Lanse couche couche

Deer population estimates for Ohio have fluctuated from between 650K to 700K over the last several years. I think that deer/vehicle accidents increased to an alltime high for the state after 2006. I would think that since the deer population has been at historical highs, or close to them, this past entire decade, it shouldnt be surprising that harvest rates are high on public and private land alike during the same period.

I think that Ohio has something like a combined total of 30 million acres of agricultural and forested ground. So, even if all 250 outfitters in Ohio controlled 10,000 acres apiece, it would still result in just a fraction of potential hunting ground being monopolized by outfitters.

excalibur43

If 250 outfitters leased 10000 acres each, that would be 2,500,000 acres that would be off limits to the hunting public. How many hunters do you think would hunt that land for $1500.00+ each as compared to if it were public and they could hunt it for free? Not many. The number of deer doesn't matter, it's the number of tags filled that matters. You could have 10,000,000 deer in Ohio, but if you only have a limited amount of hunters, you can only kill a limited amount of those deer.If you took out 2,500,000 acres of huntable land, you've just decreased the number of hunters and the number of tags filled.Therefor, your deer harvest for the state just went down! Pretty simple math.

excalibur43

I said the one's I know aren't shooting does.I don't see many folks driving in from out of state and paying the high lease fees to shoot something they could kill in their home state, but I know some do. For some reason you can't comprehend the obvious. I'll make it easier for you. Say Wayne National forest is now leased property and no longer public hunting. How many people are now going to be hunting that at $1500.00 each compared to when it was free to hunt? Less right!? Of course yes. O.K. , so now less people are hunting it, so also ( obviously) less deer are being taken, therefor, your deer harvest for Wayne National forest just went down. Now multiply that by 250 outfitters! Get it? For some reason, I doubt that you do.

M.Magis

You win, there must be some conspiracy. I'll get my tinfoil hat.

Lanse couche couche

Uh, 2.5 million acres would only represent about seven percent of the potentially huntable land in Ohio. So, even if all 250 outfitters controlled 10K acres apiece, which they don't and most are not even close to this number, it would only be a small fraction of the deer herd under control of outfitters. More realistically, we are probably looking at several hundred thousand acres of land controlled by outfitters, rather than millions of acres. So, the basic premise that "out-of-state" hunters who patronize outfitters are having a significant impact on the deer herd is pretty shaky.

Your assumption that just because land is not controlled by an outfitter it would be available for public use is kind of naive. Would imagine that plenty of private landowners have their ground posted and allow little or no access to it. Those that do may have some of the same conditions that many outfitters use in terms of what how many deer can be taken and what kind....

The bottom line is that in many states, the deer populations have risen drastically over the past couple decades on both public and private lands. If you have more deer they are going to be easier to kill. If you have more deer, the state is likely to increase the number that can be killed. Pretty easy concept...

excalibur43

I agree, alot of private land owners do not allow hunting on their land. Which means even LESS deer can be harvested!Out of state hunters aren't having an impact on the deer herd, outfitters leasing up thousands of acres of land are.I know, and you may too, many, many hunters that have lost their private hunting ground because an outfitter has leased it. The two outfitters that I know, lease 20,000 acres between them. That alone is more land than most individual public hunting areas, and that leaves 248 more outfitters.Other large public land tracts, such as Wayne National, Zaleski, Woodbury, just to name a few,are so vast that there are hundreds of deer there that probably never even get shot at. Just because there are more deer, doesn't necessarily make them easier to kill, especially if you are hunting only mature bucks as most outfitters clients come to Ohio for. As with most deer, after the first day of gun season, they either become nocturnal or move to land that is off limits to hunters. Deer populations are definitely on the rise. Land that is off limits to hunters serves a large part in this.And I can gather from your posts that you believe that outfitters and the thousands of acres of private ground that they lease have no effect on the deer harvest at all? I believe THAT to be naive.

Lanse couche couche

I think that it is safe to assume that if outfitters control several hundred thousand acres of land in Ohio that they have some impact on harvests. The magnitude of that impact is what I would question, as well as the impact of out-of state hunters in the greater scheme of things given the size of the state and the numbers of deer involved. Your original post spoke to the issue of continued high numbers for deer harvests and specifically referenced outfitters and their out of state clients. I'm simply telling you that when you have around 700K deer in the state of Ohio you are going to have very good harvest rates. I don't agree that most deer go nocturnal or move into land that is not hunted as soon as the gunfire starts the first day of firearm season. They might be harder to hunt, but they can certainly be killed. My land has been hunted regularly since midway thru bow season and first gun season and a person can still see bucks on it during the day if they put their time into it.

I'm not trying to defend outfitters, just trying to help answer your question about deer harvest rates. I think that if you check, you will find that your typical outfitter in Ohio has as many or more clients from Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc. as out of staters.

excalibur43

I agree that SOME of those deer could be killed, especially the yearlings and 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 year old bucks but the more mature deer,not so easy. As far as the large mature bucks,4 1/2 years old and older, I have to base my opinion on my 41 years of hunting, they become nocturnal and most will only show themselves in daylight when driven out of their hiding places.Even at deer feeders, most mature bucks only get photographed by deer cameras after darkness falls.That may be true of some outfitters having local clients. I don't disagree at all.My point is, it doesn't matter who their clients are, they still only have a limited number and those clients are usually only hunting for 1 week at a time. They have seen the big bucks that come from our Buckeye state and that's usually what they want to spend their week hunting.Not all, but alot. If an outfitter just leased 300 acres that used to be hunted day in and day out for the entire season by say, 15 local hunters, and now the outfitter that leased the property has 15 clients come in, each for 1 week at time, I don't believe that those clients are going to have the success of the hunters who used to hunt it year round.It's possible, but not likely and not consistantly.So, if they don't then the harvest for that 300 acres just went down. Now if all 250 outfitters only leased 300 acres each, ( which is definitely not the case), and that same scenario occurred, the remaining areas of the state would have to increase there deer harvest by a large margin, to make up for that, and show an increase in deer harvest for the state. I do not believe that that happens every year, nor do I believe that it happens very often.

Lanse couche couche

Do you really want to generalize about the behavior of deer after the lead starts flying based on 4.5 year old bucks? Also, do you really think that a typical 300 acre plot of land supports regular deer hunting by 15 people? I would argue that if an outfitter leases land for deer hunting and posts it, you probably end up with 15 or more hunters who lose access to hunting if you consider everything from squirrels to coons. But 15 deer hunters under normal conditions, I doubt it. Like i said, if you got lots of deer you are gonna get lots of deer killed. Maybe not many 4.5 year old bucks, but plenty of younger ones. So, again, i'm not seeing some really clear and heavy correlation between outfitters and harvest rates.

deerchump

Excalibur - You are making a TON of assumptions and presenting them as facts. And you refuse to listen to the inaccuracies in your assessments.

First off, where do you get the numnber of 250 outfitters? It may be true, but do you know that for a FACT, as in it can be verified somewhere other than your post?

How do you assume that all of the land that outfitters are now leasing was being hunted every day? You could easily argue that the outfitters are hunting the leased ground MORE than it was previously hunted thus increasing the harvest rate. Do you really think these outfitters are surviving with only having hunters one or two weeks per year? More likely they have a constant flow of hunters on that land. Also, do you really think that the hunters who leased it before were allowing it to be hunted every day? I wouldn't join a lease knowing that the land would be hunted every day. I would just hunt public land if I wanted to be on land with that much hunting activity.

Do you think that the resident hunters, whose private land is now being leased, just stop hunting? No, they move to other land and hunt there. So in effect, the outfitters are INCREASING the number of hunters in the state, correlating to an increased harvest rate, especially since you admit the deer herd is increasing.

Decreasing the huntable land does NOT decrease the number of hunters. It just adds more hunters per capita of huntable land, which would also increase the harvest rate. As you yourself stated, those big bucks only come out if kicked up. Well, by putting more hunters on the land, there is a higher chance of kicking up those big bucks.

Your argument about deer running to the supposed nonhunting land is semi legitimate. The problem with it is that this land cannot support every deer in the state. Nor can it support an increased number of deer for an extended time period. Over time, the deer would overpopulate that land thus eliminating its resources, which forces the deer back to the huntable land.

Also, as you stated your opinion that most out of state hunters and/or outfitter hunters are not shooting does, this would directly explain why the deer population is rising. By not shooting does, each one of those does reproduces (potentially twins or triplets) which every year would exponentially increase the deer herd. More deer will lead to a higher deer harvest.

Outfitters do NOT reduce the amount of huntable land. I alluded to this above, but I wanted to point this out since it is the main basis of your argument. Outfitters are not leasing the land to NOT hunt it. They ARE hunting the land so there is NO reduction in the amount of huntable land.

Basically it comes down to this regardless of all your assumptions:
More deer + More hunters = Higher deer harvest