Non-Resident license fees to increase

[ajupsman]

Leases.....pfft don't get me started on that.

The point is no matter what you spend in the state while you are here we have under valued our herd. I think averaging the license/tag cost Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas would be a good number.

While I agree that Ohio may have undervalued the herd I don't think that warrants an increase as high as Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. Illinois costs $467.75. Iowa cost $410.00. Kansas is $419.46. The average price would be $432.40. That is based on a NR buying the licenses and tag required to bow hunt deer with one tag. My personal feelings are these prices are way too high, especially to hunt whitetails. Deer are the most abundant big game animal in North America and can be hunted all over the country. Obviously the quality of herds vary greatly in different areas of the country but not enough to justify those prices IMO. It's not like it's an animal that is only found in certain areas of the country like moose or elk. For example I'd be much more willing to pay $500 for an elk tag in Colorado than $400 for a whitetail tag in the midwest.

 

[Big_Holla]

JMHO those states that raised their prices to those crazy high levels did it to be greedy. That or there were a bunch of guys in charge that got pissed because land got leased out from under them or a few NR shot 'their' bucks LOL...... :smiley_deer: :smiley_blablabla:

 

[ajupsman]

JMHO those states that raised their prices to those crazy high levels did it to be greedy. That or there were a bunch of guys in charge that got pissed because land got leased out from under them or a few NR shot 'their' bucks LOL...... :smiley_deer: :smiley_blablabla:

Exactly. 100% pure greed.

 

[jlane]

all this hipe over a few dollars,ask yourself what is it going to accomplish, will it help the deer population, (no) will it help the local residents kill better and bigger bucks,(no) will it help land owners make more profiets on their land,(no) will you see less nr on game lands(no),WILL IT LINE MORE POCKETS FOR THOSE in charge of what is already in place(yes) you watch if they raise nr, it wont be long before residents gets it too,i think it will only make nr want to kill something for their money, personally i hope not,but if you are spending thousands of dollars what would you do

 

[Ohiobowhunter1]

I personally don't think anything will change except for the cost for NR licenses and tags, It's a business thing.. why leave that money on the table. Every NR I know and hunt with said they would gladly pay 300.00 to hunt Ohio, it's still a bargain, heck all weapons and all seasons..

I know my posts might make you think I want all NRs to stop coming.. wrong. I host a camp in November were guys from Alabama, Tennesse, New York, Boston, Mississippi, and many other states often stay with me.. I gladly share public land, it is public, no one owns it. Just wanted to get that out there so no one got the wrong impression.

 

[dthbyhoyt]

Only fair way to do it.

I agree , that would let me have to only pay $60.00 instead of the $125.00

 

[Beentown]

While I agree that Ohio may have undervalued the herd I don't think that warrants an increase as high as Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. Illinois costs $467.75. Iowa cost $410.00. Kansas is $419.46. The average price would be $432.40. That is based on a NR buying the licenses and tag required to bow hunt deer with one tag. My personal feelings are these prices are way too high, especially to hunt whitetails. Deer are the most abundant big game animal in North America and can be hunted all over the country. Obviously the quality of herds vary greatly in different areas of the country but not enough to justify those prices IMO. It's not like it's an animal that is only found in certain areas of the country like moose or elk. For example I'd be much more willing to pay $500 for an elk tag in Colorado than $400 for a whitetail tag in the midwest.

They still sell the tags so it must be "worth" it.

 

[reo]

NON-RESIDENT FEE INCREASES -- The Division of Wildlife is strongly considering upping non-resident hunter fees in an effort to increase Ohio revenues as well as to more closely fall in line with other states.

The increase is aimed at non-resident deer hunters only, with the proposal upping the hunting license to $149 and either sex deer permit to $99 for a total cost of $248. That's a total increase of $101.

The amount is still under similar trophy deer hunting states, including Illinois, Iowa and Kansas.

Depending on the percentage of non-resident hunters who continue to hunt Ohio, the increase could add over $3 millon to the Division of Wildlife's botton line. That figure is based on 80 percent of past non-resident hunters continuing to hunt in Ohio.

The proposed increase does not change the price of licenses for non-resident youth, as Ohio is committed to increase youth participation in wildlife recreation.
http://www.the-daily-record.com/local sports/2014/01/27/trappers-getting-iced-out-this-winter

 

[Milo]

Wow that's a bunch honestly.

 

[cotty16]

Just to throw my two cents in... I like the idea J sated originally that NR's pay what their state charges. I think that is very fair.

NR's do not bother me in the least. Some are members of the Sportsman Club I belong to. They pay their dues and have every right there as I.

There is a group from Pa that leased up all the property around my house. When I first moved in here, I had permission to hunt it and was living large in the big oak woods. They leased it and now I can't go near it. However, it could of been an Ohio resident that leased it just as easy and put the same restrictions on it. Either way I would not be able to hunt it, so what does it matter who leased it?

Just make the NR's pay what their state charges and let the chips fall where they may. If some hoopjack from Parkersburg, Wv comes up here and kills a monster on public ground, good for him... as long as he had to pay what WV charges.

As you were fellas...

 

[LonewolfNopack]

Not enough, imo....but its a start. I want to see us up with other trophy states for NR's.

 

[Big_Holla]

Fugg that's a kick in the junk!

 

[Milo]

Fugg that's a kick in the junk!

I feel for you chuck if that is what they raise it too. Your a property owner and that's bullshit you can't use a landowner tag

 

[jagermeister]

I'd like to point out that the amount of federal aid received by the DOW is partially determined by how much revenue the DOW brings in. Basically, the feds only give so much money if the division can match a certain amount themselves. So, if the revenue is not there, the DOW loses much more than just that chunk of their own revenue... They lose a good chunk of PR monies in the process. NR fees are currently well below what our deer herd is valued at and that needs changed.

 

[Jackalope]

I'd like to point out that the amount of federal aid received by the DOW is partially determined by how much revenue the DOW brings in. Basically, the feds only give so much money if the division can match a certain amount themselves. So, if the revenue is not there, the DOW loses much more than just that chunk of their own revenue... They lose a good chunk of PR monies in the process. NR fees are currently well below what our deer herd is valued at and that needs changed.

That's true. They need to make up that lost resident revenue caused by lower tag sales due to decreased harvest.

To the NR it means a worsening product at a new higher price.

 

[ajupsman]

NON-RESIDENT FEE INCREASES -- The Division of Wildlife is strongly considering upping non-resident hunter fees in an effort to increase Ohio revenues as well as to more closely fall in line with other states.

The increase is aimed at non-resident deer hunters only, with the proposal upping the hunting license to $149 and either sex deer permit to $99 for a total cost of $248. That's a total increase of $101.

The amount is still under similar trophy deer hunting states, including Illinois, Iowa and Kansas.

Depending on the percentage of non-resident hunters who continue to hunt Ohio, the increase could add over $3 millon to the Division of Wildlife's botton line. That figure is based on 80 percent of past non-resident hunters continuing to hunt in Ohio.

The proposed increase does not change the price of licenses for non-resident youth, as Ohio is committed to increase youth participation in wildlife recreation.
http://www.the-daily-record.com/local sports/2014/01/27/trappers-getting-iced-out-this-winter

So NR's are going to fund this new $3 million increase to the DOW's bottom line which I can live with. The real question is where will this money go and will it be used to improve the deer hunting in Ohio?

I'm afraid Jackalope is right. All it means is we are paying a higher price for a worsening product.

 

[Jackalope]

So NR's are going to fund this new $3 million increase to the DOW's bottom line which I can live with. The real question is where will this money go and will it be used to improve the deer hunting in Ohio?

I'm afraid Jackalope is right. All it means is we are paying a higher price for a worsening product.

Our DNR has spent the last 5 years drastically reducing our deer numbers all over the state. Sadly "Improving deer hunting in Ohio" isn't their goal. Now, improving insurance companies bottom line, that they're interested in.

 

[hickslawns]

I feel for you chuck if that is what they raise it too. Your a property owner and that's bullshit you can't use a landowner tag

I concur. If you own land here but your primary residence is in another state, it seems like there should be some leniency.

I haven't read all of this so forgive me if I duplicate anything. Bottom line: It is all about the money. Just like income taxes, if the govt spent them wisely. . . .I wouldn't complain as much. The additional income from tags/licenses will probably not be spent to better the herd, so I don't like it. On the flip side, I do feel we offer great trophy potential on our public lands and we have undervalued our product for a long time. Still seems the most fair way is to charge what the hunter's home state charges NR. Then again, most of them which are cheap are only cheap because nobody wants to travel to hunt their lesser quality deer. Not trying to knock you guys traveling here to hunt. Just riding the fence here. lmao

 

[bowhunter1023]

I love the increase. Perfect compromise IMO.

FWIW, I think Chuck should be allowed to use a land owner tag. If you own the land, you're a land owner; hence the name of the tag.

 

[Carpn]

Id like to see more of a increase , hell it wouldn't hurt my feelings to pay a little more as a resident.