# New deer proposals



## saug-I

What do you all think of the new proposals?

No antlerless muzzleloader season. Replaced with the youth gun season.

No bonus antlerless tags for most of the state. (Reducing the overall bag limit)

Gun season starting same as always (Monday after thanksgiving) but a extra weekend dec 26-27.

That's the big things. What do you all think?


----------



## gumbygold

Don't need bonus gun. Everything else seems good.


----------



## BASSINONE

One thing is great. We dont need to shoot does unless we want to have nothing to hunt. I think this crap about shooting more than one deer is stupid. Those of us who have hunted 40 years plus know, there are a lot less deer in our woods than say 10 years ago. If you want a deer to eat, fine, shoot a doe. If you like the meat that is great, if you need more meat, by a half of beef. We need to police our own land we hunt, the state wont help. Come on fellow hunters, lets do our part. Beacause no one else will.....good hunting....TAKE A CHILD HUNTING...


----------



## Had a Bite

I'd LOVE to see them so away with the early muzzle loader season and all the extra tags. I don't see them doing it but it would be nice. If they would just do it for a few years and and get some REAL counts, not the ones that the higher ups want them to release, then make adjustments.


----------



## sherman51

im from Indiana and would love to see them do away with the antlerless program if only for a few yrs and let the herd grow just a little. but I would hate to see them mess with our ml season. I only hunt the ml season and have gave up gun and bow season. but I love hunting with a ml.
sherman


----------



## Gills63

See those out of state price hikes sheman?


----------



## JohnD

1. Raising non resident tags is good. 2. Doing away with early doe only muzzle season is good. 3. The normal week of gun season is good. 4. Moving youth season up into oct is bad. The idea of youth season is to get kids involved cause they are the future of hunting. Can be pretty warm in Oct. and most deer movement is first hour of daylight and last hour of day. Kids want to see deer, their attention span is pretty short. Their odds of seeing more deer and better deer is in Nov. and by seeing more bucks may cause some kids to hold off on shooting a doe with hopes of shooting their first buck. 5. Leaving the late muzzle season alone is good. 6. Adding the xtra 2 days of gun at Christmas holiday is bad. One, I don't think we need that xtra 2 days and especially that close to the late muzzle season. The deer will never get a chance to settle down into a regular pattern with gun season being that close. As I recall, they had muzzle moved up a little earlier for a year or two and that was the result. I think that was part of the reasoning for moving it back into January. Giving them a little rest to settle down after gun season. 7. Reducing the bag limit is good. Just my thoughts from a lifetime of hunting these critters.


----------



## bobk

I think they should reduce bow season to only 2 months. Those deer get pressured from bow hunters for over 4 months and just can't recover.


----------



## Flathead76

bobk said:


> I think they should reduce bow season to only 2 months. Those deer get pressured from bow hunters for over 4 months and just can't recover.


Bingo!!! Archery hunters kill more deer than gun hunters.


----------



## Fish-N-Fool

Overall these changes mean little to killing opportunity for the state:

Few hunters kill more than 2 deer per year

Moving youth season to Oct is a wash

Bonus gun season adds serious additional pressure/opportunity

The most deer are killed on opening days of all firearm seasons

In the end Bobk is correct. There has been a dramatic shift in OH in the number of deer killed by firearms. That # has been on large steady DECREASE. Archery harvest numbers are been on dramatic INCREASE.

IMO ODNR has done a good job of "dupping" most of the hunting public into believing they are working to decrease harvest beginning last year. In reality they have not....not at all. 

If they are serious about heading the other direction without changing back to single tag either sex, Bobk speaks nothing but truth - bow season opportunity needs limited. Archers are killing most of the deer these days.

IMO limiting a weapon season doesn't work so well. You are simply limiting the amount of time a person hunts with said weapon. Bow season is cut...now I'll hunt all the firearms season to kill my deer. I favor the only proven tactic that does work to limit opportunity - stop issuing tags. 

The herd sure appears to be in a similar state as the early to mid 
90s......when it was single tag either sex and then moved into the doe lottery drawing in areas necessary. IMO it should go back to that method for most counties...the handful that have more resources could be 2 tag counties. How many remember 1 tag per season.....made you think about what you shot didn't it? That is a game changer in the direction needed.


----------



## FAB

I remember No season at all or limited area season, then Bucks only for a long time.
During the 50s and early 60s you would have been lucky to cut across a deer track at all in the woods. We are not headed back to those days but the herd is definitely down. One good thing though is, it does not take long to turn it around. They are prolific little rascals.


----------



## Snook

Less deer and more opportunity to kill them is not good at all for the herd at this time. As I mentioned earlier in another post having the youth season so early is gonna make it tough on them to see deer. Extra weekend of gun....just terrible idea with the small herd we have now. I agree that bow hunters take their share but I have no problem with leaving it the way it is. Hardly any bow hunting pressure in any of the areas I hunt from the week of gun season till season ends. The season would have to be limited during Oct-Nov to have any impact I would think....don't see that happening. I have always enjoyed the late season muzzleloader hunting. Usually some snow and that "last hooray" to get out there. And it felt like the deer were not overly pressured. If in a couple years the herd grows than add a bonus weekend of antlerless to help manage the numbers. IMOP...now is definitely not the time!


----------



## Snook

Well said Fish-N-Fool! I could not agree more!!!!


----------



## hopintocash2

bobk said:


> I think they should reduce bow season to only 2 months. Those deer get pressured from bow hunters for over 4 months and just can't recover.


bobk , i agree, and i'm an avid bow hunter. i'm curious what your thoughts are on how to handle bow season. i say start it 2 weeks later and end it when late mz season starts. that would shorten it by around 5 weeks, but i'm guessing the last 3 weeks doesn't have a high harvest total.


----------



## hopin to cash

Flood the ONDR's site with replies here...

The over all state deer population does not support another weekend of gun hunting period. Please voice your opinion at this link!!!

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-informed/proposed-rule-changes-csi-review


----------



## Lundy

hopintocash2 said:


> bobk , i agree, and i'm an avid bow hunter. i'm curious what your thoughts are on how to handle bow season. i say start it 2 weeks later and end it when late mz season starts. that would shorten it by around 5 weeks, but i'm guessing the last 3 weeks doesn't have a high harvest total.


I would like to see separate licenses (permits) for the individual seasons.

One for archery, one for Gun, one for MZ and one for youth.

Limit would be one deer per method of harvest
No more that 2 deer per year in combination of all methods of harvest
No more than one buck per year regardless of method of harvest
Youth permit valid for all methods of harvest


----------



## Lundy

hopin to cash said:


> Flood the ONDR's site with replies here...
> 
> The over all state deer population does not support another weekend of gun hunting period. Please voice your opinion at this link!!!
> 
> http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-informed/proposed-rule-changes-csi-review


I have already responded via that link and called them in favor of the proposed changes as have many of my friends.

The reduction of many counties to a 2 deer limit and the elimination of most of the reduced cost doe tags are positive moves to me.


----------



## Flathead76

Lundy said:


> I would like to see separate licenses (permits) for the individual seasons.
> 
> One for archery, one for Gun, one for MZ and one for youth.
> 
> Limit would be one deer per method of harvest
> No more that 2 deer per year in combination of all methods of harvest
> No more than one buck per year regardless of method of harvest
> Youth permit valid for all methods of harvest


I think that would drop total licence sales in the state. We both know that the state does not want that.


----------



## Lundy

Flathead76 said:


> I think that would drop total licence sales in the state. We both know that the state does not want that.


Actually it would would increase license sales. No hunting license required just separate hunting permits by method, so anyone wanting to bowhunt, gunhunt and MZ hunt is buying 3 hunting permits. Indiana used to do something similar and may still do this today.

75% of gun hunters also bowhunt.

Highly doubt anything like this will happen in what's left of my hunting lifetime but If I had the power I would do it in a heartbeat, and listen to the screaming and yelling at only being able to kill one deer during the archery or gun season


----------



## hopin to cash

Lundy said:


> I have already responded via that link and called them in favor of the proposed changes as have many of my friends.
> 
> The reduction of many counties to a 2 deer limit and the elimination of most of the reduced cost doe tags are positive moves to me.


Agree the reduction in doe tags is good and I supported the move last year. My only concern is adding the additional weekend to gun that will send the orange army back through the public lands and a much higher chance of having snow cover to help them. The public hunting lands simply can not support another 20K-40K late season harvest.


----------



## croppie1

Back in the 70s didn't you have to buy separate tags for archery and gun? Also I think then they had a lottery for doe tags that cost extra


----------



## fastwater

Orig. posted by *Lundy*:

Actually it would would increase license sales. No hunting license required just separate hunting permits by method, so anyone wanting to bowhunt, gunhunt and MZ hunt is buying 3 hunting permits. Indiana used to do something similar and may still do this today.

75% of gun hunters also bowhunt.

Highly doubt anything like this will happen in what's left of my hunting lifetime *but If I had the power I would do it in a heartbeat, and listen to the screaming and yelling at only being able to kill one deer during the archery or gun season*


Like you stated *Lundy* doubt it will happen in my lifetime either but if it did, I'd be right there with ya. 

Many hunter that are concerned for the dangerously depleting deer herd seem to be middle aged to 'getting up there'. I'm in the 'getting up there' bracket. My concern is not so much for me and the, most likely, limited time I have left to hunt, but rather for the kids coming up. I want to be able to teach/take my G-kids deer hunting. When we were kids, we didn't have many deer to hunt. Our hunting consisted mainly of rabbit, squirrel and pheasant. The pheasant are all but gone, there are not as many rabbits(most likely due to the yotes) and the deer population is dwindling faster then many believe. 

Most likely if the yotes could climb a tree or if the squirrels caused automobile accidents there wouldn't be as many of them around either cause ODNR would set a 30 a day bag limit on them. Once again, using us(the hunter) to do exactly what their(ODNR's) goal is. Then the only squirrels you would see is when you went to town or a city park where they weren't hunted.

My oldest brother just came in town and spent the weekend at his father-n-laws house in Reynoldsburg. Sent me vids. of 8 deer eating below a bird feeder in F-N-L's backyard. This is in a neighborhood and the vid. was complete with background traffic driving up and down the street and the next door neighbors dog barking at the deer. The deer payed no attention to the dog nor the traffic and could care less that my brother had walked onto the back deck to film them. F-N-L says they show up about everyday and the most he has had in the yard was 17. F-n-L says they wander through the neighborhood like pets.

Again, these deer (and thousands more just like them) along with the accidents they cause are tallied in on Ohio's deer herd and used by the ODNR to set bag limits. And guess where all the deer are shot from...rural hunting areas...not F-n-L's neighborhood.


----------



## hopin to cash

Not to beat a dead horse again but fastwater is spot on... opportunity knocks and we are able to hunt the urban "old" Aurora, Ohio. We live right adjacent to West Branch State Park in Ravenna, Ohio. My concern over the last three years has not been with the urban areas but with "PUBLIC HUNTING GROUNDS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY". The number of deer in these areas has dropped astronomically over the last 6 years. ODNR and "US"... yes I to will take blame, have not realized what was happening as we harvested doe after doe off the public high pressured land from 1990-2012. The supporters of ODNR always say give them a break and if you have a better idea how to manage the herd speak up!!! OK "I and WE" are, the deer herd on public and easy hunter accessible land is not supportive of a bonus gun weekend in late December period!!!


----------



## hopintocash2

hopin to cash said:


> Not to beat a dead horse again but fastwater is spot on... opportunity knocks and we are able to hunt the urban "old" Aurora, Ohio. We live right adjacent to West Branch State Park in Ravenna, Ohio. My concern over the last three years has not been with the urban areas but with "PUBLIC HUNTING GROUNDS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY". The number of deer in these areas has dropped astronomically over the last 6 years. ODNR and "US"... yes I to will take blame, have not realized what was happening as we harvested doe after doe off the public high pressured land from 1990-2012. The supporters of ODNR always say give them a break and if you have a better idea how to manage the herd speak up!!! OK "I and WE" are, the deer herd on public and easy hunter accessible land is not supportive of a bonus gun weekend in late December period!!!


i would support a bonus weekend only for those that did not harvest a deer during regular gun season. I like Lundy's idea of method tags. one for bow, one for gun, one for mz. that's it, 3 deer max for any one person. but let's remember, the state isn't looking to boost the herd, just play some shuck and jive to try and fool us idiots. hell, what do i know, only been hunting for 33 years. i guess 2-6 years of higher education is better.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Lundy said:


> Actually it would would increase license sales. No hunting license required just separate hunting permits by method, so anyone wanting to bowhunt, gunhunt and MZ hunt is buying 3 hunting permits. Indiana used to do something similar and may still do this today.
> 
> 
> 
> 75% of gun hunters also bowhunt.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubt anything like this will happen in what's left of my hunting lifetime but If I had the power I would do it in a heartbeat, and listen to the screaming and yelling at only being able to kill one deer during the archery or gun season



Where do you get the 75% figure? That seems pretty high to me.


----------



## Lundy

Sciotodarby said:


> Where do you get the 75% figure? That seems pretty high to me.


Straight from the ODNR stats that they have collected for the new checking system


----------



## Popspastime

No
No
and 
No

When the DOW starts getting after more of these cities to open the hunting and stop all the so called controlled shoots in these cities and I'll start listening to options. The DOW wont do that because they don't want to step on anyone's toes. I've been there fighting and I'm schooled in it, makes me sick. 

Read the laws, not the one in the handout you get but in the real wildlife law books and see how it's written and who has control ( Chief of Wildlife part) of ANY hunting in Ohio, then after that come back with some ideas, I bet they'll be much different. When the herds get too large ol mother nature has a way of handling it and did just 2 years ago around here, dead deer every where. 
Go after your wildlife people and push them to do something about it.

""Not to beat a dead horse again but fastwater is spot on... opportunity knocks and we are able to hunt the urban "old" Aurora, Ohio.""

And just how do you think you got that right back? Look where I live..


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Popspastime*:
> 
> When the DOW starts getting after more of these cities to open the hunting and stop all the so called controlled shoots in these cities and I'll start listening to options. The DOW wont do that because they don't want to step on anyone's toes. I've been there fighting and I'm schooled in it, makes me sick.


Either this or stop including these 'no hunt' city deer and the accidents they cause in their formula to set deer herd bag limits.

The guy that picks the dead animals up for the City of Cols. is a personal friend of mine. I used to work out of the same facility he did(for years I got 1st dibs on any roadkill he picked up ). He drives a pickup and picks up on average 2-3 deer everyday with the exception being during pre rut through post rut periods. During the rutting period, it is not uncommon for him to have to make a couple trips a day to the landfill to dump due the the much increased numbers. These are all taken within the 'no hunting' city limits. If a police report is made(which is always required for insurance purposes) this info is included in on ODNR's data for setting the bag limits. 







One thing for certain, with deer literally running through the neighborhoods, there is surely no shortage of 'non huntable' deer. Nor is there a shortage of city limit traffic. Add those two together and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the majority(or at least a very large portion) of deer/auto accidents are happening at that ODNR is including when setting the bag limits. 

Tally all these claims up for all the 'no hunting' areas statewide and it's no surprise why the insurance companies are leaning on ODNR about reducing the deer herd.

But once again, the deer killed set by the high hunting bag limits are taken from the more rural areas.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Lundy said:


> Straight from the ODNR stats that they have collected for the new checking system



I still find that figure high around here anyway. I would probably agree with 2/3's, but not 3/4's.


----------



## hopin to cash

fastwater said:


> Either this or stop including these 'no hunt' city deer and the accidents they cause in their formula to set deer herd bag limits.
> 
> The guy that picks the dead animals up for the City of Cols. is a personal friend of mine. I used to work out of the same facility he did(for years I got 1st dibs on any roadkill he picked up ). He drives a pickup and picks up on average 2-3 deer everyday with the exception being during pre rut through post rut periods. During the rutting period, it is not uncommon for him to have to make a couple trips a day to the landfill to dump due the the much increased numbers. These are all taken within the 'no hunting' city limits. If a police report is made(which is always required for insurance purposes) this info is included in on ODNR's data for setting the bag limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing for certain, with deer literally running through the neighborhoods, there is surely no shortage of 'non huntable' deer. Nor is there a shortage of city limit traffic. Add those two together and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the majority(or at least a very large portion) of deer/auto accidents are happening at that ODNR is including when setting the bag limits.
> 
> Tally all these claims up for all the 'no hunting' areas statewide and it's no surprise why the insurance companies are leaning on ODNR about reducing the deer herd.
> 
> But once again, the deer killed set by the high hunting bag limits are taken from the more rural areas.


Why is it we all get it about the deer on huntable land vs closed areas but the ODNR seems to be ignoring the facts. Does the insurance racket really believe the thinning of the herd out in rural areas is helping there losses?


----------



## Sciotodarby

Do you guys think they should factor in private property that no one is allowed to hunt on as well? Same line of thinking as the other arguments.....There's a fair amount of deer killed on rural roads. I don't know any statistics, but I'd say it's a greater number than what are killed are urban roadways.


----------



## hopintocash2

Sciotodarby said:


> Do you guys think they should factor in private property that no one is allowed to hunt on as well? Same line of thinking as the other arguments.....There's a fair amount of deer killed on rural roads. I don't know any statistics, but I'd say it's a greater number than what are killed are urban roadways.


if it is an area that can be hunted, then yes it should be factored in. you're comparing apples to oranges. definitly not the same line of thinking.


----------



## Sciotodarby

So they're supposed to do a survey of every landowner in the state to see if they allow hunting?


----------



## Sciotodarby

I didn't realize deer hunting was so terrible in Ohio. What are the odds of killing a deer in Ohio vs other Midwestern states?


----------



## jray

hopin to cash said:


> Why is it we all get it about the deer on huntable land vs closed areas but the ODNR seems to be ignoring the facts. Does the insurance racket really believe the thinning of the herd out in rural areas is helping there losses?



Read the proposals for the dmu's coming soon before you say they are ignoring the facts. This will be the best option to manage those city herds. You are the one ignoring the facts the facts are that this state cannot support the herd it used to. Less woods, less hunt able acres, less corn because it is now barely profitable, less yield loss by combines (way less), and you expect people to see as many deer as they used to in these over pressured areas? Malloy and many others including some on this site are being so hypocritical it makes me sick. Accusing the odnr about not caring what everyone thinks while not caring what everyone else thinks themselves. Malloy doesn't give a rats you know what about farmers as long as they let him shoot deer on their land. The odnr is happy with the herd now and will lower bag limits till it is sustainable. I think that these new regulations will allow the herd to remain at this level especially since the lazy hunters will quit. Frankly I hope they do cause I'm tired of hearing them whine they can't shoot a deer 100 yds from the road in 3 trips anymore.


----------



## fishwendel2

jray said:


> Read the proposals for the dmu's coming soon before you say they are ignoring the facts. This will be the best option to manage those city herds. You are the one ignoring the facts the facts are that this state cannot support the herd it used to. Less woods, less hunt able acres, less corn because it is now barely profitable, less yield loss by combines (way less), and you expect people to see as many deer as they used to in these over pressured areas? Malloy and many others including some on this site are being so hypocritical it makes me sick. Accusing the odnr about not caring what everyone thinks while not caring what everyone else thinks themselves. Malloy doesn't give a rats you know what about farmers as long as they let him shoot deer on their land. The odnr is happy with the herd now and will lower bag limits till it is sustainable. I think that these new regulations will allow the herd to remain at this level especially since the lazy hunters will quit. Frankly I hope they do cause I'm tired of hearing them whine they can't shoot a deer 100 yds from the road in 3 trips anymore.



What he says! I too am tired of the whiners. Spend the time looking for other places to hunt that have deer instead of complaining away on here. Since the season ended I have found an additional place to hunt. Don't wait until September to start to look. Deer are out there - put some effort in and you will find them


----------



## Sciotodarby

^^^^^^ Exactly


----------



## Snook

There are a lot of views and opinions on various deer hunting issues. We're all entitled to them. BUT the common goal is everyone's concern for the future of deer hunting. The DNR has the herd down.....their goal. I understand their reasoning and don't have a problem with that. BUT what happens from this point on is going to be interesting. I hunt a bunch of different areas around the state...all private. I can shoot a deer with little issue...shooting a deer not a problem. BUT what I can say is in all the areas I hunt the numbers are down for sure. Some areas worse than others. It makes for concern when you use to see 10 a hunt to 1-3 a hunt if your fortunate. One property is next to Woodbury wildlife area in Coshocton. Years past Woodbury would sound like a war zone. Past 4-5 years....honestly....you would not know it was the opening day of gun. So for public land hunters....I feel for you. The state has to do a better job with managing its wildlife there IMOP. For those seeing lots of deer consider yourself fortunate. Probably due to limited hunting pressure or tracts of land with no hunting pressure. Unfortunately that could change in a hurry with a few properties being sold and a crew of new hunters that like to shoot. Unfortunately for me I've seen that happen a couple of times in my hunting career A group of 6 comes by... 2 young bucks 3 does.....walk past you over the hill to another property and whammo 4 of the 6 dead. And whole family of hunters still hunting there. All have tags and were legaly shot. Can't say they were wrong.
I really like the idea of one tag per weapon idea( Lundy had mentioned) But doubt the state would do it. After all 3 dead deer is 3 dead deer no matter how shot. The way I see it....allow whatever tags your gonna allow....shoot them how you want BUT limit the seasons. No added this or that. Decreased opportunity will lead to fewer deer shot. If there is gonna be increased opportunity than the state needs to decrease the number allowed for the opportunity. And yes....there will always be those that said there is not enough time to hunt When you really enjoy doing something you will find the time to do it.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by jray:
> 
> You are the one ignoring the facts the facts are that this state cannot support the herd it used to. Less woods, less hunt able acres, less corn because it is now barely profitable, less yield loss by combines (way less), and you expect people to see as many deer as they used to in these over pressured areas?


...and it's obvious you believe this as fact. 

Can you explain the ever increasing deer herds in the non hunting city limits due to the lack of food or more land being made in the city? Don't think the city has grown any more trees or vacant land, have became more huntable, have planted more corn or built less homes. But yet the deer herd in these non huntable city areas are steadily increasing without all the above being done??? 
So are you implying that since the non huntable 'city' deer herd is flourishing that there is more then adequate deer forage in the city and the reason the deer herd is rapidly depleting in rural areas is due to lack of food???

Too, of the many farmers I know and live around with farms totaling many thousands of acres, I don't see the reduction in the same planting rituals that they have done for decades. They plant the same amount of acreage in the same manner they always have alternating them between corn and soybean. Both of which we all know are fantastic forage for deer. 
They have not cut down on any of the same acreage they have planted for generations due to the price drops . If nothing else, they have bought up smaller farms as they can increasing their acreage. Furthermore, with some of the rains we've had in the last couple farming seasons and the farmer not being able to get in the fields to harvest, many these fields have been left standing for the wildlife.

Far as your accusations of whining, lazy hunters goes, you're entitled to your opinion as to why there are those here that actually see what is going on with Ohio's deer herd, that are voicing their opinions on the subject. But you have no right in your assumption that the reason people are voicing their concern is cause they are lazy or expect to kill a deer as soon as they get out of their vehicle. This is not true... and your assumptions in this area leaves the rest of your comments/opinion on the whole deer herd subject taken as you don't know what you are talking about on those issue's as well. Just more assumptions.

Once again, from your comments it's clear you have bought into the 'kool aid' ODNR has sold about there not being enough forageable land to support Ohio's deer herd. I think this speaks volumes in of itself about your actual knowledge on the subject. It either makes one think that you *A:* work for the ODNR and are trying to further sell the same load of crap or *B:* you really believe what you are being told by the ODNR at face value simply cause they said so without really investigating what they are telling you.

Regardless, FWIW, I would like to say to you that one of the persons I know that is and has been completely at odds with the direction ODNR has taken with the past excessive bag limits is retired from ODNR and knows the 'ins and outs' of how these past bag limits were set. He too, lives in the country, has property and has been very concerned in the reduction of Ohio's deer herd. Not necessarily for himself, but like me, for generations to come. As I, he is very capable of going out and killing a yearly bag limit every year. That is not the point at all. The point is, what is happening to the overall Ohio deer herd, especially in rural areas. He and I have had some in depth conversations about the huge weight insurance companies bring to bear on many things in all states in many areas including their influence on DNR departments throughout the US. Ohio is no exception. And nothing would suit an insurance company more then to never have to pay another $ due to a wildlife involved claim.
For those not considering or believing the weight of insurance companies, stop and think how much weight they have on your own medical care. I have several family members as well as friends working in the medical field either on the care of patients side or administrative side. All will tell you the insurance companies are telling the med staff what they will pay for and going to the extent of dictating to Drs. the length of stays in a hospital for illness's and when a patient should be healed.
With that being said, do you really think they would think twice about using their clout to pressure DNR's in controlling wildlife?

On the lighter side...maybe this is the reason for the rapid decline of the deer herd in rural Ohio :

Possible Bigfoot Filmed Carrying a Deer [VIDEO] - Wide Open ...
www.wideopenspaces.com/possible-bigfoot-filmed-carrying...


----------



## hopintocash2

fishwendel2 said:


> What he says! I too am tired of the whiners. Spend the time looking for other places to hunt that have deer instead of complaining away on here. Since the season ended I have found an additional place to hunt. Don't wait until September to start to look. Deer are out there - put some effort in and you will find them


so what happens when the,


> other places to hunt that have deer instead of complaining away on here


 run out of deer? at some point there will not be OTHER places. hunters have been hunting where the deer are for years, it shows by county decline in harvest numbers. jefferson county used to be a great hunting county, lots of hunters, lots of deer, was a top 5 county, not so much anymore. the answer isn't to find *other places*, but better herd management.


----------



## hopintocash2

fastwater said:


> ...and it's obvious you believe this as fact.
> 
> Can you explain the ever increasing deer herds in the non hunting city limits due to the lack of food or more land being made in the city? Don't think the city has grown any more trees or vacant land, have became more huntable, have planted more corn or built less homes. But yet the deer herd in these non huntable city areas are steadily increasing without all the above being done???
> So are you implying that since the non huntable 'city' deer herd is flourishing that there is more then adequate deer forage in the city and the reason the deer herd is rapidly depleting in rural areas is due to lack of food???
> 
> Too, of the many farmers I know and live around with farms totaling many thousands of acres, I don't see the reduction in the same planting rituals that they have done for decades. They plant the same amount of acreage in the same manner they always have alternating them between corn and soybean. Both of which we all know are fantastic forage for deer.
> They have not cut down on any of the same acreage they have planted for generations due to the price drops . If nothing else, they have bought up smaller farms as they can increasing their acreage. Furthermore, with some of the rains we've had in the last couple farming seasons and the farmer not being able to get in the fields to harvest, many these fields have been left standing for the wildlife.
> 
> Far as your accusations of whining, lazy hunters goes, you're entitled to your opinion as to why there are those here that actually see what is going on with Ohio's deer herd, that are voicing their opinions on the subject. But you have no right in your assumption that the reason people are voicing their concern is cause they are lazy or expect to kill a deer as soon as they get out of their vehicle. This is not true... and your assumptions in this area leaves the rest of your comments/opinion on the whole deer herd subject taken as you don't know what you are talking about on those issue's as well. Just more assumptions.
> 
> Once again, from your comments it's clear you have bought into the 'kool aid' ODNR has sold about there not being enough forageable land to support Ohio's deer herd. I think this speaks volumes in of itself about your actual knowledge on the subject. It either makes one think that you *A:* work for the ODNR and are trying to further sell the same load of crap or *B:* you really believe what you are being told by the ODNR at face value simply cause they said so without really investigating what they are telling you.
> 
> Regardless, FWIW, I would like to say to you that one of the persons I know that is and has been completely at odds with the direction ODNR has taken with the past excessive bag limits is retired from ODNR and knows the 'ins and outs' of how these past bag limits were set. He too, lives in the country, has property and has been very concerned in the reduction of Ohio's deer herd. Not necessarily for himself, but like me, for generations to come. As I, he is very capable of going out and killing a yearly bag limit every year. That is not the point at all. The point is, what is happening to the overall Ohio deer herd, especially in rural areas. He and I have had some in depth conversations about the huge weight insurance companies bring to bear on many things in all states in many areas including their influence on DNR departments throughout the US. Ohio is no exception. And nothing would suit an insurance company more then to never have to pay another $ due to a wildlife involved claim.
> For those not considering or believing the weight of insurance companies, stop and think how much weight they have on your own medical care. I have several family members as well as friends working in the medical field either on the care of patients side or administrative side. All will tell you the insurance companies are telling the med staff what they will pay for and going to the extent of dictating to Drs. the length of stays in a hospital for illness's and when a patient should be healed.
> With that being said, do you really think they would think twice about using their clout to pressure DNR's in controlling wildlife?
> 
> On the lighter side...maybe this is the reason for the rapid decline of the deer herd in rural Ohio :
> 
> Possible Bigfoot Filmed Carrying a Deer [VIDEO] - Wide Open ...
> www.wideopenspaces.com/possible-bigfoot-filmed-carrying...


^^^^^^exactly


----------



## Popspastime

I've been very lucky to have started bow hunting in 1967, so I've seen a few years of it pass. Hunted the whole Bow season always looking for trophy class deer and nothing short. Always saved my license for the gun season for the freezer meat. Also hunted 4 different states, so a few deer have passed me by.

With that said.. 
In all those years I'd say that 90% of the time I hunted private land and still do (TY God). The 70's were still a bit sparse but as the 80's kicked in so did the deer population. Now mind you, I was able to walk out my door, spin a bottle, and find a place to hunt in that direction if needed. Oaks, some farming, and forage were strong as was the perfect cover. Wildlife saw a opportunity to make more $$$ selling tags and increased the bag limits. (which I was totally against) Since that time the farms are gone and the deer still did well, then the trees and land were cleared to overbuild mine and bordering cities. The bag limits were still increased to as many as 7 in some areas, that's total BS. Think of the funding the DWL had in its sportsmen?, and still has. 
Tag prices are up and the deer herd is going backwards and the Division doesn't seem to care. Urban you say?? the urban has dropped around here by leaps and bounds, I saw a total of 12 deer the 2013 season and not more then that in 2014. I'd average 20 to 30 different buck sightings a season at the same place each and every year till then. We carry a resident doe population of no more then 6 there all year but last year was down to 4 and that included 2 baby's. 

We don't need to take 4 deer unless your family survives on it and it's highly unlikely anyone here depends on it. We had some kind of nasty deer kill out here 2 years ago and dead deer were found every where, in staggering numbers. Portage and Geauga were devastated. Why do we need to kill more deer??? I'm for 1 a year and no more until (if it does) recovers and let them grow strong again. The DOW can go elsewhere to get their moneys instead of at the deer's expense. 

How many of you heard the "Used to be" stories? Keep the liberal limits with no public areas to hunt and maintain and see what happens.

Pops


----------



## Sciotodarby

The ODNR has never put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to shoot a deer or fill every tag they possibly could. Can't blame the state for all of the "problem." Everybody makes their own choice whether to kill a deer or not.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by Sciotodarby:
> 
> The ODNR has never put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to shoot a deer or fill every tag they possibly could. Can't blame the state for all of the "problem." Everybody makes their own choice whether to kill a deer or not.


You are absolutely correct Sciotodarby. We cannot blame the state for all the problem. What we can blame the state(ODNR) for is the excessive bag limits they have set using the obvious greed of us hunters to accomplish the goals of the entities that do not support ODNR. These same entities could care less if our deer population became extinct. It's all about $ to them. 

Hunters and fisherman are the primary financial supporters of ODNR. ODNR officials take a vow to protect and head up the conservation of the wildlife. Hunters and fisherman are responsible for financing the programs that brought Ohio's deer herd from almost extinction to what it is today.

Again, there is a group of us that have vowed to do our part on our own despite the still, excessive bag limits that are set by including the no hunting/city deer and the accidents they cause in the total deer population. We will still take care of our properties located in various counties and manage them for conservation, just as we always have. But we will no longer purchase hunting license as we have in the past and will set our own bag limits on our properties as well as doe versus buck kills. Not going to financially support a program that, over time, we have lost confidence in.


----------



## hopintocash2

jray said:


> Read the proposals for the dmu's coming soon before you say they are ignoring the facts. This will be the best option to manage those city herds. You are the one ignoring the facts the facts are that this state cannot support the herd it used to. Less woods, less hunt able acres, less corn because it is now barely profitable, less yield loss by combines (way less), and you expect people to see as many deer as they used to in these over pressured areas? Malloy and many others including some on this site are being so hypocritical it makes me sick. Accusing the odnr about not caring what everyone thinks while not caring what everyone else thinks themselves. Malloy doesn't give a rats you know what about farmers as long as they let him shoot deer on their land. The odnr is happy with the herd now and will lower bag limits till it is sustainable.* I think that these new regulations will allow the herd to remain at this level especially since the lazy hunters will quit. Frankly I hope they do cause I'm tired of hearing them whine they can't shoot a deer 100 yds from the road in 3 trips anymore*.


lazy hunters? i cover miles of public hunting land. it's not the lack of deer i see that concerns me, it's the lack of deer sign. and as far as my private land goes.... i'll till my land, and put my food plots in by hand this year instead of with the tractor if it will make me a less lazy hunter.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Lack of deer create lack of deer sign lol.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *hopintocash2*:
> 
> azy hunters? i cover miles of public hunting land. it's not the lack of deer i see that concerns me, it's the lack of deer sign. and as far as my private land goes.... *i'll till my land, and put my food plots in by hand this year instead of with the tractor if it will make me a less lazy hunter. *


Guess I'll stay lazy *cash2*. Can't see walking passed a perfectly good tractor and equipment on my way to plant toting a spade and a hoe. Already put my hours in the field the hard way. Too old for that now. 



> Orig. posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> Lack of deer create lack of deer sign lol.


Funny you mentioned about the lack of sign *SD*. Was just having a conversation with a couple friends of mine. One lives in Hocking Co. the other in Pike Co. Both have been out walking their properties since the snow has been on the ground. I did the same here covering about 120acres. including a 35acre stand of large pines I figured deer would be piled in due to the weather. Found 9 beds in the pines. The number of tracks we found walking the whole property was dismal and depressing at best.

We did find two new yote dens we are going to key on. Looked like pup tracks as well at the entrance of one of them.


----------



## hopin to cash

Here you go boys your own thread while those of us who refuse to drink the kool aid will hash out suggestions and report our actual hunting results here.
http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=274480


----------



## Sciotodarby

fastwater said:


> We did find two new yote dens we are going to key on. Looked like pup tracks as well at the entrance of one of them.



You're a couple months early to be finding any pups. They're just now mating and doubt they're denning up yet.


----------



## Sciotodarby

So what is the ideal deer herd and harvest numbers in all of your expert opinions?


----------



## Snook

Sciotodarby said:


> So what is the ideal deer herd and harvest numbers in all of your expert opinions?


No expert here....but I sure would like to see the numbers a little higher than they are now. With the proposed seasons I only see the numbers shrinking once again.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> You're a couple months early to be finding any pups. They're just now mating and doubt they're denning up yet.


Thanks for the info *SD*. I told my partner the same thing. Don't know what the smaller tracks were going into the den. Is it possible maybe a fox??? The larger tracks looked identical to a yote and there was sign of several larger tracks leading in and out of the den. Looked like only a couple passes of the smaller tracks though. At any rate, we'll be on these two areas trying to kill yotes.


----------



## hopin to cash

This was posted on the lovers side:

"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."

I would not call this deer management that the current ODNR staff has done over the last 10 years it's more like elimination of the numbers in an effort to support the biggest contributor to the pact. Deer management would be professional biological approach to increase the quantity and quality of a herd that has diminished in both.


----------



## garhtr

ODNR absolutely manages the deer herd. Like it or not , they cut the deer numbers just like they wanted. Some my not like the management objective but they are moving along on their plan and timetable of herd maintenance.


----------



## beaver

The Issue is that all these armchair biologists have watched too many episodes of bone collector and think that good deer management is having 500 deer to the acre. That's not the case. If that's what you want, you need to buy your own land and manage it how you see fit. The state of ohio's job is to maintain a healthy herd, not a huge herd. You usually can't have both contrary to popular belief. You also have to remember that deer aren't the only animals in the woods and deer hunters aren't the only hunters in the woods. A squirrel, grouse, rabbit, turkey hunters license also costs $19 and they have to factor in the population and interests of those animals as well when deciding what stable numbers are. Publix land is just that, public. Therefore it has to be shared by all hunters and animals. If you're looking for land full of deer and devoid of other critters, buy your own or lease. Otherwise, learn to play well with others.


----------



## hopin to cash

Before Lundy finds me inciting riot and the fact I have now lost control again this year with my strong opposition of the ODNR deer management efforts I will let it go for another 10 months...

BUT:

here is my forecast for next years harvest numbers...

Total deer harvest state wide will be down 15% over all.

Bow harvest will be impacted the most coming in 25% below 2014-2015 totals. (the number of mature whitetail bucks in Ohio's open public land and non-leased private land has reached a 25 year low and most bow hunters look for mature bucks early season)

The state will promote there great "GUN" hunt numbers that will be up 12K-15K with the extra weekend in late December.

SAD really SAD...:crying:


----------



## fastwater

> This was posted on the lovers side:
> 
> "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."



Don't see anything in the above statement that is not true. 

ODNR has always been forthright in stating their intentions of reducing the herd. 
They've done that very well. 

They have used us hunters as the primary tools to do so.
No secret there. Our own uncontrollable greed speaks for itself.

Can ODNR manage the deer herd effectively??
They have proven that they can manage the herd as they see fit without a shadow of doubt due to the fact that they know the greed of us hunters. All they have to do is put the bag limit as high as they want and we hunters will buy every tag we can and try and do our best to fill every one of them. That's been proven time and time again. Doesn't come as a surprise at all that we still have hunters defending ODNR's past and future bag limits even though all facts say our deer herd has been drastically reduced. And even though ODNR clearly admits the herd has almost been reduced to the numbers they want but yet will not come out and say what their target goal is and then out of the other side of their mouths they also admit to not really being accurate when stating our current herd population.

IMO, again, they will continue to reduce the deer herd to appease entities other than the hunter till the hunter has had enough, puts their foot down and stops supporting ODNR by not purchasing license. If that day never comes then we will end up hunting like a few here are old enough to remember when you may go from start of bow season till end of season maybe seeing a deer if you're lucky.

There's a few of us here that remember those days. There seem to be many here that are spoiled and seem to think those days are an impossibility. 
Guess it goes back to the saying "you never miss what ya had till it's gone".

I hope for the best for Ohio's herd and wish to leave things better then I found them for the next generations to come. Don't see that happening with deer hunting in the current direction ODNR is heading. Sure hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Lundy

There are two very different questions going on here

Can the ODNR effectively manage Ohio deer population? They have proven that they can and have.

Do you agree with the ODNR's management of the deer population? They will vary from each individuals personal experiences and circumstances based upon where and how they hunt. 

The problems start when someone can't understand how anyone could have a differing view than the one they have and dismiss others opinions by calling them Koo-aid drinkers. Everyone is permitted to form their own opinion without someone thinking they can form it for them.

That is why most often the loudest voices for change can never effect the change they desire because they only know how to bolster their own position by belittling opposing opinions. That is very ineffective


----------



## hopintocash2

beaver said:


> The Issue is that all these armchair biologists have watched too many episodes of bone collector and think that good deer management is having 500 deer to the acre. That's not the case. If that's what you want, you need to buy your own land and manage it how you see fit. The state of ohio's job is to maintain a healthy herd, not a huge herd. You usually can't have both contrary to popular belief. You also have to remember that deer aren't the only animals in the woods and deer hunters aren't the only hunters in the woods. A squirrel, grouse, rabbit, turkey hunters license also costs $19 and they have to factor in the population and interests of those animals as well when deciding what stable numbers are. Publix land is just that, public. Therefore it has to be shared by all hunters and animals. If you're looking for land full of deer and devoid of other critters, buy your own or lease. Otherwise, learn to play well with others.


]The Issue is that all these armchair biologists have watched too many episodes of bone collector and think that good deer management is having 500 deer to the acre. 

i don't watch that show, and i never claimed to be a biologist, i'm just a guy that has been hunting deer for 30+ years, and what i've seen for the last few years is bad. and it's going to get worse. so let the state do whatever they want, it is what it is. i'll find something else to do instead of ohio deer hunting.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by Lundy:
> 
> *The problems start when someone can't understand how anyone could have a differing view than the one they have and dismiss others opinions by calling them Koo-aid drinkers.* Everyone is permitted to form their own opinion without someone thinking they can form it for them.
> 
> That is why most often the loudest voices for change can never effect the change they desire because they only know how to bolster their own position by belittling opposing opinions. That is very ineffective


You are absolutely right *Lundy*. 

I know better, stand corrected and apologize to the forum for making the 'kool-aid' drinker comment.

Guess I let the 'lazy hunter' and 'whiner' comments get the best of me and should not have done so. 

Again, my apologies.


----------



## Lundy

I think we are all pretty much on the same page, we all would like quality and quantity. We all recognize that the DNR can not manage just for hunters, there are many players in deer population management that do and should play into the equation. That hunters really control their own future through selective harvest, no matter what the bag limit is. The DNR does not kill the deer. 

I also think we all agree that the DNR has with the proposed regulations eased back a little on the accelerated deer population reduction plans that were in place the last 6 years. Where I hunt the elimination of the reduced archery tags and dropping to a two deer limit should be significant, we'll see.


----------



## pkent

wv. pa. and on the farm in belmont ohio, have all seen deer in the water dead from EHD disease.now they say they have one case of CWD in columbus.I am with all of you on doing what it takes to save the deer.I know EHD has took a toll on the heard in my area. can we stop these two disease's. I think they play a big part on the loss of the heard in a lot of states.


----------



## hopintocash2

pkent said:


> wv. pa. and on the farm in belmont ohio, have all seen deer in the water dead from EHD disease.now they say they have one case of CWD in columbus.I am with all of you on doing what it takes to save the deer.I know EHD has took a toll on the heard in my area. can we stop these two disease's. I think they play a big part on the loss of the heard in a lot of states.


you need not worry, we have professional biologists running the show, i'm sure they are looking into it, and considering it when they decide on the deer regulations. :fingers-crossed::fingers-crossed::fingers-crossed:


----------



## beetlebailey

I remember back in the early 80s we could only shoot does the 1st day of shotgun. then it went the first 2 days.. no matter what we say "THEY" are going to do what they want to do!! we can only voice our opinions. the past deer season no I didn't see as many deer where I hunt. next year im going to select to only shoot 1 doe and an antlered buck (2 tags)!!


----------



## saug-I

Wow stepped a way for a bit since I started this post and it sorta took off. 

The one thing everyone seems to want is more deer or at least a stop in the reduction. I for one like the idea of replacing the early ML antler less only season with the youth gun. And do not like the two day gun of Dec 26,27. Here is why, I do taxidermy and deer processing for a living. When the EML season started a few years ago it took one weekend out of the season for hunters to kill bucks. This hurts all taxidermist, but that is a very small reason not to like it. The main reason I did not like the EML season was combined with the "doe only tags" it put A LOT of pressure on yearling deer. Some late bloomers were so tiny it was sad. Yea it is up to the hunter to make the decision on whether or not to kill a animal, but some feel the need to fill a tag because they can. The biggest reason for not liking the EML season was over 50% of the deer we saw in the shop the last two years that weekend were button bucks. Let me add I know I am just one shop and the whole state was not killing 50% bb. I will also add with the new check system I can look at the confirmation # and tell you what, where, and how you killed your deer. Most of the bb's are getting miss tagged. Most are just tagged as a doe. I will be glad the young hunters will be able to enjoy warmer weather during the youth hunt. The last few years have been rotten. Snow, ice, rain it has kept a lot of hunters out of the woods.

The reason I don't like the 2nd gun season is pretty cut and dry. Most people have plains the Saturday and Sunday right after Christmas with family. This could also mean people who have to travel to hunt, or even just to watch their property will have to leave Christmas Day Eve to get to the spot. Also I don't like it for the fact that the potential to kill a extra 10-20 thousand deer is very much a reality. And the deer get no rest before late ML.


----------



## jray

Well I suppose now I have to defend myself as the character defamation has begun. My hunting heritage started somewhere around 1700 when my family got here oh and earlier if you count my Native American family. Back in the 30s in WV my grandfather fed a family of 17 with a shotgun. When he came to ohio to escape the mines he taught my dad and they hunted together and I had the privilege of hunting with both of them till he passed away. We have deer hunted all that time and a few years after I was born due to a my dad's business going under if we didn't have deer, we would have been in trouble. I'm 21 years old ( now you can call me young and nieve I suppose) I was married last summer and built my house from the ground up last summer. I am a junior at osu studying natural resources. I have had a full time job since I was 18 and a part time before that so that I could pay to study what I love. That is my commitment to wildlife. I have voiced my opposition to the odnr on here and when their ideas contradict my way of life and own opinions I'm the first to call them on it. The property we own has put some 50 odd deer on our table and now I hunt it along with public land and other farms. You won't listen to reason where it has been pointed out that habitat is more fractured and far less than ever. Also that people who take more than 2 deer are a very small minority. Also that hunting access is decreasing. Properties have ups and downs. U may see less deer day to day, week to week year to year unless you have a ten foot fence. They move. I haven't seen a deer in a month on our property until Saturday when I saw 25 while rabbit hunting. They have places to go and move to you know that you have hunted 30 years for Pete sake. What they don't hide from is airplanes and tracking collars. Technology the biologist at the helm uses to make management decisions. He is fairly new, I see him 2 times a week on campus. He is a hunter like us, and if he wasn't, I would be posting pictures of him in a State Farm hat with a farm bureau tshirt and a PETA bumper sticker. I'm not sure if I want to work for the odnr someday, I don't really like the politics myself, but I will continue to observe and make my decisions based on science and statewide management and nothing else. If you don't want to talk about that, maybe we can hang out at the feed mill and bs sometime but we are wasting our time if our goal is promoting wildlife and the heritage we all love and defend. I Agee with you saug on the youth season and late gun season. I'd like to see the deer get some time off and be lass pressured especially with the late rut coming on.


----------



## jray

I would also like to apologize for my lazy comment. The problem with generalizations is they are wrong in some cases and I'm no stranger to a tractor myself. I would love to have a property I can retire on someday, and if I wasn't getting results from my work and somebody called me lazy I'd be pissed too. It's safe to say that's not what I'm talking about.


----------



## garhtr

[QUOTE=hopin to cash
BUT:
here is my forecast for next years harvest numbers...
Total deer harvest state wide will be down 15% over all.

Hopin to cash
Maybe I'm wrong but ---------
Isn't that what you have been advocating ?--- Hunters should harvest LESS deer in Ohio ?
It's gonna happen ,


----------



## TomC

I was so hoping for other rifle calibers to be added for this coming season. Guess 223/556 and .308 are too far fetched for ODNR and ohio.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Why would you want to hunt deer with a 223 anyway? I know it's all about shot placement, but seriously stick with shooting yotes with your AR.


----------



## fishwendel2

Deer? No problem! I counted on my drive from Indian lake to Dublin tonight 137 deer that I could see from US 33! In one field in Union county there were 54!!


----------



## TomC

Some of us don't have the money, for a plethora of rifles in diff calibers. Ar-15, and Ar-10 is all I need but the state seems to think other wise.


----------



## Shad Rap

fishwendel2 said:


> Deer? No problem! I counted on my drive from Indian lake to Dublin tonight 137 deer that I could see from US 33! In one field in Union county there were 54!!


Were you driving 1mph or what?


----------



## fishwendel2

Shad Rap said:


> Were you driving 1mph or what?


Pretty funny but no. Just deer everywhere and easy to see/count in the snow


----------



## fastwater

Glad to hear fishwendel2.

The influx of the army of hunters next year to the counties that still have some deer should be something special. 

I know if I were going to buy tags next year and wasn't that concerned with the overall state deer population instead of the population in my county, I would research and hunt the counties in which reports of a decent herd still exist as well high bag limits. Would tag every deer I could in those counties.

FWIW, actually living in the middle of the deep, hilly woods in which I can see a long way with the snow on the ground, I've not seen a deer strolling through here in weeks. The neighbors crop fields(corn and soybean) have had seven deer show up about every evening. Earlier if there has been bad weather predicted for that night.
Walked the woods again just the other day and saw a few tracks which led out to neighbors farm fields as well. 

Anyways, with snow on the ground the length of time we've had, it's given myself as well as other property owners I know in other counties the perfect opportunity to check for deer sign as well. The reduction of the amount of pics on their trail cams along with the lack of droppings and now the couple months of very little tracks, all confirms what some refuse to believe. 

But that's okay. 

Seems some are convinced the herd is in fine shape, some feel there's still too many deer while others feel our herd is suffering. It also seems that most have their minds made up and won't consider the other may be right.

One thing for sure...time will tell. 

Another thing for sure is...I hope 5-10 years down the road we can all come back to this thread and you all can listen to me apologize for being wrong. And we will find that everyone(especially our younger generation) is still enjoying deer hunting like I had the opportunity to do. 

Again, we'll see.


----------



## Lundy

fishwendel2 said:


> Deer? No problem! I counted on my drive from Indian lake to Dublin tonight 137 deer that I could see from US 33! In one field in Union county there were 54!!


It has been that way on the highway for as long as I can remember.

If the "boys" were turned loose in there it would be like everywhere else in short order and they would be yelling at the ODNR for letting them kill too many deer


----------



## Bassbme

Lundy said:


> If the "boys" were turned loose in there it would be like everywhere else in short order and they would be yelling at the ODNR for letting them kill too many deer


Hmm ..... you mean kind of like the guy that fishes who takes home limit after limit of fish, and then complains when there aren't as many keeper sized fish as there used to be?


----------



## Lundy

Bassbme said:


> Hmm ..... you mean kind of like the guy that fishes who takes home limit after limit of fish, and then complains when there aren't as many keeper sized fish as there used to be?


Yep, same guys


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Bassbme*:
> 
> Hmm ..... you mean kind of like the guy that fishes who takes home limit after limit of fish, and then complains when there aren't as many keeper sized fish as there used to be?





> Orig. posted by *Lundy*:
> 
> Yep, same guys


And when the 'food chain' of deer dries up in one county and has not in another, guess where these 'same guys' are going to migrate to to hunt?
Only stands to reason. 

*Bassbme*,

You brought up a comparison when referring to the guy taking a full limit of fish home every time he could. Every time he goes fishing, he is fishing for his limit to take home. Doesn't mean he'll always get it, but he's out there trying to get that limit every time he is out.

The same applies to many guys and their mindset of hunting. You can tell that by some of the posts right here on OGF in other threads about guys tagging out. Posts such as "Tagged out this year", "Have tagged out the last 'x' number of years" or "I've got one tag left and 'x' number of days left to fill it", etc.. 

If we start thinking about just the posts we read here on OGF saying such, then we consider the small percentage of hunters in the state with the same mindset that are not members here that we don't hear about, is it a wonder why the deer population is rapidly dropping. 

This same obvious mindset that we are discussing here is nothing new. As long as there has been fisherman and hunters, this mindset has been there. Unfortunately, for many, it's not going away any time soon. Won't go away for many till the quarry dries up in their little 'neck of the woods'. And when it does, the same people that helped create the problem will be the ones screaming the loudest. 

Sadly, the longer I hunt, the more it seems that the attitude of many has been shifting from ' take what you need' to an attitude of "a competition to see if I can take more then my fishing/hunting partners" or an attitude of " the bag limit is such and such so I'm gonna do my best to kill my max limit". 

No doubt, we've surely been spoiled by Ohio's deer herd size in the last 10-12yrs. Those days are very rapidly ending. Can only hope that the mindsets of, 'it being a quest of having to fill every allowed tag' changes back to 'take only what we reasonably need' as fast as the herd size drops. 

At this point, I have serious doubt it will.


----------



## bobk

Very very few people tag out let alone shoot more than 2 deer. I don't believe this is the main issue with the declining herd. 
Don't get me wrong I'm not impressed with the guys that come on here and brag about it one bit.


----------



## Lewis

I see the decline of the herd daily from my living room window.

I feed anywhere from 12-18 adult does every day. Among these does are only 2 or 3 surviving fawns due to coyote predation.
At the same time over the years the ODNR ramped up the bag limits and hunting opportunities, the coyote population exploded across the state resulting in another very effective tool to eliminate deer.
As new fawns are born, its like a springtime deer season further reducing the herd by huge numbers. 

I am going to give another opinion, which might be wildly unpopular among some of you.
I wish the state would outlaw deer drives. Yes it is a very effective way to kill deer. Maybe too effective. Driving deer is illegal in many states. I'm sorry, but I just find it not very sporting, and it just promotes the "if it's brown, it's down mentality. Seems to me like a mob approach to killing deer for everyone in the group. I might be able to understand 2 or 3 guys driving, but many of us have seen drives with 15-20 guys wiping an area out. 

End of rant...lol


----------



## Lundy

Lewis said:


> I am going to give another opinion, which might be wildly unpopular among some of you.
> I wish the state would outlaw deer drives. Yes it is a very effective way to kill deer. Maybe too effective. Driving deer is illegal in many states. I'm sorry, but I just find it not very sporting, and it just promotes the "if it's brown, it's down mentality. Seems to me like a mob approach to killing deer for everyone in the group. I might be able to understand 2 or 3 guys driving, but many of us have seen drives with 15-20 guys wiping an area out.
> 
> End of rant...lol


Not unpopular with me. While I would like to see all drives illegal I would settle for a compromise of drives may consist of no more than 5 participants. This would allow for some family hunting tradition to continue.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Let's do away with bow hunting. Think of all the deer that are killed and never found or tagged********* I enjoy bow hunting and driving deer. I don't have the time to bow hunt as much as I used to and neither do my friends. Driving deer is usually the only way we get to hunt. After Monday of gun week, you just about have to push them to see any deer. There's usually only 4 or 5 of us that hunt and that's what works well in this part of the state. I don't agree with putting a limit on the number of hunters per group because where 5 would work here, it'd be really hard to pull off a successful drive in any sort of big woods or hills with that many.


----------



## Lewis

I knew it would be an unpopular opinion with some. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
In my opinion there is also a lot of "collateral damage" when drivers " get them on their feet and moving". If the drivers don't kill them they are pushed on to adjacent lands where they are killed.

I don't think the occasional lost deer to an inexperienced bowhunter equates to killing every deer in a parcel of woods as happens in large organized deer drives.


----------



## Sciotodarby

That happens without a doubt, and I know several guys that have been happy we were hunting the property next door and got a shot at a deer they never would have. Would you shoot a deer that got bumped from a drive next door and came right past you?


----------



## Lewis

Under the present laws, yes...if he was the shooter I wanted lol However if drives were illegal and not happening, I would wait for one to move past me on his natural pattern, or normal hunter movement pushing him my way.


----------



## Sciotodarby

I'm going to play the Devils advocate here- You would shoot a deer from a neighboring drive, but don't agree with drives? Doesn't that sound kind of hypocritical? Lol


----------



## Sciotodarby

And I've never seen every deer in a woods killed on a drive. Unless there were only a couple deer there to begin with. Deer that have survived a couple gun seasons get real smart when it comes to out foxing the guys on a deer drive. Lost deer aren't just from inexperienced bow hunters, either....


----------



## Lewis

Just being honest, but in that scenario....this hypocrite did not organize, condone, nor participate in that drive! 

Really though, small drives don't actually bother me. Its the herd decimating drives that involve truckloads of hunters. In most years I try to kill a decent buck during bow season and only really participate in gun season to keep an eye on my land for trespassers.

As hunters we are going to have to find some solutions to the dwindling deer populations among ourselves. The ODNR seems to have their head buried in the sand.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by bobk:
> 
> Very very few people tag out let alone shoot more than 2 deer. I don't believe this is the main issue with the declining herd.


 We can continue to say that few people kill x number of deer a year. Regardless of the stats ODNR uses to establish the average deer a single hunter kills a year, would you agree that hunters are ODNR's main resource for controlling the herd? 
Don't know of another contributing factor that killed 175,000+ deer in 2014-15 or 191,000+ deer in the 2012-13 season. 

What we know for sure is ODNR has admittedly been very successful in using its biggest asset (or tool) to reduce the herd...us hunters. While the excessive bag limits might not have been the main reason for the yearly reduction and while most don't shoot more then two deer, there has not been a faster, more effective contributing factor to the reduction of the herd then us hunters killing the numbers we have. 
The only other thing that could come along and kill more deer faster then us hunters have done would be a disease or sickness. Thankfully. we haven't had that yet. 

While there are surely other factors that do, and have been argued for the reduction of the herd such as less ground, less food, weather and predators, the one factor that each of us have absolute control over (that just happens to be the biggest factor in the whole equation) is ourselves.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Lewis said:


> Just being honest, but in that scenario....this hypocrite did not organize, condone, nor participate in that drive!
> 
> 
> 
> Really though, small drives don't actually bother me. Its the herd decimating drives that involve truckloads of hunters. In most years I try to kill a decent buck during bow season and only really participate in gun season to keep an eye on my land for trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> As hunters we are going to have to find some solutions to the dwindling deer populations among ourselves. The ODNR seems to have their head buried in the sand.



Best thing to do when you see a group hunting like that is to call the warden. They LOVE checking big groups because there's usually going to be several infractions. We call big groups " Bang Bang Gangs"

Sportsman need to stick together because once they start going after one another it gives the anti's a toe hold to start working


----------



## garhtr

Sciotodarby said:


> And I've never seen every deer in a woods killed on a drive. Unless there were only a couple deer there to begin with. Deer that have survived a couple gun seasons get real smart when it comes to out foxing the guys on a deer drive. Lost deer aren't just from inexperienced bow hunters, either....


 My favorite way to hunt, gun or Muzzle-loader is a drive.* When executed properly* it is an effective way to bag deer, but that's why we do it. Almost all the deer I have taken on drives were stopped {some even browsing} when shot, but by numbers it's just a dead deer. What IS the difference if it was shot FROM a stand, ON a drive, OR slow stalking through the woods ? It's a numbers game and as long as large numbers of tags are available a large percentage of the deer will be harvested--- when tags numbers are decreased kill numbers will decrease, doesn't matter, bow, gun, muzzle-loader,--- drive, stand, or stalk.
ODNR is accomplishing exactly what they want----- fewer deer in Ohio--- know one {at least hunters} really like it but we all want to bag a deer or two and we have just been too good at it for too many years.


----------



## Sciotodarby

I love driving deer. It takes more skill to kill deer on a drive than what people think. Especially deer that have been pressured and shot at. We have a blast doing it and Id hate to see that option gone. 
Everybody is all worried about the deer herd, but it'll come back with the reduced limits.The habitat and food is still there and those are the main concerns of having a big herd,IMO.


----------



## hopintocash2

Sciotodarby said:


> I love driving deer. It takes more skill to kill deer on a drive than what people think. Especially deer that have been pressured and shot at. We have a blast doing it and Id hate to see that option gone.
> *Everybody is all worried about the deer herd, but it'll come back with the reduced limits.The habitat and food is still there and those are the main concerns of having a big herd,IMO.*




yes it will, however, the limits have not been reduced enough yet. bow season needs to be shortened, the bonus gun weekend needs to be scrapped, and anterless deer restrictions need to be put in place in some areas. but let's remember, the state isn't looking to boost the herd, just juggle the seasons around to try and make us hunters happy.


----------



## hopintocash2

bobk said:


> Very very few people tag out let alone shoot more than 2 deer. I don't believe this is the main issue with the declining herd.
> Don't get me wrong I'm not impressed with the guys that come on here and brag about it one bit.


bobk, i agree with you sir, but one could look at it as an open check book, if i only have a 100$ in my account i might be a little cautious how i use it, if i have 600$ in my account i might not care how i use the first 100 or 2. so the question is...if i have *A* tag would i be more choosy on the deer i take, verses if i have the option of 2,3,4,5,6 tags. i know the thought has crossed my mind over the years, why pass on this little doe, i can just get another tag. as it has been said many, many times, we are our own worse enemy. if we can't control ourselves, and the state isn't going to control us, what will the future of deer hunting look like in 5-10 years?


----------



## Lundy

Not all drives are created equal. I have watched first hand the large 20+ person drives for the last 25 years up close and yes I would like the see those type large drives completely done away with. 

Many of the small drives that I hear many of you describing I can live with, Thus my personal opinion about limiting the number of participants. If you can't effectively drive a woods with 4-5 guys, well.......that is kindof the whole point


----------



## hopintocash2

Lundy said:


> Not all drives are created equal. I have watched first hand the large 20+ person drives for the last 25 years up close and yes I would like the see those type large drives completely done away with.
> 
> Many of the small drives that I hear many of you describing I can live with, Thus my personal opinion about limiting the number of participants. If you can't effectively drive a woods with 4-5 guys, well.......that is kindof the whole point


lundy, i would agree, our group is usually 5-7 guys and we do some pushing mid week. our drives are more like guys doing some noisy still hunting toward sitters. we come up with a plan, and carefully execute it, being well aware of each other.


----------



## Sciotodarby

So what's the general consensus on feeders and food plots?


----------



## hopintocash2

Sciotodarby said:


> So what's the general consensus on feeders and food plots?


That's a good question. Do i think my feeders and plots help me get a deer, yes i do. Do I think my feeders and plots help the deer that I don't harvest, yes I do. As well as other wildlife.


----------



## garhtr

hopintocash2 said:


> That's a good question. Do i think my feeders and plots help me get a deer, yes i do. Do I think my feeders and plots help the deer that I don't harvest, yes I do. As well as other wildlife.


That's a good answer &#128513; but do you think hunting over a food-plot or a feeder is OVERLY effective and results in the harvesting of too many deer and thus should be illegal ???


----------



## Sciotodarby

They concentrate the population and are a good way to spread an infectious disease through a herd.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> So what's the general consensus on feeders and food plots?


There's a difference in a 'food plot' versus a 'hunting plot' .

For clarification, which are you referring to?


----------



## hopin to cash

garhtr said:


> That's a good answer &#128513; but do you think hunting over a food-plot or a feeder is OVERLY effective and results in the harvesting of too many deer and thus should be illegal ???


Ohio Data: Around 640,000 deer in 2014, Ohio issued fewer deer permits and no antlerless deer permits in some areas to help the herd rebound. Ohio deer population estimated at 700,000 to 750,000, prior to hunting season in 2013 and 2012. About 515,000 resident deer hunters. Although ODNR no longer makes a formal estimate, they agree that the deer population has declined into 2014 as a result of a hard winter, following a general decline since about 2008. Coyote predation is also becoming an issue. About 800,000 deer in 2001. Hunters requested reduced bag limits after the Ohio deer harvest fell by 12.5% in 2013. Down about 27% from 2009. Ohio Department of Transportation picked up 15,000 deer from roads in 2011, compared to 18,000 in 2010. The Ohio Division of Wildlife's goal is to reduce deer populations in counties above population targets. The eastern and southeastern forests have matured, reducing deer habitat.

If the above was true and food plots or hunting plots were a great form of success 515,000 hunters could destroy a deer population in one year hunting over food plots. I realize not all hunters have or think they have access to food attracting deer areas. More so, I believe most food plots and even hunting plots are planted by individuals with a common goal..."offering the bucks nutrient supplements to produce bigger racks and the does a food source to stay in the area and continue breeding more deer". 

I would say no... hunting over food plots and feeders is not detrimental to the over all population. Some may kill every deer they see in there food plot but in 3 years, they will wonder why they planted the food plot.

I like the comment above that says the state no longer counts deer...??? Does that mean there theory is two deer are to many and one deer is not enough?


----------



## bobk

hopintocash2 said:


> bobk, i agree with you sir, but one could look at it as an open check book, if i only have a 100$ in my account i might be a little cautious how i use it, if i have 600$ in my account i might not care how i use the first 100 or 2. so the question is...if i have *A* tag would i be more choosy on the deer i take, verses if i have the option of 2,3,4,5,6 tags. i know the thought has crossed my mind over the years, why pass on this little doe, i can just get another tag. as it has been said many, many times, we are our own worse enemy. if we can't control ourselves, and the state isn't going to control us, what will the future of deer hunting look like in 5-10 years?



Understand your open check book theory. There will always be those that take all they can. I'm not disagreeing with lower tags for all hunters. I'd be happy to see it reduced. I am not a fan of reducing the hunting opportunities. I get tired of the bow guys saying no way on the extra gun season or muzzle. As many chances as I can be in the woods is a good thing. Self control on when taking a deer is more the issue.


----------



## hopintocash2

bobk said:


> Understand your open check book theory. There will always be those that take all they can. I'm not disagreeing with lower tags for all hunters. I'd be happy to see it reduced. I am not a fan of reducing the hunting opportunities. I get tired of the bow guys saying no way on the extra gun season or muzzle. As many chances as I can be in the woods is a good thing. Self control on when taking a deer is more the issue.


i totally agree with you. from a hunting side, i love the proposed regs for next year. but i have enough self control to pass on deer, been doing it for years. the same cannot be said for others, they've boasted about it on here. i like being in the woods and i like seeing deer. so i like the opportunities the proposed regs give, but feel more reduced tags should go with it. and i'm not a hardcore bow guy, i hunt all seasons and enjoy each of them equally. i bow hunt my land and firearm hunt public land, it offers me nice diversity in my hunting.


----------



## Sciotodarby

fastwater said:


> There's a difference in a 'food plot' versus a 'hunting plot' .
> 
> For clarification, which are you referring to?



Feeders. Food plots have their pros and cons.


----------



## jray

I like limiting the number of people in deer drives also but mainly for a safety concern. Most bang bang gangs are highly ineffective in my experience. I have often wondered though, if nobody drove would anybody need to drive? I hate driving but since everyone else does, I will do so at the end of the week cause those freaked out deer will not move. I mainly gun hunt to keep people off my land, but my dad and brother don't bow hunt much and I try to get them on the deer. I still see bag limits brought up and I still say the numbers do not lie it will help very little. I think the coyotes are a huge issue personally. And about the 100 600 checking account theory, hopin2cash what do you want people to select for? Pure curiosity here


----------



## Sciotodarby

jray said:


> I like limiting the number of people in deer drives also but mainly for a safety concern.



Again, how many people are shot each year during gun week?


----------



## garhtr

Sciotodarby said:


> Again, how many people are shot each year during gun week?


wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/.../hunting/pub5203..
Check out the Hunter injury report for 2013----- 5 fatalities, 2 of which were self inflicted. I think in 2013 there were 23 Total hunting injuries in Ohio and not all involved being shot or deer hunting ---- it's pretty safe out there.
Jray----The " Bang-Bang " gangs are killing deer not their comrades&#55357;&#56835;


----------



## hopintocash2

> hopin2cash what do you want people to select for? Pure curiosity here


if you only have one tag are you going to shoot a 60 pound doe the second day of bow season? or are you going to hold on to that tag hoping for something better?


----------



## Captain Kevin

The real issue here is not just that we see less deer in the woods. I will go so far as say that over the last 3 years I have seen more deer in the woods. The reason is restricted access. You can't kill a deer or see deer, if they aren't there. As more land is sold, and posted, the less access the overall public has to it, which then puts more pressure on public land, or farms that are open to letting guys hunt. I'm very lucky that a few slob hunters pissed the 2 farmers off where I hunt. I always take good care of those guys with equipment repairs, and free labor. They shut everyone out but me and my wife. Those farms since have exploded with deer. You can make the limit 20 per man if you like, but if you can't get to where they are at, you likely won't kill 1.


----------



## hopin to cash

I could not disagree more... The deer herd population is down state wide period. Private land, public land and non hunted land. Don't let the herd of 20 fool you right now since they are all on the same food source due to winter.


----------



## Sciotodarby

hopin to cash said:


> I could not disagree more... The deer herd population is down state wide period. Private land, public land and non hunted land. Don't let the herd of 20 fool you right now since they are all on the same food source due to winter.



He's talking about localized populations during season. If deer aren't pressured, that's where they're going to be during season.


----------



## Lundy

My desire to limit drives has nothing to do with safety issues. It has to do with deer harvest, party tagging, game violations, trespassing, and wounded deer. Those have been my personal observations for the last 25 years of the drives adjacent to where I hunt. My opinion is based only on what I have personally witnessed

Many of the guys that participate in these drives couldn't kill a deer if it wasn't being pushed, or tied up on a leash in their backyard.

Just my personal observations


----------



## garhtr

Lundy, please don't judge every Hunter in Ohio by the actions of One group of hunters you personally know . We all know that deer are wounded by bow hunters, muzzle loaders and Modern gun hunters. Some are wounded from tree stands, ground blinds and probably even from vehicles. I've personally been pushing deer for over 50 years in multiple states and have only seen a handful of deer wounded When done responsibly, like any method of hunting , it is safe and effective.
I think a restriction on deer drives would be a huge mistake . Most hunters I hear complain about drives have never seen or been around one executed properly and I believe most are done properly and as for "'party tagging", members of our group are often seen drving deer without a firearm , I'm not tagging someone else's deer. Why would "party tagging " be limited to deer drives ? ?


----------



## Sciotodarby

Party tagging would is easier with a big group of guys because you've got more guys hunting to fill one tag. Say ole Steve only has 3 days of vacation and it's Wednesday afternoon and he can't hunt the rest of the week. He really wants to take a deer home for meat. He tells the 15 guys he's hunting with that he'll tag a deer if it's shot. So you've got 15 guys trying to kill a deer they won't have to tag.


----------



## Lundy

I personally watched on many, many more than one occasion one stander kill 3-5 deer. I have also dispatched more than one half dead deer resulting from this particular group of drivers for the land owner to tag. I had had to go and get them to collect deer that have crossed into our fields and dies that they never followed up on because they had too many blood trails to possibly follow them all. The continue to trespass every year during these drives. I know they party tag as fact, I watch it.

I agree with you on the wounding, I have been saying for years that archery by far has the highest wound and not recovered rate of any form of hunting but that doesn't diminish the high wound rate of the drives that I witness. When I hunter shoots 3 shots (sometimes 5) as fast as he can, what is the likelihood of an accurate shot on a moving deer?

I have a high vantage point where I can witness much of these drives. I see the tactics, I see the deer, I can see some of the standers as they shoot. These guys are the worst of the worst and yes, I would eliminate all drives everywhere if I could just because of them and other like them. Never going to happen, just telling you what I would do If I had the power to enact change.

By the way before you ask, yes I have called the GW many times.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Surprised the warden never showed up. They usually love getting in on action like that. Possibly a "good ole boy" relationship with the warden?


----------



## garhtr

Sciotodarby ---Yea, but Ole Steve the bowhunter shoots a deer at dusk, he's on vacation for a week so he calls one of the 15 guys he knows who is itching to use an unfilled tag to come over AM and look for the "wounded" deer, luckily his friend brings his bow and tag.
There are a million other scenarios for that type of activity. That's why we have Game wardens


----------



## Sciotodarby

It happens in all scenarios, but it's a lot easier when there's already guys there with tags. Like I said before, I wouldnt support a group size limit for drives because there are some places it'd take a bunch of guys to cover a drive.


----------



## Captain Kevin

hopin to cash, I'm not talking about yarded up herds in January. I'm talking from the opening day of Bow, until the end of bow. The scenario I'll use is going to the grocery store in the east side of Cleveland. How many times would you need to be shot at before you got out of that neighborhood, and went to one where nobody was trying to kill you. Deer are no different. They go to where there is no pressure. A deer doesn't even need to be shot at to feel pressured and move out. The constant scent of humans/hunters who are just too lazy, or too ignorant to play the wind, and do the little things to eliminate scent cause way more deer to head to new ground than anything. Hence the scenario I painted earlier where it is just my wife and I hunting these 2 farms, versus a dozen or more, made tremendous difference.


----------



## garhtr

Sciotodarby said:


> It happens in all scenarios, but it's a lot easier when there's already guys there with tags. Like I said before, I wouldnt support a group size limit for drives because there are some places it'd take a bunch of guys to cover a drive.


I'll leave it at this--- eliminate"any" method an unethical Hunter (shouldn't call them hunters) uses and he'll just do something else unethical ----- Jacklight, road hunt, hunt out of seaaon, if someone wants a deer that bad-------they will find a way to get around the legal system.


----------



## Lundy

I am not the King, never will be, but if I was,

all legal guns for deer hunting would be single shot only. Bow season would start Oct 1st and end the day after Thankgiving, there would be a separate license for archery, gun and MZ.(all monies from increased license sales must be allocated to increased game warden hiring 3-4 per county as a goal) No more than one deer per method, no more than two per year by any combination or methods, no more than one buck regardless of method, one youth and disabled license that is good for all seasons with the same bag limits.

Gun season would start the Saturday after Thanksgiving and run for 9 days. The MZ season would start the first Saturday after Jan 1st and run for 9 days.

Trespassing and game violations would be a one year automatic license(hunting or fishing) suspension for the first offense, 3 years for the second offense, lifetime ban for the third offense.

Damage permits would be issued by the ODNR to hunters to remove deer from landowners properties requesting deer population reduction. Landowners have right of refusal of access if they don't like the hunter sent by the ODNR during the interview process, Participating hunters may only take 2 deer on a damage permit per year. Landowners must utilize multiple hunters until the full quota is fulfilled. Any hunter violating terms of access lose all damage permit access rights forever. A landowner may appoint up to 3 hunters of his choosing to fill damage permits. These hunters may not take more than 2 deer each per permit year. Any additional deer must be taken by hunters assigned by the ODNR.

As the King, now that I have fixed all of the hunting problems and the ice is starting to melt I'll start thinking about the fishing regulations


----------



## crappiedude

Lundy said:


> I am not the King, never will be, but if I was......
> 
> As the King, now that I have fixed all of the hunting problems and the ice is starting to melt I'll start thinking about the fishing regulations


If your name ever come up on the ballot, you got my vote.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Why can't landowners take care of the deer themselves?


----------



## jray

hopintocash2 said:


> if you only have one tag are you going to shoot a 60 pound doe the second day of bow season? or are you going to hold on to that tag hoping for something better?



If you want more fawns the next year you would be better off shooting yearlings. That is unless you shoot 5 year old does at the end of fawn bearing. I argue with guys about shooting yearlings all the time. Unless you can age does effectively, which I would say very few can especially since the don't have much body difference between 2 yr old and mature like bucks do. And I completely agree with captain Kevin deer herd is down not as bad as people think they are because of habitat fragmentation and refuge areas. And after some of the bs I've seen in drives, dudes should play the lottery when they walk out on their own. Like I said I have done 4-7 man drives safely and effectively it is possible. Oh and there is only one guy in our group that shoots running deer and he doesn't miss I don't cause I'm not good enough just like 95 percent of hunters aren't. But 95 percent of shots taken in mega drives are at running deer in my experience.


----------



## Lundy

Sciotodarby said:


> Why can't landowners take care of the deer themselves?


They certainly do today and that is always one of the hot topics by hunters that have no where to hunt but public land.

Today between 60-65% of all deer hunters do not kill a deer. These hunters would like nothing more than to just get a deer, any deer. Just trying to match up hunters that would be happy with a deer and landowners that have an excess that they need removed.

I am a huge proponent of individual property rights and don't want the government telling me who I would have to let onto my land. However as a land owner if I want excess deer removed I would need to be willing to work within some system that allows hunters to assist with the removal, or live with the deer problem.


----------



## Lewis

I nominate Lundy for King!  Those changes would make too much sense!


----------



## garhtr

O


Lundy said:


> I am a huge proponent of individual property rights and don't want the government telling me who I would have to let onto my land. However as a land owner if I want excess deer removed I would need to be willing to work within some system that allows hunters to assist with the removal, or live with the deer problem.


 Lundy, there is a system in place for the removal of deer from private property,it's called giving permission. As a land owner myself I would have absolutely no problem finding hunters to kill deer on my property if I wasn't doing it myself along with a few of my neighbors. I think it works well enough. The problem is that many landowners just do not want people hunting on their property(their choice),and I see know way to regulate that and I hope the Government doesn't attempt it.


----------



## fastwater

Like those rules as well and would vote for them in a heartbeat. 

Don't want to sound like the one that is never satisfied but could we consider harsher penalties for trespassing. Along with Lic. suspension, maybe a $ amount fine per offense and confiscation of equip. per offense. Starting with the 1st offense. Possibly some mandatory jail time for 3rd offenses.
And along with that, making it absolutely mandatory that the 3-4 new GW's per county request to see the mandatory, landowners written permission slips from hunters not hunting their own property.

I know the current written permission laws today but I have to say that I have been politely checked by GW's in 3 different counties during deer and turkey season since the mandatory written permission went into affect and have yet to be asked to see my written slip. 
The usual questions asked... license and gun check done yadda,yadda...but not one time was my written permission slip requested to be seen. 

King *Lundy* has a nice ring to it.


----------



## jray

fastwater said:


> Don't want to sound like the one that is never satisfied but could we consider harsher penalties for trespassing. Along with Lic. suspension, maybe a $ amount fine per offense and confiscation of equip. per offense. Starting with the 1st offense. Possibly some mandatory jail time for 3rd offenses.
> 
> I like that. I think that if you made the written permission a legal contract supported by law enforcement that could be beneficial. For instance if a guy could say does only and prosecute if you shoot a buck. Let's face it most guys are most likely concerned about the trophies they hunt when the grain is in, but also concerned about loss due to crop damage. I think that might ease their minds and make them more apt to give people opportunities.


----------



## jray

Maybe someone knows better than I do about this question: I hunt a property that is bucks only. You are given a permission slip stating that. It is an elderly gentleman who likes to watch deer so he chooses to keep the fawn producers. If I shot a buck, would he have any legal standing other than revoking my permission? I'm asking not because I'm considering it, I respect his land like I want others to respect mine, but more to consider this concept of landowners dictating what is done on their land and feeling the support of the law behind them. I sign no contract, but if I was asked to would that change things?


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *jray*:
> 
> Maybe someone knows better than I do about this question: I hunt a property that is bucks only. You are given a permission slip stating that. It is an elderly gentleman who likes to watch deer so he chooses to keep the fawn producers. If I shot a buck, would he have any legal standing other than revoking my permission?


Not an attorney but would have to say 'No'. The property owner would not have any legal standing other than revoking your permission. The property owners rules wouldn't supercede actual laws. 

The deer actually belong to the state. So if the hunter went ahead and shot a doe and did so without breaking any actual laws, the most you will get is your permission revoked.

Too, I cannot see even a signed agreement holding water in a court of law due to the fact that again, the deer don't belong to the property owner.


----------



## Sciotodarby

Why is trespassing such a big deal with hunting, but not fishing? Nobody thinks it's a problem to jump out of a canoe or kayak and fish from the bank. Trespassing of any sort is a huge pet peeve of mine. Shows a total lack of respect for the landowner.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> Why is trespassing such a big deal with hunting, but not fishing? Nobody thinks it's a problem to jump out of a canoe or kayak and fish from the bank. Trespassing of any sort is a huge pet peeve of mine. Shows a total lack of respect for the landowner.


Agree. 

Trespassing of any sort is disrespectful and IMO, shows very little character and low morals in the offender whether that be a hunter or fisherman.

There are some things I might be willing to cut somebody a break on. But I've had my fill with trespassers and trespassing is not one of them. 

There was an earlier discussion about driving deer...

We had a big problem in this area a few years back in which we have a local guy here that operates a deer guide service. He leased/rented land from farmers in many counties. All that was perfectly legal and fine.
The problem came about when he started bringing an unknowing client to his actual residence which consisted of about 7 wooded acres but surrounded by deep woods belonging to other people.

He would take the client (that was paying anywhere from $2500-$3000 for a week of shotgun hunting) set them somewhere on his 7acres of wooded property and use unarmed drivers that crossed several other peoples property trying to drive deer to the client. The clients were unaware that the guide only owned the 7acres and thought he owned all the surrounding woods. 

I had two 1st hand, unpleasant experience's two years in a row with the drivers stopping them on my property and turning them back. They had walked within 40yds both times of my brothers that were very visible on stands. Not caring on bit. 

Between my place and this guides place, there were 4-6 other properties these guys were crossing without permission.

The 1st conversation I had with them, I told them not to come back. The 2nd conversation the next year, I took their pics with my phone when I stopped them, turned them back and told them they were going to be reported to the GW.

Just like all fisherman/hunters don't break the law and respect others, we all know there are those that do break the law and don't respect the rights of others. It's bad enough when you have the occasional single slob hunter with no morals. It's a little much when you witness a group of them.


----------



## hopin to cash

Get ready for it... My new Deer Cannon for next year...


----------



## Captain Kevin

Sciotodarby said:


> Why is trespassing such a big deal with hunting, but not fishing? Nobody thinks it's a problem to jump out of a canoe or kayak and fish from the bank. Trespassing of any sort is a huge pet peeve of mine. Shows a total lack of respect for the landowner.


The law should be written that it's not tresspassing as long as you stay within the high water mark of any river. Nobody has the right to shut me out of a stretch of fishable river just because they want to.


----------



## Captain Kevin

jray said:


> Maybe someone knows better than I do about this question: I hunt a property that is bucks only. You are given a permission slip stating that. It is an elderly gentleman who likes to watch deer so he chooses to keep the fawn producers. If I shot a buck, would he have any legal standing other than revoking my permission? I'm asking not because I'm considering it, I respect his land like I want others to respect mine, but more to consider this concept of landowners dictating what is done on their land and feeling the support of the law behind them. I sign no contract, but if I was asked to would that change things?


All you will do is get everybody elses permission shut off, and put even more pressure on accessable land.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *hopin to cash*:
> 
> Get ready for it... My new Deer Cannon for next year... Bucks and Does


Good for you *htc*

Will be following suit. Though my deer cannon doesn't appear to be the quality of yours. 



> Orig. posted by *Captain Kevin*:
> 
> The law should be written that it's not tresspassing as long as you stay within the high water mark of any river. Nobody has the right to shut me out of a stretch of fishable river just because they want to.


How exactly is the law currently written pertaining to this ?


----------



## Sciotodarby

Captain Kevin said:


> The law should be written that it's not tresspassing as long as you stay within the high water mark of any river. Nobody has the right to shut me out of a stretch of fishable river just because they want to.



Floating is fine, but you can't get out of the boat.


----------



## hopintocash2

hopin to cash said:


> Get ready for it... My new Deer Cannon for next year...
> View attachment 108127


you'll prolly miss with that too :


----------



## Captain Kevin

fastwater said:


> Good for you *htc*
> 
> Will be following suit. Though my deer cannon doesn't appear to be the quality of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is the law currently written pertaining to this ?


The law is currently written that landowners own up to the middle of the river bed on adjoining lands. You can't legally wade, anchor, or tie up on any river that is running through private ground.


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *Captain Kevin*:
> 
> The law is currently written that landowners own up to the middle of the river bed on adjoining lands. You can't legally wade, anchor, or tie up on any river that is running through private ground.


Don't necessarily agree with the way the law is written either. 

That being said, it is the law and I wouldn't break it.

Seems I remember a situation some years ago in which a property owner that owned property on both sides of Big Darby stretched a fence across the creek from one side to the other trying to stop people from floating down the river. 

Can't remember if this was the Galbraith family or maybe the Wolfe's. 

Anyone else remember this?


----------



## Sciotodarby

I probably shouldn't of hijacked the thread. There's lively conversation and debate in this thread, and the trespassing should be on another thread. I apologize.


----------



## jray

Captain Kevin said:


> All you will do is get everybody elses permission shut off, and put even more pressure on accessable land.



How would that happen? And fastwater that's what I figured. No attorney here either


----------



## Captain Kevin

jray said:


> How would that happen? And fastwater that's what I figured. No attorney here either


Chances are that if 1 guy pisses a landowner off, he will shut his land off to everyone. People aren't going to just quit hunting because they lost permission on a farm, so they end up either pounding public dirt, or getting access to new private ground which likely already has guys hunting it. Thus putting more pressure on that private ground.


----------



## Lundy

garhtr said:


> O
> Lundy, there is a system in place for the removal of deer from private property,it's called giving permission. As a land owner myself I would have absolutely no problem finding hunters to kill deer on my property if I wasn't doing it myself along with a few of my neighbors. I think it works well enough. The problem is that many landowners just do not want people hunting on their property(their choice),and I see know way to regulate that and I hope the Government doesn't attempt it.


I agree 100%, the government should not be able to make, should never be able to force, a private landowner allow hunters on his property.

The only big howoever to that strongly held belief is if that same landowner wants to have the state issue him a nuisance deer permit. In that instance I believe he is obligated to work within some sort of hunter access program to be eligible for the permit and for the actual deer harvest to fulfill the permit. If he elects to not allow access to his property there would be no nuisance permit issued. It is really the landowners choice.


----------



## Sciotodarby

What about crop damage permits during the summer on farms that allows hunting during season?


----------



## Captain Kevin

Sciotodarby said:


> What about crop damage permits during the summer on farms that allows hunting during season?


The farmer needs to find some better hunters.


----------



## hopin to cash

hopintocash2 said:


> you'll prolly miss with that too :



Impeccable over the last 7 years I recall would be best term to use for my skills, thank you very much.


----------



## garhtr

Lundy said:


> The only big howoever to that strongly held belief is if that same landowner wants to have the states issue him a nuisance deer permit. In that instance I believe he is obligated to work within some sort of hunter access program to be eligible for the permit and for the actual deer harvest to fulfill the permit. If he elects to not allow access to his property there would be no nuisance permit issued. It is really the landowners choice.


Lundy , I think we're on the same page"kinda". I'm not a fan of the nuisance permits in most cases. All that needs to be done is to restrict the ease in which they are obtained. Landowners choose--- too many deer or a few hunters. Obviously there are some places traditional hunting methods won't work and that is were the pest permits should be issued.
Hunters are also to blame in this, Many don't take the time to search for places to hunt and many propertys go unhunted Not one deer hunter has ever approached me or the neighboring property asking for hunting permission but Commonly Hunters complain because they are ''forced" to hunt public land. There are private lands available if folks will take the time to look and approach it in the correct manner. 
One change I still hope ODNR doesn't make is the October youth season. Put the youth hunters out when they have the best chance for success , ( we all know it's in Nov, ). .we will Need hunters in strong numbers if our tradition of hunting Is going to continue.
Good Luck and Good hunting


----------



## buckeyebowman

fastwater said:


> ...and it's obvious you believe this as fact.
> 
> Can you explain the ever increasing deer herds in the non hunting city limits due to the lack of food or more land being made in the city? Don't think the city has grown any more trees or vacant land, have became more huntable, have planted more corn or built less homes. But yet the deer herd in these non huntable city areas are steadily increasing without all the above being done???
> So are you implying that since the non huntable 'city' deer herd is flourishing that there is more then adequate deer forage in the city and the reason the deer herd is rapidly depleting in rural areas is due to lack of food???
> 
> Too, of the many farmers I know and live around with farms totaling many thousands of acres, I don't see the reduction in the same planting rituals that they have done for decades. They plant the same amount of acreage in the same manner they always have alternating them between corn and soybean. Both of which we all know are fantastic forage for deer.
> They have not cut down on any of the same acreage they have planted for generations due to the price drops . If nothing else, they have bought up smaller farms as they can increasing their acreage. Furthermore, with some of the rains we've had in the last couple farming seasons and the farmer not being able to get in the fields to harvest, many these fields have been left standing for the wildlife.
> 
> Far as your accusations of whining, lazy hunters goes, you're entitled to your opinion as to why there are those here that actually see what is going on with Ohio's deer herd, that are voicing their opinions on the subject. But you have no right in your assumption that the reason people are voicing their concern is cause they are lazy or expect to kill a deer as soon as they get out of their vehicle. This is not true... and your assumptions in this area leaves the rest of your comments/opinion on the whole deer herd subject taken as you don't know what you are talking about on those issue's as well. Just more assumptions.
> 
> Once again, from your comments it's clear you have bought into the 'kool aid' ODNR has sold about there not being enough forageable land to support Ohio's deer herd. I think this speaks volumes in of itself about your actual knowledge on the subject. It either makes one think that you *A:* work for the ODNR and are trying to further sell the same load of crap or *B:* you really believe what you are being told by the ODNR at face value simply cause they said so without really investigating what they are telling you.
> 
> Regardless, FWIW, I would like to say to you that one of the persons I know that is and has been completely at odds with the direction ODNR has taken with the past excessive bag limits is retired from ODNR and knows the 'ins and outs' of how these past bag limits were set. He too, lives in the country, has property and has been very concerned in the reduction of Ohio's deer herd. Not necessarily for himself, but like me, for generations to come. As I, he is very capable of going out and killing a yearly bag limit every year. That is not the point at all. The point is, what is happening to the overall Ohio deer herd, especially in rural areas. He and I have had some in depth conversations about the huge weight insurance companies bring to bear on many things in all states in many areas including their influence on DNR departments throughout the US. Ohio is no exception. And nothing would suit an insurance company more then to never have to pay another $ due to a wildlife involved claim.
> For those not considering or believing the weight of insurance companies, stop and think how much weight they have on your own medical care. I have several family members as well as friends working in the medical field either on the care of patients side or administrative side. All will tell you the insurance companies are telling the med staff what they will pay for and going to the extent of dictating to Drs. the length of stays in a hospital for illness's and when a patient should be healed.
> With that being said, do you really think they would think twice about using their clout to pressure DNR's in controlling wildlife?
> 
> On the lighter side...maybe this is the reason for the rapid decline of the deer herd in rural Ohio :
> 
> Possible Bigfoot Filmed Carrying a Deer [VIDEO] - Wide Open ...
> www.wideopenspaces.com/possible-bigfoot-filmed-carrying...


Great post! Back in the day, when Ohio deer herd was burgeoning and approaching 500K in numbers, I was friendly with a local Game Protector. He claimed that Ohio had the habitat and sustenance to easily support 1 to 1 1/4 Million deer! But, the insurance companies would never allow it! 

My buddy and I know a guy who works for a tree company that got hired to clear power line rights of way around Cleveland after the big northeast blackout some years ago. He told us he's never seen such numbers of deer, and such awesome bucks, as he did on that job! 

The urban deer numbers, and accident reports, are screwing up the count! It's kind of like a presidential election. The entire lower state of Illinois might vote Republican, but if Chicago votes Democrat (which it always does), guess where the electoral votes are going! Why the ODNR can't realize that is beyond me!


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *buckeyebowman*:
> 
> My buddy and I know a guy who works for a tree company that got hired to clear power line rights of way around Cleveland after the big northeast blackout some years ago. He told us he's never seen such numbers of deer, and such awesome bucks, as he did on that job!
> 
> The urban deer numbers, and accident reports, are screwing up the count! It's kind of like a presidential election. The entire lower state of Illinois might vote Republican, but if Chicago votes Democrat (which it always does), guess where the electoral votes are going! Why the ODNR can't realize that is beyond me


!

Well *buckeyebowman *, there is a bright side to the flourishing deer herd in the city and suburban areas and rapidly depleting deer herd in the country. 
Maybe we can once again start having a decent rabbit population in the country again during rabbit season...

She Saw A Coyote Coming Into Her Yard, But She Never Would ...
www.suggestedpost.eu/coyote-dog-toy

Heck, I might even get me a couple more beagles and get back into rabbit hunting.


----------



## Sciotodarby

How are less deer in rural areas goings to lead to more rabbits?


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> How are less deer in rural areas goings to lead to more rabbits?


The yotes will follow the food chain where they can get the most 'bang for their buck' (pardon the pun). 

The less food for them in the spread out rural areas, the less yotes there will be in the rural areas. The less yotes, the more rabbits,turkey and other yote prey

The larger and more concentrated the deer herd is in the city/urban areas the more yotes will be there.

This won't be nice for neighborhood pets and possibly an occasional small child, but I foresee it becoming more of an issue.


----------



## hopintocash2

fastwater said:


> The yotes will follow the food chain where they can get the most 'bang for their buck' (pardon the pun).
> 
> The less food for them in the spread out rural areas, the less yotes there will be in the rural areas. The less yotes, the more rabbits,turkey and other yote prey
> 
> The larger and more concentrated the deer herd is in the city/urban areas the more yotes will be there.
> 
> This won't be nice for neighborhood pets and possibly an occasional small child, but I foresee it becoming more of an issue.


i think you are right. i wonder how much it will cost per yote to have snipers or trappers get them out?


----------



## Sciotodarby

I don't think deer are as big of a part of the coyotes menu year round as you think.


----------



## garhtr

Sciotodarby said:


> I don't think deer are as big of a part of the coyotes menu year round as you think.


 I tend to agree, I believe there is a small window of opportunity for coyotes to effect deer populations and deer are more of a seasonal food source for coyotes{at-least in my area S/W}. I tend to believe mice and rabbits make up the bulk of their diet although I agree they will eat anything they can catch. An interesting observation I made this season while rabbit hunting was that ''any area'' that contained rabbit tracks also contained numerous coyote tracks. Many times I found myself taking the exact same route as the coyotes as I traveled across open areas going to thickets, old foundations,old dump sites or abandoned barns, it was very obvious we were after the same prey.
Good luck and Good Hunting


----------



## fastwater

> Orig. posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> I don't think deer are as big of a part of the coyotes menu year round as you think.


Maybe not 'year round' but they sure put a hurting on the deer during birthing and threw fawn period. And it stands to reason, the more births and fawns there are running around in a more condensed area to support the coyote population, the more of a yote population there will be in that area. 

The less fawns in a more spread out area would equal less yote population.

Here are a few studies that have been done on the percentage of predation of white tail deer by coyote in various states. Note that many of the states specify that the rate of 37% to possibly as high as 80% predation of fawns have caused many states to recalibrate their bag limits. 

Some very interesting reading:

Coyote predation could force changes in deer management | The ...
chronicle.augusta.com/sports/outdoors/rob-pavey/2012-06...

Coyote Predation of Whitetail Deer - By DeerBuilder.com
deerbuilder.com/DB/features/foodplots/coyotesCached

Coyote predation on deer in Eastern U.S. manageable, research ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140509110746.htmCached


----------



## hopintocash2

one thing is for sure about this site, we will all agree to disagree. my brother and i noticed a decline in the public deer herd years ago, we mentioned it on here and for the most part were called idiots. seems as though there are more people seeing the same thing now. for those of you that are still seeing lots of deer and think everything is fine, tread lightly, it's just a matter of time before it catches up to your spot. save this post, as you will look back on it in time.


----------



## fastwater

Agree *hopintocash2*.

Especially since when we read about the yote migration and they have been proven to travel 100miles migrating towards better feeding ground.

While there is probably no doubt yotes would rather eat rabbits or raid turkey nests or kill poults to eat, it doesn't usually take long for yotes, foxes, feral cats,hawks and just about every other predator to put a hurting on rabbits in any given area.

When the food runs low, the yote is on the move looking for better hunting grounds.

Like I have posted here before. I have killed a total of 5 right here in a 3 acre yard. Three in one night. An adult female and 2, 3/4 grown pups. This was in the summer when the rabbits were attacking my garden with regularity. Two pups were under a utility wagon watching rabbits in the yard and momma was watching from under a blue spruce close by.

The other 2 were early in the morning, both during the summer. A huge male
sniffing under an apple tree that had deer under it the night before. The other had just walked into the yard with his head on the ground sniffing where the deer used to cut across.

Mid summer I usually always have plenty of rabbits around the house. By fall, there are very few. Can't blame all this on the yotes though as there is a pair of hawks that show up here every year about Sept.


----------



## hopin to cash

Sciotodarby said:


> How are less deer in rural areas goings to lead to more rabbits?



Has anybody else noticed that rabbits are more during the day now... Um wonder why? Adaptation is a mighty force to watch when you know what your watching


----------



## Sciotodarby

You must not have any hawks around if rabbits are moving during the day. The only other reason I can think of for them being out during the day is that its warmer then or they're running out of browse and Ned more time to find the calories they need.I can't recall the exact biological term for it, but rabbits are most active during dawn/dusk.


----------



## hopin to cash

Sciotodarby said:


> You must not have any hawks around if rabbits are moving during the day. The only other reason I can think of for them being out during the day is that its warmer then or they're running out of browse and Ned more time to find the calories they need.I can't recall the exact biological term for it, but rabbits are most active during dawn/dusk.


I realize rabbits are nocturnal but I think over the last few years due to coyotes they have adapted to be out more during daylight hours. Thus the recovery of the population over the last few years. Just my observation nothing professional. Yes lots of hawks in my area and we feed them well with the birdfeeder... lol


----------



## buckeyebowman

Sciotodarby said:


> How are less deer in rural areas goings to lead to more rabbits?


I don't get it either! It's hard for me to follow the (il)logic! my buddy has some property in what would probably be called the exurbs. He has a couple acres of dense thicket behind his house. He has rabbit, squirrel, deer, 'yotes, foxes, groundhogs, skunks, possum, rats, mice and various other critters. Not to mention falcons, hawks, owls and eagles.Also the occasional migrating woodcock ad the occasional pheasant that can be seen traipsing through. He has rabbits galore along with the deer. We see no correspondence between their relative populations. 

What we see preying on the bunnies mostly are the hawks. Redtails in particular!


----------



## Sciotodarby

A one day a year hawk season would help rabbits more than anything IMO.


----------



## Sciotodarby

And maybe if we shoot more rabbits, there'd be more deer!*********** Lol


----------



## fastwater

> Orig posted by *buckeyebowman*:
> 
> I don't get it either!


This may help to explain. Please note the paragraph for their appetite for meat.

Coyote's Diet | Animals - PawNation

animals.pawnation.com
&#8250; Wildlife and Exotic Animals



Too, ever wonder why the sound of a squealing rabbit is one of the most effective yote calls there is? 

...and I agree about the red tail hawks.



> Orig posted by *Sciotodarby*:
> 
> And maybe if we shoot more rabbits, there'd be more deer!*********** Lol


...and just think how many more deer we would have if we shot the rabbits AND the red tail hawk. lol


----------



## buckeyebowman

Another thing about the urban deer numbers skewing the population and accident counts. In last Saturday's paper was a pic of 5 big doe bedded down in a back yard in Pepper Pike! Not exactly prime hunting territory for those of us who chase the whitetail! In a very short time those 5 deer will become 10. Who knows? Maybe 12 or 13!


----------



## Tim67

fastwater said:


> Either this or stop including these 'no hunt' city deer and the accidents they cause in their formula to set deer herd bag limits.
> 
> The guy that picks the dead animals up for the City of Cols. is a personal friend of mine. I used to work out of the same facility he did(for years I got 1st dibs on any roadkill he picked up ). He drives a pickup and picks up on average 2-3 deer everyday with the exception being during pre rut through post rut periods. During the rutting period, it is not uncommon for him to have to make a couple trips a day to the landfill to dump due the the much increased numbers. These are all taken within the 'no hunting' city limits. If a police report is made(which is always required for insurance purposes) this info is included in on ODNR's data for setting the bag limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing for certain, with deer literally running through the neighborhoods, there is surely no shortage of 'non huntable' deer. Nor is there a shortage of city limit traffic. Add those two together and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the majority(or at least a very large portion) of deer/auto accidents are happening at that ODNR is including when setting the bag limits.
> 
> Tally all these claims up for all the 'no hunting' areas statewide and it's no surprise why the insurance companies are leaning on ODNR about reducing the deer herd.
> 
> But once again, the deer killed set by the high hunting bag limits are taken from the more rural areas.


Came across this thread and another on hunting public land which both made sense, but also helped me understand the man behind the name a little better. Fastwater when you sent me a message last week or so explain the ins and outs of public land hunting, which unfortunately is the only option I have. Personally I think the limits are far too high for the hunter in less populated areas of the State usually have private and good public


----------



## sherman51

Gills63 said:


> See those out of state price hikes sheman?


no I didnt notice. I don't hunt ohio but there license is in line with Indiana's deer hunting license. I only fish lake erie and I feel the 43.50 they charge a non resident isn't bad. Michigan raised there fees way to much. but I just checked and they came back down to 70 something dollars which I still think is to high. I bought a saltwater license in fl back in dec. I think they was 47.00. which I think is a bargain for all the different species you can catch. the only thing I think is wrong is resident don't have to have a license as long as there fishing from the bank or pier, non residents have to have a license.



Lundy said:


> I would like to see separate licenses (permits) for the individual seasons.
> 
> One for archery, one for Gun, one for MZ and one for youth.
> 
> Limit would be one deer per method of harvest
> No more that 2 deer per year in combination of all methods of harvest
> No more than one buck per year regardless of method of harvest
> Youth permit valid for all methods of harvest





Lundy said:


> Actually it would would increase license sales. No hunting license required just separate hunting permits by method, so anyone wanting to bowhunt, gunhunt and MZ hunt is buying 3 hunting permits. Indiana used to do something similar and may still do this today.
> 
> 75% of gun hunters also bowhunt.
> 
> Highly doubt anything like this will happen in what's left of my hunting lifetime but If I had the power I would do it in a heartbeat, and listen to the screaming and yelling at only being able to kill one deer during the archery or gun season


Indiana still requires a bow license for bow hunting a gun license to hunt with a gun and a ml license to hunt ml season, and a anterless license for each one you taken. what I really hate about our anterless hunting is you can take as many does as you want. you just cant go over each county's allotment. you can take 8 does in some county's and maybe 1 in other county's. you can take 8 in 1 county then just jump over to another county that allows 8 and take 8 more. there is no limit on county's you can hunt as long as you move to another county. its a poachers paridice. take a deer in the county your hunting in then check the deer in with your phone in another county that you don't even hunt. then you can keep doing this and keep hunting in your county of choice.
sherman


----------



## fish4wall

Flathead76 said:


> Bingo!!! Archery hunters kill more deer than gun hunters.


you might want to check your numbers....
last year archery hunter took 80,279. that's from the end of Sept till the first weekend in Feb.
gun hunters took 105,965!!
yes bow season is long. but there's not that many archery hunters. as for archery hunters pressuring the deer....we sit in a stand all day....most gun hunters walk or do deer drives.
so who pressuring the deer more????
I hunt both ways...and I see a lot more gun hunters than archery.
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/hunting/Deer harvest201718/020418deerharvest.pdf


----------



## TomC

I'm still waiting for rifle calibers to change and be added. Only complaint I got.


----------

