Public Land Improvements

[Brutus]

If you were able to brainstorm with the DNR on ways to improve deer hunting on public land what would your ideas be?
We have a local QDMA branch that has a very reputable relationship with the DNR. Our branch is interested in discussion with them on finding way's to improve public land hunting.
This wouldn't need to be just for deer hunting either. Any dialogue of dreams is worth the time. Any thoughts?

 

[dogghr]

Good to have you on here Brutus.
Biggest problem on public land around here is that for nearly 15 yrs, it is next to impossible to fire up a chainsaw for timbering, the masses fight it and wont allow. Thus very little natural browse despite the treehuggers thinking they are doing all the furry animals a favor.
One of the best things they have begun in recent years in this area which helps are controlled burns. Just did a massive one near my town yesterday filling the sky with smoke.
On some of our public lands, there is an APR limitation which has helped over the years to giving more mature bucks in a state that tends to be overpopulated with the deer herd.
No baiting allowed here on public land which I think is a plus.
Also one buck limit on much of our public land and all that has APR limits.
I think DNRs tend to ignore, or choose to ignore the affect of predator population on deer numbers, and like deer, these numbers change yearly. They can really reduce deer numbers quickly if a leniant doe season is in affect at the same time.
Good luck, we are lucky in that our DNR does a decent management job trying to keep a lot of different type hunters and nature lovers happy. And finally, we are now no longer on the list of the 2 -3 states not allowing Sunday hunting. Just passed the change.

 

[j-bird]

Anything you can do to add to the diversity of planting or the age of them would be where I would try to focus. I doubt they let you swing a chainsaw, but if you can man a burn crew, or plant native trees and shrubs, or even native grasses would all help. Just keep in mind that the actions of your work won't be realized immediately. Folks tend to get hung up on that. The real reward will be doing something that provides for wildlife for a long, long time and than of course....takes time. Some are going to suggest a food plot.....I would strongly urge against that. They tend to be costly, short term and last any significant impact......mostly because they are not maintained, over hunted, and as we all know habitat is more than just food. Yes a plot will make folks happy because they have something to show for their work.....I get that. And yes, in some cases food is very important....I get that too. But, I personally would rather see the effort put into a making small plantings of hard and soft mast plots with shrubs and trees scattered around. These will be much longer lasting and serve far more wildlife over the lifetime of the improvement.

You want quick, feel good, projects.....man a clean-up crew or man a work detail to repair or paint shelters, signs or other facilities. True impacting habitat projects take time and a long term vision.

 

[MarkDarvin]

I can only assume you're not from MN.

 

[Brutus]

Lol MarkDarvin, Buckeye Nation! That's where it's at.
Good stuff there, doghr n j-bird
Something sort of out of the box that has been discussed is to regulate outfitters with an annual registration fee based off of how many acres they lease, (lost common hunter opportunity) this money would go directly towards public land improvements. (Common Hunter opportunity) we are fine with outfitters but it's getting out of hand. Any Joe blow can advertise a 2500.00 hunt to kill a monster he's getting pictures of on his 100 acres. The deer isn't even his to start with.
This one wouldn't come without some backlash though. But I think it needs to be explored.

 

[Wilson12051978]

I will try

 

[Mennoniteman]

Lol MarkDarvin, Buckeye Nation! That's where it's at.
Good stuff there, doghr n j-bird
Something sort of out of the box that has been discussed is to regulate outfitters with an annual registration fee based off of how many acres they lease, (lost common hunter opportunity) this money would go directly towards public land improvements. (Common Hunter opportunity) we are fine with outfitters but it's getting out of hand. Any Joe blow can advertise a 2500.00 hunt to kill a monster he's getting pictures of on his 100 acres. The deer isn't even his to start with.
This one wouldn't come without some backlash though. But I think it needs to be explored.

Somehow the OP great idea of improving habitat on public land morphed into an idea of enacting another tax?

 

[X-farmerdan]

If you were able to brainstorm with the DNR on ways to improve deer hunting on public land what would your ideas be?

I don't think it's possible. There's a lot I don't understand about 'public' land in Ohio. Which agencies are responsible for this 'public' land? Here in Virginia we have land 'owned' by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. There's state forest land under the Virginia Department of Forestry. At one extreme we have national forests. At the other local public land in desperate need of herd reductions. Are you dreaming of public land in general? You refer to DNR in Ohio. Maybe it's simpler there. If it is, consider the multiple constituencies the agency must serve. Hunters are only one of many.

Tax one constituency to benefit another? I doubt it. Not down at the hunting level. In today's climate (even if you had a stellar argument for taxes), the reaction will be the same as Mennoniteman's. Taxes are bad! No, taxes as a concept are neither good nor bad. How and why they are applied is the issue. There. Now that's out of my system.

As the others have already suggested, it's all about habitat. In the Deer Hunting section there's a post about the 2016 South Carolina deer harvest. If you get an chance read it. Declining habit is one of the factors cited for declining deer populations and harvest.

Lots of luck!

 

[Tap]

One of the major obstacles to improving hunting on public land isn't the DNR, the issue is often with the hunters themselves.
Gary Alt (former Pa biologist) got death threats for even suggesting APRs. Everyone wants to see 50 deer per day, and kill multiple trophy bucks but they haven't a clue on what sacrifices it takes to produce and maintain a quality habitat, which is needed for a quality herd and a quality hunt.

 

[CuivreDog]

Burn, baby, burn!

#1 way to improve habitat without upsetting the liberal tree huggers!

 

[Mennoniteman]

One of the major obstacles to improving hunting on public land isn't the DNR, the issue is often with the hunters themselves.
Gary Alt (former Pa biologist) got death threats for even suggesting APRs. Everyone wants to see 50 deer per day, and kill multiple trophy bucks but they haven't a clue on what sacrifices it takes to produce and maintain a quality habitat, which is needed for a quality herd and a quality hunt.

Boy you sure know how to hit a nerve! The topic was just getting back onto habitat improvement and I was feeling all bubbly inside. Then you mentioned Gary Ault. My day (evening) gone up in ashes again. I'm one of those bitter Pennsylvanians Obama talked about. Just kidding But Gary Ault is not popular around here. I'm all for herd reductions to maintain balance, antler restrictions ok, but I didn't like that guy's attitude towards hunters. It was always him against the hunters, you could hear in his mind he never could lower himself down to be one of us. If us hunters can stick together to improve habitat we can accomplish much more than his failed policies. PA Game Lands are mostly mature timber open woods, no great deer habitat there.

 

[Tap]

Boy you sure know how to hit a nerve! The topic was just getting back onto habitat improvement and I was feeling all bubbly inside. Then you mentioned Gary Ault. My day (evening) gone up in ashes again. I'm one of those bitter Pennsylvanians Obama talked about. Just kidding But Gary Ault is not popular around here. I'm all for herd reductions to maintain balance, antler restrictions ok, but I didn't like that guy's attitude towards hunters. It was always him against the hunters, you could hear in his mind he never could lower himself down to be one of us. If us hunters can stick together to improve habitat we can accomplish much more than his failed policies. PA Game Lands are mostly mature timber open woods, no great deer habitat there.

Sorry. Didn't mean hit a sore spot.
I guess I was trying to point out that the OP's question is gonna be a hard row to hoe. The combination of herd and wildlife dynamics, habitat complexities, and human/society behavior makes improving the "quality" (which is subjective) of deer hunting on public land a daunting task. Throw into the mix...laws and legislators greedy for election, and some ridiculous environmental regulations...
No surprise that there is such a high demand on access to private land. It most likely has a lot to do with the world of expensive leases.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Mennoniteman]

,

Sorry. Didn't mean hit a sore spot.
I guess I was trying to point out that the OP's question is gonna be a hard row to hoe. The combination of herd and wildlife dynamics, habitat complexities, and human/society behavior makes improving the "quality" (which is subjective) of deer hunting on public land a daunting task. Throw into the mix...laws and legislators greedy for election, and some ridiculous environmental regulations...
No surprise that there is such a high demand on access to private land. It most likely has a lot to do with the world of expensive leases.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

My apologies, I only noticed now that you're also from PA. I'm not sore, he's just not very high on my list of wildlife managers.
As to your comment "high demand on access to private land" private land is the reservoir for deer in PA, when they wipe out the herd on game lands during hunting season with all of those antlerless tags, private land restocks them for the next year. As a polebarn builder I get out into a lot of remote wooded areas and from what I see during my travels is that our Pa private land is an asset that has better deer habitat than public land, mostly because of the landowners heavy logging activites for income. Today's clearcut or selective logging is the necessary equivalent of the forest fires of past ages. Private land also has much more field and edge habitat, and deer are edge dwellers. The game commish can't come close to an army of private landowners with mowers and chainsaws and planting food plots etc. Private land owners doing their own thing make for some pretty good habitat and makes the game commission's deer management program's much more irrelevant. Back to the logging vs. forest fire thing, forest fires are not an option, never going to be allowed in a lot of areas so, as much as I consider public land/ state game lands to be a great resource, from what I've seen hunters are actually better served when a paper mill owns the land.
So what is the answer to improve deer habitat on public lands? Here's my idea; take the government/ game commission/ DNR totally out of the land management business and keep them only in the law enforcement end of it. Lease the land to papermills like they lease BLM land out west to the ranchers.