# Red Oak BMU concerns



## Hear fishy fishy (Feb 9, 2013)

We have two many bears on the property's in hunt in red oak. Populations could be much lower in my opinion. It might make sense to make a separate area for club country. Lots of food plots with clover that bears love. Less human interaction for the most part compared to some state land. When the bears finds food plots and no one to bother them they call it home. Sows have better health for producing cubs. Have heard of many old bears shot over the years out of club country. Last time I bear hunted had over 21 different bears on camera. Some camps have trouble finding people with tags to shoot a bear. We have been lucky enough to find one or two hunters every year for several years. Even though most are successful we don't really notice a decrease in bears.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

They would have gotten a white oak BMU, if they didn't demand that tags be allotted to the clubs.


----------



## Hoegemeyer (Dec 27, 2017)

Hear fishy fishy said:


> We have two many bears on the property's in hunt in red oak. Populations could be much lower in my opinion. It might make sense to make a separate area for club country. Lots of food plots with clover that bears love. Less human interaction for the most part compared to some state land. When the bears finds food plots and no one to bother them they call it home. Sows have better health for producing cubs. Have heard of many old bears shot over the years out of club country. Last time I bear hunted had over 21 different bears on camera. Some camps have trouble finding people with tags to shoot a bear. We have been lucky enough to find one or two hunters every year for several years. Even though most are successful we don't really notice a decrease in bears.


Everybody says that farmers should have to let people on their farms to kill deer. If club country wants a separate white oak then they should have to let people on the clubs to hunt bear. Seems fair.


----------



## Hear fishy fishy (Feb 9, 2013)

Doesn't matter to me if they have separate management areas or one. Just thought it makes more sense to better manage club country and other areas. I think more hunters and land owners might be satisfied with two units. Iam sure some clubs allow other hunters to come in and bear hunt. The clubs don't own the bears but the some bears call it home and land owners have to deal with the damage they cause. We lose multiple apple trees every year, they eat wheat out of the food plots when seed heads become ripe. They can eat a lot of corn out of the food plots and makes planting corn almost a waste of time and money. The management area should based on bear density and not clubs in my opinion.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

They damaged an apple tree? Kill em all I guess. One bear or 20, they like apples.


----------



## 78CJ (Jun 26, 2009)

I agree, those dots have nothing to do with population. Just from observation and conversation the RO bear numbers are steadily increasing up to and even including areas now that traditionally have not held bear. Those dots indeed indicate where hunters are concentrating mainly in part due to accessibility. Fairly easy for people to gain permission to tracts of land in that area to hunt.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Hoegemeyer said:


> If club country wants a separate white oak then they should have to let people on the clubs to hunt bear. Seems fair.


It might be fair but it wont happen until private property rights are abolished. 

I will have enough points for a tag next year, I might donate my tag, but not a place to hunt...


----------

