Ohio Game Fishing banner

Ohio Deer Management Stakeholders Group

11K views 79 replies 26 participants last post by  Tim67 
#1 ·
I have been selected to represent social media groups on this panel. At this time I don't know much more than what the enclosed press release states. I have joined your site so I can keep you updated on the progress of this group and to relay your thoughts and feelings about the topics we will be covering.
Brent




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sportsmen can still make their opinions and preferences known about Ohio’s fish and wildlife management, including our deer population and hunting seasons by attending the annual open houses, offered at each of the DOW District offices on Saturday March 4, 2017.
 
See less See more
#37 ·
Keep the comments coming especially in regards to public land options, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?
 
#41 ·
Each public land area should have a drawing for a set number of access tags. No hunting allowed in that public area without one. Limit access to the areas for any and all hunters. Drawing and tag should be free. We don't want pay to play. We just want less people on those areas for 1 or 2 years so the herd in those areas can rebound.


Also, Brent, I've seen a lot of chatter on FB about low deer numbers. I tried to direct people to this site and the OS site, but the Admin removed my post. Are you sharing this information on the various Ohio Deer Hunting FB groups as well? I know one of them has 14k members which is a decent membership. Thanks!
 
#42 ·
Keep the comments coming especially in regards to public land options, There has been a lot of good give and take in the last week so I'm going to hold off on the day two comments for a few more days. As soon as I post them, all day one issues are forgotten and there's too much important ideas and comments to quit just yet.
Question for today.......If you could only make one change on our public land hunting what would it be?
One deer per year off of public land.
 
#44 · (Edited)
Well, for one thing, Ohio public land is for Ohio residents only. We pay taxes here. Another thing might be to allow ATV's or some such for the recovery of deer.

My BIL used to hunt Mosquito Wildlife Area and has told me that there are some awesome bucks in there! The last one he shot he almost abandoned in the woods because he just couldn't drag it any further by himself. Luckily, he managed to get hold of a friend who could come and help him.
This would be fantastic but I cannot see it ever becoming reality. A lottery type system for NR's good for specific public area(s) would be tough enough to get implemented but better than we have now
 
#54 ·
That's a point. I have to enter a lottery to draw a doe tag in PA., but if I buy a license there I'm allowed to hunt PA. State Game Lands.
 
#47 ·
I had a thought a few years back when the ODNR had its Farmer/Hunter access program and figured I would post it here to get your thoughts.

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

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

1 – No real idea about the character of the person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you managed to read all this, what do you think?
 
#48 ·
That Farmer/Hunter access program failed miserably because so few farmers signed up. It was a CLEAR sign that farmers don't want deer dead. They want them dead on public land which drives up demand for private land, ie lease $. More money, more money. That's what has been driving this ever since the Ohio Farm Bureau came out and said they want the deer population in Ohio to be cut in half. Farmers love deer. They just want to see them wiped out on all public land!!
 
#50 ·
i could be wrong but i feel that is a very far fetched statment. i would find it very hard to believe that any farmer would want public land deer populations to be depeleted to increase the demand for deer on private land. i d also be very interested to find a factual number of how many actual farmers lease land. i d imagine most leasing, especially in ohio, is done by landowners other than farmers. 3rd 4th generation family members (propery owners) removed from the bussiness that lease the farm ground as well. as well as ground owned by corpations (big bussinesses) that lease the ground on the side. just my thoughts on that. no facts to my post either...
 
#49 ·
I looked into that program at the time and found that it was necessary to join the Farm Bureau in the county that you wanted to hunt, attend the meetings and meet the farmers before hand. Might have been one of the requirements that caused it's demise.
 
#55 ·
Here's another thing to consider. Regulating private land and public land differently is a VERY slippery slope that would be difficult to manage.

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

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


Thus, limiting access to public land areas is the only way to effectively regulate it differently than private land.
 
#56 ·
Here's another thing to consider. Regulating private land and public land differently is a VERY slippery slope that would be difficult to manage.

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

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


Thus, limiting access to public land areas is the only way to effectively regulate it differently than private land.
I do not believe that states reciprocity agreements will allow such an exclusion to out of state hunters.
 
#58 ·
Well the first round of gun season is behind us and the comments have pretty much followed the same direction. As promised I want to update you about what went on the second day of the session.
We were introduced to the I and E section of the Division. Information and Education. We wanted to hear what they were involved with along the lines of recruitment, reactivation and retention. More on that in a minute.
Myself and several others had talked the night before about surveys and how to get more participation in surveys. Most all the division surveys are getting less than a 20% response rate. You can look at that one of several ways, only the people who who are upset are responding, if only 20% are responding the other 80% are happy, or people just won't fill out surveys. Our suggestions were to go to the people. By that we are suggesting they man booths at various major events and shows like the deer and turkey expo, state fair, farm science review, and yes ohio farm bureau convention. My belief and many of the others is that many farm bureau members are hunters and are supportive of our goals rather than the policy board of the farm bureau.
We also talked at length about the tradition of deer hunting and how it is incorporated into the three R's (recruitment,reactivation, and retention). Two things that were cussed and discussed over and over were check stations and deer camps. I don't see a change coming in the check stations as things currently exist. Right now the Division gives the licensing agent $1.00 for each license they issue. You can go to any licensing agency and check in a deer. But you are not required to bring the deer with you. They will do basically the same thing you can do at home and give you a sheet of paper with you're harvest number on it. I don't see the division offering any additional money to do this and when you have some stations that might be checking in several hundred deer in a weeks time, as the saying goes time is money and I don't think a lot of our licensing locations want to be a check station. Additionally while I haven't heard it on most sites, a lot of people prefer to be able to check in online or by phone.
As far as the deer camp portion of tradition and the three R's once a gain that nasty word TIME rears its ugly head in two ways. first many people don't have the time to spend a week in camp, secondly many people because of time constraints are hunting closer to home. And as a result many deer camps are dying out. And one last topic along those lines, Leasing and Outfitters are also involved in this .
Just briefly back to the I and E section, they are responsible for all the information that comes from the division whether on social media, press releases or written form. They have some ideas and programs in the works, but all in all I was not impressed with where they are at right now.......and that's all I'm going to say about that right now.

Lastly.....while we have been making progress on these topics, two days every three months isn't getting things done the way I would like to see them done. I've asked repeatedly for these sessions to be live streamed or set up as a podcast. To date none of this has happened. The sessions we had Friday should have been available for everyone to see. I still believe in the process, but am seeing some ways that improvements can be made and they aren't.
 
#63 ·
Herd dynamics, public land complaints, hunter access/recruitment are all valid concerns but it will just be business as usual till Deer hunting bottoms out. At that point Deer hunting will just be a business as the state as already broken the public trust and classified native game as livestock to allow private ownership.

Deer farmers sitting on this board are the Judas at the table. Their 25 year plan is farm animals.
 
#67 ·
Was at tar hollow grouse hunting today. No flushes.
I hadn’t driven through the forest for over 10 years. The big thing that I noticed; mile after mile of beautiful large mature forest. That stinks for deer as well as grouse. Very sparse cover and no low growing vegetation.
Spoke to a warden and he said he hadn’t seen a grouse in years. I told him that with no younger clearcuts, that I doubted if their could be many deer either, he said they are declining fast in that area.
I have felt the pain of having my favorite deer hunting ridge clearcut and I didn’t like it at all. However it’s vital to a healthy forest and deer habitat.
I know some other forests have been clearcuting again over the past 10 years or so. Hopefully this will help the deer heard. It may be too little too late for grouse in some of these areas. As outdoorsman and hunters we should educate those that will listen on the importance of new growth to wildlife.
 
#70 ·
Yes sauger,the clearcut areas are difficult to hunt, impossible to actually hunt in them for many years. However, if we want more deer they need more habitat that benifits deer and wildlife and not to the hunter. Like burkcarp said smaller clearcut areas are supposed to be better. Like less than 50 acre areas and probably more like 20 acres from what I’ve read.
I think I need educated on the mess that the loggers leave behind. I’ve never really hunted private owned clear cut land. Hunted mostly ohio and Michigan state land. Now in Michigan sometimes they leave big chunks of stumps, wood and debri and it stays there for a long time. terrible to walk in even after 10 years. Is that the kind of mess you are talking about? If so, I just haven’t seen it in the areas I hunt in ohio. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Others opinions helps me learn
 
#71 ·
Yes sauger,the clearcut areas are difficult to hunt, impossible to actually hunt in them for many years. However, if we want more deer they need more habitat that benifits deer and wildlife and not to the hunter. Like burkcarp said smaller clearcut areas are supposed to be better. Like less than 50 acre areas and probably more like 20 acres from what I’ve read.
I think I need educated on the mess that the loggers leave behind. I’ve never really hunted private owned clear cut land. Hunted mostly ohio and Michigan state land. Now in Michigan sometimes they leave big chunks of stumps, wood and debri and it stays there for a long time. terrible to walk in even after 10 years. Is that the kind of mess you are talking about? If so, I just haven’t seen it in the areas I hunt in ohio. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Others opinions helps me learn
Waste high stumps are good to leave on many trees for wildlife, especially deer. New Sprouts/shoots will grow out of the stumps creating perfect head level new browse for deer. Tree tops left creates secure bedding spots and wind breaks for deer as well as rabbit and other wildlife cover.
On clear cut areas that have grown too thick for a hunter to get through, scout and hunt the entrance and exit spots(deer runs) of these thickets. Make sure and play the wind when hunting these entrance/exit runs especially in bow season cause if thicket is really tall and thick and the deer are using these thickets for bedding areas, since they often can't see out anymore than you can see in, they really use their nose as a means of defense.
While some of the new ways we are seeing properties being cut that makes it harder for hunters to get through, these properties aren't being cut and left with the main goal in mind to make the area easier for the Hunter to hunt. They are being cut and left the way they are with the main objective of what's been proven best for wildlife in means of new browse and cover.
 
#72 ·
I'm just not a fan but I do understand the benefits to wildlife I'm not disagreeing with that but I've never seen a logging company hold up their end of the bargain they promise the world but once they get what they've came for they move onto the next and leave the property in shambles never building the roads they promised clearing tops, plant seed nothing. I can say without a doubt I've never met an honest one that actually did what they said they would do.
 
#73 · (Edited)
I'm just not a fan but I do understand the benefits to wildlife I'm not disagreeing with that but I've never seen a logging company hold up their end of the bargain they promise the world but once they get what they've came for they move onto the next and leave the property in shambles never building the roads they promised clearing tops, plant seed nothing. I can say without a doubt I've never met an honest one that actually did what they said they would do.
Are you talking about loggers/timber outfits used in Fed., state, county or city owned woods? Or are you referring to loggers/timber outfits used in private owned property?
The reason I ask is if you are referring to loggers/timber outfits used to cut on public properties, these timbers outfits must be licensed , approved outfits and are on a registered list held by the Fed. gov. that enables them to timber. If your not on that Fed. list, you can't bid on the job. These outfits are held to strict specifications when doing cuts on public lands and the job these outfits do is strictly supervised from beginning to end by the Fed. Master Forester in that particular area. Including logging Rd repairs, seeding and proper contouring to keep road erosion down. Same with state owned grounds.
Also, on these public grounds, when the Master Forester makes a decision as what's best to do, clear cut or select, there are many things that goes into that decision. Existing canopy, undergrowth(or the lack thereof), and what the undergrowth consists of etc.

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

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