Carbon Express Arrows
Looks like Non Res. fees are going up
Ohio
Contributors to this thread:
kellyharris 13-Jul-17
Lone Wolf 13-Jul-17
Weasel 13-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 13-Jul-17
kellyharris 13-Jul-17
bowhawk75 14-Jul-17
gcolephone 15-Jul-17
kellyharris 15-Jul-17
kellyharris 15-Jul-17
ducksoup 17-Jul-17
buc i 313 17-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 17-Jul-17
buc i 313 17-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 17-Jul-17
buc i 313 18-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 19-Jul-17
buc i 313 19-Jul-17
ronsoutdoors 19-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 20-Jul-17
buc i 313 20-Jul-17
BOX CALL 20-Jul-17
JW 23-Jul-17
elk yinzer 24-Jul-17
JW 24-Jul-17
elk yinzer 24-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 24-Jul-17
standswittaknife 25-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 25-Jul-17
mattandersen 31-Jul-17
Kevin Dill 31-Jul-17
mattandersen 31-Jul-17
LiveOutdoors 01-Aug-17
kellyharris 04-Aug-17
Twanger 04-Aug-17
Ohio Jim 04-Aug-17
ronsoutdoors 05-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 06-Aug-17
PECO 06-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 06-Aug-17
buc i 313 07-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 08-Aug-17
buc i 313 08-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 09-Aug-17
Twanger 09-Aug-17
buc i 313 09-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 10-Aug-17
BC173 10-Aug-17
Twanger 10-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 10-Aug-17
Kevin Dill 10-Aug-17
BC173 10-Aug-17
Heritage 15-Dec-17
Ned 16-Dec-17
Heritage 16-Dec-17
pappy 18-Dec-17
Heritage 19-Dec-17
Ned 05-Jan-18
Boris 06-Jan-18
Boris 06-Jan-18
X-Master 10-Feb-18
ankrom 16-Feb-18
BOX CALL 16-Feb-18
LiveOutdoors 16-Feb-18
BOX CALL 16-Feb-18
BOX CALL 16-Feb-18
MnM 17-Feb-18
MnM 18-Feb-18
Burly 18-Feb-18
From: kellyharris
13-Jul-17

kellyharris's Link
Ok looks like the NR fees are going up from license and one tag from $149.00 to $250.00

Your thoughts?

From: Lone Wolf
13-Jul-17
I think it should be even higher. Why should we pay more and have to draw a tag in other states when a NR can come here so easy and cheap.

From: Weasel
13-Jul-17
I am a landowner in Ohio and pay all the same local and school taxes that residents pay. I live in PA because my job requires that I have a PA driver's license. I have tried to work around this and move but keep my PA license for work but they just don't allow it. I used to be able to hunt my farm without a license but that changed a few years back. With that being said, I support the license increase but I would like to see them go back to allowing ALL landowners hunt their properties without a license. I am paying the same taxes as a resident.

From: Kevin Dill
13-Jul-17
Pretty simple. The state is trying to generate more nonresident income without severely discouraging nonresidents from hunting here. It's not about tit-for-tat, or parity with other states. The state of Ohio still wants plenty of nonresidents to show up and kill plenty of deer here. They want to create extra revenue...not extra punishment. I think the new fees are okay. No sense doubling them or worse in one swoop.

From: kellyharris
13-Jul-17
If you do a 10 day hunt it's only $10.00 per day increase

From: bowhawk75
14-Jul-17
I feel the increase is way overdue.

From: gcolephone
15-Jul-17
That for 2018?

From: kellyharris
15-Jul-17
The way I took it it's for 2017

Don't new license come out And available August 1

From: kellyharris
15-Jul-17
The way I took it it's for 2017

Don't new license come out And available August 1

From: ducksoup
17-Jul-17
A 100 dollar increase is ok with me, but not the 300 dollar increase I was told about!

From: buc i 313
17-Jul-17
I responded on the national forum to a similar post that a "reciprocal" state by state fee would have been more fairly administered and more money $ for the ODNR.

It just seems to me, an increase is / was warranted and perhaps overdue for both non-residents and residents.

HOWEVER ,

If I wish to hunt out of state, and that state charges X dollars for a "Non-Resident Licence" then the hunter travelling to Ohio, to hunt, should have to pay the same license fee ($) his or her state charges me as a Non-Resident to for a hunting licence, deer tag. etc.

From: Kevin Dill
17-Jul-17
"If I wish to hunt out of state, and that state charges X dollars for a "Non-Resident Licence" then the hunter travelling to Ohio, to hunt, should have to pay the same license fee ($) his or her state charges me as a Non-Resident to for a hunting licence, deer tag. etc. "

.

That would only be true if Ohio (ODNR) wanted a tit-for-tat reciprocal pricing structure which is impractical considering all the various states hunters come to Ohio from. I don't think ANY state has direct reciprocal pricing for nonresidents. It's one price for any/all nonresidents. If that's not the case, I'll willingly stand corrected.

The other thing to consider is that Ohio (ODNR) may have a goal of increasing revenues while remaining one of the most attractive destination states for nonresident deer hunters. In other words, the state may want to attract as many nonresident hunters as possible and intends to do that by keeping license and tag fees cheaper than other destinations.

This isn't argumentative...just posing another viewpoint or take on the issue.

From: buc i 313
17-Jul-17
Kevin,

Thank you for a different point of view.

Not looking for an argument either. Just a different perspective from here.

I for one do not believe it is impractical to administer a reciprocal fee when it would merely require a check of a drivers license to correlate cost relative to that state's hunting licence fee's. * (dr's license already a requirement to obtain hunting license)

Point being, if I wish to hunt in another state regardless of location in the USA my license fee's are generally and substantially more costly to me than Ohio, will now charge NR's including the new increase.

I was hoping to point out the inequity that exist's with Ohio's, NR fee's vs other states NR fee's. This is a point of view I have held for a very long time.

I believe it is the Ohio, ODNR's, loss ($$$$) as it is our's, as it relate's to revenue for wildlife management .

The "tit for tat" hasn't stopped me or others from hunting another state if I wish to hunt that state and I for one do not believe it will stop NR's from coming to Ohio, to hunt.

GO BUCK's :^}

From: Kevin Dill
17-Jul-17
I agree the fees (to a degree) won't stop NRs from showing up. But substantially higher fees could reduce the overall number of NRs who elect to come hunt. The price increase would probably offset the loss (if any) of NR hunters.

.

If the state's goals are to keep attracting a large number of NRs, a big fee increase may be a negative...especially if the ODNR is looking at this from a competitive perspective. I'm 100% sure our state ODNR views NRs as a desirable customer they want to attract and keep. Other states probably feel the same way. There is competition for the dollar.

I'll go out on a limb and say it's highly unlikely we'll ever see Ohio implement a fee-matching license/tag system for NRs. The reasons are many but I think the main one is that our ODNR sees lower fees (comparatively) as an inducement for more NR hunters to show up and kill more deer.

From: buc i 313
18-Jul-17
Kevin,

Point well taken regarding the ODNR's , desire to reduce the deer herd into what they (ODNR) feel is a manageable herd, They certainly appear to be ambitious in their efforts.

I guess I just find it inequitable for another state to charge a substantially higher NR fee for hunting privileges to Ohioans, while Ohio's, ODNR, may be fearful of losing NR's to hunt Ohio.

IMHO, the only thing that will decrease NR's from hunting Ohio, is a significant decrease in the deer herd. (i.e. Penn.)

Personally I do not have any issue with the new increase in hunting fee's. They are still a bargain.

GO BUCKS

:^}

From: Kevin Dill
19-Jul-17
Just for the purposes of conversation...

I suppose another talking point is what happens if we let other state's NR prices drive our prices in Ohio. Maybe a price escalation war? I don't know. But if a NR's ability to afford an expensive tag is the main qualifier for hunting in Ohio, it seems we'll be attracting that type hunter and gradually eliminating the everyday guy from a neighbor state. If it's mainly well-heeled NRs headed in, will that in turn promote NR land-buying, large-scale leasing and/or outfitting? I honestly don't know that answer, but it probably makes sense to look at the possible ramifications of making our Ohio hunting much costlier to NRs.

Great thread.

From: buc i 313
19-Jul-17
I agree, excellent thread.

Point's of conversation,

I do not feel any State's DNR, is / would be interested in or promoting an escalating price war over NR fee's.

Ohio, attracts all types of NR's to hunt Ohio. IMHO, not because of costs but for the quality of the deer herd.

The process of hunting land purchase, lease, outfitting etc. by resident and NR's alike has been in motion for some time. (yrs) We cannot turn back this clock.

As you, I have hunted other states, and though I may find the fee's of that state justifiable for the game I have hunted. It did however leave me with a feeling of being a bit uneasy knowing the resident of that state can come to Ohio, to hunt at a very low cost when this very hunter (s) may have voiced and lobbied for higher NR fees.

The elimination of, or restriction of NR's coming to hunt Ohio, is not my thought or ambition. I wish there were more opportunities for people to able to hunt, enjoy the out of doors, particularly young folks.

This said,

I do feel we can have a more equitable / even hunting field :^} for the Ohio, hunter.

GO BUCKS !

:^}

From: ronsoutdoors
19-Jul-17
NR here have been hunting in your state for about 8 years now ,cost was main reason i started hunting Ohio, Illinois got way too high for a working man . I support an increase but almost double the cost in one year seems a little steep . I am sure it will cut the number of hunters from my state to yours .

From: Kevin Dill
20-Jul-17
I hunt Alaska every year. From 2016 to 2017 the cost of every NR license and species tag increased 100%. My $400 moose tag went to $800. Imagine that....an instant doubling of prices. There is no data yet on whether the number of NR hunters will change as a result, but there is substantial speculation that NR hunters will not purchase as many optional tags for extra species. I can assure you that many working-class family guys who dream of hunting there will be set back by those costs and some may never go. The guys who have the means (and they better have plenty) will continue to go and pay higher fees. It just increasingly becomes a rich(er) man's game to hunt out of state, and encourages NRs to stay at home. Of course resident hunters in many states view NRs as competitors and hold them in disfavor. Anything which pulls more money from them, discourages them from showing up, etc is touted as a plus for resident hunters.

.

What I think will happen with Ohio's NR increases is this: Fewer nearby NRs will opt to buy a license and tag. These are the guys who primarily like to hunt their home state and area, but come to Ohio for an extra hunting opportunity. Border-hoppers let's call them. They might run here from WV, KY, IN, MI, PA etc for a few days of hunting. At some point the license/tag cost hits a level where they'll take their money and spend it elsewhere or on gear...but not here in Ohio. The dedicated NRs who view Ohio as their prime destination will keep coming...as long as they have the funds.

From: buc i 313
20-Jul-17
Kevin,

Your points are well taken, especially the non-resident hunter not being very welcome or held in disfavor in some states. :^}

As with all things commercial it is price and demand.

I doubt the influx of NR hunters to western states and Alaska, has or will diminish due to increased fee's. Sure some "side tags" may not be desirable due to cost but their primary reason to hunt a specific game species will not change.

The desire to hunt Ohio, regardless of fee's will not diminish until the deer herd does. To many NR's are looking for an opportunity to harvest a buck their state does not provide.

When other states become more recognizable for the harvest of "Big Bucks" along with a decline of our herd, then and only then will Ohio's, NR hunter look elsewhere as a hunting destination.

A very enjoyable thread

GO BUCKS

:^}

From: BOX CALL
20-Jul-17
I have been invited to turkey hunt in Illinois next spring and was wondering about how the non resident licenses works.never hunted out of state before.

From: JW
23-Jul-17

JW's embedded Photo
JW's embedded Photo
Here's my 2017 Iowa bow tag. We produce very large whitetails just like Iowa does, but our cheap otc tags have/will continue to impact our herd and age structure of bucks in the long run.

I really wish Ohio would go to the same system as Iowa as far as tags go. Limit the ever growing non res hunting pressure and charge more money for what is a grossly underpriced tag.

I hunted Illinois in the mid -late 90s and it was awesome. What they have going on now is polar opposite. Their management plan is a disaster. My hope is that the buckeye state isn't on the same path...

From: elk yinzer
24-Jul-17
JW - that's exactly the argument that gets me worked up about this whole situation. When did the core mission of government agency wildlife management become "to produce big bucks"? If that's your goal as a private landowner, good for you. Do it on your own land. On a statewide basis, you have to balance the fact that it's a perfectly legitimate goal for some folks to want to shoot a 2.5 year old 8 point. There's more to hunting than big antler envy. I realize that a lot of Ohio residents want to see less of us non-res, and that is a perfectly legitimate concern. But the magnitude that Iowa manages non-residents for the sole purpose of growing big racks is a very disturbing indication of what modern whitetail hunting has become. Have to balance different wants and needs of the consumers, and there is a large contingent that could care less about book entries and shoulder mounts. Count me in that group, and at the proposed price points, I will be headed to WV, so I suppose your wish was granted.

From: JW
24-Jul-17
Elk, calm down. Point is, the vast majority of guys traveling to hunt Ohio ARE hunting for big bucks. I have no hard feelings for someone just out deer hunting for any deer. Point is, there are a lot of options in surrounding states to do just that and cheaper. There is NO control over non res tag allocations, and we have seen a subsequent drop in deer numbers for quite a few years now. I don't want my home state to become the next Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, etc...

From: elk yinzer
24-Jul-17
It's a perfectly legitimate gripe from a stakeholder having purchased 7 or 8 licenses over the years. Some years were planned hunts, which I will probably continue to do every couple years since I've become intimately familiar with a few tracts of public and I don't feel like throwing away that knowledge. Other years, I tagged out and jumped across the border for a weekend or two. Those hunts are a thing of the past with this increase, simply cannot justify the cost.

No hard feelings, just saying, there is a balance to be struck. Just because Iowa or Illinois in my opinion has their priorities all jacked up doesn't make it right for Ohio. Ohio NR licenses were the steal of the century up until the mid 2000's, when the overharvest of does wrecked the herd, not some influx of NR. Like I said, I've been to OH 7 times I can count and shot 2 bucks, both good ones, and not a single doe. I don't think it's nonresidents wrecking the herd. If they want a gradual increase, fine, but I think the magnitude of the increase is what's causing such an outcry.

Personally the bigger factor is that the fishing licenses are due for a large increase as well because I do fish the Western Basin every year, and I can't just pull up shop and go to WV for that obviously.

When you have a single income and a young family, every line item in the budget gets scrutiny. Darn near doubling the cost of my DIY adventures hurts. These increases don't hurt the guys my old man's age who are flocking to OH on outfitted hunts, what's another couple hundred bucks to those guys? Yeah, that is sort of a snowflakey basis for argument, but it's speaking to the depressingly narcissistic pursuit of book entries that hunting has become. It's no longer about meeting my brother, an Ohio resident, and having a good week together for a reasonable price. It's about jacking the price up and seeing how much the guy chasing book entries is willing to pay. The family tradition aspect of hunting has been pissed all over. That underlying aspect of it is what's sickening.

From: Kevin Dill
24-Jul-17
People tend to forget that Ohio has a completely different political and population dynamic vs Illinois, Iowa or Kansas. We've got TWELVE MILLION humans in a fairly small state, and we've got one of the nation's most intensive road systems. Agriculture is absolutely KING of our economy. We are home to many large insurance corporations. Our deer are not managed for hunting alone. They aren't managed to produce the best hunting even. They're managed to compromise all the varying, differing interests of Ohio's residents and businesses. Hunters have a myopic view of deer populations and management...tending to think hunter interests and opinions should count for more than anything else in deciding deer management goals.

.

We all might as well grasp this: Ohio IS going to kill enough (as in a lot of) deer to manage the population and keep it down. It's what farmers and the farm bureau want. It's what the insurance industry wants. It's what a lot of motorists and homeowners want. It may not be what all hunters want. The state wants to attract a LOT of nonresidents and wants them to spend money here plus kill deer. Selling licenses and tags to both nonresident and resident hunters is a huge part of the ODNR's revenue, and the flow of money isn't going to be interrupted. I don't foresee nonresidents being held hostage for very large tag fees. Increases yes....and the hunting will continue.

The guys who think or wish Ohio will manage the deer herd primarily to produce stupendous hunting and great big-buck hunting are going to be disappointed. Ohio deer are going to be pressured and shot as the state will never allow the herd to bulge toward or above 800,000 as it did a good many years back. I'm personally in favor of a lower deer population and have never made a secret of that. Maybe part of it is the 4 deer we've killed with vehicles (most recent back in June by me) and the hundreds we've almost hit but avoided by skill or luck.

25-Jul-17
I have no issues at all With the increase.. love Ohio..

From: Kevin Dill
25-Jul-17
And Ohio loves Colorado, too.

From: mattandersen
31-Jul-17
I am not seeing this increase!?

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/hunting-trapping-and-shooting-sports/hunting-trapping-regulations/licenses-and-permits

From: Kevin Dill
31-Jul-17
I think if you carefully read Kelly's original post and the link he provided it will make more sense. That link is to a story/opinion piece written by Nick Pinizzotto for National Deer Alliance. It indicated a fee increase was approved (it was, but not at the highest level) which isn't exactly accurate. The NR fees didn't make it past the current administration. So it looks like the Deer Alliance / Sportsmen Alliance is irritated with our governor and is making it out to be a political dust-up.

From what I can see there is no immediate increase in NR license or permit fees coming.

From: mattandersen
31-Jul-17
OK ya I didn't read all the threads...

From: LiveOutdoors
01-Aug-17
NR here, i have no problem with the increase as it will not stop me from coming. The hunting is so bad here in VT that I would probably spend $1,000 a tag if I had to. I grew up hunting and have watched my state decimate the deer herd. I have also watched this happen in Ohio. I average one deer in ohio every three years. I could fill my tag every year but I have changed as a hunter. I mostly enjoy seeing deer from the stand. I hear alot of stories though about nr's filling every tags they can. I wish they would adjust the bag limit before its too late.

Reguarding the reciprical licence pricing. I do not think that would work. In many ways it could attract more hunters. Going by Vermonts nr licence fees I would be able to buy a nr ohio archery licence for $75. If i wanted to gun hunt it would be an additional $100. The ODNR would take a loss from some of these northern states.

From: kellyharris
04-Aug-17
LiveOutdoors - we have done the same thing at our lease for 3 years then said a lease member can only fill the county tag amount and that includes guest.

No doe killed unless by youth worked well for us. It only takes 2-3 years of this mentality to see your herd bounce back.

We have not talked about doe harvest this year but I am sure this will be the same as last year of only fill county tag amount per member and that includes guest. So in essence my county allows 3 deer. I can elect to take 3 doe or 1 buck and 2 doe. Well we said Ok 1 doe per lease member and your guest can take 1 doe. If you have guest A take a doe then no more doe for Guest B,C,D etc. We have not put a limit on bucks but our charter says if you kill a buck you must mount it. That excludes youth or adults who have never killed a buck before.

I think our county went to a 2 deer tag, perhaps 3?

If we do it will be one doe per lease member.

As to your statement about Ohio taking a loss from the northern states? I doubt we see a great abundance of hunters from Vermont.

From: Twanger
04-Aug-17
We have also cut way back on the doe harvest. Some years we were taking 13 to 20 does. Now we take 4 or less. Last year may have been zero but for sure 2 or less. I just do not remember. I gave all does a pass last year. The herd is already responding.

From: Ohio Jim
04-Aug-17
The state of Maryland charges tit for tat last time I hunted there on N.R. fees. Recipracle.

From: ronsoutdoors
05-Aug-17
you might want to take a second look there ,lots of Vermonters trek to Ohio every year because of the chance to fill tags . Many hunt the big bucks but many go just to fill tags and bring meat home .

From: Kevin Dill
06-Aug-17
For sure there is not going to be a license fee increase which puts a damper on nonresident deer hunters in Ohio...not anytime soon.

I completely believe those guys who are seeing fewer deer and shooting fewer does. Some counties and certain properties (especially public hunting) have much fewer available deer. On the flip side there are still counties and properties with excess...and I should capitalize that...deer. My neighbor is a farmer and township trustee. We were chatting the other evening and he asked me if I was going to hunt his land. Then he showed me a cell picture of his back field with about 22 does and fawns in it. We laughed and I told him the same thing is happening for me on my farm. It is now common to see deer out moving here all day long. Additionally, my other neighbor just leased his hunting rights to a group of guys from New Jersey and they are apparently busy installing a bunch of automatic feeders and cell-connected game cameras. That's a serious investment by nonresident hunters.

Every year I try to help guys from MI, IN and other surrounding states find access to good deer hunting. The bottom line here where I own land is that our deer population is growing by most accounts and both resident and nonresident hunters are not taking enough to lower the numbers.

From: PECO
06-Aug-17
The Vermont guy said he would pay $1,000. for an Ohio deer tag. Make it so, nonresidents pay $1,000. for a deer tag. So, now if any of you Ohio residents want to hunt another state, you must pay $1,000. Is this what you guys are saying? Be careful what you ask for.

From: Kevin Dill
06-Aug-17
Exactly.

From: buc i 313
07-Aug-17
Believe me I know the old saying of, "Be Careful of What You Ask For"

If a Vermonter, wishes to come here to hunt "for meat" the $1,000. oo example given is an apple to grape example.

Unless the "Vermont Hunter" desires very expensive meat I doubt very seriously we would have too many "Vermont Hunter's" coming here to hunt if the NR fee were $1,000.00

However when you / we look at some other states NR fees (central mid-west to western states) as an example I ask, is it fair to the Ohio, hunter who wishes to hunt that particular state. (inc. Vermont) to pay a much higher NR fee in most states whereas the State of Ohio, charges much less for NR's to hunt ?

The best part about a reciprocal NR fee is,

There is a level hunting field for all. $$$$

GO BUCKS :^}

From: Kevin Dill
08-Aug-17
"However when you / we look at some other states NR fees (central mid-west to western states) as an example I ask, is it fair to the Ohio, hunter who wishes to hunt that particular state. (inc. Vermont) to pay a much higher NR fee in most states whereas the State of Ohio, charges much less for NR's to hunt ?"

.

Serious question: How does raising nonresident fees in Ohio benefit Ohioans?...considering the implication that it's currently not "fair" for Ohio hunters to pay more in another state? Wouldn't such increases simply be a feel-good (to a few) measure which generates more money to be fodder for the state? Where is the direct benefit? I'm really curious now. Trying to figure how dramatically raising NR prices for my out-of-state hunting friends makes things better for me as a resident and a deer hunter.

Wouldn't you better help Ohio hunters (paying higher fees) by convincing those states to lower their prices? Driving hunting costs up....or down. Which do you prefer? The higher the costs for nonresidents to hunt in any state, the more it becomes about money, affordability and restricted (by income) opportunities. Ultimately the lower income hunters are the ones who would lose out, while those with disposable income would not be deterred.

(edit to add:) The point being this would likely only help Ohio propagate what so many already rail against, which is NRs with deeper pockets, more outfitters, more (and pricier) leasing, exclusive hunting rights, and a tendency to reward money...while further reducing opportunities for those who can't or won't spend serious money for great deer hunting, and that probably includes many residents. The net effect very well could be the opposite of a level playing field if you take the time to see where it leads.

;-)

From: buc i 313
08-Aug-17
Kevin,

Since you are really curious now,

Personally I do prefer a reciprocal agreement for hunting fee's. A more level field for the Ohio, hunter. The opportunity for an Ohio, hunter to enjoy his or her hunt in another state for equal money. If State A charges $300.00 for licence and fees then what is the issue with a NR hunter from State A, paying 300.00 in licence and fee's to hunt Ohio. Why is there something wrong / issue with this position ?

In my opinion this would generate more money for the ODNR to provide better management for / of land and enforcement of existing regulations.

I will ask you, do you seriously believe other state's are willing to lower their licence fee's for NR's or Resident's ? We, you and I along with all other hunter's combined could contact / meet with our respective DNR's regarding lowering hunting fee's (esp NR) without receiving any success. IMHO a hopeless endeavor.

The concern for holding prices down is admirable but long past for all of us, as with most things "that cat left the bag a long time ago".

Some would call it progress. :^{

Kevin,

No where have I championed or promoted an increase of fee's for the Resident Hunter in Ohio. The opportunity to hunt Ohio, for all Ohioan's, is paramount and should be provided as cheaply as possible.

This said, with our love of bow hunting and the passion we have, changes become hard to accept.

* Most mid and western states started the higher NR fee's due to immense pressure from the resident hunter's who lobbied for the substantially higher NR fee's.

** I do not wish this post to be argumentative it is just a different point of view

*** Respectful of your position regarding "the opposite of a level playing field" I just happen to reside in another camp. ;^}

GO BUCKS

From: Kevin Dill
09-Aug-17
"If State A charges $300.00 for licence and fees then what is the issue with a NR hunter from State A, paying 300.00 in licence and fee's to hunt Ohio. Why is there something wrong / issue with this position?"

.

Because it provides no justification for the raise. It's just charging them more because their state costs us more. If it accomplishes something which is provably positive...that might be different. So far the only thing it seems likely to do is bring in more money for ODNR but even our conservative governor doesn't think higher fees are the way to solve a budget issue.

It also ignores the fact that....if Ohio really wants to be a magnet for NR deer hunters... the state has a reason NOT to seriously raise NR fees or go with reciprocity. Lower NR fees = better value = more NR hunters who buy everything from licenses to food to lodging to fuel...and much more. If more deer are killed it may be viewed as a very good thing by a lot of people who live here and vote here....although certainly a segment of hunters won't agree. They need to remember the ODNR is charged with managing wildlife for all Ohioans...not just hunters...and that's what they do.

There will be arguments that raising fees won't deter NR hunters but it will on the low end of the income scale. What also WILL happen is the better-heeled hunters will keep paying and showing up. When guys take vacation to travel and hunt...spend $500 or more to hunt a buck...they'll darn sure spend more of their disposable income to employ outfitters or seek exclusive hunting situations. You'll actually promote a non-level and two-tiered hunting field. Residents hunting on the cheap and NRs paying vastly more while trying to lock up the best hunting opportunities possible. They won't be here to shoot does when prices go up severely.

Ultimately....raising prices here in response to higher prices elsewhere is essentially a price war going the wrong way for sportsmen. There's no real fairness in that....even if it's claimed.

All this is offered in the spirit of discussion and understanding. Thanks buc i ......

From: Twanger
09-Aug-17
Kevin, I do not want to change the course of this thread but I am curious as to why your area still has such a high deer population after the period of high numbers of tags. Our area saw a herd reduction of at least 50% which we as landowners supported. What do you think is different in your area? Local hunters hunted our area hard once they had tags and access.

From: buc i 313
09-Aug-17
Kevin, Thank you for the points you give they are well presented.

This said, perhaps you can explain why it is OK for other states to have / charge higher NR fee's than it is for Ohio, to charge the same fee ? Your point of a price war being considered, I do not believe other states give a hoot about what Ohio, charges for NR fee's. Should they receive any complaint (s) they will merely tell their hunter's , we have no control over what Ohio does !

The question begs,

IF and it is a big IF, the other states charge more money for NR hunting the question is, do they (other states) recognize a benefit to their state DNR's and hunting population and outdoor programs more than Ohio ? Apparently the ODNR, is attempting to catch up to these other states with an increase in the NR fee's.

The other side of the big IF is, does Ohio, stand behind or ahead in the issue of NR fee ?

IF the issue was / is to attract more NR's to hunt Ohio, to spend more money thus supporting the local economies, and to better "manage the deer herd" I would be in the opinion that a REDUCTION of NR fee's would be of greater benefit. JMHO

Enjoying this discussion. I was unaware GOV. K, is a hunter :^}

GO BUCKS

From: Kevin Dill
10-Aug-17
Twanger....I can only speculate on why there are so many deer here. I think it has to do with under-harvest frankly. Where I live is in the hills of Jackson county. Most of the properties are rather small and there is a huge variety of habitat. It's not easy to hunt. Access is tougher as landowners say NO to hunters. The trespassing laws have finally taken hold and most hunters know better than to trespass. We have simply outstanding deer habitat in terms of food quality, variety, thick cover (old farms reverting to brush), clearcuts (the timber industry is BACK) and so on. But I think the main thing here is not enough hunters killing enough deer. I've got deer which feed in the nearby field and watch me shoot my bow. They don't sweat it when my 2 dogs give chase. It's common to see 10+ at any moment during prime time and I think the most we saw 2 years ago was 25 one evening in September....with ALL of them being antlerless. They are simply reproducing at a faster rate than they are being killed.

.

We've got plenty of coyotes. What we don't have is a hunting vehicle parked on every wide spot or at most farm gates. Almost nobody comes knocking on my or my neighbor's doors to ask about hunting. Truth: I've been bowhunting deer here since the late 1970's and I still have never had another hunter walk past my treestand. That's many thousands of hours spent hunting with little or no competition. It amazes me. It's like the hordes of hunters from the '80s and '90s dried up and left. Shotgun opener used to sound like a trap shoot. Now I hear a few scattered shots and one every now and then. I know I used to hear at least 10 shots per hour in prime time. Some days I hear NO shots even though I live amongst the deer.

I haven't checked deer limits this year. I live 2.5 miles from Scioto county and 9 miles from Pike county. Both recently had 3 deer limits while Jackson was at 2 deer. I get it...the county line is arbitrary. But still....we had so many deer that ODNR sent a wildlife officer out one evening to evaluate. He saw the damage and he saw the loads of deer. He wrote us a number of deer damage control permits on the spot. Believe it or not, the deer numbers have not dropped an iota in the areas of the county I frequent. I've got a client near Wellston who commonly sees 30-40 deer in the fields near his house. They get hunted, but how do you get control of that many deer? How do you get that many deer around in the first place?

And this takes me back full-circle to believing the ODNR sees every NR as a customer they want to attract. They pay to hunt here and they want to kill deer. ODNR has a mandate to keep deer numbers under control...probably lower than some hunters like. The NR helps achieve the harvest numbers wanted. They put money into our economy....our residents do benefit from that. A drastic fee increase is discouraging for some and I still think Ohio wants to encourage NR hunters by keeping fees lower than other states competing for the NR dollar....and deer kill.

From: BC173
10-Aug-17
Kevin.... it seems as though you are overpopulated with deer. My question would be, why don't the landowners allow hunting? Don't want to start a debate. Just wondering.

From: Twanger
10-Aug-17
Kevin, thanks for the response. We were in the situation you are in right around 2000-2001. I filled every tag I could get including 10 additional in-season harvest permits per year. At first I felt a little guilty because it was so easy. That only lasted about 2 years. Then I had to hunt hard to kill a doe. Others did the same and we got the population down.

Regarding NR hunters I am not supporting any specific position cause I realize that conditions very from one area to another. We are in Coshocton County which is a big draw for NRs looking for a big buck. An outfitter has moved into the area. He controls about 6,000 acres. He wants his hunters to see a lot of deer so he has all but stopped the harvest of does on that property. I know that he has spoken with the wildlife officer about a reduction in permits to help increase the population. I am concerned that we may have trouble with too many does in the future. The outfitter is a nice guy and I hope that if the population gets too high he will help with the doe kill. Of course his hunters are from out of state. I doubt that the price of NR tags would have any impact one way or another on our situation.

From: Kevin Dill
10-Aug-17
BC173....Actually most landowners do allow hunting; they just don't allow the numbers of hunters they used to and in many cases their property is reserved for a family member or two. Second is the economy which is poor here. Property owners are fairly easy targets for leases...especially long-term leases which guarantee low hassle and steady yearly money. I believe another factor is that hunting isn't viewed with the same favor and tolerance it once was. Guys in camo. Guys with guns and other weapons. Guys with ATVs that look like you could conquer the moon. Guys with treestands, ladders, cameras and GEAR. It makes hunting seem less like a comfortable pastime and more like a pseudo-military effort. Reconnaissance....strategy....invade....conquer...gloat. I'm not kidding. The average homeowner has lost their taste for it and isn't sympathetic to hardcore hunters, even while maybe knowing the deer need killed in a big way. "Let them hunt somewhere else".

.

I've helped a LOT of nonresidents come here and find hunting. I want them to be successful. I want fewer deer right here where I live but a family and property can only tolerate so much hunting in a year. I killed a deer with my truck in June. A week later a doe nearly ran into the side of my Harley...missed me by a foot or two. That happened 1/4 mile from my driveway. This morning there were 7 deer milling around my parking area and work equipment....3 were fawns. It never ends. I don't like it but the best remedy seems to be killing as many deer as legally possible here.

From: Kevin Dill
10-Aug-17
Twanger...good thoughts. Obviously an outfitter has one overall objective and that is to have superb hunting for his business clientele. That automatically skews his opinion in favor of more deer and anything which helps business. Most outfitters won't be harmed by a mild NR fee increase...their hunters are already willing to pay to hunt deer. Fee increases won't dissuade the NR guys who are willing to spend some payola for their chance at a big whitey. The only guy it hurts is the dreamer with very limited income who hunts Ohio with a shoestring budget.

From: BC173
10-Aug-17
Thanks for the response Kevin. And I know exactly what you mean.

From: Heritage
15-Dec-17
What is the latest on the potential increase of Non-res fees? I have been on the ODNR website and it looks to me like it is not happening.

From: Ned
16-Dec-17
I think ALL resident and ALL non resident fees in EVERY state are way too high. they're making it too expensive to simply go hunting. It's just hunting for crying out loud, especially when all you have to hunt is public land. The states already make millions in Taxes from sales, corporate taxes and sales, non residents and residents spending money on hunting related items. They get a piece of everything from hunting goods sales, taxidermy, meat care, hotels, food sales, sporting goods, ETC.... It goes on and on. Where does all the money go to they collect from license fees? It certainly doesn't go into more access to public land, or make the public land better for hunting deer. What is the purpose of increasing fees, resident or non resident? I don't see any overpopulation problems of deer on state lands, why are they asking for more money to hunt? And another thing that really ticks me off while I'm at it, If we didn't hunt deer for just one year, there WOULD be a huge overpopulation problem they would have to deal with. They've destroyed so much habitat over the years, that we hunters are the modern day tool to keep the population in sync for what little habitat is left, and then we have to turn around and pay THEM for the right to harvest a deer ? If you ask me , they should be paying us to control the deer population, not us paying them. It's just another tax increase, why don't they go tax people for walking on trails, or riding on trails, or using public land for something besides hunting. And while I'm at it, we pay exuberant fees just for the PRIVELEDGE to hunt. There's no guarantee you'll even shoot a deer.

From: Heritage
16-Dec-17
So, are they going up?

From: pappy
18-Dec-17
when the new regulation booklets come out next year you will see the increase. its already been approved at the top level.

From: Heritage
19-Dec-17
Oh okay. Thank you Pappy.

22-Dec-17
Im glad to see this. I have been hoping for years that the nonresident fees should go up. Ohio has very little public hunting and in my opinion, compared to other states we do not put as much back into conservation as we should. License fees go to conservation of our state so non residents should pay more than the cost of a fancy steak dinner. Personally I would love to see Ohio go to a draw system. It wouldn't have to be a tough draw but at least enough of a draw to prevent groups of 10 non resident hunters coming together and cleaning house on a given property over the course of gun season.

From: Ned
05-Jan-18
If they're goal is to reduce the NR hunters from coming here (is that their goal?) then I suggest eliminating the crossbow from the archery season, and increase the license fee or go to a lottery draw like mentioned. Just increasing the fee isn't going to do it. I don't think they're trying to dissuade the NR from coming here, I think they're just trying to make more money, period.

From: Boris
06-Jan-18
I live within a couple miles of Ohio. I have been hunting there for over 30 yrs. I will still get my license. Reason: Pa. still has it's head up their butts about Sunday hunting. I can only hunt on weekends.

From: Boris
06-Jan-18
Had a problem to take care of. I hunt on 2 farms. The land owners/farmers want the hunting. When and if Pa. opens Sunday hunting, that will put a big dent in the States around Pa. that has Sunday hunting now. Because more people will stay in state to hunt. In the 90's, I would have to save my pennies to go out west. Even to buy my hunting licenses in Pa. and Ohio. An because my wife and I live out in the country, we had to drive 35+ miles one way to work. So, we where getting new cars every 4-5 yrs. Because we would put 125000-150000 miles on them. I think our wildlife dept. need to look at the automobiles they buy. No need for them to have these big trucks an pay 40000-50000 for them. Now that I am retiring in 1 1/2 yrs. from now. I will have more time to hunt. Less income, but will not be spending more on gas. They big think the wildlife depts. need to look at is fewer and fewer young people going out an hunting. The family dynamics has changed over the last 30-40 years. During gun season in Pa. I did not see one kid under 18.

From: X-Master
10-Feb-18
Received verification from the ODNR yesterday. Yes, the prices will be going up this season. It will be $141.50 for the license and $41.00 per deer tag. Sounds reasonable to me. Pa. would follow suit.

From: ankrom
16-Feb-18
I'll gladly pay $141.50 as a NR and $41 per tag

From: BOX CALL
16-Feb-18
If this deal in the works about no bucks off public land till 12/2,doubt if many non residents will pay to hunt does .that goes right thru the week long gun season.

From: LiveOutdoors
16-Feb-18

LiveOutdoors's embedded Photo
LiveOutdoors's embedded Photo
You need to read the proposed rule again. You can kill bucks all season on public. Its not does after 12/2. They didnt write the proposed rule very well but what it means is you can shoot a buck or doe up until the end of the gun season (12/2) and the. Its just buck only on public.

From: BOX CALL
16-Feb-18
It says nothing about an antlered deer all season on public land.only after December 2nd.it says licenses year,then DEC.2nd.its damn confusing.

From: BOX CALL
16-Feb-18
Live outdoors,read the regs carefully.nothing said about killing bucks all season on public land.where is that stated.it isn't.

From: MnM
17-Feb-18
You are thinking too hard an it Box Call ;) Doe only after Dec. 2nd

From: MnM
18-Feb-18
Oops! BUCK only after the 2nd

From: Burly
18-Feb-18
Yep bucks only after Dec.2 is the way I read it.

  • Sitka Gear