Issues in Ohio
- Thread starter Jwill
- Start date
teej89
Well-known member
The one thing that blew my mind after hunting ohio for 8 years and I lived there 4 years, I could not tell you if I've ever seen a game warden or park ranger. I know I definitely haven't ever been stopped. Was in WY for 3 days last year hunting pronghorn and got stopped on the second day for him to check our licenses and tags and just shoot the bull. Nicest conversation I've ever had with a game warden, he was actually being helpful too, it's a bit of a different story here in PA.
dcopas78
Well-known member
One of the cheapest NR deer tags there is, especially for the quality of deer that Ohio produces. I'd like to hunt some of the state forest land, but I lack access across the private property surrounding it, and access points are few and far between...not to mention heavily used. And you may as well forget about ODNR/DOW paying any kind of access leases, etc., because of financial short-comings. I'm not completely against paying more for a resident license/tag, but I'm dang sure against them not raising the NR fees to match what other states are charging with similar hunting quality. Management has mostly been dictated by agriculture and vehicle insurance companies who have huge lobbies speaking in to the ears of all their buddies up at the state house. It is a miracle that the deer herd is as good as it is, and I attribute that mainly to people being selective with the bucks they harvest. I hate to be down on my own state, but dang it gets frustrating.
That's right folks, $125 hunting license and the same $24 deer tag as the residents. You could be hunting the biggest whitetail bucks in the country this fall for $149. Think about it, with all the preference point and bonus point systems weighted toward residents along with tags that run several hundred dollars, other states don't want you to hunt there. Ohio does! The more the merrier, and while you're here feel free to visit all the hotels, restaurants, gas stations, ect. If others really want to protect hunting; make it important to more people, not more expensive.
dcopas78
Well-known member
One of the proposed changes to licenses and tags is a $175 NR license and a special $75 special non resident buck tag. I still think $250 is a great deal for the NR, especially if it gets the DOW where it needs to be to do some access projects for hunting and fishing. The resident proposals are a $5 increase across the board, so license would be $24 and tag would be $29. I'd pay that glady especially if the department can add some public hunting access so I don't have to lease.
I agree, $250 is still a great deal. I believe Kentucky currently costs $260 (might be wrong on that) and has much more public land and an earlier season opener. I wouldn't travel through Ky to save $10. A 40% increase in non res fees will have a decrease in non res hunters, nowhere near 40% but a decrease none the less. Financially the increase is unquestionably going to help the DOW, I just don't like changes that result in less hunting. Fee increase is probably necessary but where is the line between monetary value and participation? If only one person could hunt the whole state and paid a billion dollars to do, is that more valuable than a million people paying $100? Monetarily, yes by 10 fold but its not what's best for hunting's future. Again, $250 is still a great deal but that point of diminishing returns is somewhere. Also, Ohio has lots of Dairy Queens so all non res hunters, keep that in mind too.
dcopas78
Well-known member
Agreed Kenton. I think that is why access to hunting ground has to be addressed in Ohio. Not many people are going to pay the fees, NR or resident if they don't have ground to hunt. I can see the access to hunting being a bigger problem than the license fee increase, but the two coupled together could have a dramatic impact on the participation aspect. Especially with resident hunters. Adams County, where I grew up, is arguably one of the better big buck counties in the state, but it is also one of the poorest...and heavily leased. Not many people are going to hunt, or at least legally, if they can't afford to lease land for access. I see it drastically increasing the poaching that occurs and lack of ODNR/DOW oversight, as mentioned above, is going to compound it farther. They will still put meat on the table, but it ain't going to be legal. I don't support it, I just know how people down here in Appalachia think. Ohio is in a tough pickle and I'm really not sure what the correct answer is.
dcopas78
Well-known member
I would say no. I think that is the main argument against a fee raise is no increased access or opportunity. It's a shame really. Lots of young people aren't going to grow up recreating in the outdoors like I did.
up in my area, most counties have metroparks which own dozens of properties but only use a few for public picnics, hiking trails, birdwatching, ect and never touch others. I only know of one that gets hunted and that is a draw for 20 people to get one day on 1600 acres and that only happens every 6 or 7 years. Thousands of acres of public land that is no hunting, I would think the DOW could lean on various metroparks to allow hunting if only in a limited capacity.
OHIOOutdoors2
New member
It's a shame about dragging feet with AEP land purchase. I know Ohio really lacks public land and any private hunting land is difficult to come across.
MJE2083
Well-known member
Great deer in Ohio. I've never hunted there myself but I know quite a few from PA that do. Most that I know hunt Ohio for two big reasons. #1 there is some big bucks. #2 Sunday hunting is permitted, where it is not allowed in PA.
The one burden to NR's that I see is the regulations on weapons. Only archery, muzzleloader, shotgun, or straight walled cartridges permitted (IE no "high powered" rifles). I have also heard that access and public land can be problematic.
The one burden to NR's that I see is the regulations on weapons. Only archery, muzzleloader, shotgun, or straight walled cartridges permitted (IE no "high powered" rifles). I have also heard that access and public land can be problematic.
Similar threads
