# Hunting in Ohio State Parks in Danger



## BandanaMan (Jul 27, 2005)

Those of you that like to archery hunt in Ohio's State Parks may have to do so in a timber clear cut, or beside an oil or gas well if Senator Armbruster has his way with Senate Bill 193, see the link below: 

http://lsc.state.oh.us/analyses/ana...f791d0b4ef1265b08525709f00456284?OpenDocument 

Senator Armburster would like to allow bidding for timber, and mineral removal on State lands which include Ohio's State Park system. 

What do you think this will do to screw up the archery deer hunting in state parks? 

Let's not find out! 

Contact your Ohio State Representative and let them know that SB-193 is a bad idea! Use the links below: 

http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/ 

http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp


----------



## bowhunter 1968 (May 17, 2004)

Do you know what district this moron's from. This is something I would expect from Taft trying to get cash to get his butt out of the fire. If you know the disrict this guys from I will have to start sending letters and e- mail.


----------



## BandanaMan (Jul 27, 2005)

Here's the "moron" you want to email!

http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_13.html


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*are we sure it's a bad thing?*

I know it's a risky idea, but I know how forest regrowth and even strip mining has enhanced hunting and, more importantly, wildlife habitat, especially from logging. I don't know if all mining is benificial to wildlife, but I've seen several open pit mines that, even when in use, were excellent wildlife attractors. I guess I'd fight the mining, just because it leaves permanant scars but old growth forests need to be opened up from time to time to allow young growth to happen. That young growth is usually hard to hunt for many years, but this is the "refuge" that animals love to live in. It really depends on who's managing the harvest of the trees and how the land is left afterwards. If they pass their bill, with dedicated park management, they will only take a few small tracts each year which should improve habitat. Good luck.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

460461whatever said:


> I know it's a risky idea, but I know how forest regrowth and even strip mining has enhanced hunting and, more importantly, wildlife habitat, especially from logging. I don't know if all mining is benificial to wildlife, but I've seen several open pit mines that, even when in use, were excellent wildlife attractors. I guess I'd fight the mining, just because it leaves permanant scars but old growth forests need to be opened up from time to time to allow young growth to happen. That young growth is usually hard to hunt for many years, but this is the "refuge" that animals love to live in. It really depends on who's managing the harvest of the trees and how the land is left afterwards. If they pass their bill, with dedicated park management, they will only take a few small tracts each year which should improve habitat. Good luck.


Not to mention restoring food sources like tender forbs that get choked out by Old Growth canopies. Mining should be out. We do not have a sound enough understanding what the mining action would do to the water tables, which geologically could affect a much larger area than the mine itself. I would not necessarily jump to thwart, but I would certainly ask some very hard questions regarding an actual land management plan, planned areas of logging, time frames, criteria for cutting trees. I would be against the clear-cut approach, but selective harvest based on trunk diameter isn't bad. I would get the moron to commit to a firm plan, backing it up with sound conservation goals and expected results, including any potential geological pitfalls along the way.


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*Habitat Restoration*



doctariAFC said:


> Not to mention restoring food sources like tender forbs that get choked out by Old Growth canopies. Mining should be out. We do not have a sound enough understanding what the mining action would do to the water tables, which geologically could affect a much larger area than the mine itself. I would not necessarily jump to thwart, but I would certainly ask some very hard questions regarding an actual land management plan, planned areas of logging, time frames, criteria for cutting trees. I would be against the clear-cut approach, but selective harvest based on trunk diameter isn't bad. I would get the moron to commit to a firm plan, backing it up with sound conservation goals and expected results, including any potential geological pitfalls along the way.


Yeah, what Doc said!:wink: Logging on any public land should be as a result of habitat restoration. Mining does not restore habitat, it changes it forever. It's not always a bad change, but, as Doc pointed out, you won't know 'til it's done. And then there's no going back. Back to the logging, when done correctly, it's really no different than allowing deer hunters to go in and control the deer population to keep them from over-browsing and destroying their own habitat. Along with selective logging, they should be doing controlled burns in the existing open areas to keep the sumac and cedars in check. All of this was taken care of by nature before we started putting out the lightning fires that threatened the homes that are built in and next to forested areas, and to protect the timber that loggers cut down to build those houses. How does that saying go......? Oh yes, "when ever you point a finger, there are three others pointing right back at you".


----------



## BandanaMan (Jul 27, 2005)

doctariAFC and 460461Watever:

Have either of you ever been to any of the Ohio State Parks? 

I see one of you is from Minnesota, and the other is from New York.

Your opinion is welcomed, but I was more interested in what Ohio hunters would have to say about SB 193.

If you ever had ever stayed at one of our State Parks, or hunted at one, or visited one, then you'd know what a disaster SB 193 could be to the Ohio State park System.

SB 193 isn't just about raping Ohio State Parks, SB 193 involves all State public lands including Wildlife Areas, and State Forests.

We have the Wayne National Forest in Ohio. They have allowed this kind of mineral extraction for as many years as I can remember. You should see the deplorable conditions of the oil and gas roads into the forest. These roads also allow the access of illegal ATV riders that have devastated the areas around these oil and gas roads. Then the locals think they can dump their garbage, excess building materials and old used tires back there because no one can see them doing it.

I sure don't want to see Ohio's State lands end up like the Wayne!


----------



## dsp3472 (Dec 27, 2004)

i happen to have property that borders a state park in south central ohio, in which they have been cutting timber and drilling already. i don't think it has hurt us at all here,if anything it has helped our wild life.some of the 5-10 year old clear cuts are holding grouse now. the deer numbers have been up in our area. the company's did a decent job of cleaning up after thereselves. i just don't see where it's all bad.


----------



## Critter Gitter2 (Sep 1, 2005)

Selective logging can help improve the Habitat. Mining is a definate no. Unfortunately, the state will do anything they can to make a buck. We see that in the prices we pay for our licenses and tags (hunting and fishing) and the amount they charge a place to be able to sell the licenses and tags. I live about 5 minutes north of the Delaware Wildlife area and my husband and I also hunt there. It is getting smaller every year. They sell large tracts of land to "country developers" (those who make small developments with 5 acre tracts of land). We need to fight that just as much as the logging and mining. Thanks for the post I will send an email.


----------



## doegirl (Sep 22, 2004)

I'll be all for the bill IF they permit at least bowhunting in ALL the state parks. Some allow bowhunting, some don't, 99.9% are absolutely brimming with deer. And whatever $$ timber and mineral interests pay to use the land is used 100% for expansion and maintanence of our park systems. Delaware county in the Central part of the State is an urban sprawl nightmare and is in desperate need for more green space to be set aside... 
Small clearcuts would only enhance wildlife habitat. As long as it's not done, say, in an old growth Hemlock stand in Southern Ohio I'm cool with it. The mining, though, makes permanent changes and should be approached more cautiously.


----------



## cameron (Sep 15, 2005)

I have seen selective cutting do wonderful things for the wildlife in areas of Mich.

And as for a gas or oil well, I have seen very good things also. 

Mining of minerals, bad thing. Unless you like to fish for bluegill in the new lake that was dug.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

BandanaMan said:


> doctariAFC and 460461Watever:
> 
> Have either of you ever been to any of the Ohio State Parks?
> 
> ...


I'm not too far from Ohio, in fact I spend a lot of my time on Chautauqua Lake, SW corner of WNY. I have been to Mosquito Creek, with some friends hiking around a bit, but, no, I haven't been in the State parks hunting. We have a similar scenario here in NY. SOme of the plans revolve around Allegany State Park and plans to selectively log portions of this 65,000 acre park, to which environmentalists scream bloody murder over the potential loss of "old growth trees". The habitat in ASP has been declining for many, many years, to the point where most of the wildlife seen in the park are congregating in close proximity to the cabin trails, where areas are cut, light can help preferred food sources to grow, and let me tell you, a TON of deer hang out near the trails. Yet, problems have been detected with wildlife populations throughout the park, excluding the cabin areas (which are off-limits to hunters for obvious reasons.) So much so that antlerless permits were cut back this year in this WMU to near zero.

I agree with you that this bill is bloviated bovine excrement, no doubt about it. Nowhere in the bill do I see any responsible land management plans or policies. Heck, the only safeguard is one "environmentalist representative" for state concerns, with 5 other members, two DNR officials (who take orders) and two industry reps, who lobby for the orders. Having an "environmentalist" on the board does hunters and anglers zero benefit, what is needed is a conservationist, a sportsman or woman. Criteria for granting leases are out of whack, with zero regard to the green spaces, and sound impact studies and submission of detailed plans for logging and potential habitat restoration (filling ruts left by the skids, plantig of food source plants like blackberry bushes, etc)

I would certainly recommend a groundswell of opposition to this bill, however, simply saying no way doesn't always cut it. Attempt to come up with an alternative plan so you can state, your plan falls short, however, if we do this, we could see benefits for most everyone AND the wildlife.


----------



## hammer head (Nov 23, 2003)

i use to hunt wayne national forest it was in my back yard it was timberd some time ago it holds some real nice deer an other animals WHAT AS HURT THE MOST IS ALL THE ATVS AN MOTORCYCLES THAT COME FROM COLUMBUS AREA THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANY THING RIDING WARE THEY ARNT ALOUD. I DONT HUNT THERE ANY MORE THE BIKES RUNING AROUND AT 700AM IN LATE OCT AN NOV THE MINING WE COULD DO WITH OUT:fencing: :fencing:


----------



## BandanaMan (Jul 27, 2005)

Here's an online pitition for sending the message to save Ohio Parks!

Please take the time to get involved! 

http://ga1.org/campaign/ConservationOhio


----------

