# What if Ohio charged admission to state parks?



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

With the new Kasich administration facing a huge deficit, I'm expecting to see cuts related to parks and the environment. There will probably be staff cutbacks, maybe some closures. 

So, what if the parks had an admission fee, like some other states? It would be a pain, but that pain would also keep out people just looking for a place to party and leave their empties. (Plus they might not want to have a LEO taking a good close look at them.)

It might not amount to a lot of money, but it would be a revenue stream coming from people who care enough about the parks, sort of like voting with your wallet.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

They tried that a couple of years ago under Taft, I believe. It didn't fly.
With an 8 billion deficit coming due in July, there's going to be some hard choices to be made. It's not a good time to be a state employee.


----------



## JignPig Guide (Aug 3, 2007)

FOSR said:


> So, what if the parks had an admission fee, like some other states?


It may be coming our way whether we like it or not. Hopefully they would have a year/season pass for those of us that frequent state lakes on a regular basis.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

If Ohio went away from a state income tax and went the way Florida does I would have no problems with it. Otherwise WTH am I paying around 8 % state income tax for?

Cuts need to be made and I am sure everything across the state will be cut including funding for state parks. Lewzer's right, Taft did try to impose some kind of user fees and it didn't really go anywhere.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

I would be in favor of it.I would also like to see a $5.00 fee for using any boat ramp on public waters like they do in Michigan.In either case,you would have the option to pay a daily fee,or purchase a yearly permit-very good idea.


----------



## big red (Feb 4, 2010)

i don't mind the cut backs if they include themselves in the cuts.don't cut taxes,make everybody pay them.if you live here,work here,you pay taxes here.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

i too would be ok with this, if it was like harborhunter says


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> I would be in favor of it.I would also like to see a $5.00 fee for using any boat ramp on public waters like they do in Michigan.In either case,you would have the option to pay a daily fee,or purchase a yearly permit-very good idea.


You aren't going to fix a budget deficit by charging $5.00 to launch a boat. The money received wouldn't save any park employees or DNR jobs. They would just use it elsewhere and still cut the parks. 

FWIW...Michigan is hardly the standard by which anything financial should be mirrored. If you think Ohio is bad...my gracious just look up there. 

Everybody has their hands out. Kasich has a lot on his plate, but just like every other politician that has come before and will come after him...he'll see very quickly that he just can't walk in the door and start swinging swords.


----------



## jcustunner24 (Aug 20, 2007)

BFG said:


> FWIW...Michigan is hardly the standard by which anything financial should be mirrored. If you think Ohio is bad...my gracious just look up there.


As a whole, you're correct. Their economy up north is awful. However, every park I've been to in Michigan has been immaculate compared to what we have here. I would absolutely support a day use fee if, like Michigan, they spared those of us who frequent the parks with an annual pass.

Granted, you're not going to fix a state's economic problems by fixing the park system, but you're certainly taking a step towards curtailing the money pit.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I'd be against it, mainly for the fact that I don't think they manage the money they already get very well. Also, I'd be afraid that these funds would be raided to pay for unrelated expenses. Consider this: ODNR has over 2000 people working for them across the state according to this: http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/11072/default.aspx If you divide 2000 by 88 counties, that averages 22.7 employees per county. Now for the money. In 2008, the latest year the actual budget spending is available(at least that I could find, available here: http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1011/ExecutiveBudget.aspx) was $307.6+million, or, $3.49million per county. 2009's estimate is $324+million, and 2010 recommended is $345.4+million. That is also a 2 year increase of $37.8million. I'm no genius, but I'd bet there is some fat to be trimmed here, without affecting our parks. My question is are they really running on a shoestring budget, or grossly mis-managed?

IMO, this is a great example of the Washington Monument ploy, where the U.S. Park service said that without a budget increase, they would have to close the Washington Monument. This tactic has been adopted by just about every government agency since. They will say if we don't get our money and our way, we are going to have to close the most popular attractions or services. So, every politician gets scared that they will be the ones demonized for losing such a resource, and in the end they cave so they can insure their own re-election.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

BFG said:


> You aren't going to fix a budget deficit by charging $5.00 to launch a boat. The money received wouldn't save any park employees or DNR jobs. They would just use it elsewhere and still cut the parks.
> 
> FWIW...Michigan is hardly the standard by which anything financial should be mirrored. If you think Ohio is bad...my gracious just look up there.
> 
> Everybody has their hands out. Kasich has a lot on his plate, but just like every other politician that has come before and will come after him...he'll see very quickly that he just can't walk in the door and start swinging swords.


I think we're entering a time where the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If Kasich or anyone says they'll cut park budgets and no one says anything or tries to negotiate some deal, then expect them to ignore your interests.

I'm watching Kasich from an environmentalist standpoint, concerned about water quality issues.

Another thing, seen in the Charles Mill thread, is the matter of organizing volunteer service events for litter cleanup, park maintenance, etc., so these things can be done off the parks budget. FOSR, as a watershed advocacy group, does this around the Scioto. There will be a greater need for this kind of community organizing in the upcoming years, and perhaps fishing groups could join in.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

I Fish said:


> I'd be against it, mainly for the fact that I don't think they manage the money they already get very well. Also, I'd be afraid that these funds would be raided to pay for unrelated expenses. Consider this: ODNR has over 2000 people working for them across the state according to this: http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/11072/default.aspx If you divide 2000 by 88 counties, that averages 22.7 employees per county. Now for the money. In 2008, the latest year the actual budget spending is available(at least that I could find, available here: http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1011/ExecutiveBudget.aspx) was $307.6+million, or, $3.49million per county. 2009's estimate is $324+million, and 2010 recommended is $345.4+million. That is also a 2 year increase of $37.8million. I'm no genius, but I'd bet there is some fat to be trimmed here, without affecting our parks. My question is are they really running on a shoestring budget, or grossly mis-managed?
> 
> IMO, this is a great example of the Washington Monument ploy, where the U.S. Park service said that without a budget increase, they would have to close the Washington Monument. This tactic has been adopted by just about every government agency since. They will say if we don't get our money and our way, we are going to have to close the most popular attractions or services. So, ever politician gets scared that they will be the ones demonized for losing such a resource, and in the end they cave so they can insure their own re-election.


this all makes a ton of sense to me. i prob would still go along with the charges but i can see where your coming from


----------



## freyedknot (Apr 10, 2004)

and the turnpike was supposed to be free by now ,never see that.the money tree is wearing thin. guys at work now paying $100.00 a week for family health care.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

It's probably going to eventually happen whether or not anyone of us wants it to. If the money was strictly used for the upkeep of the park charging it and nothing else then I'd be in favor of it.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

freyedknot said:


> and the turnpike was supposed to be free by now ,never see that.


Exactly. Now consider the cash outlay and additional employees to implement and maintain the "fee" (I think tax is a better description). How much is it going to cost to install parking garage like ticket booths and then maintain them? What about border waterways like the Ohio River? Local people would just trailer over to Ky or WVa to launch, so would Ohio just stop maintaining Ohio River launch ramps?

Also, with inflation, these taxes would "necessarily increase". Then, once ODNR gets dependant on this additional income, it will never go away or get smaller. $5 to launch, next it will be $7, then $10, oh, and also a $5 trail walking permit, $5 bird watching permit, $5 hunting permit, $5 restroom permit and on and on and on. A "user fee" or permit is just a deceiving way to tax you without being honest and calling it a tax.


----------



## Gottagofishn (Nov 18, 2009)

I agree with those that say the parks will never see it and once it's in place it will never go away, only get bigger. 

After erasing a paragraph long rant that was completely political I guess I'll leave it at that......


----------



## fishinjim (Aug 9, 2006)

jcustunner24 said:


> However, every park I've been to in Michigan has been immaculate compared to what we have here. I would absolutely support a day use fee if, like Michigan, they spared those of us who frequent the parks with an annual pass.


You can pretty much expect the same behaviour, with or without a day/annual use fee. Managing the resources you currently have doesn't necessarily require more money; managing means a more efficient use of the resources already in house.

also, if we spent the same amount of money/energy that we do on the 'war on drugs' on improving our societal values, people would probably do a better job of cleaning up after themselves.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

The best thing about the $5.00 per day ramp use on Michigan lakes, is on most of the ones I regularly fish up there,you pay a guy in a booth right at the ramp.This is a great comfort to me to know there's someone at the ramp with a watchful eye.They also keep things in order at the ramps,which is also nice.How do you people know that the money wouldn't go right back into maintaining the parks,lakes,etc.,I don't. For a day out on the water,five bucks is more than worth it to me.You pay a one time state park usage fee,I think in Michigan it's $25.00 annually,and get a sticker in your window,and you're good to go.Not all lakes in Michigan have the $5.00 ramp fees,probably the majority don't,but I would like to see it on all of the lakes up there as well as here.Both the state park fees,and the ramp fees add to the coffers of the DNR(i believe anyway),and these fees help with park maintainence,and security as well.Both a good idea in my mind.


----------



## fakebait (Jun 18, 2006)

I believe that States must do away with Hunting and fishing permits all together and go to a recreational use permit. The outdoorsman & women for far to long have carried the load of paying for all the programs out of their license fees. A recreational permit should be required of all users, not just Hunters & Fisherpersons. If you boat, hike, birdwatch, bike, photgraphy, camp or any other use of the outdoors that is under state control. By making this inclusive for the whole population the state would drive more finacial revenues which also include a possible reduction of fees that outdoors people pay now. The state could still charge additional fees for Big Game and specific fish stockings as they do now in many states. 

I would say there has been an unequal burden placed on the outdoor public and the states DNR's to balance funding based off of one segment of users. With the states governing body placing programs onto the DNR to maintain. Without the proper funding other than the permit fees that currently are in place, which does not cover the required needs now.

Well As I had indictated under State control. This would cover hunting and fishing on private property. Most other activities are not regulated by the DNR unless on state own properties. Hence you would only purchase a yearly permit to cover your adventures at state owned property other than hunting or fishing. This would balance the burden of cost and increase the states ability to purchase more land and improve as well as maintain current properties. The state would also be able to hire more Law enforcement personel to patrol and enforce regulations. This would also drive more groups to donate for their specific wants if they felt like a partner rather than outsider. I'm on the back nine of life as this will not realy affect me but; down the line I would hate to see these traditions lost or become so exspensive it becomes the sport of the wealthy only


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

i'm not in favor of any kind of ramp fees.fishermen and boaters already pay via boat and fishing licenses.hunters help through their licenses.
i am in favor for an admission fee for those who use the parks in other areas.
people who use the beaches and/or picnic areas for example create the need for park staff personnel.maintenance of those areas,trash removal,etc.,require paid people.
$5 or $10 a day per carload or a yearly pass would be minimal but would greatly increase the needed funds


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

I Fish said:


> I'd be against it, mainly for the fact that I don't think they manage the money they already get very well. Also, I'd be afraid that these funds would be raided to pay for unrelated expenses. Consider this: ODNR has over 2000 people working for them across the state according to this: http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/11072/default.aspx If you divide 2000 by 88 counties, that averages 22.7 employees per county. Now for the money. In 2008, the latest year the actual budget spending is available(at least that I could find, available here: http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1011/ExecutiveBudget.aspx) was $307.6+million, or, $3.49million per county. 2009's estimate is $324+million, and 2010 recommended is $345.4+million. That is also a 2 year increase of $37.8million. I'm no genius, but I'd bet there is some fat to be trimmed here, without affecting our parks. My question is are they really running on a shoestring budget, or grossly mis-managed?
> 
> IMO, this is a great example of the Washington Monument ploy, where the U.S. Park service said that without a budget increase, they would have to close the Washington Monument. This tactic has been adopted by just about every government agency since. They will say if we don't get our money and our way, we are going to have to close the most popular attractions or services. So, every politician gets scared that they will be the ones demonized for losing such a resource, and in the end they cave so they can insure their own re-election.


An attempt was made by the legislature to raid the Scenic Rivers, wildlife conservation, etc for the general fund in the last 2 year budget, you may recall you can fund these on your Ohio tax form; I would figure that would have to be prevented pre-emptively if fees were charged to fund parks and natural resources.

Though ODNR does quite a bit besides parks, hunting and fishing that many people don't realize...browsing their website is interesting.

IIRC, ODNR gets 350 million ballpark a year...looking at the last Ohio budget, there are other areas where truly huge amounts are spent.

Here's the numbers...remember that under Environment, you have both the ODNR and Ohio EPA at about 600 million a year.

Meanwhile, Health & Human Services is at about 25 Billion dollars a year.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Ohio_state_budget


----------



## papaperch (Apr 12, 2004)

I cannot believe some of you are in favor of another TAX. Call it a ramp fee or state park use fee it is still a TAX. You already pay Federal Income Tax , Social Security Tax , Fica Tax , State Income Tax , some of you City Income Tax , State sales Tax, Property Tax.

Then start adding all the little hidden taxes up under names like , user fee , dog lisc. beer wine and gas taxes. The list goes on ad infinitum. What you don't realize you are paying more than HALF of your salary after all is added up.

Now some of you are in favor of some more taxes. For those of you think its worth the fee for someone to watch your vehicle and trailer while you are gone. Launch at Shenango and put your money in an envelope and you get a tear off ticket to stick in your car. The only security provided is the lock on the box you put your money in.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

I don't like the idea either, the rates will just escalate with no accountability.
If "they" (inclusive of all) showed responsible spending and management of money I would have no issue with it but we all know that just doesn't happen.
I believe they will do as they please though regardless of how I feel about it.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

You nailed that one mushroomman.If anyone needs an example let's look at the income tax.Unless I am wrong it was put in place to pay for the war at the time.It was to expire,well surprise it's still here and how many times has it increased.I am all for paying for our way regarding fishing license fees,boating license,hunting license,ect.
We are really fortunate compared to some states,some require a reg fishing license fee,than a trout license fee,a Lake Erie fee,a coastal water fee.There is literally no end to the fees.Do we want that here?I don't for one.Like already said it'd be different if it went straight to the dept I was using but it wouldn't.Let's not forget our blind fund some of us donated to when we renew our driver's license or auto tags was taken to balance the last budget by the governor.Count me a big NO!


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

Im dead against any fees whatsoever! And I really cant believe, so many of you are so willing to open your pockets to this kind of recreational extortion. The budget woes of the state of Ohio werent caused by lavish spending on state park upkeep, or recreational programs. I think the larger issue here is public access. I view the state parks as the last bastions of protected wilderness. A place to revere. Safe from corporate farms, developers and private ownership. A tree museum, so to speak. A place for all people to enjoy, unencumbered. I view public access to state parks as a top priority in the state budget. I go to state parks for the wilderness, forests, wildlife, lakes, and waterways, to get away. A quick get away from noise, buildings, concrete, shopping malls and even sometimes, people. Wilderness happens, when you leave it alone. Wilderness doesnt need upkeep. Roads, parking lots, picnic tables, charcoal grills, outhouses, bathhouses, cabins, campgrounds, snack bars, dump stations , boat launches and park staff and law enforcement need upkeep. Not all of these things are necessary to enjoy a state park. Fisherman buy licences to fish. Boaters buy licences to boat. Campers pay fees to camp. Driving to the nearest state park to throw down a blanket and take a walk, cmon youd pay for that? Or maybe you want to keep the rif- raf away. Who is the rif-raf. Someday, you may decide the fee is too much to pay. Does that make you the rif-raf? This isnt the 1st time politicians used the budget sob story to try and change public opinion on a long held public institution. I say, have a backbone. As long as you keep giving , theyll keep taking. LONG LIVE FEE FREE STATE PARKS ! -- Tim....................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

We need to cut spending not find new ways to tax people!!!! The OHio EPA was going to give the Geauga County sometinh like $2 million buck to turn a tax paying golf course into a public park. They have enough money already.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

You have to be realistic about all of this...with at least a 8 billion dollar deficit, things are going to get cut...on the conservative side; if you want it, it does have to be paid for.

If nothing else, your attention and involvement will be needed just to keep what we have regarding spending priorities.

There is a lot of fat, and much expense with salaries and benefits as well as programs that need to be fought about...but every hog that feeds at the trough is going to be fighting to keep it's share.

They're organizing even now to keep their funding.


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

FOSR said:


> With the new Kasich administration facing a huge deficit, I'm expecting to see cuts related to parks and the environment. There will probably be staff cutbacks, maybe some closures.
> 
> So, what if the parks had an admission fee, like some other states? It would be a pain, but that pain would also keep out people just looking for a place to party and leave their empties. (Plus they might not want to have a LEO taking a good close look at them.)
> 
> It might not amount to a lot of money, but it would be a revenue stream coming from people who care enough about the parks, sort of like voting with your wallet.


Y'all don't pay Admission Fees to get into Ohio State Parks? Dang! You guys don't know how great you all have had it!


----------



## lakota (Oct 28, 2009)

Dead set against it. Hunting is already becoming a passtime for the wealthy. Adding fees to launch a boat or get into a state park would push fishing in that direction and eventually make state parks playgrounds for the rich. Fees once in place will never go away and will only go up.
Taxed Enough Already!


----------



## iam20fan (Jan 15, 2006)

we already pay fees by buying hunting and fishing licenses every year thumbs down for me.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Guys, everything we enjoy is threatened by budget cuts...besides the projected deficit, there's this too.



> Although the battle over extending unemployment benefits has been solved in Washington, Ohio still has no way to repay the $2.3&#8201;billion borrowed from a federal loan fund to continue the jobless benefits through the recession.
> 
> Without a reprieve from Congress, that bill comes due next year, at the same time state leaders will be grappling to close a projected $8 billion shortfall in the two-year state budget that begins in July.


http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/12/19/state-debt-for-jobless-benefits-looming.html?sid=101

Fishing licenses generated ballpark 42 million dollars for 2009-2010...ODNR's yearly budget is about 350 million dollars for what we get now. This is less than $500,000 per county per year generated by fishing license sales.

Here's the numbers for fishing and hunting licenses sold in 2009-2010:

http://outdoornews.com/ohio/news/article_56868d50-babd-11df-8b48-001cc4c03286.html


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Personally, I'd support increased usage fees for natural resources...as long as the money gets locked into conservation and preservation programs, fisheries management, wildlife programs, park maintainance, hatcheries, water quality programs and enforcement of the game laws, etc., etc.

I don't think anything about spending 200 bucks for a new rod and reel, I can't see the sense of doing that and neglecting the resource that I'll be using it on.

What I don't want to see is any increased funding being diverted...but it's TANSTAAFL time in this State...if we want it, we are going to have to pay for it.

What we should be thinking about is how we can influence natural resources management in this State...because if we do pay for it, we need to be heard.


----------



## baby bass (Apr 11, 2004)

i think the state needs to find ways to cut spending,other than charging to use state parks.we already pay for are fishing license,and boat tag,trailer license,tow truck tag.just my thoughts. if they start charging i guess i will pay.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I am with the guys who wouldnt want the new fees..Its not a money issue..Its a principle issue..All these fat cats in charge were gettin while the gettin was good,and now its not..Had all these companies not shipped their jobs out of Ohio,we would have way more tax money comin in..The state needs to REDUCE costs before it leaves everything the same and starts taking more money to close the gap..Their are way to many politicians doing things for THEIR best interests..The changes need to start at the top,not the bottom...None of us would put good tires on a car with a blown engine,so why give even more of your money to the crooks who run this state into the ground??..


----------



## fishinjim (Aug 9, 2006)

Smead said:


> I don't think anything about spending 200 bucks for a new rod and reel, I can't see the sense of doing that and neglecting the resource that I'll be using it on.do pay for it, we need to be heard.


You know, I think you can always pay more taxes on your tax return and I bet if you send more money when you buy your hunting/fishing licenses, boat registration, etc, I'm sure they'll accept it.

In other words, you have the freedom to willingly pay more in taxes if you choose to. Let's not make it a law where everybody has to pay more.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Amen- Iraqvet!

You pro-tax guys need to look at the big picture. Our economy has been on a slide for a quite a while now. While the private sector has been trimming fat, cutting salaries and jobs, cutting health insurance and pensions. The State and local governments have been carrying on with business as usual. They have unrealistic pay rates, health care and pensions. All in hopes to find the most qualified candidate for the job. Guess what? In this economy most would do their job for 75% of what they get now. 
Or we should outsource their jobs. I'm sure we could get some Chinese or Indian personnel for 1/4 the rate, and not even have to supply health care or a pension. 
I'm just curious if these individuals would have that same opinion (about needing more money every year) if we were about to let the Chinese come do it for 40% less. They don't seem to mind the Chinese using slave labor to drive everybody else out of business, how about them?


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Here we go ...



> The incoming Republican governor backs the standard that the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform follows: Certain fees are acceptable but can't be used to increase overall state revenue and spending.
> 
> "Users fees are an appropriate solution for providing services to specific groups that benefit from them without burdening others who don't," spokesman Rob Nichols said in response to a question about Kasich's views on fees.


from this article in the Columbus Dispatch:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/liv...h-anti-tax-pledge.html?adsec=politics&sid=101


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

It won't bother me either way,as I said,I see nothing wrong with paying an annual state park usage fee,and/or a $5.00 ramp fee on public lakes.I don't look at that as being anymore of a tax than buying a ticket to go to a game.I understand everybody else's points too.I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens,I'm sure the state knows that most everybody that uses the state parks,and boat ramps will pay these fees regardless of whether they agree with them or not.I think most will too,on a nice spring day,you're going to stay home and watch TV instead of dropping down five bucks to go fishing-not me.


----------



## mikeshookset (Feb 28, 2005)

how can i say this?NOMORE TAXES AND NO MORE FEES!!! the goverment waste the tax money they get now why give them any more? the poor and middle class pays for everything . why tax just cirtain groups of people? they do it because they can and get away with it!! let the people in goverment take pay cuts. its a big damn joke the way they do things. look at the auto industry they sent jobs over seas to save money the cost of cars went sky high then we paid to bail them out ? the middle class the same people that lost thier jobs!! if they want more tax then put a tax on imported goods. the auto industry says buy americann so why dont they build american? how american are they when they ship the work over seas? china uses slave labor and this goverment lets them sell goods in america? look at cigaretts they tax the heck out of them because a small group smokes them.. notice they dont tax booze and cigares like that becuase the poloticions smoke cigars and drink booze and they dont want thier little happy buts paying any more than they have to!! why not try having something like no inventory tax on buissnes and try and bring in companies like that to help stimulate the economy? dont get me wrong i luv america but i am sick and tired of the middle class,poor people, and small groups paying for the lack of judgement gov has. oh yeah how about the goverment bailing out the banks then the ceos of them banks getting millions in bonouse for the fine job they did? how many people would like to go to work and do a lousey job then get a big bonouse for it? our tax dollars paid for these parks to start with . now just why would i want to pay to use what i already paid for? think they wont find a way to waste that money? think that some goverment official wont get a raise for that ? tax payers pay the wages of the poloticions why arent them wages on the ballot? funny how they vote in thier pay. wouldnt it be grand if we could go to work and tell the company what they was going to pay us and they had no choice and they had to pay it and not lay you off or that they couldnt go out of buissness. POINT IS RAMP FEES AND ANYMORE TAXES IS ANOUTHER CHANCE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS TO ONE MORE TIME GET RIPPED OFF!!


----------



## Danshady (Dec 14, 2006)

all of the ramps on the ohio river charge launch fees, and plenty of boaters pay the fee.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I agree mike..Its all about principles..Many people working for the state dont have any,thats why things are the way they are..Why should we continue to be the little dutch boy plugging the dike??...Why cant Ohio fix its problems with spending instead of trying to fix it with taking more money from people??..If we continue to feed the government like its a stray cat,its only gonna come back for more and more...


----------



## JBL (Apr 3, 2005)

A new tax would be sold to Ohioans as being for the parks only. But it is a shell game, like what they do with the Ohio Lottery income. Sure, all that money goes to the schools but they just keep more back in the general fund.

Lets say they have a 350M budget for ODNR. A new use tax generates say 50M. At budget time the new 50M is allocated to ODNR just like they promised that it would be, but the overall budget actually remains at 350M, or perhaps even cut further due to budget shortages. Did any of your new use fee tax really go to ODNR, or did it end up in the general fund?


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

This will probably be a mute point anyways when gas breaks 4-5 bucks a gallon, most won't have money to drive to the lake let alone pay a user or ramp fee. I saw gas go up .15 cents today and from what "they" are saying expect it to be higher by Christmas. The wolves were handed the keys to the hen house, looks like they're going to have a feast.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

fishinjim said:


> You know, I think you can always pay more taxes on your tax return and I bet if you send more money when you buy your hunting/fishing licenses, boat registration, etc, I'm sure they'll accept it.
> 
> In other words, you have the freedom to willingly pay more in taxes if you choose to. Let's not make it a law where everybody has to pay more.


I'm a financial conservative...people should pay for what they get...we are underpaying for natural resources management in this State. That's the problem across the board at both the Federal and State level for everything government does really...and why we are looking at that State budget deficit and have a 1 Trillion+ dollar yearly federal deficit....people want the benefits while wanting someone else to pay for it...or just put it on the tab.

Running up that debt for unemployment is an excellent example...people love it and politicians get elected on providing the benefit...ultimately, it becomes part of the Federal deficit, borrowed from the Chinese, and the national debt. Now, States are advocating that the Fed's forgive their unemployment debts.

Under the State constitution, Ohio can't run a deficit, so barring revenue increases, there will be cuts.

Which is as it should be; if you don't value something enough to pay for it, you shouldn't have it provided. Only about 1 in 5 people in this State buy fishing licenses, why should the other 4/5 of the population subsidise fisheries??

People have brought up some good issues, like ensuring funds get spent on what they are supposed to be, not diverted. I also agree with looking at pay and benefits of state employees and examining each and every program.

However, my main concern is natural resources...it's going to be all too easy to cut. Avoiding cuts will require revenue increases.


----------



## JignPig Guide (Aug 3, 2007)

Winter has set in...


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Lets look at boat fees:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/watercraft/reg/tabid/2775/Default.aspx



> Boats 16' long but less than 26' long $48.00


Now, this is a three year registration...so you're paying $16 a year.

This funds:



> The fees you pay to register your boat are deposited in the Waterways Safety Fund, which is used to operate Ohio's boating program.


Here's what they do with that 16 bucks a year:

http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/10635/Default.aspx

Plus, what it costs to enforce boating regulations.

People have mentioned boat trailer registration, and even their trucks...none of that money goes to the ODNR...that's BMV money.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

The sad thing about this thread is that some have turned it into misspelled rants on state workers, big business, and the guvmint in general.

Parks are a necessary function of government to make states and municipalities livable and attractive to residents and businesses. I'm against charging a general user fee as Michigan does, but special services could be charged for (as they already are for the inns). 

If you can afford a boat, truck to haul it, gas, registrations, etc., why not pay to have the ramp maintained and the garbage emptied and septic systems cleaned where you launch?

I like fees better than taxes if the fees are actually applied to what they are supposed to be funding.


----------



## mikeshookset (Feb 28, 2005)

Smead said:


> Lets look at boat fees:
> 
> http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/watercraft/reg/tabid/2775/Default.aspx
> 
> ...


those are high enough fees also. if they are short on money then let the big wigs take pay cuts. why is it ok for every one else to take pay cuts and not people in goverment? lets look at what they do for the money now. in anouther post people was complaining about beer cans on mosquito lake ? all the parks has signs saying no acoholic beverages? why dont they get out of thier cozy warm cars and go out on the lakes and fine the people drinking? you can go down any shore line and find the same thing so just how hard is the parks doing thier jobs now? how many times has fishermen watched skeirs and water skis bust wake near shore with nothing being done about it? how many times has some one waited to put thier boat in while waiting on some one that parked thier boat on the ramp side of the dock and blocked a ramp while they parked thier truck and see a ranger in the parking lot not doing anything about it? the boat fee is just 1 fee they get how about the fees the marinas pay how about the grants they get from the feds. how about they just post all the money they get and how they spend it and i bet they will get a bunch of ways to cut the waste they already have.


----------



## mikeshookset (Feb 28, 2005)

streamstalker said:


> The sad thing about this thread is that some have turned it into misspelled rants on state workers, big business, and the guvmint in general.
> 
> Parks are a necessary function of government to make states and municipalities livable and attractive to residents and businesses. I'm against charging a general user fee as Michigan does, but special services could be charged for (as they already are for the inns).
> 
> ...


just because some one works hard to buy what they want they should give the goverment more money to waste?


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

mikeshookset said:


> just because some one works hard to buy what they want they should give the goverment more money to waste?


Agreed...I also wonder how much of this money will be spent before it arrives to its final destination...Somtimes its not about what people should be willing to do,its about what the government is willing to do..A blind high has been turned for years and the situation is bad..I say its the governments fault,and we shouldnt have to be responsible for their mistakes...


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

> In 2007 the ODNR was hit with major budget cuts. In addition to licenses and permits, the ODNR receives a large portion of its money through the General Revenue Fund. Governor Strickland cut ODNR funding through the GRF. The Ohio EPA--which receives its money through fees collected on solid waste disposal, fines on polluters, permitting fees and the federal government-- was not affected by budget cuts.


http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-toledo/what-will-kasich-do-for-ohio-s-epa-and-odnr



> Hold on tight!
> 
> Dont let go.
> 
> Those of us who are involved in Ohio outdoor activities are likely in for a rough ride over the next few months.


http://www.examiner.com/outdoor-recreation-in-dayton/ohio-departments-of-natural-resources-agriculture-and-epa-might-be-conbined?cid=parsely#parsely


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Then there's this...the article address a different subject...but see the sentiment in bold...last sentence in the 4th paragraph:

There is the risk that we either pay for natural resources and ensure continued use, or other people paying for it who do not care for hunting and fishing end up calling the shots.



> With ODNRs support, various suburban areas have ill-attempted to resolve their local over-populations by allowing bow-hunting in residential areas off-limits to hunting. With over a 50% failure rate of hunters ever finding the animals they wound with their arrows, mortified citizens have been forced to fight this battle as well. Seeing deer such as in the above slide-show does not make for a pleasant or safe neighborhood. But again, its more hunting licenses to sell. This petition has more info.
> 
> So, if you happen to see Norman, please tell him to keep running. Perhaps offer him a disguise as a real felon since the opinion of some Ohio law enforcement agencies is that a human felon is less risk than a native deer or raccoon.
> 
> ...


http://www.back2thewildrehab.com/wildlife-in-the-news.html


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

iam20fan said:


> we already pay fees by buying hunting and fishing licenses every year thumbs down for me.


exactly.. whats next after this? a minnow fee or a restroom fee? maybe a fee for each fish caught.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

How about this...a hypothethical situation?

Person A buys a fishing license for $19, Person B supports Scenic Rivers at $50 a year on their tax form...B people outnumber A people 3-1 and don't like sport fishing...someone puts forth a proposal to ban sport fishing on Scenic Rivers.

What happens?

Anyone who says that fishing licenses support ODNR operations gets told that the General Fund pays for the bulk of ODNR activity....essentially nonsportsmen subsidising sportsmen.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Maybe it's hard for me to wrap my head around people not understanding that quality costs money.

People complain about less than stellar game law enforcement, and yet people to do the job need to be paid and the work funded...better and more costs more money.

Water quality obviously effects fishing dramatically, yet wastewater treatment, runoff control, pollution abatement and creating buffer zone easements is expensive...some of this extremely costly. People are starting to see that those algae blooms can be bad news...fixing it will not be cost free.

The research that sets game limits as a part of sustainable management is time consuming, takes a lot of work and isn't free.

Preserving land is expensive, the State's share of buying the Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest cost $4 million...nearly 16,000 acres preserved.

http://www.ohiosaf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63dnr-to-purchase-vinton-furnace-exerimental-forest&catid=34hio-issues&Itemid=54


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Water quality is where I start watching Kasich closely.

Among the watershed activists, I haven't heard anything about banning sport fishing on scenic rivers.

As an income stream, how about doubling or tripling the fines for littering and dumping?


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> Amen- Iraqvet!
> 
> You pro-tax guys need to look at the big picture. Our economy has been on a slide for a quite a while now. While the private sector has been trimming fat, cutting salaries and jobs, cutting health insurance and pensions. The State and local governments have been carrying on with business as usual. They have unrealistic pay rates, health care and pensions. All in hopes to find the most qualified candidate for the job. Guess what? In this economy most would do their job for 75% of what they get now.
> Or we should outsource their jobs. I'm sure we could get some Chinese or Indian personnel for 1/4 the rate, and not even have to supply health care or a pension.
> I'm just curious if these individuals would have that same opinion (about needing more money every year) if we were about to let the Chinese come do it for 40% less. They don't seem to mind the Chinese using slave labor to drive everybody else out of business, how about them?


it's not a tax that's being talked about.
i think the idea was that since fishermen & hunters already pay the lions share to the dnr through our licenses and fees then why not charge a small fee to the rest of the public that use the parks.
and,you're very wrong about local governments going on with "business as usual".that,is a fact.i've seen it 1st hand through my job.the cutbacks have made my work alot more dangerous that it already is.but saying that a government worker has unrealistic benefits just isn't true. as far as pay rates go,i think you'd be very suprised at what i DON'T make as a firefighter/emt on a 56 hour work week.my health care package is good but my retirement isn't so good because of my pay rate.
here's the thing that alot of people don't know.local governments have to by law,stay within their budgets.now,with so many jobs gone the taxes have gone right along with them.so,there is less for the local government to operate on.and like i said,they have to operate with what they have.
the situation is only going to get worse before it gs better.the new governors plans are to cut funding to cities by 20%.
so,things are bad all over.but i will say that the politicians have done everything they can to not personally feel the bite of our current situation.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Jeffmo,
It is a tax. I'm not against all users paying it. But all tax payers already do!

Let's be realistic. In your field (as shown in your avatar) each department needs the newest pricey gadget to "make their job safe", while your predecessors were able to function just fine without it. I'm all for having good equipment, but the rest of society (well most, I'll exclude overspenders that file bankrupcy (this does not include bankruptcies due to hardship so remain calm if that includes anyone)) does not purchase the newest gadget just to keep up with the Jones'.

On a side note Columbus just raised our income tax last year, gives every business a tax break, threatens service cuts, drivers break every law while the police sit in a shopping center parking lot talking to each other or on the cell. Write some tickets! I've never seen CPD make a traffic stop during daylight hours. Do traffic laws only apply after dark?

Bottom line is your paid pretty well to a job. Better than probably 90% of the working class stiffs (going rate is probably about $10/hr here in c-bus). So show some financial responsibility.



> but i will say that the politicians have done everything they can to not personally feel the bite of our current situation
> 
> Read more: http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?p=1128185&posted=1#post1128185#ixzz18kiRAvbT


I will agree with you on that.


----------



## ODNR3723 (Apr 12, 2007)

I am not sure but i may be one of the fat-cat state worker sucking on the public teet. I am employed with Ohio State Parks and yes our budgets have been continually cut since i was first hired on in 2003 to scrub pit toilets. I have not seen a budget increase since. Status quo one year due to the raiding of another fund. What some do not realize is that when you buy a hunting/fishing license that money goes to wildlife and wildlife only. Rightfully so! They are the ones managing the wildlife/fish. When you register a boat the money goes to watercraft. Even though you might hunt on state park public hunting areas or boat on a state park lake, we do not see the money. We are dependent upon the general revenue fund for funding. We have no dedicated source. Some one had posted a proposed budget that was introduced. I believe the proposal was $74 million which will not be approved. We have 74 state parks. I ask any of you to stop at your local state park and ask to speak with the regional manager. Ask them how the budget is and get their opinion. If you do not think we are making cuts to keep up you are wrong. On a final note, I am against an admission fee to our parks. All Ohioans pay for these resources through current taxing procedures. That is all gentleman.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

ODNR3723,

The poorly paid worker bees at the DNR are definetly not the "fat cats" being referenced. It's the cats that keep taking their annual pay increase while asking me to give more. The cats that work in offices and expense their lunches to the taxpayers.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> Jeffmo,
> It is a tax. I'm not against all users paying it. But all tax payers already do!
> 
> *Let's be realistic. In your field (as shown in your avatar) each department needs the newest pricey gadget to "make their job safe", while your predecessors were able to function just fine without it. I'm all for having good equipment, but the rest of society (well most, I'll exclude overspenders that file bankrupcy (this does not include bankruptcies due to hardship so remain calm if that includes anyone)) does not purchase the newest gadget just to keep up with the Jones'.*
> ...


well,since we're gonna be realistic...
our department(along w/ MANY others i know)have had to make due for alot of years now because of the economy.when i was 1st hired 21years ago we had 6 men per shift.now,we're down to 4 most days.that's not enough to do the job safely especially considering that we also run ems.

"the newest pricey gadget to "make their job safe"? what ones are you talking about????... bunker gear?,scba's? seriously,i can't figure that one out.
our city has ZERO money set aside for truck replacement.it's the 1st time since the early 70's that has happened.
my predecessors did a good job but the job has changed more than you know.way back when,the materials that burned were basically wood based.today,most everything in a home is synthetic AND when burnt,produces highly toxic by products.so,the danger to the body has increased greatly to the point that,on the average,our lives are 10 years shorter.also,the homes today,are far more dangerous during a fire.today homes are far more air tight and the result is more flashovers and backdrafts.
now,that may not mean much to some but when you're on the end of a hoseline going through a house fire,it's not very comforting to realize that you don't have the personnel outside to come get you out if something goes bad.so it's not an issue of making due.the job got alot more dangerous.
the bottom line is that i put in a 56 hour work week for a department that has averages about 2,800 runs a year(we also do ems which brings in about $375,000 a year but doesn't come back to the department) and most people wouldn't do this for a whopping salary of $36,000 a year.i personally think the taxpayers in my town are getting one hell of a bargain for their money.that,is the truth of the matter,not a perception from seeing it occasionally from the outside. 
btw,i can't and won't speak for the columbus police but,i'd bet they'd allow you to do a ride along to see exactly what they do every day and the situations they have to deal with.i know i wouldn't want their job.....especially in columbus.

i realize that there is ALOT of waste in government and i don't like it at all because i see 1st hand what the results are from it.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

I would like to see all taxes eradicated for funding of things like parks and libraries and have a user fee replace the taxes. I'm not sure what the government is doing in the parks and library business anyway.

I would rather pay a user fee for entrance to parks than have tax money go toward it. If I was a homebody, and never ever go to parks, why would I want to pay taxes for something I will never use? I wouldn't. If I use parks all the time (which I do), I would be ok with paying a fee per entrance or purchasing a yearly pass. That way my money goes to support what I enjoy doing, rather than giving it to the state to decide for me where my money is spent. 

Obviously, the caveat is that I want to see a reduction in the taxes that I have to pay in order for this fee to be ok. If they want to keep the taxes the same AND charge a user fee, I would NOT be ok with that.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I dont agree with user fee's...There is just no way I trust ohio to manage the money..Lets say its a $30 fee to use the parks and lakes for a year..Well,we all know $26 of that will be issued out on its way to the top..It will just cancel itself out..Smead gave a link to an article where the non sporting outdoors people assumed they were the majority...Well,what are they willing to pay??..Probably nothing since they assume only hunters and fishers should pay..Again,lets be honest...These are the PETA type who want everything for nothing..Does anyone really think they will convince the government to take away hunting and fishing??..Thats a big NO!!..


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

First off,I'm not one of the ones that know that $26.00 will go to anything other than they say it will.I would assume that it was going where it's supposed to go,unless I had proof otherwise.As I've stated many times in the past,I worked in the ODNR for years,and I know a little about where the money comes in from,and what it's spent on.The governor and his cronies don't dip into the ODNR money as often as you seem to believe,but I already know from other topics,neither of us can convince each other to see things each other's way,so I won't try.Secondly,you're dead wrong about PETA,and other wacko groups like them stopping fishing and hunting.There's many places they have got laws passed to prevent hunting,look at California for example.Regarding the topic of fees at state parks and boat ramps,I guess I'm just not as passionate about it as you are.I'm fine with the way things are now,and I would be fine with it if they imposed the fees.Either wat,I'll still go fishing,I would hope that you would too,why stay home just because you have to pay five bucks to use a ramp.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

I'm not for raising any taxes and I'm not willing to pay any more for services my tax dollars should cover anyway. If the Federal, State, and Local Governments need money they can do what my family has had to do...cut costs and reduce spending. 

The Federal, State, and Local Coffers would be full if we had "Full Employment"(People who wanted to work...working). We allowed Corporate Greed and corrupt leaders to move production out...etc, etc, etc,....etc,etc...!
The State has a "LONG-TERM" untapped labor source that they pay monthly to do nothing...those that collect a welfare or unemployment check should be required to work for it, if they can....period! That's my money, so you can sit on your butt for 3 years and do nothing. Hell, you can clean up trash, mow the grass, sink trees/cover, or clean the toliets. I bet they would find a job alittle quicker than they do now!


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Intimidator said:


> I'm not for raising any taxes and I'm not willing to pay any more for services my tax dollars should cover anyway. If the Federal, State, and Local Governments need money they can do what my family has had to do...cut costs and reduce spending.
> 
> The Federal, State, and Local Coffers would be full if we had "Full Employment"(People who wanted to work...working). We allowed Corporate Greed and corrupt leaders to move production out...etc, etc, etc,....etc,etc...!
> The State has a "LONG-TERM" untapped labor source that they pay monthly to do nothing...those that collect a welfare or unemployment check should be required to work for it, if they can....period! That's my money, so you can sit on your butt for 3 years and do nothing. Hell, you can clean up trash, mow the grass, sink trees/cover, or clean the toliets. I bet they would find a job alittle quicker than they do now!


Good points. If everyone has to do with less to get by, so should government entities. The federal government OWNS 1/3 of the land mass that comprises the United States. Why don't they sell all of that? Again, I am not sure why the government is in the business of real estate. Privatize the parks, pay down debts with the money from the land sales, and let business charge a price for entrance to the parks. That way, people who utilize the parks are the ones paying for them. It won't be just fisherman and hunters. Walkers, joggers, birders, nature enthusiasts, PETA hippies, and the like will all be involved in paying for this service.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Harbor Hunter said:


> First off,I'm not one of the ones that know that $26.00 will go to anything other than they say it will.I would assume that it was going where it's supposed to go,unless I had proof otherwise.As I've stated many times in the past,I worked in the ODNR for years,and I know a little about where the money comes in from,and what it's spent on.The governor and his cronies don't dip into the ODNR money as often as you seem to believe,but I already know from other topics,neither of us can convince each other to see things each other's way,so I won't try.Secondly,you're dead wrong about PETA,and other wacko groups like them stopping fishing and hunting.There's many places they have got laws passed to prevent hunting,look at California for example.Regarding the topic of fees at state parks and boat ramps,I guess I'm just not as passionate about it as you are.I'm fine with the way things are now,and I would be fine with it if they imposed the fees.Either wat,I'll still go fishing,I would hope that you would too,why stay home just because you have to pay five bucks to use a ramp.


HH,I am not sure what your talking about with the hunting in CA,I just know you can still hunt there..Do you really think you would see any difference in how things are even if you payed more then you already do??..Dont you at all think its sad that are god given rights may be at stake cause of $$??..Thats not my fault,nor yours..The government pushed the tax money out the door along with our jobs..You see,the government started the dilema,and they want us to fix it..The problem is,it wont..


----------



## mikeshookset (Feb 28, 2005)

these post show 1 thing is clear the people are fed up with how the state handles the money they get now. untill a poloticion stops saying what he is going to do and STANDS UP AND DOES WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED HIM IN TO DO they are in for a long hard road to get any more money out of us.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

C-bus income tax 2.5%. Currently the highest city income tax in the state!
Nough said!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I just don't understand how a person cannot see user fees as taxes. I understand how you could be in favor of them, as long as they fees were only used to support your activity. I just don't think that's how it would work. Think about how the state lottery works. A lot of people think all that money just goes to support the schools. Well, it does, except, the state funding gets offset by that amount. In other words, if the lottery generates $1 million for the schools, the state gets to keeps $1 million of funding. It's a shell game, you see. Now the state can claim it has never taken any lottery profits. Maybe the DNR could work with the lottery to have a ticket thats proceeds benefitted the DNR?

We, as a whole, pay tax money that get used for things that may or may not benefit you, specifically. Welfare programs, bike paths, walking trails, BMV, art endowments, a bat house in S.Carolina. None of these things benefit me, but, I'm not entirely against them. Just because I don't use these things, does that mean I should be refunded my share of the tax money that went towards them? No. I/we pay the taxes so that these things are available. Just like our State Parks. 

The state needs to stop buying lands. The problem with state ownership is that there will never be taxes paid on that land ever again. I'm sure someone is going to find offense to that, but it's true. They need to maintain what they have, and if they can not afford to do that, then why try to spread it thinner? Property taxes are what fund the schools and, oh wait, that must be why we have the lottery.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Iraqvet said:


> I dont agree with user fee's...There is just no way I trust ohio to manage the money..Lets say its a $30 fee to use the parks and lakes for a year..Well,we all know $26 of that will be issued out on its way to the top..It will just cancel itself out..Smead gave a link to an article where the non sporting outdoors people assumed they were the majority...Well,what are they willing to pay??..Probably nothing since they assume only hunters and fishers should pay..Again,lets be honest...These are the PETA type who want everything for nothing..Does anyone really think they will convince the government to take away hunting and fishing??..Thats a big NO!!..


As stated previously, fishing and hunting licenses do not generate enough money to fund the entire ODNR...the majority of ODNR's funds come out of the general fund.

That nonfishing, nonhunting majority is already paying through THEIR taxes.

About 2.2 million fishing licenses sold and a total State population of about 11.5 million.

Not all anti-fishing and anti-hunting groups are as crazy as PETA...but they are out there and believe in their cause. There's also a large amount of people who aren't activists, but who don't see any reason to hunt or fish.

He who pays the fiddler gets to call the tune.

Now outside of fishing, I support what ODNR does and the importance of conservation, preservation and environmental protection. What we enjoy is the ability to take a sustainable harvest: profit off of the capital...but you have to protect the capital that generates that profit.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Good points. If everyone has to do with less to get by, so should government entities. The federal government OWNS 1/3 of the land mass that comprises the United States. Why don't they sell all of that? Again, I am not sure why the government is in the business of real estate. Privatize the parks, pay down debts with the money from the land sales, and let business charge a price for entrance to the parks. That way, people who utilize the parks are the ones paying for them. It won't be just fisherman and hunters. Walkers, joggers, birders, nature enthusiasts, PETA hippies, and the like will all be involved in paying for this service.


These nonhunters and nonfishers already pay for the parks...strictly speaking, hunting and fishing licenses don't really pay for the parks since those parks aren't under Division of Wildlife.

Privatize the parks and more than likely they'll get developed into upscale residential developements.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

I Fish said:


> I just don't understand how a person cannot see user fees as taxes. I understand how you could be in favor of them, as long as they fees were only used to support your activity. I just don't think that's how it would work. Think about how the state lottery works. A lot of people think all that money just goes to support the schools. Well, it does, except, the state funding gets offset by that amount. In other words, if the lottery generates $1 million for the schools, the state gets to keeps $1 million of funding. It's a shell game, you see. Now the state can claim it has never taken any lottery profits. Maybe the DNR could work with the lottery to have a ticket thats proceeds benefitted the DNR?
> 
> We, as a whole, pay tax money that get used for things that may or may not benefit you, specifically. Welfare programs, bike paths, walking trails, BMV, art endowments, a bat house in S.Carolina. None of these things benefit me, but, I'm not entirely against them. Just because I don't use these things, does that mean I should be refunded my share of the tax money that went towards them? No. I/we pay the taxes so that these things are available. Just like our State Parks.
> 
> The state needs to stop buying lands. The problem with state ownership is that there will never be taxes paid on that land ever again. I'm sure someone is going to find offense to that, but it's true. They need to maintain what they have, and if they can not afford to do that, then why try to spread it thinner? Property taxes are what fund the schools and, oh wait, that must be why we have the lottery.


Personally, I feel that more land needs to be preserved...it's done once it get's developed.

My view is that the preservation is more important than to get tax money for yet another Walmart built.

There's plenty of land already developed that can be revitalized for property tax purposes.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Smead, I couldn't agree more with you about preserving our parks, that must be done so future generations can enjoy them, sorry I just couldn't stay away as promised I'm just not quite ready for herds of Elk, Buffalo and wild ****** running all over Ohio

Now on to my post on the subject ignoring my prior post.
If our parks are in jeopardy and truly need operating funds then I could agree to paying this yearly fee BUT...I want accountability!! I want to see a business plan clearly laid out specifying what the monies will be used for and exactly how it will be allocated. I want to know that the Director of said funds is not hiring his relatives construction company without an opportunity for an open bid process. I want to know exactly what will be done with any extra monies generated from these fees up front, not after the fact. I believe the whole issue is accountability, nobody trusts our elected officials anymore, with good reason. With an open book policy and someone to police and enforce the business plan to be certain that it stays on track it may gain favor and build the kind of trust that is clearly lacking today. If they just think they can slip another fee in on us and have zero accountability they are clearly on their way out. I believe we are really starting to wake up....I hope so anyway. Time to get out on the ice and away from the computer.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Smead said:


> Personally, I feel that more land needs to be preserved...it's done once it get's developed.
> 
> My view is that the preservation is more important than to get tax money for yet another Walmart built.
> 
> There's plenty of land already developed that can be revitalized for property tax purposes.


Get a plat map and take a look at how much property the Federal Government and the State already own. They could easily turn these properties into usable "wild land" if they wanted to. Just build a parking lot, and let it be.

The ODNR is huge. It's not just hunting and fishing, so, it shouldn't be soley funded by hunters and fishers.

This link takes you too a page that contains pdf's for all of the state agency budgets. Check out the ODNR:
http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1011/ExecutiveBudget.aspx 

Here's a quote I like from page 11: _The Executive Recommendation will fund the following objectives:
Provide real estate management services and environmental reviews for the department&#8217;s land holding divisions
that own and manage over 780,000 acres of land; and
Perform an average of 50 acquisition or lease transactions per year that results in the addition of approximately
3,500 acres per year to DNR&#8217;s land inventory._

That means the DNR already owns almost 3% of the entire state, hence, a 3% tax loss. My point is, if they can't chew what they have, why bite off more?

As far as I can tell from the budget, the Fountain Square complex is costing about $4.7 million per year. Must be nice offices.


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

Well I believe in conservation not preservation! If it wasnt for ODNR and conservation or fishing and hunting would be dead for now. Preservation means to just keep the land and mother nature can be harder on wildlife and land then People can. By using conservation we replentice and control which prevents nature from destroying by disease or over population. Also no one has use of preserved land. I think paying would be a lot fairer. Right now most public lands and water is paid for by hunting and fishing permits. Boaters,picnicers,hikers and everone else use the parks for free.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

mushroomman said:


> Smead, I couldn't agree more with you about preserving our parks, that must be done so future generations can enjoy them, sorry I just couldn't stay away as promised I'm just not quite ready for herds of Elk, Buffalo and wild ****** running all over Ohio
> 
> Now on to my post on the subject ignoring my prior post.
> If our parks are in jeopardy and truly need operating funds then I could agree to paying this yearly fee BUT...I want accountability!! I want to see a business plan clearly laid out specifying what the monies will be used for and exactly how it will be allocated. I want to know that the Director of said funds is not hiring his relatives construction company without an opportunity for an open bid process. I want to know exactly what will be done with any extra monies generated from these fees up front, not after the fact. I believe the whole issue is accountability, nobody trusts our elected officials anymore, with good reason. With an open book policy and someone to police and enforce the business plan to be certain that it stays on track it may gain favor and build the kind of trust that is clearly lacking today. If they just think they can slip another fee in on us and have zero accountability they are clearly on their way out. I believe we are really starting to wake up....I hope so anyway. Time to get out on the ice and away from the computer.


Welcome back...I agree on the accountability and that goes across the board for all State government activity, not just the ODNR.

This might be an excellent time for just that in this current crisis...all crisis also has opportunity.

Kasich can be a one termer too if he screws up...and the members of our legislature need some wake up calls too. These people are supposed to be our employees, not our masters.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

I Fish said:


> Get a plat map and take a look at how much property the Federal Government and the State already own. They could easily turn these properties into usable "wild land" if they wanted to. Just build a parking lot, and let it be.
> 
> The ODNR is huge. It's not just hunting and fishing, so, it shouldn't be soley funded by hunters and fishers.
> 
> ...


ODNR isn't solely funded by those who fish and hunt...we fund a portion with our licenses...those who buy fishing licenses fund about $42 million of the ballpark $350 million total budget...and that gets targeted to Division of Wildlife...not the other areas of concern. Otherwise, all taxpaying Ohioans pay for preserving land and conservation/environmental programs.

So only 3% of the States land is preserved...and that's sufficient????

That amount is dismal...look how much has been urban/suburbanized and is utilized in heavy use agriculture.

I'm surprised that you would feel that way I guess.

What would you get for that 3% not being taxed as property currently if it were transfered to private ownership so it could be taxed?? The money's a pittance strategically and that land could very well be developed...most likely by people who don't want you on it. Any taxes would be local collection that wouldn't do anything for the State budget.

It's like saying that Yosemite is worthless unless you sell it off for condo's.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

viper1 said:


> Well I believe in conservation not preservation! If it wasnt for ODNR and conservation or fishing and hunting would be dead for now. Preservation means to just keep the land and mother nature can be harder on wildlife and land then People can. By using conservation we replentice and control which prevents nature from destroying by disease or over population. Also no one has use of preserved land. I think paying would be a lot fairer. Right now most public lands and water is paid for by hunting and fishing permits. Boaters,picnicers,hikers and everone else use the parks for free.


The greatest danger is loss of habitat and the effects of land use on that habitat...that's why land has to be preserved...what conservation practices are you going to be able to do if there's no land or water to do them on???

Right now, most public land and water is paid for by people who do not hunt and fish...out of the general fund....those license fees pay for the Division of Wildlife, not anything else.

We pay a portion of our state income taxes to fund ODNR, as does each and every tax paying Ohioan...we pay extra for the licenses and those proceeds go to directly for game programs....those license fees don't pay for the majority of what ODNR does...other tax paying citizens don't use the resources for free.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Smead said:


> These nonhunters and nonfishers already pay for the parks...strictly speaking, hunting and fishing licenses don't really pay for the parks since those parks aren't under Division of Wildlife.
> 
> Privatize the parks and more than likely they'll get developed into upscale residential developements.


I do agree with youthere..Privatizing would help the state,but probably hurt us..




Smead said:


> As stated previously, fishing and hunting licenses do not generate enough money to fund the entire ODNR...the majority of ODNR's funds come out of the general fund.
> 
> That nonfishing, nonhunting majority is already paying through THEIR taxes.
> 
> ...


As it was mentioned,yes the license dont cover enough of the share..What I meant was,even if we were paying more,it was gonna go into the general fund..As someone else mentioned,there would need to be a program that works for sure and a good accountability program in place..Now,here is what I am thinking...You said 1 out of 5 has the licenses...So the number $25 was thrown out as a possible number for a year long pass..Now,we could also charge $5 for 5 out of 5,and get the same number correct?..Now,lets say people oppose the extra 50 cents or so on their taxes every month..Now its on just us..What if they figure $25 isnt enough,and have to bump it to $100??..Or maybe even higher??..And then,whats the fee for a one day pass??..Cause some people may not see the need for parks,til they need to attend a childs birthday,or maybe go to the beach,cause many of them are state parks as well..See how that works??..People havnt mentioned beaches on here yet..So what,would that be like $5 a car load,maybe $10??.Maybe that will drve people away...Also,how much is it gonna cost to have little booths,and people working them gonna cost??..I mean,people will have to get charged at some point..They will need some at the park entrances,and some at the boat ramps,which would be at multiple places at many parks and fishin holes..That will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year accross the state during peak season..So I propose this...If they must charge,CHARGE EVERY HOUSEHOLD,,yes in TAXES...It will be cheaper that way in the end..There shouldnt be a need to hire more people that way,therefore more money would be saved...If not charge everyone,figure out how to identify those who decided to pay the fee...Maybe special identifying license plates or somthin..If you get caught usin ur buddies,you get a nice $$ fine...Here is the problem with it just restin on us though...The cost would probably be much higher then th numbers stated above..When people start bowing out,it will only get more expensive for the rest who still have their chips in..So my stance is if this goes down,charge everyone a small fee,all the way across the board instead of a huge fee to individual people...I am still mad we gotta pay to clean up politicians messes all the time..But if we gotta pay,we might aswell do it in a manor that makes it cheap for everyone instead of expensive for a few...


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Iraqvet said:


> I do agree with youthere..Privatizing would help the state,but probably hurt us..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I can agree with most all of that,the problem is in getting the people who matter most to agree with it.Like I said,it doesn't matter to me one way,or the other how things turn out,I'll still go fishing regardless.I guess the way I see it,it's pretty much inevitable that sometime in the near future,Ohio will join other states and charge fees to use ramps,and state parks,by my accepting it now,I won't get upset about it when it does happen.Oh,anti-hunters got bear and cougar hunting stopped while I was living in California,I'm not sure if it's still that way now though.My brother lives in North Dakota,and he told me there's a couple of big game animals that PETA is trying to stop the hunting on,guess it's really close for next year whether they will get their wish.I know they've been after the steelheaders all over the left-coast too,it's kind of scary when you consider the ton of money,and big name supporters they have on board.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I'm fearful of some parks being closed for lack of manpower to maintain and partol them.

Around Columbus you can see a lot of old park infrastructure that was allowed to decline. For example, along Griggs there's a little stone-walled amphitheatre. You can go to the library website and see historical pictures of brass-band concerts that were held there. Someone invested in building it, but no one invested in maintaining it, and now it's crumbling apart, unsafe, fenced off, and allowed to be overgrown in honeysucklle to discourage kids from playing in it.

I'm afraid something similar may happen elsewhere. Facilities we have invested in will need money for maintenance. If penny-pinching cuts those maintenance funds, then those facilities will deteriorate and will be lost, along with the investment in building them, and there probably won't be funds for a complete rebuild anytime soon.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

FOSR said:


> I'm fearful of some parks being closed for lack of manpower to maintain and partol them.


That's what I was thinking too. I wonder what the additional costs would be to monitor the parks for user fee enforcement. Would affordable fees even be able to offset the additional monitoring needed? What would it cost to initially set up the infrastructure required? All this needs to be looked over very carefully before saying let's charge user fees and then, "oh crap we need raise them 'cause we're losing money".

Everyone knows ODNR is spread too thin now and can't afford the manpower to police anything else.

I wouldn't mind an reasonable increase in watercraft fees that affects all the users, increased violation fines, and increase fees for out-of-state users (hunting/fishing license and tags).


----------



## fishinjim (Aug 9, 2006)

FOSR said:


> I'm fearful of some parks being closed for lack of manpower to maintain and partol them.


It's funny. In general, we are the government. Without the people, there would be no government. so, when people talk about the government closing something down that we the people own, that just sounds wrong.

the government shouldn't be there to control us but should be there to provide those services that the general public can't provide for on their own (ie roads, defense of borders type stuff).

trespassing on government property is ridiculous, when you think about it.


----------



## Bonemann (Jan 28, 2008)

We have had a small state park here for many years that now may become a county park.

This past year the state was going to give this park to the ODNR for it to become a wildlife area. Our county commissioners are making a play for it now, offering to take it over and keep it going as a park. 

The reason the state wanted to get rid of it was due to the cost of maintenance (estimated at $350,000.00 a year). It's a very small park with maybe 100 acre lake and 50 camping sites. Some years back they cut out the the swimming area and the little wildlife building. I can only imagine what the budget would be at a park like Salt Fork.(I think $5 or $10 a car load would do very little to offset that kind of money not to mention the implementation of collecting such fees at all the parks.)

My county believes that they can offset the maintenance cost by developing more camping and looking into logging and gas extraction on the property. They are only concerned about the lake,camping and picnic areas in the park.

How much are outdoor areas worth to all Ohioans ? We as hunters and fishermen care a great deal but what about the people that never use such things ?

In one of those state budget pages it says that parks and wild life budget is a little over $581 million dollars. And that our part from licenses and fees are at $37 million. (That's a huge difference). 

I'm not sure what the answer will be to the kind of problems that Ohio and all other states too are facing over the next few years.


----------



## jcustunner24 (Aug 20, 2007)

Bonemann said:


> How much are outdoor areas worth to all Ohioans ? We as hunters and fishermen care a great deal but what about the people that never use such things ?


I think the number of people who never use parks is smaller than assumed. Hunters/fisherman are the *minority * at most parks

Things I routinely see at parks:
Picnics
Walkers
Joggers
Cross country skiing (seasonal)
Frisbee golf (if available)
Tennis/Basketball/Softball/etc (if available)
Swimmers (if available)
Dog walkers 
Sunbathing
Family reunions
Kite flyers
Fishermen
Hunters
Bird watchers
School science classes 
College science classes
Photographers (senior photos, wedding photos, etc)
Hikers
Horse riders (if available)

Of that list, there are only a couple of things that I could see people canning in favor of other locations. Obviously, sunbathing can be done just about anywhere the sun shines, so there'd be little reason to pay to lay there. However, with a season pass, most of the other activities would continue.

I've never been to a park where more people were fishing than doing other activities.

Overall, I agree with Harbor Hunter when he said he's fine with the way things are but would be fine paying. 

I read an article recently that said Wingfoot Lake had 60,000 visitors between it's grand opening, August 27th, and December 19th. Assuming many of those cars are repeat visitors and cutting the number in half, @ $5 a pop, that's still $150,000. They estimate the park will see between 250,000 and 300,000 guests next year. 

Those who think the money will be spent on "other things," and don't trust the government, I understand your point and that there's no chance of changing your mind. I'm good with that, so please don't rehash the same point again.


----------



## GETTIN' THERE (Apr 17, 2007)

Bonemann said:


> I'm not sure what the answer will be to the kind of problems that Ohio and all other states too are facing over the next few years.



Anybody see or read the 60 min / cbs news article this week "2011 is the year of reckoning?" 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/60minutes/main7166220.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

In a nut shell, 2011 is it. Federal money, which the states have been living off of ends and the states are left to fend for themselves. Hang on it will be a rough ride!

oh yea...no way to access fees or additional taxes.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Bonemann said:


> We have had a small state park here for many years that now may become a county park.
> 
> This past year the state was going to give this park to the ODNR for it to become a wildlife area. Our county commissioners are making a play for it now, offering to take it over and keep it going as a park.
> 
> ...


I would imagine that most of the budget is Manpower associated costs. We're paying 10-12 percent of the population unemployment and another percent Welfare etc. This would be a no brainer for most of us But then again, that would be cruel and inhumane punishment to make people work for "their keep". I think (worthless Brother-in-law) the weekly pay for unemployment (NOT COUNTING food stamps, rent, and utility payments, school credits, gas stipend for daycare, school, job search, ETC, ETC, ETC) is around $458.00 for a family sole provider, I don't even think they take out taxes anymore. That's $11.45 an hour for a 40 hour work week, then most find cash jobs...some have been doing this for 3 years+. In his case he doesn't want this to end, he's better off now then when he was working (couldn't hold a Job, doesn't want to work). That is a HUGE financial drain!!!


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

GETTIN' THERE said:


> Anybody see or read the 60 min / cbs news article this week "2011 is the year of reckoning?"
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/60minutes/main7166220.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
> 
> ...


i watched that and it's scarey.we need the manufacturing jobs back and to get the middle class built back up.lost factories and jobs equal lost taxes and subsidies.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

The state has no money. It is streched so thin, and wait until the underfunded pension burden gets worse. People are continuing to walk away from their houses, which means a significant decrease in property taxes that are collected. That money will not be coming back to the state coffers any time in the near future.

I am a firm believer that privatization of parks is a step in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with allowing businesses to set up some little kiosks in the park that generate revenue towards park operations. Advertisements can also assist in generating revenue. The state is TERRIBLE at spending other people's money, which is why municipalities, counties, state, and federal governments have gotten us into the pinch that we are in right now.

I watched a show on privatization of parks a month or so ago. The show had propents of privatization as well as detractors who want the state to continue funding. It was interesting. Here is a link to an article about what was discussed.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/12/01/making_parks_decent_again

I firmly believe that giving money to the state is like setting your money on fire. It burns up into nothing and there is nothing to show for it. Parks spending is no different. Here is a piece about a $10 million rest area. That is ridiculous.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/27/a-10-million-rest-area/

The state is going to have to make some tough decisions going forward. Unfortunately, I believe that the parks department is going to suffer considerably as it is not a necessity. Privatize parks and quit dumping tax dollars into them.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

Intimidator said:


> I would imagine that most of the budget is Manpower associated costs. We're paying 10-12 percent of the population unemployment and another percent Welfare etc. This would be a no brainer for most of us But then again, that would be cruel and inhumane punishment to make people work for "their keep". I think (worthless Brother-in-law) the weekly pay for unemployment (NOT COUNTING food stamps, rent, and utility payments, school credits, gas stipend for daycare, school, job search, ETC, ETC, ETC) is around $458.00 for a family sole provider, I don't even think they take out taxes anymore. That's $11.45 an hour for a 40 hour work week, then most find cash jobs...some have been doing this for 3 years+. In his case he doesn't want this to end, he's better off now then when he was working (couldn't hold a Job, doesn't want to work). That is a HUGE financial drain!!!


Huh,$11.45 an hour is roughly what that equates out to be and here I am busting my ass for $10.50 an hour. Plus I don't get any food stamps(that people sell and don't say they don't because I know firsthand of people doing it),no healthcare at others expense. Why should I even work anymore? Oh I know,it's because I can't/won't be a leech on soceity. As you know I'm a little younger than you but I've been saying the same thing for years. Put 'em to work doing something to earn their money. Life isn't free and those people shouldn't get a free ride on hard working peoples' backs. The parks are eventually gonna have some type of user fee on them whether we like it or not. As far as making sure the money is gonna be spent on the parks and nothing else is a far fetched notion. When has the states or federal goverment ever done just that. They both take money from one thing to pay for something else and it'll happen with user fees generated from the parks too. I love my country but I understand that "we the people" have given our elected leaders far too much power over our lives.


----------



## GETTIN' THERE (Apr 17, 2007)

jeffmo said:


> we need the manufacturing jobs back and to get the middle class built back up.lost factories and jobs equal lost taxes and subsidies.



It is not just manufacturing. Wife works IT, guess what...being offshored (excuse me the new PC term is Right Shored) to Manila. I work Graphics/Printing ... we are loosing contracts to China. 2011 does not look good. As far as the original question to this thread, it is a mute point. Without private sector jobs and a tax base then there will be no ODNR to worry about where their funding is coming from. The government has failed us at all levels while stuffing their pockets.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

jcustunner24 said:


> I think the number of people who never use parks is smaller than assumed. Hunters/fisherman are the *minority * at most parks
> 
> Things I routinely see at parks:
> Picnics
> ...


 There's not many state parks where the main activity is fishing,I can only think of a couple right off hand,Catawba is a state park,and other than a few people who picnic there,I would say it's mainly for fishermen.Mary Jane Thurston on the Maumee River would be another one,although they do offer camping there.I'm not in disagreement with anybody on here,there's been several valid points made.I just believe that changes like these will be made regardless of what we think about it.I'm definitely not in agreement with the folks that don't trust government at any level,from local,county,state and federal,we may not all be on the same side,but we still put everybody in those positions that's currently holding them.At some point,we have to be able to believe somebody-don't we?


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Bucketmouth,I am still not sure about the parks goin private..I mean,there would be so many variables...What would we let them get the land for??..Since we are low on tax money,should we just give it to them cause we are desperate?..Would it be better to let them lease it instead of flat out own it??..If they owned it,what kind of measures would be taken to make sure thy didnt sell off the land,an eventually dissolve the state parks??..Who would set the fair price,or stop them from price gouging??..Who would ensure the wildlife gets the same management..I mean,look at what it takes to manage the fish at say,somewhere like pymatuning or mosquito...It would be one thing to let a small,playground type park fall into private hands...But not the lakes and such..There are just to many ways for that to not work...I wouldnt want the places I go to, to be possibly ruined because the owner is incharge,not the state...Make no mistakes,they would be into for more of themselves then the government is now...


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

spfldbassguy said:


> Huh,$11.45 an hour is roughly what that equates out to be and here I am busting my ass for $10.50 an hour. Plus I don't get any food stamps(that people sell and don't say they don't because I know firsthand of people doing it),no healthcare at others expense. Why should I even work anymore? Oh I know,it's because I can't/won't be a leech on soceity. As you know I'm a little younger than you but I've been saying the same thing for years. Put 'em to work doing something to earn their money. Life isn't free and those people shouldn't get a free ride on hard working peoples' backs. The parks are eventually gonna have some type of user fee on them whether we like it or not. As far as making sure the money is gonna be spent on the parks and nothing else is a far fetched notion. When has the states or federal goverment ever done just that. They both take money from one thing to pay for something else and it'll happen with user fees generated from the parks too. I love my country but I understand that "we the people" have given our elected leaders far too much power over our lives.


I'm sorry I did forget to list they have gotten TOTALLY FREE HEALTHCARE the last 3 years for everything....dental, eyes, medical, and most important Birth Control pills for 3 of them, maybe they'll stop spawning 

The Mother has gained a couple hundred pounds and is now eligble to have breast reduction and her stomach stapled or liposuction because she is now termed disabled due to "Poverty Circumstances", The Father is trying for disability due to a (???) back injury he somehow sustained while not working, If he gets this, the 2 children (girls) will receive $7,000.00 ea from SS, the Wife will receive $9,000.00, and he will receive benefits and sit on his Butt for life......ONLY IN AMERICA!!!


----------



## fishinjim (Aug 9, 2006)

GETTIN' THERE said:


> In a nut shell, 2011 is it.


I'm not so concerned about 2011 as I am about a longer termed future. History repeats. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day but it eventually declined to what it is today - memories.

All through history, mankind has seeked to improve himself over the failure of others. None of this discussion is new. Our fathers, and their fathers had the same conversations. What we need to learn is that change through discussions and/or votes is a better way than wars ever will be.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

> Bucketmouth,I am still not sure about the parks goin private..I mean,there would be so many variables...What would we let them get the land for??


It could be leased or sold. The price for land or the price for leasing would dictate fair market value.



> ..Since we are low on tax money,should we just give it to them cause we are desperate?


No, the state would need something of fair value in return.



> ..Would it be better to let them lease it instead of flat out own it??


It very well could be better to lease, especially if land values have any expected increase in value (which right now I would say no in increasing value)



> ..If they owned it,what kind of measures would be taken to make sure thy didnt sell off the land,an eventually dissolve the state parks??


There would be no measures to ensure that. If the park fails, business will look to either sell it to someone else to manage it or change it for some other purpose.



> ..Who would set the fair price,or stop them from price gouging??


The consumers would stop price gouging and set the fair price. If the price is too high, consumers will not pay for it. It has to be a win-win situation or else the business will not succeed. Perhaps there is no entrance fee into the park, and rather revenue is generated from the liscenced fishing tackle kiosk or the food kiosk. Perhaps revenue is raised by someone hosting a large special event there that generates alot of traffic. Perhaps it's a mix of various approaches.



> ..Who would ensure the wildlife gets the same management..I mean,look at what it takes to manage the fish at say,somewhere like pymatuning or mosquito


Businesses would have a vested interest in managing wildlife. I know I don't want to go fish a lake that is notorious for producing small catches. Businesses know that if it is not properly managed, people will not come and therefore revenue will plummet. Again, it has to be a win-win situation where both the business benefits and the consumer receives what their perceived value is. How they would manage this, I am not sure, but there are much smarter people than me that know how to make money and I am sure that something could be put in place, like a staff person that checks everyone's catch every time a boat comes back. Seems like that could be a simple solution.



> ...It would be one thing to let a small,playground type park fall into private hands...But not the lakes and such..There are just to many ways for that to not work...I wouldnt want the places I go to, to be possibly ruined because the owner is incharge,not the state...


Again, if the business does not run it right, they will not make money. If the place is trashed or the wildlife is gone, no one will come. There is a huge misconception that businesses only care about themselves, but that is just not the case (except for instances like Enron and the like, which is by far the minority of all businesses). THey need people to buy their product in order to stay in business. The state on the other hand runs a MONOPOLY. They do not have to compete with anyone. If they don't achieve the results they want, they always say they "need more money." It should sound familiar because that is why we are talking about this topic....the state charging an entrance fee to generate money. A business will run circles around goverment programs every single day of the week and 738 times on Sundays. They can take your tax dollars, give it their friends in exchange for votes, and bend us over. It is the state that is the bad guy, not business (by state, I mean politicians in any of the various levels of government).



> Make no mistakes,they would be into for more of themselves then the government is now...


I disagree. I will say this though, topics like this usually end in flame wars. Everyone posting on this topic is very good at staying level-headed and not letting opposing views get them fired up and engaging in unbecoming behaviors. Kudos to all on debating such an interesting topic.

Merry Christmas all!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

The problem with privatization is that we've already bought and paid for the parks. Ohio already has some facilities they "lease" out to private companies. Most of the State Park Lodges are ran by a company called Xanterra. They bid on the percentage of profit they will share, and the highest percentage gets the contract. 3 years I think. If we are just going to do this, we might as well just let the state charge us for usage.

Here's a good example of what is wrong as posted by Bonemann: _The reason the state wanted to get rid of it was due to the cost of maintenance (estimated at $350,000.00 a year). It's a very small park with maybe 100 acre lake and 50 camping sites. Some years back they cut out the the swimming area and the little wildlife building._

What is there at a place like this that costs $350,000 a year? Seriously? And yet, the DNR thinks they should be aquiring and additional 3500 acres per year? This is laughable to me.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Bucketmouth-

There would be no measures to ensure that. If the park fails, business will look to either sell it to someone else to manage it or change it for some other purpose

So your saying you dont think there should be a stipulation stating they cant sell the land for housing developements??..Who in their right mind wants to risk that???..And mone should be the driving force behind wildlife management...That involves living beings in an ecosystem they rely on for survival...Your right,the government failed us for now,in more ways then one..As you stated they like their votes..Thats what prevents them from getting to stupid..A private owner,doesnot have to worry about that..Example being,Conneaut Lake Park...Maybe if ou check out my link and read some of the things on there,you might see alittle more about what I mean..

http://www.truthaboutconneautlakepark.com/index.html


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

> *I fish Wrote:*What is there at a place like this that costs $350,000 a year? Seriously? And yet, the DNR thinks they should be aquiring and additional 3500 acres per year? This is laughable to me.


Not all land aquired is for "parks"...you have wildlife and hunting areas, nature preserves and state forests, as well as State parks.

Regarding that $350,000 cost, it would be nice to know which one it was so as to investigate that figure.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

There's a lot of work to do in this State regarding "correction"...though while we may be arguing over the 350 million the ODNR spends a year, below is what the State spent in the last 2 year budget.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Ohio_state_budget

Some select areas:

About 13 billion for Education per year.

About 25 Billion for Health and Human Services per year. 

Combined, that's well over 100 times what's spent on the ODNR.

Note that a good bit of local money is obtained through property taxes for K-12, so the State spending would be in addition to that, though the State expenditures do include the State university system too.

Regarding any new funding for ODNR...I do believe that it's possible to lock any new money into ODNR programs like our license fees go to Division of Wildlife now.

Of course, you have to be vigilant and involved in any process.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

OK. Ohio Div. of Parks and Recreation - $34.1 million, State Parks Operation - $27.3 million, Parks Facilities Maintenance $2.5 million. This equals $63.9 million. Divide by 74 parks equals $863,513 per park. I'm not sure how it works, but I see nowhere in the budget numbers that take into account the profit from three dining lodges, six golf courses, more than 9,000 campsites in 57 family campgrounds ( I assume the campsite money is included in the following $244 million, but I'm not sure), rental from 7,583 boat docks, or the following, which was copied from here:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/resources/aboutus/tabid/90/Default.aspx

Overnight Economic Impact Study -- The division participated with the Ohio Division of Travel and Tourism in an economic impact study of overnight travelers in 2005. Specific to state park overnight visitors, direct sales were $244.1 million in 2005. 

Just what is the ODNR doing in the golf industry? Aren't there enough privately owned golf courses? How about dining lodges? Is Ohio somehow short on resturants? No government agency should have a business competing with private citizens, period. At this point, I believe this goes for land ownership as well. If someone wants to give their ground to the state, fine. However, IMO, for the state to take my money and use it to buy property that you or I could/should have owned is wrong, especially when they can't seem to manage what they have.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I am wonderin if ohio state parks went privatized,what would happen at pymatuning??Ohio is in a contract with PA over the lake..At most,maybe the land,but not the water..??I am sure privating wouldnt happen to every lake overnight..But I dont think it wold effect pymie cause that situation would be really delicate in my eyes...It would need a co-op of both states,not a state and a business person..We are paying the governmen to sustain it,while a business person would want some kind of money made off of it...I would hate to see theme parks go where good hunting lands once stood...Speakin of paying...We would obviously still be paying for the ODNR,and maybe pay to use private parks...Would that seem alittle unfair to be paying for the same thing twice???


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

I don't believe for one second that there are any plans to sell the state parks and I hope there never is. If they went up for sale to the highest bidder I could see the Chinese buying them for the natural resources. Timber them out for the lumber, harvest the fish and game for food, mine the land for coal or sand and gravel, drill for oil and gas and possibly even sell the water to Western states for profit. It would be theirs to do with as they please, why would any private entity want to deal with the liability and expense of managing it for public use when there would be so much profit to take quickly, then sell it for commercial development. The state bought these lands to protect them and maintain some areas for public use just like the Federal Gov't bought Yellowstone, Yosemite and other vast tracts of land. The way private lands are currently being leased for hunting is exactly what would happen if they were sold to private businesses, there would be no more PUBLIC land available. Be careful what you wish for, you just may get more than you wish for. I'll gladly pay a fee to keep these places public, my grandkids may want somewhere to hunt or fish one day.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Another possible scenario. Say I am a multi billionaire and I purchase Salt Fork, now why would I want to open that up to just anyone, I have many wealthy friends that would gladly pay 30K-50K per year to have this wonderful country club to themselves. Maybe I decide to sell of some 50 acre lots for them to build beautiful castles on with spectacular views of the lake. Why would I want to let somebody come in and pay $5 to use my boat ramp and leave a bunch of trash laying around. I certainly don't want a bunch of guys coming into my lake and having a bass tournament, sorry my rich buddies pay me big bucks to keep it private. Sorry, closed fo hunting, my friends pay me big bucks to have all the deer and turkey to themselves. This is why we have State owned parks, so that we don't become like the Europeans where only the wealthy upper class can hunt and fish. This was one of the reasons we came to America in the first place, once it's gone we will never get it back.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I agree mushroomman...I dont see how it would benefit anyone except the people who bought the park..While the government would like one less headache at the time,it would probably give them a heavier one down the road...


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

GETTIN' THERE said:


> It is not just manufacturing. Wife works IT, guess what...being offshored (excuse me the new PC term is Right Shored) to Manila. I work Graphics/Printing ... we are loosing contracts to China. 2011 does not look good. As far as the original question to this thread, it is a mute point. Without private sector jobs and a tax base then there will be no ODNR to worry about where their funding is coming from. The government has failed us at all levels while stuffing their pockets.


but here's another side to losing manufacturing jobs and plants closing.
my uncle,a WWII veteran told me that,in his opinion,this is a national security issue too.back when this country went to both world wars,manufacturing plants were re-tooled to produce what was needed for war.with no factories we can't do it any longer and that makes us vunerable.
our politicians have to start caring about the people of this country and stop being bought off by big business lobbyists.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Man, this thread has gone a long way. From a launch ramp fee all the way to the parks being sold. I'm not advocating privatization. I just want to see them ran effectively. I'm sick of hearing how under funded these enormous programs are. Then, the next day hear about their expansion. They need to manage things like they were a business. If they just operated like they knew the meaning of expense, that would make me happy, and this idea of per use fees would be non-existant.

I struggle with the whole percentage bid plan that is in place for the lodges and concessions. How can a company from Colorado come all the way to Ohio and run some of our lodges, and outbid Ohio businesses? Why does the state put themselves in a position to be basically in business with them? They should be bid, but not on a percentage basis. They should have a set rent, whoever bids the highest rent, get the contract. The minimum bid should be the states maintenance costs for that facility. As it is now, if Xanterra doesn't make any money, neither does the state. Mis-managment? I say yes.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

jeffmo said:


> but here's another side to losing manufacturing jobs and plants closing.
> my uncle,a WWII veteran told me that,in his opinion,this is a national security issue too.back when this country went to both world wars,manufacturing plants were re-tooled to produce what was needed for war.with no factories we can't do it any longer and that makes us vunerable.
> our politicians have to start caring about the people of this country and stop being bought off by big business lobbyists.


The thing with that is we are way more high tech now...We dont churn out nearly as much as we used to cause there would be no point to have mutli million dollar airpanes just sitting on the ground..All M1 - Abrams tanks assembled,get assembled from scrap tanks..They havnt produced a new one at a factory in years,just remanufactured ones...Same with alot of planes and helicopters...Most dumb bombs we have are very old..Now we produce more advanced smart bombs in fewer numbers..Automation took over small arms manufacturing,both the ammo and weapons..We just use way less then we did back then...But we could churn out alot at a fast pace if need be..And your right,this country is bought out by the big business's...


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

Intimidator said:


> I'm sorry I did forget to list they have gotten TOTALLY FREE HEALTHCARE the last 3 years for everything....dental, eyes, medical, and most important Birth Control pills for 3 of them, maybe they'll stop spawning
> 
> The Mother has gained a couple hundred pounds and is now eligble to have breast reduction and her stomach stapled or liposuction because she is now termed disabled due to "Poverty Circumstances", The Father is trying for disability due to a (???) back injury he somehow sustained while not working, If he gets this, the 2 children (girls) will receive $7,000.00 ea from SS, the Wife will receive $9,000.00, and he will receive benefits and sit on his Butt for life......ONLY IN AMERICA!!!


Dude you gotta stop because you're starting to make me depressed.Plus hearing about those kind of lazy no good for nothings really,really,really,pisses me off. What in the heck is "Disabled due to Poverty Circumstances"? If that's actually a real disability then alot of America could claim it. Man that chaps my ass to no end. You're absolutely right,only in America.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

mushroomman said:


> This is why we have State owned parks, so that we don't become like the Europeans where only the wealthy upper class can hunt and fish. This was one of the reasons we came to America in the first place, once it's gone we will never get it back.


Very well stated,I for one don't want to see the U.S. and it's states to become like Europe. You are so correct in saying that once it's gone we will never get it back. Once the parks became privatized everyone would lose out. You're scenario could play out right in front of our eyes and there'd be nothing we could do about it. Right now the state of Ohio needs to fix alot of things. First and foremost is the way schools are funded,secondly would be to come up with a way to fund our parks so that we don't lose them either to lack of money and closing them or being sold and becoming privatized.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

bassguy I agree bigtime about the schools...The unions either need to be ousted,or put in a corner and told to shut up...I seen the CEO guy in charge of the Cleveland schools was makin like 200k+ a year..Thats more then half of what the president makes...What I mean is,we spend way to much money on people,and they come and go...I will throw this example out there..I had an aunt who was in a nursing home..The room down the hall from her housed a set of twins..They were "vegetables" since birth..They were like 26 at the time my aunt was there..The mother would come in somtimes while we were there..She collected THEIR S.S. payments..She would tell us how sad it was that they would never get better...But she also didnt have to work cause THEIR SS payed HER bills...This happens all over the state,and the U.S....Sorry,but if people will never get better,the state should let the people who want them,to pay,or the state should let them go..We could do alot of triming if we wanted...Sadly most would consider it comunism at that point though...


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Iraqvet said:


> bassguy I agree bigtime about the schools...The unions either need to be ousted,or put in a corner and told to shut up...I seen the CEO guy in charge of the Cleveland schools was makin like 200k+ a year..Thats more then half of what the president makes...What I mean is,we spend way to much money on people,and they come and go...I will throw this example out there..I had an aunt who was in a nursing home..The room down the hall from her housed a set of twins..They were "vegetables" since birth..They were like 26 at the time my aunt was there..The mother would come in somtimes while we were there..She collected THEIR S.S. payments..She would tell us how sad it was that they would never get better...But she also didnt have to work cause THEIR SS payed HER bills...This happens all over the state,and the U.S....Sorry,but if people will never get better,the state should let the people who want them,to pay,or the state should let them go..We could do alot of triming if we wanted...Sadly most would consider it comunism at that point though...


 Since this is off topic,we should start another post regarding this,as I have a couple of real messed up stories about people abusing disability programs.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

It all boils down to the fact that WE "The Bill Payers" of the State and Country know the difference between right and wrong and use common sense in making decisions. These OverPriced Bureaucrats make decisions to gain more power and line their own pockets with no regards to the "Common Man". They think we're all a bunch of "Back-Wood Dumb-Butts" and they need to take care of us from birth to death because we cannot think or do for ourselves and they also must think this allows them to rob us blind. These idiots have ruined OUR Great State and OUR Great Country and we need to vote ALL of these idiots and PARTIES out and vote in "Common" people who will work for us. 

First of all WE need Jobs back...if you sell in the US, you better have a plant in the US, or face Tariffs and Taxes and give kick backs or breaks to companies that manufacture here, A fully employed work force would over-fill the coffers in no time. THEN work on the other issues, taxes, healthcare, etc. We can't do anything until money is flowing in instead of flowing out.

And to the people who think we don't need a Manufacturing Base anymore...I really feel sorry for you...No country has ever been able to survive being a service or tech economy. In a time of War, you have to produce and innovate, you loose things quickly and in massive quantities. Same in peace time you have to innovate and build also. We always will have a labor base that needs jobs, most cannot go to college or don't want to rack up $150,000 dollars of debt for school and then cannot find a job to pay enough to make the school bill payment, let alone house,car, family, etc. Common sense will hopefully prevail
Please read the Koran and Chinese Philosophy about the West and form an opinion on our "Friends".


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

One other point I think no one has raised yet - suppose it does cost money to enter a park, does that then put more pressure on private land as a place to go for free?


----------



## Bonemann (Jan 28, 2008)

That little park is called "Jefferson State Lake" in Jefferson County,Oh.

It's one of the lakes that the state has stocked trout in for many years
in the spring time. When May rolls around and the water warms up there
is always a huge die off and one of the park rangers told me that it is one
of the best times to be there to watch all the wildlife come and get a free
meal of the dead fish.

There is some acreage around the lake for hunting and trails for the horse
people who have been the loudest protesters to the state wanting to get
rid of the park.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Bonemann said:


> That little park is called "Jefferson State Lake" in Jefferson County,Oh.
> 
> It's one of the lakes that the state has stocked trout in for many years
> in the spring time. When May rolls around and the water warms up there
> ...


Thanks!

Now let me see if I can dig into this and find anything out regarding detail.

Do you recall who gave that $350,000 figure?? Did it come from somebody with the State, or someone with the County dealing with them??

What's the status currently...is it still state property, or has the county taken it over yet??


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Here's some detail...945 acres...17 acre lake.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/jefferso/tabid/749/Default.aspx

Bing Map

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?q=&mkt=en-US&FORM=BYFD#JnE9LkplZmZlcnNvbitMYWtlK1N0YXRlK1Bhcmsrb2hpbyU3ZXNzdC4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01Ny42MTk4NTcxNDYyMjY3JTdlLTI4LjI2NTE0NDM0OCU3ZTE2LjU2OTQxMDUwODE5MTYlN2UtMTM3Ljc3Njg2MzA5OA==


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Well, any contacting will have to wait until next week.

But what I would be interested in is whether that figure given is yearly cost to maintain, or includes any needed repairs...since the lake includes a bath house.

Seems kind of high for just a small amount of mowing/plowing, trash removal and similiar. 

Though from the map, it looks like there are some ballfields too....and there you go, looks like part of it is a golf course.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

This thread presumes that the money is needed and our lakes and reservoirs won't function the same without it. 

Not sure that is true, but presuming that it is...

My problem with "budgets" as they are established is this: 

When times are very good, like we had throughout the 90's, people are working and the tax revenues to the state naturally increase. The state then increases payrolls, services, you name it; everything about the government has a natural tendency to get bigger.

So what happens when the economy goes through a recession? Its gets extremely tough to cut back (Imagine, for example, working without a cell phone after you've gotten used to one...please note that I am not saying its easy for them to cut back, because I know it is not). 

Thus, my question is this: IF, they truly "need" a fee, when obviously it was never needed before, will it go away when the economy gets strong again?

If you're my age, you know the answer is no. The result: Bigger government permanently.

West Branch, for example, just added more camping along with a pretty beach area for the kids, and a brand new ramp to launch near the camping area.

Sounds good so far, doesn't it? Actually it really is! But...When the economy slows and tax revenues are down, all that space must still have the trees trimmed, the grass cut, the blacktop and roads repaired, the bathroom plumbing and showers repaired and winterized, buildings still need painted again and maintained, and on and on. Even if they close that area temporarily to try to "cut back," that maintenance and repair cost remains.

The tendency to expand (via innocent small tax increases and little ramp fees) is always there. The tendency to cut back as needed is almost never there.


----------



## Nipididdee (Apr 19, 2004)

> I received your request and have submitted it to the appropriate people for approval. I did want you to know however that our management team recently reviewed our policies regarding such requests and has decided to implement a new policy regarding the use of public lands for private clubs, hosting events that have the potential to displace the general public. Any such event, which would include bass tournaments, will be charged a fee. The rate that will be implemented for 2011 is $50 for in-county clubs and $100 for out-of-county clubs. I hope you understand our need to offer county resources in a fair manner to the general, tax-paying, public.


Above is not from State, but rather from Stark Parks- this is new for 2011, anyone in this thread see anything that jumps out at you from this email...


nip
www.dobass.com


----------



## Nipididdee (Apr 19, 2004)

or maybe not... 

I guess my point from this recent contact of a gov't agency ties back into the post's question... "What if Ohio charged admission"

As an outdoors person and a promoter it is EXTREMELY concerning that we (in my case, bass anglers) are somehow not viewed as the _general, tax paying public._

My answer to the question of the post though - yes, of course I'd pay it - but I also don't wanna give my seat up and be forced to the back of the bus.

Here is my response to Stark Parks and plays into thread topic



> Thank you for the prompt contact and information specific to special event fees.
> 
> As a promoter of outdoor events, I fully appreciate the services rendered by all outdoor civil servants. We look forward to assisting in every way we can to best suit desires by Stark Parks.
> 
> ...


PS- I didn't receive any details on the fee other than being billed...

nip


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

> or maybe not...


Yeah, I caught that.

I quite agree...anglers already pay what the public does as a baseline.

Now, one could question whether a bass tournament would hinder use for anyone else while it is ongoing?? If so, to what degree??

Then again, whatever they told you could be a smokescreen for just charging a fee for a group event so as to generate income. If so, it would be more honest to admit that their finances are stretched and they can't get a general revenue increase.

It seems though that this would effect any group hosting an event...like holding some marathon rowing competition or Olympic water ballet competitions...wouldn't it??


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

vc1111 said:


> This thread presumes that the money is needed and our lakes and reservoirs won't function the same without it.
> 
> Not sure that is true, but presuming that it is...
> 
> ...


I think that the premise raised by FOSR is that funds will be cut to balance the new budget. Therefore, would people be willing to pay fees to bring back the funding lost for parks?

He was being rather specific in that...I see ODNR funding getting cut across the board though.

From what has been said here so far, I think that one thing people would agree with is that any specialty revenue gets used for the stated purpose like our license fees are. I'm not eaxctly trusting of government...the lesgislature raided that tobacco settlement fund to balance the last budget and tried to grab the Scenic Rivers money, but were stopped.

Next up would be issues on how government operates and how exactly they spend money on programs, salaries and benefits(Though mostly aimed at higher ups in the system.) and what is questionable regarding practices.

For example...we pay for fishing licenses as an above and beyond cost to support and pay for our sport, the funds going to Division of Wildlife. From what I can detect, we completely pay for DoW operations...and that seems to cover the non game species management/programs too. Do golfers using state course do the same with their greens fees...to the point of covering the cost of maintaining those courses??

This is a good example because maintaining a golf course has a good cost to it.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Here's an example of something local to Columbus. We have Griggs Reservoir on the Scioto, and there's parkland along the water. The east side is busy and developed with traffic, maintenance facilities, rowing storage, marina, etc. The west side _was_ undeveloped and quiet.

Now comes OSU looking to bolster their women's rowing program (hello NCAA title IX) and they want to build a $5 million boathouse and give it to the city. And it has to be on the quiet side of the park, and to this day they insist this will not increase traffic in the park. We tried to get it built on the east side, but what's done is done.

What's in it for the city? The new boathouse happens to include a "multipurpose room" that can be rented out for events. $$$. Someone on this board posted an internal memo from the Rec and Parks department, estimating that this venue could be the second-biggest revenue source in the whole parks system, after the North Bank pavillion with a view of downtown.


Edited to add:



> "A general review of the revenue potential of the proposed Griggs Reservoir Rowing facility at the Duranceau Park location is actually very promising over the long run, and could potentially become the second most productive site in our family of rental shelter house facilities, only second to North Bank Park Pavilion....
> 
> For the purpose of establishing core business hours ... we have determined that we would be able to use the multipurpose room for eighty percent of all Friday nights, and nearly one hundred percent of Saturday and Sunday nights. The hours of rental would be 6:00 pm until 11:00 pm, with an option of purchasing at a premium, the last hour between 11:00 pm and midnight...
> 
> Recreation and Parks has no marketing budget. As such, we anticipate start up in the first year will be slow. Using our catering partners to help spread the word and recruit customers to try our new facility, we will be able to develop our market with a promising gradual increase of business over the next several years. There also may be opportunities for more rental time outside of these core hours of business that we are developing."


Public opinion is divided. On one side, there's the loss of one of the very few public areas on the west side of the park, gone to OSU rowing and a local rowing club, plus the parks department's outdoor education program such as it is. On the other side, there's the gain of a revenue source in a quiet park that wasn't doing much.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

FOSR: Your point is taken. I know Ohio faces cutbacks because of the lower tax collections during this _temporary _recession.

However, it does not answer the question I raised which is, "Once the economy recovers, will the "fee" then disappear?" If so, it would be the first time. 

Recessions never last forever and this one won't either. I would support that type of new fee only if it is written with an airtight sunset provision (to make it end when the tax revenues collected by the state once again hit pre-2008 levels.) Without such provisions, we get stuck with yet another permanent new tax even after its no longer needed.

What we're talking about is this: Government services that have expanded in a good economy to a point where we cannot afford to fund those services via taxes in a bad economy. Of course, a matter of months ago, this shortfall did not exist. Therefore, if our own state government were unwilling to guarantee that the tax increase or fee won't be permanent, then let them shut down what needs to be shut down, just as any citizen or sportsman must do within his or her household.

I appreciated and agreed with the balance of your post and I especially like the question you raise about a golf course. Great example.


----------



## Smead (Feb 26, 2010)

Actually, I don't think that we will return to pre-recession economic levels...too much of that economy was based on inflated real estate and home values...and easy credit.

We may improve, but I think we are looking at a new norm that's below past levels.

That being said...it might be a good time to attack and change State government practices that are senselessly expensive...and eliminate those which are unsustainable.

Practically speaking though, we face a lot of competition at the trough regarding funding priorities. 

There's an industry built around "social spending" that's organized and motivated to maintain it's share...education is the same.

There is going to be pressure to cut everything else first, I believe.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

Smead said:


> Actually, I don't think that we will return to pre-recession economic levels...too much of that economy was based on inflated real estate and home values...and easy credit.
> 
> We may improve, but I think we are looking at a new norm that's below past levels.
> 
> ...


 I think you sir are correct in your theory of our economy not returning to a pre recession level. Until more viable jobs are either brought here,created,or more companies can expand our economy will be about right where we're at now unfortunately. It'd be extrememly hard for "we the people" to get our state goverment to "trim the fat" and get rid of any unsustainable programs. The state doesn't want to do that then they couldn't cry about all the money that's needed. Our "socialized spending" industry is indeed very well organized and very well entrenched. Doing anything about that though will take alot of hard work by alot of people. Education is very important to our future but it'd help if alot of parents out there would just get involved in their childrens education. I believe that our educational system is fine the way it is,the parents just have to care a little more. I mean probably 3/4ths of us went to public schools and we turned out just fine and with the proper knowledge to succeed in life. Why is it now all of a sudden not good enough in peoples' eyes? The schools also have to be accountable for what money they are getting as well. They need to figure out how to work within their budgets just like the rest of us do. It would sadden me to no end if all of a sudden we lose parks that everyone enjoys. It'd also sadden me if in the future that my soon to be 3yr old won't be able to enjoy our parks like I've been able to up until now. I hope he gets that chance and it's not taken away but some politicians.


----------



## mikeshookset (Feb 28, 2005)

Nipididdee said:


> Above is not from State, but rather from Stark Parks- this is new for 2011, anyone in this thread see anything that jumps out at you from this email...
> 
> 
> nip
> www.dobass.com


What jumps out to me is that this is what mwcd does. they charge what they call a adminisstration fee. and trust me it goes over like a ton of bricks being charged to fish public waters. First off we as fishermen get nothing for paying. They cannt even garantee parking. if the state parks charges us to hold a tournament then shouldnt they give us the parking spots closest to the ramp? They say the charge is because we displaced the general public? Why would it cost $50 more if you hold a tournament out of the county? how does the cost of that change for them? What i am seeing from this and this thread is that they dont see fishermen as being part of the general public? I wonder how it would go over if the next time they stopp me for a fish survey i tell the guy sure but since i payed to fish it will cost you $50 to find out how i did? They should work with the fishermen instead of looking for ways to make more money from us. we already put alot of money in the general fund from the taxes we pay on the things we need to fish . But now we arent looked at as the general public? Why dont they ever hit ski boats up for a permit if they are pulling a skier? Why dont they hit up a tax on ski dos? every time they want money the first people they try and hit up its the fishermen. Why didnt they make this public before we sent in for permits? Kinda like slipping it in the back door wasnt it? The cost of them issuing a permit is nothing they will have people in the park office weather they sign a permit or not. The only differance is the office might have to actually do someting while they are there. Its just more money for them to waste at the cost of the fishermen and ladies. What will happen here is what happens on mwcd waters clubs just wont get permits because its not illegal to wiegh fish in the parking lot. We see that on mwcd water all the time and as far as ramp fees i have fished out of state where they have ramp fees and those ramps are not any better than what we have here in ohio. Plus i am not sure but i dont think they can get grant money if they charge to use the lake. Maybe some one on here could answer that in detail?


----------

