How can it be?
 

I don't understand how here in Ohio, the deer harvest keeps going up every year. Most of the private land in Ohio is leased to outfitters who charge a large price to out of staters to hunt. I know those folks who are coming in to hunt aren't paying that fee to shoot does. Just doesn't add up. Any ideas?

I thnk that you significantly overestimate the amount of private ground that is controlled by outfitters and only hunted by out of state folks. Also, Ohio has its share of public ground which produces a lot of deer. Would assume that the Ohio harvests represent a mixed bag of traditional private ground hunting by locals, leased ground (by in-state and out-of-state folks), outfitters, and public ground hunting.

That's rediculous. If you actually believe that, I don't think anyone can help you understand. I'm guessing you're looking for a conspiracy theory. Good luck.

Well, I probably am exaggerating on " Most" of the land, but I know there are over 250 outfitters in Ohio leasing land and that adds up to thousands of acres that the regular joe can't hunt anymore. Public land hunting does not make up the difference in harvest numbers. I know personally of 2 outfitters that lease over 10,000 acres EACH! So, with thousands of acres leased that are now off limits to the regular joe, and figuring these folks are not paying to shoot does, how does the harvest number keep increasing? Please explain.

I absoultly hear what your saying. Yet, I also have to say that if you want land you have to buy it or pay the leasing fee. It might be more affordable than you think to buy. Its sad its come to this though.

I will say that I think Ohio needs to jack up their out of state tags. I used to live in Ohio now i live in Missouri. It is so cheap to hunt in Ohio. I think the Hunting license is priced right, but the tags need to double or triple. Doing so will free up "some" hunting land and bring some lease prices down. IMO.

Well, I'm not worried about buying or leasing land, I just can't see the harvest numbers continually climbing when the available hunting land keeps decreasing. As far as our license prices, I totally agree with you. I personally think the state should put a limit on the number of out of state tags that can be purchased. That would get rid of quite a few outfitters or at least free up some more land, as they wouldn't be able to get enough clients to pay for their leases.

Magis, your answer may be what you believe, but it doesn't make sense. The deer bag limit has been the same for quite a few years now, and most outfitters clients are NOT shooting does, at least the outfitters in my area. There may be a higher deer population, I'm not sure, but there are less hunters available to harvest the animals, due to the amount of land that is leased, not to mention that all out of state hunters hunting on leased land are NOT successful in bagging a deer. So it adds up to this:
Bag limits same + Less hunters = higher deer harvest?
No, it doesn't add up.

I didn't say increased limits, but liberal limits. Yes, they've been liberal for a while, but few people have been using many antlerless tags. Last year they extended the deadline for the early season antlerless tags to include gun season. That right there should be an obvious reason for an increase.
Again, you think you know certain things as facts, but I doubt you do. How do you know that most outfitter clients aren't shooting does? You can't possibly know that. The fact is, those are the numbers.

To help with my taxes and provide some extra money for food plots I lease out the bow rights to my farm in knox county. The past several years out of state hunters have been more then happy to meet my lease requirement of shooting at least one doe per hunter. To be honest the only hunters have have balked at my requiring a doe to be shot have been local hunters... go figure

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ohio has LOTS of hunters. I don't even get your point, are you saying the DNR is lying about the harvest numbers?

I believe so.

You apparently haven't read any of the prior posts.Most outfitters in Ohio do not make their living by outfitting as do outfitters in the western states. So yes, most only have clients in a few weeks out of the year.As far as leases by outfitters go, they are not to join, as you stated earlier, they are to pay to hunt.Also, you have stated a point that I have already made, the deer population is on the rise do to lack of harvest. Outfitters DO decrease the amount of huntable land to the regular joe hunter. This goes without saying. The deer are NOT going to eliminate their resources from leased land as the outfitter is constantly supplying the deer with food in order to keep them there ( food plots, feeders etc.).
You need to educate yourself on outfitters and land leases and how they work, as your opinions are illiterate to say the least.

Not generalizing based on the activities of a mature buck, making a statement based on years of hunting deer and watching where they go after the first day of gun season, depending on the pressure of that particular tract of land. As far as hunting 300 acres, I can personally name several plots of land 85 acres and smaller that support at LEAST 15 hunters. Not all of them hunt at the same time, but all of them hunt regularly.So I know 300 acres could support alot more than 15 hunters, especially bow hunters. I personally know these guys, and, as with most guys I work with or hunt with,they have an agreement; they harvest a couple of does for the freezer and after that, it's 140" or better or they won't shoot at all.

That' a bold statement coming from YOU. :rolleyes: To claim that the state is making up numbers is just plain stupid. And I'm trying to be as nice as I can. I can't imagine how anyone that can tie their own shoes can come to some of the conclusions you're coming to.
Good luck in life. You'll need it with your paranoia.

Excaliber,

You sort of keep fudging on things. You clearly tried to say that deer go nocturnal or go hide on unhunted ground after they get shot at at the beginning of gun season. When I called you on it, you then started talking about 4.5 or older bucks to make your case about deer in general. Now you back away from the 4.5 year old buck statement and are back to saying that it is based on your personal experience. Well, plenty of other people have plenty of experience at seeing and taking mid-to-late season bucks without being out at nite with a spotlight. Besides, you started out by commenting about high deer harvests in general, not just huge old bucks. Plenty of does are taken late season. So sorry but that dog don't hunt.

Good to hear that you know of a couple of folks that allow 15 or more hunters to regularly deer hunt on landholdings as small as 85 acres. Now if you can come up with examples of another 20,000 or so folks that cooperate with having a deer hunter density of one hunter per 6 acres on a regular basis on small property holdings, then your point might be valid. Until then, sorry but that dog ain't gonna hunt either.

You might have more luck just pushing the DNR misreporting conspiracy..... :s12:

hey im kind of inline with excalibur here this year was the worst deer season i can remember for seeing deer period and that is right after the best year i can remember and i hunt in belmont ,licking,knox,fairfeild,hocking,vinton,athens,jack son, meigs,perry,and where ever else one of my friends take me and hunt most every day of the season and private and public land and the results this year for me and my friends kind of make us think the states released numbers are bunk and seriously how can every year be a record year sometime you got to put a hurtin on the population for a little while,
not an argument just my 2 cents

Exactly Mike. Sure, some years are going to have greater harvests, but I don't believe you are going to consistantly have record harvests EVERY year. We ( about 20 of us) hunt a farm here in Licking county that is approx. 1200 acres of mixed wooded and ag. land. This year the farmer left about 500 acres of corn standing for some reason. Needless to say, there were only 27 deer taken off of that farm between us. We usually double that number. Lance, you would be suprised at the small acreage lots that hold several hunters.Not all at the same time of course. Not everyone has a 350 acre tract to hunt. There are alot more 15 to 50 acre tracts than there are 350 acre tracts. These small out of the way or sometimes urban tracts of land sometimes hold a a great shooter buck as well.

I know all about hunting on small acreage since I have two small pieces of property. But I just don't know of that many instances when you are getting 15 people regularly hunting on 85 to 300 acres of land. Maybe if you are dealing with 300 acres of heavily wooded and hilly property. I just have doubts about it representing anything close to a norm in terms of hunters on private land. The same hold true for outfitters. No doubt there are limited cases of outfitters who contral vast acreage and might have some impact on the deer herd. But again, those are not necessarily the norm for generalizing about a state the size of ohio with a deer population of its size.