# State Auditor Dave Yost suggests Fishing and Hunting License Increases



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

What do ya'll think about this, it doesn't mention resident deer and turkey tags increasing so hopefully they should stay the same....I don't mind up to about $25/year/license for residents (maybe add a few dollars discount for buying both hunting/fishing at the sane time), but I think the non resident fees need to be higher, closer to about three times the resident fees....IMHO. 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...st-suggests-raising-hunting-fishing-fees.html

"Based on that analysis, Yost suggested raising annual fishing licenses to $23 for residents and $48 for out-of-state residents, up from $19 and $40, respectively. Raising the nonresident deer permit from $24 to $38 would raise $254,175 a year, the audit found."


----------



## mkalink (Mar 28, 2010)

Hey I have an idea, let's screw the fishermen and hunters some more. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

Exactly! Screw us more, while not doing any more to help support our rescource! You know the extra money raised will not lead to increased stockings or faculty upgrades just more money in the hands of politicians. As far as no. Residents I agree they need to be raised way more than $48. Take a trip to w.v. And buy a hunting license and deer tag and get back to me on the cost.


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

You go deer hunting, etc. in any other state & license costs will likely be the 3rd highest cost, after gas & lodging. Meanwhile, they come to Ohio, one of the top deer states for well less than a tank of gas .......... I don't freakin' get it.
Went to Iowa pheasant hunting this fall & a one week sportsman's license cost me $125 ; my share of the cabin was $100. Ohio could raise a heck of a lot more on non residents than they do.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree. I wonder if they've ever thought about a non resident deer and turkey tag? It could cost 3 times as much and out of state guys will still pay it, because in the over all expense of it, that's still cheap.

And to add, raising the campground prices is ridiculous. I've found a lot of them are already higher than private campgrounds, and have less services and more restrictions.

To quote Mr. Tonkavich's remarks about the deer herd, when I look at their overall budget, I can see places where "they need to use a meat clever instead of a scalpel".


----------



## Shaun69007 (Sep 2, 2009)

I would say jump non resident a bunch. i am sick in tired of having to pay to play when it comes to hunting paying 30 bucks an acre when i used to be able to hunt for free. the GD out of staters are buying us residents out of the sport.


----------



## squid_1 (Jun 2, 2005)

Non residents pricing needs raised I agree. They are all ready leasing up everything they can. Just check around AEP. During archery season you will see more non residents hunting than residents.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

They last raised fishing licenses in 2004 from $15 to $19. It still would be a hell of a deal. I would support a small raise for residents. 
What would they do with the extra money?


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Raise 'em. Been too long. The money pot is running low and has not been adjusted for inflation and other operational cost increases. Trust me, you will almost never hear me saying that about taxes. This is different.


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

If I remember correctly, the last time they raised the cost of licenses all the money was guaranteed to stay in the ODNR budget to use for the improvements of our lakes and public hunting grounds. And I know the state has done a lot of improvements to our lakes over the past few years. I'm all for increasing the rates for licenses if this is the reason for the hike. In this article, Yost only refers to increasing revenues and there's no mention of any of the money to be used towards improving our natural resources. There was also mention of increasing the fees for state campground sites and cabins. If his intentions are to put these increases in the general state budget fund, then I would be opposed to them. The proposal is now supposed to go to the senate for discussion. So I guess we'll have to wait and see which direction this goes.


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

Just to stir the pot ; There are those of us old enough to remember when all the monies raised from licenses,etc. went into a dedicated pot for only use by the ODNR / DOW. In the late 70's, Governor Gilligan (if I remember correctly), raided the fund for other usage and the rules were changed that then put those revenues into the general fund to be divided amongst other departments as well. A department that ran in the black forever, has run in the red ever since. Not a big supporter of fee increases due to the fact we get pennies on the dollar in return.


----------



## shwookie (Jun 15, 2007)

T-180 said:


> Just to stir the pot ; There are those of us old enough to remember when all the monies raised from licenses,etc. went into a dedicated pot for only use by the ODNR / DOW. In the late 70's, Governor Gilligan (if I remember correctly), raided the fund for other usage and the rules were changed that then put those revenues into the general fund to be divided amongst other departments as well. A department that ran in the black forever, has run in the red ever since. Not a big supporter of fee increases due to the fact we get pennies on the dollar in return.


Yeah, i'd be ok paying more if it went to the proper resources.


----------



## James F (Jul 2, 2005)

I'm not opposed to raises as long as the money goes to the same, ODNR. etc. We fund our activities, and as long as that remains the same, We benefit.


----------



## Parrothead Jim (Apr 7, 2004)

The cost of the resident fishing license in Ohio is a bargain. Other states are way more money and you have to buy a stamp to fish for certain species and different areas. For one cost in Ohio you can fish for anything and anywhere.


----------



## RedJada (Jun 21, 2009)

Parrothead Jim said:


> The cost of the resident fishing license in Ohio is a bargain. Other states are way more money and you have to buy a stamp to fish for certain species and different areas. For one cost in Ohio you can fish for anything and anywhere.


 I agree with jim and others. But were all wondering where the extra money will go. I'd like to see it go to enforcing the water ways and forest. Put more DNR officers out there writing tickets for trash and non licensed people.


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

T-180 said:


> Just to stir the pot ; There are those of us old enough to remember In the late 70's, Governor Gilligan (if I remember correctly), raided the fund for other usage


What a joke he was! He closed the Metro Parks and then he charged the public a $1.00 parking fee for the State Parks. That doesn't seem like a lot, but that would probably be the equivalent of $5.00 now. Luckily for all of us, he got voted out faster than he got voted in!


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

I agree with raising non residents fees significantly, but the state will not do that for fear of loosing revenue in other areas. As far as the leasing thing goes, I would like to see the state receive a fee for this as well, you wanna come here from another state and lease a piece of property to hunt you're gonna pay!


----------



## flytyer (Jan 3, 2005)

If I read it right, a non resident Michigan all species fishing license is $42.00
Pennsylvania Non resident with a trout, salmon and Lake Erie $67.40
West Virginia Non Resident $66.00 including a conservation stamp and a trout stamp.
Kentucky $60.00 for non resident
Indiana $46.00 for non resident.

I guess my point here is if Ohio wants to raise more money, maybe they need to charge the non-residents the same fee their state would charge us to hunt or fish in their state. 
This BS of not wanting to raise non-resident fees is a bunch of crap!!! If these people want to hunt or fish over here bad enough they will pay the price!
I don't care if they raise the price of a resident license a few dollars, but jack up these non-resident license fees to what other states charge us!


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

I agree with the others if the raised fees actually go to the ODNR. A reciprocal agreement with other states is also a good idea. Iowa and Ohio are pretty much the same on fishing fees. Iowa is $19 resident $41 non resident. 

The deer hunting thing and land leasing is a huge battle that we in Iowa share with you guys. (both Iowa and Ohio have some of the best trophy hunting in the US)

The states can't control what someone is willing to charge or pay for a lease on "Private Property" and the people with the deep pockets are the ones who kick out the locals from being able to hunt due to the cost of leasing prime land for deer and turkey. 

There is something to be said for the other revenue that out of state hunters and fishermen contribute to when visiting other states. This is a multi billion dollar industry all over the US. The land owner's who charge for hunting lease should be taxed heavily for doing this, I agree. But one thing will never change is many are all about the almighty dollar! I'm very fortunate that I've got some fantastic land to hunt that does have a nice trophy population. I'm not a trophy hunter and am happy to take a doe or two per year. I don't pay anything to hunt any land here. I have however been kicked out of some great places here to hunt that were leased right from under us many times. It sucks!!!!

I personally hold annual fishing licenses in several states. Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and this year South Dakota. I fish several lakes here in Iowa mostly for tournaments. Ohio I only fish Erie one or two times a year now. I use to fish Erie up to 5 or 6 times a year. (getting older and falling apart) Erie is a hard trip on us as it's about a 13 hour drive each way. Yes it's worth it to fish on the greatest walleye fishery in the world IMO.

I've got a lake home in MN that I love going to and keep my boat on the water when I'm there.

South Dakota has the Missouri River system that is from what I've been hearing getting pretty hard to beat for numbers of walleye. Size is improving quite a bit as well. 

I really don't think any of us disagree with raising annual license fees just as long as it goes to the right place, the DNR of any state that the fees are charged in. 

Great topic!


----------



## Bwana J (Sep 12, 2010)

flytyer said:


> If I read it right, a non resident Michigan all species fishing license is $42.00
> Pennsylvania Non resident with a trout, salmon and Lake Erie $67.40
> West Virginia Non Resident $66.00 including a conservation stamp and a trout stamp.
> Kentucky $60.00 for non resident
> ...




+1. I've said this for years, it's time.....


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

flytyer said:


> Kentucky $60.00 for non resident
> Indiana $46.00 for non resident.


I was going to look this up because I wasn't sure of IN and KY's non-resident fees, but I had a feeling someone else would post it first, thanks.

Raise the non-resident fee to $60. The $40 for non-residents now is a joke. If they raise the resident fee to $23 I have no issue with it as long as the money goes back into ODNR to improve fishing. If they're just raising the fees as a way to generate general funds for the state, I'm not for it. ....and, If they raise resident fees, how bout a 3 pole limit so the catfish anglers and other livebait danglers don't feel like they're being screwed over. Dana.Birrell where are you??? LOL...


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

Estrong, Iowa started charging I think $12 for having a 3rd rod, this is also a great idea. If I'm fishing 2 people having 6 rods can cover the water column much better than with 4. What sucks is Minnesota only allows 1 rod per angler. They need to do something like this as well even for a second rod I'd be happy, rather than to have just one per person.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

All for raising the License fees $6-$10 if the money was guaranteed to go to the DNR.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

As others have said, so long as it is WRITTEN INTO LAW that the increased fishing/ hunting license fees go directly to and ONLY to ODNR, fine by me. YES, non resident fees should increase...and NO to a Park entry fee ! I am NOT willing to pay $5 every time I want to enter the Park...I used to practically LIVE at Buck Creek ! It would be much cheaper for me in the long run to just pay rent monthly...


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

Lowell H Turner said:


> As others have said, so long as it is WRITTEN INTO LAW that the increased fishing/ hunting license fees go directly to and ONLY to ODNR, fine by me. YES, non resident fees should increase...and NO to a Park entry fee ! I am NOT willing to pay $5 every time I want to enter the Park...I used to practically LIVE at Buck Creek ! It would be much cheaper for me in the long run to just pay rent monthly...


Many of the parks in Iowa and many other states belong to the Corps of Engineers. There is an annual permit you can buy for like $30 per year allowing you access and use of all facilities including the boat ramps. Don't know about the parks you go to but might be worth looking into.

This $30 fee per year is for any Corps of Engineers owned park across the USA. All states included. Not a bad deal.


----------



## afishinfool (Feb 1, 2014)

Here is a thought..we (OGF) are a major voting block in the state or could be. I dont know "who" to write to in public office but would be willing to flood that office with letters in support of the ideas you guys have put forth.


----------



## FISHIN 2 (Jun 22, 2005)

The bottom line is Ohio needs money. Don't mind paying an increase BUT, let the non-residents pay their fair share, just look back to each state and see how they're treating us as non-residents in their state, then gouge them accordingly !!! Everyone that hunts or fishes needs to adapt to a higher fee but not all at one time as I'm sure it is needed to keep our outdoors in check as long as that's where it goes. I'm done.


----------



## tandem (Apr 20, 2004)

To make everyone happy, they let the new fees go to odnr. Then figure out what that amount will be and take that out of the next year budget. Their get the money either through the front door or the back door. Need it to keep funding their pork projects on the side. 
We still have pretty good here, don't have to pay to enter most parks and use them. As you do in many other states. 
The fees need to stay with odnr. Be nice to see more stocking in some of the lakes, too add some new genies to the old.


----------



## DiverDux (May 19, 2012)

flytyer said:


> I guess my point here is if Ohio wants to raise more money, maybe they need to charge the non-residents the same fee their state would charge us to hunt or fish in their state.
> 
> I don't care if they raise the price of a resident license a few dollars, but jack up these non-resident license fees to what other states charge us!


My sentiments exactly!


----------



## seasick Steve (Apr 16, 2011)

I live in PA. I dock my boat in conneaut harbor. My non resident ohio license costs about the same as my resident PA license. I enjoy walleye and perch in the big lake and steelhead in the streams. do i want to pay more for my license ? no. would i pay more for a non resident license to enjoy the great fishing opportunities in ohio ? yes. i will pay whatever is required.

it would probably be a good idea to keep the one day licenses reasonable so the one time a year guys booking a charter won't be deterred. don't want to hurt the charter captains.


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

seasick Steve said:


> I live in PA. I dock my boat in conneaut harbor. My non resident ohio license costs about the same as my resident PA license. I enjoy walleye and perch in the big lake and steelhead in the streams. do i want to pay more for my license ? no. would i pay more for a non resident license to enjoy the great fishing opportunities in ohio ? yes. i will pay whatever is required.
> 
> it would probably be a good idea to keep the one day licenses reasonable so the one time a year guys booking a charter won't be deterred. don't want to hurt the charter captains.


If they had one license for sale say $25 bucks or so for fishing anywhere from 1-10 days that would cover anyone doing a once a year trip. As it stands to get just a 3 day I believe is only $15 less than buying an annual. So a guy staying a week still has to buy the annual. I'll still buy the annual as I will fish at least two trips per year on lake Erie.


----------



## Heroonk (Aug 26, 2007)

If you go to a state park in mich,you get charged a non res. fee. If a mich. resident comes to a ohio state park they are free. In the summer there are more mich. non residents than people from ohio.


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm not into "gouging" non residents as I have a lot of family that come to OH to fish-hunt, and I go to their states as well. 

If each state goes out of it's way to "gouge" the non residents, their going to start affecting tourism dollars.....

For example, I doubt most of the Myrtle Beach vacationers on here would appreciate a $100 or so non resident beach fishing license that was ENFORCED....

I'd say raise them mildly on everybody and raise the sales tax on hunting/fishing products in OH.


----------



## kayak1979 (Jul 13, 2014)

I went to the UP in Michigan last summer to fish. I not only had to pay the non resident fishing license ($30 for 72 hours), but just to be able to park at the launch ramp at the Tahquamenon river I had to purchase a Recreation passport for non resident vehicles at $31 which is good for one year. Also, a $1 sport card was purchased as a requirement to be able to buy the license.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

tandem said:


> To make everyone happy, they let the new fees go to odnr. Then figure out what that amount will be and take that out of the next year budget. Their get the money either through the front door or the back door. Need it to keep funding their pork projects on the side.


Exactly how the lottery money ends up in the general fund instead of the schools.

It's my opinion the ODNR needs to learn more with less, just like the rest of us. Consider this. In 2013 (the newest budget overview I can find) they had 1,597 full time and 1,113 part time and seasonal staff members. Let's divide 1113 by 2 to come up with about 556 full time positions. Add that 556 to 1597 and you get 2153, divide that by 88 counties, and you get over 24 ODNR employees per county. I have a hard time believing they are all hard at work.


----------



## flytyer (Jan 3, 2005)

bad luck said:


> I'm not into "gouging" non residents as I have a lot of family that come to OH to fish-hunt, and I go to their states as well.
> 
> If each state goes out of it's way to "gouge" the non residents, their going to start affecting tourism dollars.....
> 
> ...



Nobody here is saying to "gouge" the non-residents! Other states obviously don't have a problem with jacking up their fees on non-residents!
But if I go and fish in say Penn and have to pay over $60.00 for a license, why should they be allowed to come to Ohio and only pay $40.00? 
Fair is Fair? Like I said, charge what their home state charges us.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

I Fish said:


> Exactly how the lottery money ends up in the general fund instead of the schools.
> 
> It's my opinion the ODNR needs to learn more with less, just like the rest of us. Consider this. In 2013 (the newest budget overview I can find) they had 1,597 full time and 1,113 part time and seasonal staff members. Let's divide 1113 by 2 to come up with about 556 full time positions. Add that 556 to 1597 and you get 2153, divide that by 88 counties, and you get over 24 ODNR employees per county. I have a hard time believing they are all hard at work.


Your numbers match what I found in this link http://media.obm.ohio.gov/OBM/Budge...ok/Section-E_Natural+Resources+Department.pdf

And while your numbers match what I found in the link I provided, I don't necessarily agree with your extrapolation of the part time and seasonal staff numbers, and their correlation to the number of full time employees. But for sake of not arguing, let's say that they do.

Counting the Division of Wildlife, there are at least 12 departments or divisions of the Department of Natural Resources. A list of the departments or divisions can be obtained by viewing the drop down menu on the Department of Natural Resources web site, under the heading, Ohio DNR.

So using the same math used to come up with the number of DNR workers per county, we divide 24 by 2, and come up with 2 workers per department of division, per county. That includes heads of divisions, office personnel, maintenance workers, field officers, etc ...

Now I'm not saying every county has all of those divisions active within them, but come on .... you're making it sound as if every employee of the Department of Natural Resources is employed in the Division of Wildlife. And they're not. 

I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just trying to be fair. I happen to be one that thinks the state is doing a pretty good job, with the limited funding they receive. If you look at the link I provided you'll see 2012 and 2013 funding were down from 2011 funding. 

In researching Ohio 2014 - 2015 budget I see that ODNR funding is to increase 29.5% over that of 2013 - 2014. That should bring ODNR funding above what it was in 2011. That should mean good things for sportsman.

As to the prevalent topic of this thread, I'd have no problem paying a little more for a fishing license if it means higher funding for the Division of Wildlife.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Bassbme said:


> In researching Ohio 2014 - 2015 budget I see that ODNR funding is to increase 29.5% over that of 2013 - 2014. That should bring ODNR funding above what it was in 2011. That should mean good things for sportsman.


Let me put it another way. Their budget increased 20.5% from 2010 to '11, dropped 14% from '11 to '12, then increased again from '12 to '13 by 5.3%. That's an 11.8% increase in 3 years. Now, by your numbers, an additional 29% for this year. Leaving out '13 to '14 numbers, as I can't seem to find them, that's almost a 41% increase in 5 years. How many private entities have enjoyed that kind of growth here in Ohio? How many Ohioans have that kind of income growth?

Yet another way. $311,943,000 divided by 88 counties is over $3,500,000 per county.


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

Raise the license fees. I also think you should raise the fine for people who violate the law by choosing to not have one.


----------



## dennis78 (Mar 15, 2012)

i would like to see a report every year that shows where the money go. and charge out of state more money . cannot take my grand kids fishing if thay donot use or money older fisherman any why do we hafe to be born before 1937 to get fish free that why there are fewer fishermen today


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

To add, the real problem is "Use or Lose". If any agency doesn't use all of their budget, it gets cut the following year. This breeds a culture of waste, as no agency wants their budget cut, therefore, they have no incentive to save money, but quite the opposite. Have you noticed, every agency spends all of their money, down to the last penny? ODNR is no different.

Also to add, in 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013, ODNR spent $0 (zero dollars) on wildlife habitat. $1.9 million in '08, and $1.4 million in '11. So, out of $1.8 Billion with a huge B, they only spent $3.3 million on wildlife habitat. That's less then 1/20th of a penny per dollar, or, about 1 cent for every $5 dollars of their spent budget.

To be fair, let's look at only the DoW. Out of $373,000,000, in the same time frame, they spent less than .009, or, less then 9/10ths of a penny per dollar on habitat.

And you're right, Bassbme. DoW is only about 1/3 of ODNR's budget. So that "only" comes to about $1,167,000 per county.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

I Fish, I'm glad we're keeping it civil, and I really didn't expect it not to be. But my numbers and your numbers aren't jiving. The 2010 budget for ODNR was approximately 285,799,000. The budget for 2014 was approximately 329,642,000, or approximately a 15.4% increase over 2010 spending. DNR's 2015 budget is approximately 334,298,000 or a roughly a 17% increase over 2010 levels. 

The 29.4 increase to DNR's budget was an increase in funding from General Fund monies only, as that was the funding that everyone seemed to be speaking of. I should have clarified that. My apologies. 

There is break down for the funding of every division that falls under The Department of Natural Resources in the link I provided. As for the numbers I quoted for other years, you can find them here http://obm.ohio.gov/Budget/operating/fy12-13_executive.aspx That link will give you numbers all the way back to 2006.

I tell ya what .... they really streamlined the process of finding information within the budget in the last couple of years. I pulled up Ohio's operating budgets from 2008-2009, and 2010-2011, and had to search back as many as 750 pages to find the information I was looking for.

Also, in your last post you used the figure of "about 1/3" of ODNR's budget goes to The Division of Wildlife. ODNR's 2014 budget was approximately 329,542,000. Of that, 67,257,842 went to the Division of Wildlife. That would put the Division of Wildlife share of ODNR's total budget at roughly 20%. 


While agree that it is deplorable that more money wasn't spent on wildlife habitat over the years you quoted, you're using the total budget of ODNR over those years to come up with the 1.8 billion you quoted. Money for wildlife habitat comes out of the Division of Wildlife's budget. Their budget over the years you mentioned, as well as for the year 2011, totals $292,289,000. So it's really more like a penny on the dollar. 

As I said in my post prior to this one. I'm not looking to argue. I'm just interested in using accurate numbers. 

One things for sure. The lack of spending on wildlife habitat is troubling, and what you mentioned about each agency spending their entire budget possibly leading to wasteful spending is spot on. If you notice in the expenditure charts some of the pages in the link show. The expenditures match the budgets, exactly.


Oh well ..... let's just hope that if they do raise license fees, the money goes to the division of wildlife.

It's been interesting and enlightening.


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

From what I've gathered here, all of us are just talking about fishing licenses correct? ODNR might want to look into non-resident hunting permits and stamps and maybe bounce those up a few bucks compared to what the states around us charge for non-residents.

I also think it's a joke that a non-Ohio resident can visit our state parks and not have to pay a fee when there are several states close by that charge a fee for non-residents just to enter. And we're not even talking about fishing or hunting yet, just entering another state's park system.

Ohio DNR needs to take a long hard look at OUR limited resources and make sure Ohio residents are FIRST on the list of priorities here. If the hunting and fishing is good people will come from out of state regardless of the cost. It won't hurt tourism at all. A lot of us on here fish or hunt in other states because we can do well there and we know the cost is worth it.

Putting Ohio residents first and charging non-residents along the same lines as other states do would be a good first step.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

I'm glad that someone broached the "use it or lose it" aspect of governmental budgeting. It's an absolute abomination, and needs to be exposed. This goes way back to the Reagan administration (and maybe to administrations before that), who tried to introduce "Zero Based Budgeting" into the process. Sorry, don't mean to be political, but facts are facts. Zero Based Budgeting would require government bureaucracies to justify their funding requests from dollar one on up, whereas the current model in force, Current Services Baseline budgeting, allows those bureaucracies to start from the total amount of money they spent last year, and go up from there. 

CSB budgeting also allows the big lie of governmental agencies "cutting spending". Here's how "Washingtonspeak" works. Let's say you're in charge of a government agency that spent $100 Mill last year. For your next budget year you request $110 Mill since you expect an "automatic" 10% increase in your budget every year! Wouldn't you like that in your paycheck? But, instead of $110 Mill you get $105 Mill. Well then, this allows you to claim that you have "cut spending" by $5 Mill! What a wonderful world! You're spending $5 Mill more than last year, yet you have cut spending! Lovely!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Bassbme said:


> Also, in your last post you used the figure of "about 1/3" of ODNR's budget goes to The Division of Wildlife. ODNR's 2014 budget was approximately 329,542,000. Of that, 67,257,842 went to the Division of Wildlife. That would put the Division of Wildlife share of ODNR's total budget at roughly 20%.
> 
> 
> 2011, totals $292,289,000. So it's really more like a penny on the dollar.
> ...


You're right, I had a bit of a brain fart there concerning the 1/3 of total. That should have said 1/5.

Concerning the $292M number. I added the total's available for 2008 through '13. I just rechecked, and it does indeed add up to $372,857,604 total money spent by DoW in that time frame. It's the second to last line totals on page D-403.




buckeyebowman said:


> broached the "use it or lose it" aspect of governmental budgeting. It's an absolute abomination, and needs to be exposed. This goes way back to the Reagan administration (and maybe to administrations before that), Sorry, don't mean to be political, but facts are facts.


Actually, it's called Baseline Budgeting, and it's beginning is the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Notice how much bigger Government has become in the time since? I'm not sure why Reagan seems to often get the blame. He was Governor of California at the time. 

Other than that, everything else is accurate. I think politicians are afraid to broach the subject, as they would then lose support of ALL government employees. These same employees would then likely use the famous "National Parks Ploy" against that candidate to scare the public into thinking they are going to lose all of their "free" government services. A lot like ODNR has done getting people to believe if we don't pay more, we will get less in return.


----------



## Weekender#1 (Mar 25, 2006)

Let's be careful on openly supporting charging out of state vehicles to enter Ohio state parks, think about it, that will open the gates to charge us all to drive through a state park. And Yes residents of Michigan do pay also to visit their own state parks, they are charged an extra $10.00 for a sticker on the license plate so if a guy has 2/3 vehicles that is 20-30 bucks a year to visit parks as a resident in Michigan. 
The increase in license fee's are a money grab, do you think "gouging" non residents will increase the tax base, running off the cash cows, that would be a great move, duh. 
Ohio folks are not going anywhere, we are trapped, we love to fish and hunt and will pay the tax increase. That is all this is, a tax increase. 
Like Law Enforcement nearly appologizes when issuing a BS ticket (seat belt, speed) but it is just a tax, and WE MUST PAY, the captain needs a new pair of shoes.
Heck they are raising the Ohio Tax on cigarettes again a dollar a pack, Obama is raising the Federal Tax on cigarettes a dollar a pack. Why does that go through, most people do not smoke and laugh saying "do it I don't smoke". Well that way of thinking has come to roost at the sportsman level. 
I do not smoke by the way.


----------



## steelneyes2 (Jul 19, 2011)

Okay so if we read the original article, the proposed changes to the hunting and fishing permits would generate around 1.7 million in additional annual revenue. Given the numbers of their total budget, license and permit fees are a very small part of the overall ODNR budget. Any discussions of real change coming about due to these monies is pretty moot. The overall discussion is a valid one, but let's not be so convinced that our $19 or $25 license is really doing much at all compared to the monies that come from the general fund, paid by everyone in the state whether they participate or not. 
Furthermore, to equate all the monies budgeted, with too many employees, does not speak to overall needs to run any organization. The tools to do the job also have a cost that has increased greatly over the past 5 years. Fuel prices, vehicles, almost everything we see in our own lives has become more expensive. 
To those excited by the idea of implementing vehicle fees in state parks, imagine the 10's of millions that would be spent studying, planning and installing gates, employing people to attend them and then paying the profit of the private contractor that would ultimately provide the employees to maintain them and I doubt there'd be any money going back into the parks for years. 
Just my $19 opinion for now, wouldn't hurt me to pay the proposed $23 either. Just no convinced that tiny amount of money could really do anything. It would pretty much put license fees in line with inflation over the last 10 years.


----------



## SteelEyes (Jul 1, 2013)

steelneyes2 said:


> Okay so if we read the original article, the proposed changes to the hunting and fishing permits would generate around 1.7 million in additional annual revenue. Given the numbers of their total budget, license and permit fees are a very small part of the overall ODNR budget. Any discussions of real change coming about due to these monies is pretty moot. The overall discussion is a valid one, but let's not be so convinced that our $19 or $25 license is really doing much at all compared to the monies that come from the general fund, paid by everyone in the state whether they participate or not.
> Furthermore, to equate all the monies budgeted, with too many employees, does not speak to overall needs to run any organization. The tools to do the job also have a cost that has increased greatly over the past 5 years. Fuel prices, vehicles, almost everything we see in our own lives has become more expensive.
> To those excited by the idea of implementing vehicle fees in state parks, imagine the 10's of millions that would be spent studying, planning and installing gates, employing people to attend them and then paying the profit of the private contractor that would ultimately provide the employees to maintain them and I doubt there'd be any money going back into the parks for years.
> Just my $19 opinion for now, wouldn't hurt me to pay the proposed $23 either. Just no convinced that tiny amount of money could really do anything. It would pretty much put license fees in line with inflation over the last 10 years.


If you look at the 2012 numbers (which is what I could find on short notice, but should hold proportionally), License and permit sales made up 63% of the Division of Wildlife's budget. Granted you noted ODNR, but it seems no one really understands that wildlife funds itself separate from the rest of the ODNR. And the Division of Wildlife effectively takes no funds from the General Fund. It's mainly licenses & permits, fines, stamps, donations, the federal Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson sporting goods excise tax rebates (25%). So that $1.7 million you calculated could be a very big deal if they see a reduction in funding from other areas.

http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/2012annualreport.pdf


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> If I read it right, a non resident Michigan all species fishing license is $42.00


Non-resident Michigan license to fish all species was changed from $42.00 to $75.00. Now that...is an increase. 

Non-resident hunting damn near tripled...from $59 to $150 for a "base license." 

The State has since backed off the non-resident fishing to $68 for this year. 

I've read with complete and utter disbelief some of the comments, many that were echoed here: "To hell with the non-residents...make 'em pay more..."

In a State that gets so much of its annual revenue from tourism, I just don't understand why they would want to gouge the out of stater so much? Obviously it hurt their pocketbook, otherwise they would have NEVER decreased the fishing license, and the fact that they did it so quickly tells me that the gouging of non-residents was an EPIC FAIL. 

The Lake Huron salmon fishery crashed some 10+ years ago. The Lake Michigan salmon fishery is crashing right now. What was their answer? Charge people more money to fish for fish that aren't there. Brilliant. They didn't get my fishing dollars but ONE time this year, and that was for a $10.00 daily license for a trip out of SSP with a good friend on short notice. 

Lake-side communities depend on tourism dollars. The walleye generates a helluva lot of dollars for this State. Ohio got it right...raise the fee, but only a little bit. Don't run off your best paying customers by gouging them for a license.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

I Fish said:


> You're right, I had a bit of a brain fart there concerning the 1/3 of total. That should have said 1/5.
> 
> Concerning the $292M number. I added the total's available for 2008 through '13. I just rechecked, and it does indeed add up to $372,857,604 total money spent by DoW in that time frame. It's the second to last line totals on page D-403.
> 
> ...


I Fish, I went back and re-read my post, and I have to admit it was very poorly written. Thank you for pointing it out, as it could be interpreted that I was blaming Reagan for "Current Services Baseline" budgeting, a term I did cite in a following paragraph. What I meant to say is that Reagan tried to get the Federal government to adopt "Zero Based" budgeting during his administration, but the idea hit a brick wall in Congress.

FWIW, I've kind of been expecting a price increase for licenses for the past few years. Consider how the cost of fishing tackle and hunting gear has gone up! As long as the ODNR and DOW get their fair share I'm not averse to a modest increase. That being said, I really think some adjustments need to be made for out of state licenses, particularly hunting licenses and tags.

A case in point, mine. I belong to a fish & game club just across the state line in PA., so I've been buying PA non-res hunting and fishing licenses for the past few years. A PA non-res fishing license costs me $52.70, and a trout stamp costs $9.70, for a total of $62.40. There is also a Lake Erie stamp if you want to fish the PA waters of Lake Erie for another $9.70. 

A PA non-res hunting license costs me $101.70, but it's a package. You get your basic license, your "buck" tag, fall turkey tag and spring gobbler tag. That's not too bad, but here is where it gets interesting. If I want to archery hunt, it's another tag. $16.70 for res, $26.70 for me! If I want to muzzleloader hunt, it's another tag. $11.70 for res, $21.70 for me! If I want an antlerless tag I have to enter a drawing, as do residents (no OTC). $6.70 for res, $26.70 for me! And, if I want to hunt bear, it's $16.70 for res, $36.70 for me! 

Yet, Ohio allows non-resident hunters to buy deer tags OTC at the same price as residents. I can't think of another state that does that! Who knows? Maybe that figured into the DOW's "herd reduction" strategy, but that's another topic. It's certainly something I'd like to see dealt with, and I would not be amenable to a license increase for Ohio residents that left out non-residents!


----------



## kritterkare (Jul 30, 2014)

I am not a full time resident of Ohio and have a full year resident of Colorado and non resident for Ohio, I agree with people saying all fees should be for wildlife management but can not understand the people being very upset about a modest increase and expect out of staters to pay a big increase instead.

We are talking less then 30 dollars not a big deal for a year of fishing access and harvest for those that keep fish. In Colorado I was about getting upset that the license prices had stayed the same for so many years and some of the waters had started to seem to be fishing worse, not sure if for a lack of funding or pollution or natural ups and downs.

Colorado has a lot of revenue for out of state hunters and fishers, mainly trout, deer and elk and I have seen past debates about raising non resident fishing licenses and the census was out of state fishers bring in lots of money but out of state hunters do pay a premium. 

Here resident fishing is 26.00 and combo fish and small game is 41.00 and nonresident fishing is 56.00 I think the idea is more families vacation together vs. go on hunting trips
R NR
Elk, Cow &#8203;$ 46	&#8203;$ 461
&#8203;Elk, Bull or Either Sex	&#8203; $ 46	&#8203;$ 616
&#8203;Deer	&#8203; $ 31	&#8203;$ 371&#8203;
&#8203;Moose	&#8203; $ 251	&#8203;$ 2,061
&#8203;Pronghorn, &#8203; $ 31	&#8203;$ 371
Bear&#8203; $ 41	&#8203;$ 351 

So being a resident the only reason I would want to see a large increase is if it keeps more people off of the water and or increases the quality fishing I will pay either way because it is worth it to me. 
What we have seen and is sifferent from Ohio is we pay to get in to the state parks and it has gone up a lot in a short time, 70.00 a year per vehicle, I can get a years pass to all National Parks in the US for 80.00 which I buy one because I am less the ten minutes from RMNP.
As far as State Parks they keep the lakes stocked pretty well with walleye bass and trout though some are failing it is still worth it to me for the opportunities Colorado has to offer so less then 200.00 it is worth it so long as it is not used to support other parts of Govt. not related to the outdoor sports.
Each license has a 25 cent fee for a search and rescue fund that some complained about but if a person gets lost hiking or has to be rescued off of a mountain it is good because millions are spent every year so the 25 cent charge or buying a safety card for 3.00 a year or 12.00 for 5 years is well worth it for taxpayers and the individual. 

It is up to us to make sure our money goes where it is supposed to go and our natural resources are very much in politics and corruption.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Does anybody know if they've suggested raising the greens fees at the 6 golf courses owned by ODNR? Actually, why does ODNR own 6 golf courses may be a better question. 

http://parks.ohiodnr.gov/golf


----------



## kritterkare (Jul 30, 2014)

I Fish said:


> Does anybody know if they've suggested raising the greens fees at the 6 golf courses owned by ODNR? Actually, why does ODNR own 6 golf courses may be a better question.
> 
> http://parks.ohiodnr.gov/golf


HAHA, well you have a great point there


----------



## Weekender#1 (Mar 25, 2006)

Hey Buckeyebowman you left something out in the prices of Ohio licenses, Small Game tag 19.00 resident 150.00 non resident. This is required to get a deer tag so a deer tag costs a resident 43.00 and 174.00 for a non resident.


----------



## G3guy (Feb 21, 2013)

Weekender#1 said:


> Hey Buckeyebowman you left something out in the prices of Ohio licenses, Small Game tag 19.00 resident 150.00 non resident. This is required to get a deer tag so a deer tag costs a resident 43.00 and 174.00 for a non resident.


What's the point of your post?


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

kritterkare said:


> HAHA, well you have a great point there


Actually, here's a novel idea. I'd guess the Ohio Dept. of *Natural Resources* must consider golf courses a natural resource. Why else would they own 6? Actually, I should say why do they require "us" to own 6, but I digress. It only makes sense then that they'd require you to buy a golf license. It should be just like a hunting or fishing license, and cost the same amount. You could golf on your own property without one, but otherwise it should be required. Right? If you wanted to golf in certain areas, or, at certain times, you'd need to buy an extra permit, just like deer or turkeys. Makes perfect sense to me, and man oh man, what a fund raiser. 

They could sell that as a permit, and use the money to restore the wildlife habitat that is otherwise lost. No, wait, they don't spend any money on habitat. Oh well, but that's ok, to pay for the golf courses, ODNR will just raise the fee on the rest of us for using something ODNR don't own. Send them a bill for the time spent cleaning up your garbage the ***** spread out, or the hole in your attic the squirrels chewed, or, the totaled car from a deer. See how far that gets. Get caught shooting one out of "their" season, or without "their" license, and see who pays... It's funny, farmers don't sell licenses, but if you hit a farmers cow, the farmer pays........Maybe I'll become a golf poacher, lol.


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

I Fish said:


> Actually, here's a novel idea. I'd guess the Ohio Dept. of *Natural Resources* must consider golf courses a natural resource. Why else would they own 6?


I don't know the history of the 6 courses and when they were added to the 6 state parks, but they were added to make money and to attract visitors to what are considered "destination" state parks. Hueston Woods has a nice Lodge and Conference Center that draws not only families but corporate business as well. Often families will stay at the Lodge for a week or sometimes more. People on vacation like to play golf, corporations use golf outings for many reasons. Using Hueston Woods as an example, a family could spend the week there doing a ton of stuff. Having golf just makes it more attractive to visit and stay there.

All 6 courses are public and are funded by greens fees. If they weren't making any money with the golf courses they would have been shut down years ago. A lot of park systems (county and local) own and run golf courses and do quite well financially with them.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

EStrong said:


> \ but they were added to make money and to attract visitors


Yep, and you're ok with that, by the admission of your statement, ODNR is in it for the money. Well, why don't ODNR start making and bottling soda pop? Bottling water, perhaps? Maybe building cars? Instead of Chevy's, Ford's and Dodge's, it could be Ohio's, Michigan's, and Indiana's? All natural resources by that broad definition. Maybe ODNR should build a big amusement park beside Kings Island? Maybe include a water park. Why stop? That would get all the tourist dollars into the state coffers. 

It's my opinion, the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resource should be about "natural" resources. Leave the man made stuff to the citizens.

Either way, if you are outside doing something, you should need a license, wether hunting deer, or, playing disc golf. What's right for the Sportsmen should be right for all. If the state can tell me I need a license to kill and eat the squirrels, shouldn't I need the same to gather and eat the nuts, lest the squirrel starve?


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

I Fish said:


> Yep, and you're ok with that. Well, why don't ODNR start making and bottling soda pop? Maybe building cars? All natural resources by that broad definition. Maybe ODNR should build a big amusement park beside Kings Island? Maybe include a water park. Why stop? That would get all the tourist dollars into the state coffers.
> 
> It's my opinion, the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resource should be about "natural" resources. Leave the man made stuff to the citizens.
> 
> Either way, if you are outside doing something, you should need a license, wether hunting deer, or, playing disc golf. If the state can tell me I need a license to kill and eat the squirrels, shouldn't I need the same to gather and eat the nuts, lest the squirrel starve?


You were curious to know why ODNR owned 6 golf courses, now you know at least part of the story. The thread is about raising license costs for fishing and hunting, not all the crap ODNR has their fingers in. When you run a state park system there's more to it than just fishing and hunting, you also provide recreational opportunities for the resident and non-resident alike.

If you think ODNR running a golf course is a bad idea, send them a letter and let them know how you feel.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

EStrong said:


> When you run a state park system there's more to it than just fishing and hunting, you also provide recreational opportunities for the resident and non-resident alike.
> 
> If you think ODNR running a golf course is a bad idea, send them a letter and let them know how you feel.


This has nothing to do with resident or non. It has everything to do with ODNR asking Sportsmen to foot the bill for all the "extras".

I prefer face to face. Letters get 'lost'. I've been there. They know me. The problem is, The sportsmen don't know them. Face to face just isn't enough. It's government. It takes ten faces in one. Oh yea, these are unelected representatives, so, it might take 20 faces and 1000's of letters. I'd bet not one in ten here knew ODNR owned a golf course, let alone 6. Sure, DoW isn't ODNR, but, without ODNR, there isn't a DoW. 

Again I ask you, why stop there? I'd bet Burr Oak would make some fine bottled water........


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

EStrong said:


> That's a lot like saying it isn't the IRS taxing you, instead it's the Government. While true, they are not independent of each other. It's Peter robbing you in the name of Paul.


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

I Fish said:


> I prefer face to face. I've been there. They know me.


LOL... I bet they do. Sounds like you've had a few go rounds with them.


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

EStrong said:


> The thread is about raising license costs for fishing and hunting, not all the crap ODNR has their fingers in.





I Fish said:


> That's a lot like saying it isn't the IRS taxing you, instead it's the Government. While true, they are not independent of each other. It's Peter robbing you in the name of Paul.


My point was the OP's original topic on this thread was about Dave Yost suggesting to raise license costs, not why ODNR runs 6 golf courses.

Got me now? Ok, we good.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

lol EStrong ... bet you never thought that your posts that actually make sense would be countered with off beat analogies, did ya? lol 

I Fish? Based on your posts in this thread, do you really think ODNR is as big of a waste of tax payers money, as you're making them out to be? Sure there seems to be wasteful spending in a lot of the things that government is involved with. But I'm sure you've wasted someones money other than your own, in your past.

ODNR and the Division of Wildlife are not the tremendous waste of tax payer money that you and others I have seen post in various threads on this site, make them out to be. There are a lot of hard working people in ODNR that care. And while they may know you "face to face", my guess is that if you came at them with the same inaccurate numbers, or off beat analogies that you've used in this thread, they stopped listening long ago. 

You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

What I'm trying to point out is the ODNR is the DoW. They are not independent of each other. The ODNR decides what DoW is going to do. They are unelected Government officials that have the right to charge us fees. Fees are just another name for taxes. If they are going to raise their taxes on some, they should raise them for all.

When I say face to face, I don't mean in their offices. I mean outside their duty hours. I've got to know several. Believe it or not, my opinions have formed as a mirror of many of their own. The difference is, I can say what they want to say, but can't for fear of retribution from within. They are just keeping their heads down, not making any waves, praying retirement would get here sooner. 

A good example is the way our Game Wardens hours are figured. Unless all violations happen during their duty hours, well, I'm not exactly sure of the details or sure how to explain it. Basically, the bean counters decide their hours, not the Game Warden. I guess an accountant in an office in Columbus knows the GW's job better than the GW, and wildlife protection suffers because of it.

I would not say ODNR is a total waste, more like 60% efficient at best, and I don't feel that's good enough. The Sportsmen and women of Ohio deserve better.


----------



## SteelEyes (Jul 1, 2013)

I Fish said:


> Does anybody know if they've suggested raising the greens fees at the 6 golf courses owned by ODNR? Actually, why does ODNR own 6 golf courses may be a better question.
> 
> http://parks.ohiodnr.gov/golf


Why? Because the purpose of the Ohio Division of Parks and Recreation is to provide outdoor recreational experiences. It has a different purpose than the Division of Wildlife, of Forestry, of Oil & Gas, of Geology, of Watercraft, etc. Parks and Recreation is not a preservation, conservation, or habitat restoration organization.


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that's the 6 golf courses are all part of a Metro Park system. I know that Blacklick Golf Courses would be one of those. These fall under the jurisdiction of ODNR.


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

Bassbme said:


> lol EStrong ... bet you never thought that your posts that actually make sense would be countered with off beat analogies, did ya? lol


What are you talking about? All my posts make sense. It's how you read them my man.  LOL...


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

polebender said:


> I'm pretty sure that's the 6 golf courses are all part of a Metro Park system. I know that Blacklick Golf Courses would be one of those. These fall under the jurisdiction of ODNR.


The 6 golf courses in question are all at state parks and run by ODNR. Blacklick is run by the Columbus and Franklin County Metroparks and has nothing to do with the state park system. That's like saying the golf courses at Winton Woods, Sharon Woods and other Hamilton County Parks in Cincinnati are run by ODNR when they're not.

Blacklick Link:
http://www.metroparks.net/parks-and-trails/blacklick-woods-golf-course/


Cut and Paste from ODNR's Golf Page:
All six Ohio State Park resort golf courses have been listed in Golf Digests Places to Play with ratings of 3 stars (very good), 3.5 stars or 4 stars (outstanding). Each of Ohio State Parks' six championship-quality, 18-hole public golf courses offer unique challenges and rewards.

All courses offer golf cart rentals and pro shops. Online tee-time reservations can be made for Salt Fork and Hueston Woods only.

State park golf courses are ideal settings for golf outings and tournaments, and offer banquet services ranging from picnic lunches to sit-down dinners. Ask about golf packages, including overnight lodgings in a guest room or a 2-bedroom cottage, plus meals in the lodge dining room.

The 6 courses are:
Deer Creek
Hueston Woods
Maumee Bay
Punderson
Salt Fork
Shawnee

I don't see Blacklick in that list. Here's the link:
http://parks.ohiodnr.gov/golf


----------



## youngbuckohio (Mar 4, 2009)

If its only a few dollars more i don't see the big deal. But there is going to have to be a limit at some point and time. We all know that the prices of everything is going up. But with that being said if they keep raising prices of licenses then more people will stop buying them which in return will again drop the amount of money that is coming in. Just an idea but why do we as outdoors men and women have to foot the bill for all of the nature watchers, photographers and similar people? I believe if they want to use these parks and such that ODNR uses most of the money to keep up on then they also should pay a small fee. (like a duck stamp or natural area fee)


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

youngbuckohio said:


> Just an idea but why do we as outdoors men and women have to foot the bill for all of the nature watchers, photographers and similar people? I believe if they want to use these parks and such that ODNR uses most of the money to keep up on then they also should pay a small fee. (like a duck stamp or natural area fee)


As outdoorsmen we don't foot the entire bill for state parks through license fees. I couldn't find a chart or weblink, but ODNR gets money from many different sources to run all of their divisions. The Wildlife division is run seperate from the Parks division (fiscally), even though the two interact on an everyday basis.

Here's a list of all the different department that fall under ODNR.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

EStrong said:


> What are you talking about? All my posts make sense. It's how you read them my man.  LOL...


LOL then I must have been reading them right, because they all made sense to me lol


----------



## kayak1979 (Jul 13, 2014)

You know it's February and 0° outside when this thread lasts as long as it has.


----------



## Andy L (Apr 3, 2014)

My personal opinion is if they raise these fees, they need ear mark a portion of the added revenue to get our money back from the Pittman Robertson funds. It is our money and we need local match to get it back. 

Some background on this act...
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html


----------



## The Outdoor Connection (Jan 21, 2012)

no doubt about it, non-resident fee oughta be much more!


----------



## SteelEyes (Jul 1, 2013)

EStrong said:


> As outdoorsmen we don't foot the entire bill for state parks through license fees. I couldn't find a chart or weblink, but ODNR gets money from many different sources to run all of their divisions. The Wildlife division is run seperate from the Parks division (fiscally), even though the two interact on an everyday basis.
> 
> Here's a list of all the different department that fall under ODNR.


Correct Wildlife is totally separate fiscally, but they don't really interact on a daily basis, other than when specific parks have key wildlife resources that need managed (like say Bald Eagles). DoW owns their own property separate from parks, or nature preserves. Their revenue & expenditure breakdown is on the second page of their annual report (linked)
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/2012annualreport.pdf


----------



## EStrong (Jul 23, 2014)

Thank You SteelEyes! I was looking for a report like that. I knew the Division of Wildlife was getting some federal and tax funding, just wasn't sure how much of a percentage it was.

When I mentioned that the Division of Parks interacted with the Division of Wildlife, I meant DoW officers are in the parks on a daily basis checking on people hunting and fishing, licenses, violations, etc. They've checked on me a couple of times at different state parks for my fishing license.

Thanks Again for the info!


----------



## SteelEyes (Jul 1, 2013)

EStrong said:


> Thank You SteelEyes! I was looking for a report like that. I knew the Division of Wildlife was getting some federal and tax funding, just wasn't sure how much of a percentage it was.
> 
> When I mentioned that the Division of Parks interacted with the Division of Wildlife, I meant DoW officers are in the parks on a daily basis checking on people hunting and fishing, licenses, violations, etc. They've checked on me a couple of times at different state parks for my fishing license.
> 
> Thanks Again for the info!


No problem, you're welcome. And yes that's been my experience with wildlife officers as well. Especially in park access to fishing. Not sure if there are many state parks open to hunting. 
Another possibly interesting fact, when you consider the park and wildlife lands along our reservoirs in Ohio, often the reservoir and surrounding land (typically the perimeter and flood plain) are owned by the US Corps of Engineers (or whoever owns the dam). That includes the state park and wildlife area lands. The USACE then technically leases the land to the state.


----------



## The Outdoor Connection (Jan 21, 2012)

And the one thing I've come to realize about the Corps is they could care less about fishers & hunters. Their sole goal for being (and the #1 reason that particular body of water exists in the first place) is to regulate the flow of waters through the dam to lessen flooding.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

The Outdoor Connection said:


> And the one thing I've come to realize about the Corps is they could care less about fishers & hunters. Their sole goal for being (and the #1 reason that particular body of water exists in the first place) is to regulate the flow of waters through the dam to lessen flooding.


That's true, their main concern is to alleviate flooding. Which is understandable. But I wouldn't say they don't care. 

I'm not sure what year it was, but some time ago, the Division of Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers entered into what amounts to a gentleman's agreement to keep water levels stable, if at all possible, during the spawn and breeding seasons of waterfowl. 

Sometimes they just can't though.


----------



## ohiojmj (Apr 16, 2004)

Whether it's $19 or $23 for my residential fishing license, it's a heck of a deal to manage the great fisheries in Ohio, particularly Lake Erie. I won't join the $4 debate team as I already donate extra to wildlife on my Ohio taxes every year anyway. I do agree that fees should be restricted to the purpose. Ohio is doing a great job in my opinion with respect to managing fisheries.


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

I just paid for the 2015 fishing license for both wife & myself at $38 it's a steal. No stamps to buy, no tags to fill out. We can fish without reading a small novel of rules. Life in Ohio is pretty nice. 

I would agree they probably need more money to continue the level of fish stocking and enforcement. I wouldn't mind a larger increase to $30-35 for each license if it means more fish and game in the woods. It would be great if they did more habitat restoration and added acres to wildlife areas. Ya if you do the math even at 100 bucks for a license it's like .27 cents a day. What else can you do for that kind of money?


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

T-180 said:


> Just to stir the pot ; There are those of us old enough to remember when all the monies raised from licenses,etc. went into a dedicated pot for only use by the ODNR / DOW. In the late 70's, Governor Gilligan (if I remember correctly), raided the fund for other usage and the rules were changed that then put those revenues into the general fund to be divided amongst other departments as well. A department that ran in the black forever, has run in the red ever since. Not a big supporter of fee increases due to the fact we get pennies on the dollar in return.


I'm an old guy and remember that, you got it right ... he put all the fees in GF and allocated what he thought was needed for the outdoors stuff ... would like to see from politicos what they plan to do w/extra funds before I give it up


----------



## SlabMan (Apr 21, 2006)

Cost for nonresidents to hunt in other states. No wonder it has become virtually impossible to find a place to hunt in Ohio.

Illinois 
License $57.75 
Additional Stamps Required to hunt with:
Firearm $300 
Muzzle Loader $300
Archery $410

Iowa
License $123
Buck $298
Mandatory Antlerless $128


Kansas
License $97.50
Deer $442.50
Antlerless $52.50 Must have also purchased the deer stamp above.

Kentucky 
License $140 
2 Deer $120 


Ohio
License $124
Deer - same as resident $24


----------



## kayak1979 (Jul 13, 2014)

It should increase and I feel Ohio State park costs should increase to so they can do some much needed upgrades to facilities. Maybe increase them for non residents just like Michigan does. I think I had to purchase an out of state sticker to just park at Michigan parks and launches for kayak when up there two years ago.


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

kayak1979 said:


> It should increase and I feel Ohio State park costs should increase to so they can do some much needed upgrades to facilities. Maybe increase them for non residents just like Michigan does. I think I had to purchase an out of state sticker to just park at Michigan parks and launches for kayak when up there two years ago.


How about relocate some of the millions of wasted taxes that are used elsewhere in this state instead of raising the costs to only those of us who participate in hunting and fishing activities? I send plenty of tax money to the state and federal government to be wasted on crap that I feel is unnecessary, or otherwise indifferent to. Why should this be any different?


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

This thread is over 1 1/2 years old. Why people dig these old threads up is beyond me. Just start a new thread. 
Just sayin


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

SlabMan said:


> Cost for nonresidents to hunt in other states. No wonder it has become virtually impossible to find a place to hunt in Ohio.
> 
> Illinois
> License $57.75
> ...


One thing I've never been able to ascertain is what you get for your $124? I live in NE Ohio, very close to the PA line. My game club is in PA, so I have to buy a PA non-res license. It costs me a little over $100 and it's a "package" that includes the regular "small game" license, deer tag (antlered), and fall and spring turkey tags. It's just a few dollars more than what it costs me to buy those things in Ohio as a resident!

However, I will say that PA is one of those states that will "nickle and dime" you to death depending on what you want to do. Want to hunt muzzleloader? Buy a tag. Want to hunt archery? Buy another tag! Want to shoot a doe? Jump through a whole bunch of hoops and maybe you can buy another tag! 



beaver said:


> How about relocate some of the millions of wasted taxes that are used elsewhere in this state instead of raising the costs to only those of us who participate in hunting and fishing activities? I send plenty of tax money to the state and federal government to be wasted on crap that I feel is unnecessary, or otherwise indifferent to. Why should this be any different?


I have to say I agree!



crappiedude said:


> This thread is over 1 1/2 years old. Why people dig these old threads up is beyond me. Just start a new thread.
> Just sayin


I guess because a valid point was raised, and some thought an content comes along with it.


----------



## jmciw17 (Sep 4, 2007)

Fees should be the same for what they charge us to hunt or fish in there state, And if they are not allowed to fish for walleye in there state durings set seasons then they should not be alloud to fish in our waters also. Any raise in fees for residents will only pad the politians


----------



## chatterbox (Jan 7, 2013)

A bargain, for what? We fish in mud holes, that are over fished, under stocked, under maintained, and insulted by putting the money in the general fund. If the state auditor wants more money in the general fund, let him write a check from his account and deposit it. Give him a pay and benefit cut at the same time as the state needs more money. Nothing personal, It's just business.


----------



## MuskyFan (Sep 21, 2016)

kayak1979 said:


> It should increase and I feel Ohio State park costs should increase to so they can do some much needed upgrades to facilities. Maybe increase them for non residents just like Michigan does. I think I had to purchase an out of state sticker to just park at Michigan parks and launches for kayak when up there two years ago.


Indiana charges a boat fee (decal) depending on what lake you fish. In the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky you need to pay a parking permit to launch your boat. $3 a day or $30 a year. Not a bad price to pay. But that is for everyone, resident or nonresident.



jmciw17 said:


> Fees should be the same for what they charge us to hunt or fish in there state, And if they are not allowed to fish for walleye in there state durings set seasons then they should not be alloud to fish in our waters also. Any raise in fees for residents will only pad the politians


Not going to happen. Why would they require a clerk to determine what state you are from? It needs to be even across the board as far as out of stater's go. But it needs to be more than it is now. Ohio needs to protect its resources like other states do. But, you also need to figure the amount of revenue that is brought in to the state via hotels, food, entertainment, etc. That is harder to track and may be why OH had a lower NR license fee than other states. OH has not done its homework.


----------



## The Outdoor Connection (Jan 21, 2012)

First of all, For too long our fishing license fee has remained unchanged. The next time you're in Kroger or wherever you shop look at the price per pound for Walleye. If our license was raised by a $5 increment few would have an issue with it as it still is one hell of a bargain yet the monies could do a lot of good. Thing is politicians are hesitant to raise fee's which many feel is a type of* tax* and that 3-letter word is verboten. Hunting is another matter...


----------



## chatterbox (Jan 7, 2013)

The Lake Erie fishermen should not look at just the self sustaining walleye capital of the world where few can afford to fish very often. Look at the entire state and it won't take You long to figure out that the inland outdoors people are treated like second class citizens. Any money that goes into the general fund is more tax. Why don't we add a general fund fee to bowling, pro sports seats, golf games, hot air ballooning, theater seats, and on and on?

Personally, I expect something more for my money, not less. If the state would truly improve the facilities O.K., however, don't even talk to me general fund.

Put tariffs on the Chinese junk that our leaders like, give the leaders cut in pay AND benefit packages. Good enough for blue collar Americans, Good Enough for them also.


----------

