Non-Resident license fees to increase

["J"]

I agree with an increase but too sit on heir hands during the boom of our deer population and then too smack the non residents with a high percentage increase is a joke... They should of been elevation it in a gradual versus a wham here's a 100% increase, and only because they decimated the head in some locations and are losing revenue

 

[Big_Holla]

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

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.

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

The way they changed the law a couple years ago it does make it possible IF my state let's landowners (in particular NR/Ohio resident landowners owning land in Michigan) hunt without a license then Ohio would do the same. Well, Michigan has always required ALL landowners to purchase deer hunting licenses, well before I ever started hunting. When we first bought the land there in Ohio from my uncle it was never that way. Perhaps some saw that as a loophole and the closed it at some point, I don't know.

 

[Antler]

:smiley_clap:

My opinion has always been that we undervalue our resources and I support a NR fee increase across the board to fund things like land acquisition, habitat restoration, educational programs, and increased law enforcement. I would also gladly pay $50 for a hunting license or $30 for an either sex tag. I'd be willing to purchase a $10 habitat stamp to hunt deer, squirrel, rabbits, upland game, etc. I think we should institute a predator lottery where you buy in for $5 and can purchase as many numbers as you want, match it to the Pick 3, and use the proceeds to fund a bounty on coyotes.

At the end of the day I don't want NR to pay more because I want to hit them in the wallet as I'm perfectly willing to open mine to fund the resources management in my home state. NR need to pay for the value of which we offer here and it is much higher than that of surrounding states. Reciprocity with WV? Come on. Same goes for PA. Nope. Pony up to come here or stay home. If we lose revenue, I'll gladly step up to the plate as a resident and pick up the tab. Sure I'm not alone in that regard either...

I'm pretty sure your product isn't what it once was. That said it is still better then neighbors with the exception of Indiana, Ky is pretty good too. They have alot to consider here, Harvest, loss of hunters, loss of revenue for a resource that many are increasingly unhappy with. Lots and lots of complaints about no deer and the worse it gets the less out of staters you get. Raise the price to high and you loose a bunch and the state over all loses rev. They need to strike a balance that will not cost them to much. I think doubling the price will come at a cost. But many residents will be happy about it. You have way to much public land to control with a lottery system. States that have the lottery system typically don't have as much public land. I would say bumping it to 175$ most NR's wouldnt bat an eye and would be a great increase for ODNR

 

[bowhunter1023]

I'm pretty sure your product isn't what it once was.

Depends on what you define the "product" as being. To me, that is a total deer herd and you are correct, it is not what it used to be. However to the DNR, the product is big bucks to put on magazines to draw attention to our state so people will come here and spend money to kill the big bucks that are around every tree here. As long as people keep killing giant suburban deer to put on magazines, things are still good in terms of the "product" as far as the DNR sees fit.

 

[finelyshedded]

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.

......plus he pays taxes on his land!

 

[Antler]

Depends on what you define the "product" as being. To me, that is a total deer herd and you are correct, it is not what it used to be. However to the DNR, the product is big bucks to put on magazines to draw attention to our state so people will come here and spend money to kill the big bucks that are around every tree here. As long as people keep killing giant suburban deer to put on magazines, things are still good in terms of the "product" as far as the DNR sees fit.

Yep agree

 

[Big_Holla]

Just throwing this out there for shit's and giggles..........2012-13 a total of 218,910 deer were harvested in Ohio.

landowners accounted for 27% of the reported harvest.

which = 59,105.7 deer

59,105.7 x $15 (minimum antlerless cost) = $886,585.50 in MINIMUM lost revenue to the state of Ohio......... :smiley_baby:

 

[MandRroofing]

Just throwing this out there for shit's and giggles..........2012-13 a total of 218,910 deer were harvested in Ohio.

which = 59,105.7 deer

59,105.7 x $15 (minimum antlerless cost) = $886,585.50 in MINIMUM lost revenue to the state of Ohio......... :smiley_baby:

Good point but you also have to take into account that a lot of guys buy extra tags and don't fill them?

 

[Jackalope]

Good point but you also have to take into account that a lot of guys buy extra tags and don't fill them?

About 66% of them go unfilled. But that recognized revenue on the books already. I think he was talking more about lost revenue due to the landowner deer that are killed since they don't have to purchase tags at all on their land. The DNR makes no money from those harvested deer so it's a lost revenue stream.

 

[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

Looks like they are accounting for a 20% drop in NR hunters

 

[jlane]

not starting anything, but are landowners allowed to hunt other land without buying tags, and are their children over 16 living at home exempt from buying tags

 

[Fullbore]

not starting anything, but are landowners allowed to hunt other land without buying tags, and are their children over 16 living at home exempt from buying tags

No is the answer to your first question and your children can hunt your land without buying a license or deer tag, no matter their age.

 

[ajupsman]

No is the answer to your first question and your children can hunt your land without buying a license or deer tag, no matter their age.

Just to compare here in NH resident landowners and their children under 16 are allowed to hunt their own land without a license during the regular season only. The regular season is considered small game hunting and the firearms season for deer. The regular license comes with 1 tag for firearms season so that is the tag landowners get for free. If they want any special tags like turkey, bear, archery deer or muzzleloader deer they have to pay for those. The regular hunting license costs only $22 for residents so it's not that big of a savings.

 

[hickslawns]

Good point but you also have to take into account that a lot of guys buy extra tags and don't fill them?

The biggest lost revenue would be all the deer killed which are never tagged. Between POS hunters and coyotes, the ODNR is missing out on a lot of revenue. lmao

 

[Bigslam51]

Looks like they are accounting for a 20% drop in NR hunters

That bobcat that they were talking about that was hit by a car in stark county was right down the road 400 yards from my house.
http://m.the-daily-record.com/local sports/2014/01/27/trappers-getting-iced-out-this-winter

 

[MK111]

No is the answer to your first question and your children can hunt your land without buying a license or deer tag, no matter their age.

Correct. My kids can hunt my land without a license but my grandkids can't.

 

[Big_Holla]

I think he was talking more about lost revenue due to the landowner deer that are killed since they don't have to purchase tags at all on their land. The DNR makes no money from those harvested deer so it's a lost revenue stream.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about, lost revenue due to landowners not having to buy tags. Keep in mind many other states you have to buy at least your deer tags to hunt your own land....whether it's a half acre behind your house or hundreds of acres you own. Just throwing that out there because if the NR licenses ever dry up to a level they feel isn't cutting it (whether it's due to poor deer management/value or too high of prices) then perhaps landowners will be the next they will go after.

 

[Big_Holla]

Just throwing this out there for shit's and giggles..........2012-13 a total of 218,910 deer were harvested in Ohio.

which = 59,105.7 deer

59,105.7 x $15 (minimum antlerless cost) = $886,585.50 in MINIMUM lost revenue to the state of Ohio......... :smiley_baby:

To clarify more of what I am saying, $886,585.50 is the MINIMUM that is lost, these are confirmed deer kills that were registered. I only used $15 per deer just to get that number!!!!

Keep in mind youth are likely part of those landowner kills but if you factored in additional lost revenue due to a landowner not having to buy a hunting license ($19 for a regular resident) + a deer tag (in this case I used the minimum of $15 but could be as high as $24 for a regular resident) to every one of those confirmed deer kills....woohooo you are talking a serious chunk of change the ODNR is missing out on.

 

[hickslawns]

Not trying to discredit your theory Chuck because I have no facts to back it up. BUT, I don't think it would be much of an increase. I am a land owner. I still buy a tag and license. I bet the percentage of land owners who ONLY hunt their land is not huge. Conservatively, I would guess less than 50%. Frank (MKII) and Hortontoter might be the only ones on here I can think of. You might be the third. I could be wrong on them as well. Just don't think there are many who ONLY hunt their own land. Maybe it is over 50%, I dunno.

 

[Big_Holla]

I see I forgot something important in what I listed. 218,910 deer were harvested in Ohio in 2012-13 and according to the ODNR site 27% of those were registered on Landowner Tags which = approx. 59,105.7 deer that were registered for 2012-13. Sorry for the confusion.