



## roundheadjig

crittergitter said:


> I disagree. There was actually a time when public land hunting was very good. I recall 1995 - 2005 to produce fantastic public land hunting in central Ohio which has some of the heaviest hunting pressure there is. When I started hunting, I was only interested in bucks. In a typical season if going out 15-20 times, I'd see 30-35 deer most of which were doe. I accept that number might be a little high. I passed on doe all the time. However, the last 10 years, it's been a struggle to even see deer.


200,000 hunters have spoken in support of this opinion.......


----------



## roundheadjig

Shad Rap said:


> Why do you disagree??..what he said is 100% true IMO...were you the only one hunting that public land and passing on doe?


Yes this is Ohio perfectly managed deer herd.


----------



## Shad Rap

roundheadjig said:


> Yes this is Ohio perfectly managed deer herd.


I definitely wouldnt consider it a mismanaged herd though.


----------

