Trad Gang
Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: whitebuffalo on December 04, 2006, 05:40:00 PM
-
Not sure how I feel about it yet. I know the inflation on alot of my normal objects in life have gone up in price namely Gasoline,milk,ect. I see their isues as well but I'm haveing a hard time parting with the cheeper tag prices of now. I also keep in mind what this could do for or state and our protection from anit's,loosing huntin ground ect. Theres more than just little old me in the big old picture of our resources in our great state. Anyway I emailed them cause I heard rumor and the nice lady down at the state office sent me this I thought I would share.Click on the link to see there proposal.
In January 2006, I appointed a Hunting and Fishing License Package
Development Work Group. This work group was chaired by Natural Resources
Commissioner Frank Wheatlake, chairman of the Natural Resources
Commission (NRC) Policy Committee on Finance and Administration, and was
comprised of representatives from conservation groups throughout the state.
The group was charged with developing revisions to the current hunting
and fishing license fee structure, which would address the projected
deficits in the Game and Fish Protection Fund and continue the state’s
work in conservation efforts. The work group met ten times over the
course of the year and finalized its recommendations this fall.
The work group presented its recommendations to the NRC on November 9,
2006. The NRC accepted and approved the report which can be accessed
at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/final_report_177934_7.pdf Some of the highlights of the report are:
* The last hunting and fishing license fee package was approved in
1996.
* If nothing changes, the Game and Fish Protection Fund will have a
projected deficit of $9 million to $11 million by Fiscal Year 2007-2008,
due to decreasing license sales and inflationary impacts.
* Hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing contribute over $3 billion
annually to Michigan’s economy.
* Cuts in conservation programs not only threaten our fish, wildlife
and public land resources, they also threaten Michigan’s economy.
* Recommended fee increases will accommodate inflationary impacts and
make Michigan’s fees commensurate with surrounding states.
* The Department of Natural Resources should seek legislative authority
to discount license fees.
* Senior discounts would be decreased from 60 percent to 20 percent to
reflect the 2002 elimination of the General Fund subsidy and to be more
in line with senior discounts in the private sector.
The NRC and work group will be working diligently to garner support for
this license package as it progresses through the legislative process.
Approval of the fee increase will begin to provide the financial
support needed to continue the conservation, protection, management, use, and
enjoyment of the state’s natural resources. Please feel free to
contact Teresa Gloden, Assistant to the NRC, at 517-373-2352, if you have
any questions.
Thank you for your interest in Michigan’s natural resources.
Sincerely,
Keith J. Charters
Chair
Natural Resources Commission
-
Hey Id buy a tag if someone would invite me to hunt in MI:-)
-
I think it is hard to justify raising the license fee. Hunting on mostly state land, I don't see the improvements in the habitat or deer quality to make me want to pay more.
I'm by far not a trophy hunter, but it would be nice if our deer were managed so that an average hunter doesn't have to spend all season just to try and find a year and a half old buck. And that is what is mostly out in the area I hunt. You sure don't have to try hard if you want to kill a doe, theres thousands of them!
The majority(15 or more,I forget) of the doe I have taken were between 3.5 to 5 years of age. The 4 bucks I have taken were all 1.5 in age (I try to hold out till the end). I have started passing up bucks this age this year to see what else is out there. I've only had an encounter with one buck that was over 2yrs. old. And trust me, I've put some hours in on stand and in a ton of different areas, doing all the things a carefull bowhunter should do! I know someone occasionally gets lucky and tags a good one, but I think our heard is too mismanaged to pay a big price for hunting scrub bucks and doe.
I wonder what that is doing for our herd? A bunch of mature doe being bred by 1.5yr. old bucks. Hmmmmmm..........
-
You haven't had an increase in 10 years, hard to complain to loudly. A lot of states will be having increases in the next year or face running in the red which is not a good thing. If the departments can't be supported by license fees, what do you think will happen next?
-
as long as it continues to fund hunting and nothing else I don't mind. As a resident in Michigan you can pretty much fish(all species) hunt all animals taking 3-5 deer and trap for under $150.00. Hard to beat the price of entertainment around here.
-
I can't say that I was surprised when I first heard of the increase. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that someone could buy a doe tag a day for $3.50. Now some areas of the state have very few deer remaining at all. It's just a simple case of supply and demand. The state has to charge more for the ones that are left.
-
I am with Arwin, start raising prices and people start expecting more.
I dont have a problem paying to play, but way up north here I just dont see it. Alot of the money never crosses the bridge.
I am also with Bobby, if it comes back to sportsmen it cant hurt??????????
-
If they can keep the money in the fish and wildlife dept and spend it wisely I can deal with that.
They'll never be able to manage the deer herd till they know how many they got and how many are shot, and they dont know.
Eric
-
Like many I am hesitant to accept the need for such a dramatic increase.
I am currently in the middle of performing some research into the cost to hunt across the country. With work, family, school and hunting, it is slow progress. But so far, looks like Michiganders have had it cheap for a while. I will post back when I feel the work is done, just so everyone can decide for himself or herself.
My biggest concern, and one I am not sure how to address, is the lack of support from non-hunters/ fisherman. The wildlife of the state belongs to the people, not just us.
How, or even should, we get support from everyone else? (FYI the report states the funding for the DNR in 1995-96 from the state’s general fund was 23% of the DNR’s operating budget, compared to less than 9% for 2006-07 budget year.)
If possible, I would like to hear any criticism or support for this proposal. Anything you think would assist me in making my work as true and correct as possible.
I would like to hear from everyone, not just the Michigan folk.
I do not get to frequent here so if you could email me @ ke5etx @ gmail.com , I would be grateful.
John
-
Dale bow. Invite , if you want to come out to Michigan get ahold of me.
-
Jack, yeah remember couple years ago not ten they say they haven't raised prices since 1996 but thats proof they have cause now there 10 dollars,
-
Word of warning if you get everyone to finacially support F&G, you will open a whole can of worms that I would be willing to talk with anyone about offline, but not in a public forum.
-
I am with Vermonster - Lets continue to let the hunters police and pay there own way - We don't need outside funds and we don't want them. Other input brings other agendas and we have enough trouble getting our agenda straight with only hunters? If we need to raise the price of licenses to do this I am all for it.
As far as the rest of the county I think you will discover it is an inexpensive ride here in Michigan, and has been for a long time.
Bob Urban
By the way - I am not rich by any stretch - we pay out bills and sometimes have a little left over but not much. I just am willing to cover my price of addmission to the best party I know.
-
I wish they would bring back the lifetime hunting licenses. Buy one and be done! I belong to the Michigan United Deer Hunters. Membership is free and they are trying to make sure all of our voices are heard at NRC meetings and anything involving hunters and the DNR. I urge anyone from our state to join! Check out their web-site.
-
I don't live in Michigan but in my own state I've never had much complaint about increases in tag fees or licenses so long as those increases don't put it out of reach for the average hunter. However, I would like to see those funds go to the fish and game department rather than to the general fund.
-
Umm...the document copied just doesn't make sense to me (the theory of raising the fees, yes...but the facts do not)
Example: fees HAVE gone up quite a few times in the last 10 years, so where's this statement coming from??
Also, there are no direct quotes of new prices--i.e. the combo tag is going from $28/year to what??? Maybe $35 or so???
I need much more info before I chime in on this one!!
Marc
-
Marc click on the link I left and it'll take you to the 30 page proposal that they have drawn up. and their facts and there whys.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/final_report_177934_7.pdf
-
Holy moly! They propose to raise our combo tags from $30 to $75! It looks like hunting here may turn into a rich mans sport. I use hunting for a way to relax, but I also rely on it to fill the freezer. I guess it may help our deer herd in a way because most people won't be able to afford to harvest two bucks and they would probably hold out for a good one with prices like that. With what I will have to spend on licenses and all the other stuff(equiptment,gas,etc.), it would probably be the same amount or cheaper to go to a ranch. LOL!
-
OK, I admittedly don't have the time to read every line item, but just by going thru about 60% of the text on each page, one thing REALLY scares me:
"Commit to work with other conservation
interests to craft a long-term, stable funding
approach for conservation in Michigan."
Which to ME means that someone is throwing a HUGE caveat into this entire document meaning that they are trying to actively seek and support funding from anti-hunting groups, or even groups that are based outside of Michigan.
The second item that really PEAVES ME OFF is the proposal to more than double the combo tag. Now if the combo tag goes up for residents by 150% then why in the world does the non-resident tag only go up by 19%??????
I HOPE that these proposed numbers go in front of public forums before these changes are implemented!!
In essence it would be cheaper to buy two private land doe tags, under their "proposed" numbers for $60 than it would for me to buy me two-deer license for $75. That just makes NO sense to me at all!
Just my input based on a very short review of the document...and thanks for the link! guess I missed it the first time I saw the post...duh!!
Marc
-
OH yeah...if you do the math, how much OVER budget would the new numbers come out to?
We are not 50% under budget right now...I would imagine those numbers would come out to a 5% to 10% shortfall, so how can a 150% increase in general be justified to offset a 10% shortcoming????
Hopefully more info to come...
M
-
Because they are usually 140% wrong 100% of the time.LOL!
-
This is scary. This is what happens when something is viewed as a "sport".
My wife and I live a simple life and try to live off the land as much as we can with hunting, fishing, gardening and gathering. I spend very little money on hunting. Most my expense is on fuel to get to the places I plan to hunt. Paying that much more to hold a tag really eats into my fuel budget.
There are alot of people that live on a tighter budget than me that rely on hunting for their annual supply of meat. Tags get to be too much and they will be forced to violate to eat.
I'd rather see Michigan up the ORV permits to 10x as much. That is just recreation and not a way of life. If you can afford the toy then you can afford the permit. Pleasure boats too. Or increase the camping fees at state parks. And charge non residents more to hunt here but leave us simple people alone.
Or maybe they could let us low income homesteader types get our licenses at a reduced rate while the "sportsmen" pay the big bucks.
Sorry, I'm just ranting here. Disregard what I say if it sounds disturbing. Just tired of the way this world is heading.
-
Where do our rates fall compared to other states? Are we that much cheaper?
-
One thing we have to remember is that we just passed and proposal here in Michigan in Nov. that says all the money that we pay for license fees can only be used for conservation purposes. Unlike before where the Government would dip into this money to cover other areas they were short in. So I personaly am interested to see if there will be any chages in conservation effots now that the money can only be use for that sole purpose. I to hunt state land and have been very disappointed in the amount of deer I have see in recent years and I dont mean just antlered deer. I guess this is just my 2 cents on the subject.
-
One thing to add a 150% increase would just make the license sales go down and the poaching go up so then we would be in the same boat because in my mind the DNR would then want to hire more officers to uphold the laws. Again just my 2cents. Thanks Tim
-
I kinda had the same thoughts Tim. If the licenses are too expensive then sales will go down and they won't be any further ahead. I also supported the funds going only for conservation purposes. I just hope that it's not for new computers at the DNR's headquarters. LOL!
-
They raised ours last year and it backfired. We have 4 seasons and many purchased 5 or more tags at the $15 price. When they raised the price to $25 everyone just purchased 1 bow tag and used it all year. This year they had to come up with special programs to get people to hunt more deer. They have old price on second bonus tags, tag refund for donated deer, etc. trying to get the numbers back up.
-
There is a lot to this. The ballot proposal that passed that says money must stay in the fish and game fund is somewhat misleading. Example one:
50 million in license sales plus 20 million of general fund money = 70 million
example two: 70 million in license sales and 0 dollars from general fund=70 million
I believe the general fund tranfers to the fish and game budget have been dropping, so as you can see, that may not mean much to the hunters and fisherman.
I think our license is a bargain for the entertainment value. I've spent over two hundred hours in the woods this year and it cost me $70 in license fees. That's pretty darned cheap entertainment. I think the last license rate increase approved by the legislature was in 1996 (10 years ago) and the Natural Resource Commission has raised the license fee by a dollar or two during that time. We're behind other states in what it costs us to play, but more than some too.
What is more important to me is what is really happening to the money. Some areas of the state have terrible deer herds due to poor habitat on state land and some mismanagement. Yet we also spend money on Kirtland Warbler issues and wolf population studies (non-game species), forest fire control (is this the responsability of hunters or general population), ect. I think hunters and fisherman deserve to have a return on our investment thats proportional to what we put in an make sure our license dollars are not just covering a bigger portion of what general fund dollars should be doing.
So the bottom line is that we do have a bargain, even at twice the price, but don't take that as increase the fees and not put that back into the resource that I'm using via some accounting shuffle.
-
I grew up in MI and now live in KY. A KY license is $40 that includes a hunting license and two deer tags. So basicly small game, archery, muzzleloading and modern gun for $40. Not bad.
I do buy an out of state small game license in MI every year and grouse hunt in the Harrison area for about a week.
One idea to increase license sales in the state of MI would be to have opening day of gun season on a Sat. This year it was on a Wed. The cabin I hunt out of had two guys this year because of school or work schedules wouldn't allow it. Compair that to a year when the season opens on a Sat. and we would have 8 to 10 guys.
Even though the hunting is good down here in KY I would make the trip to MI if the opener was on a Sat just because I like the northern MI deer camp experience.
-
Danel,
In a survey done a few years ago, 66% of hunters didn't want to change the firearm opener from the traditional November 15th date. One of the proposals was to change it to the Saturday closest to the 15th.
Another study found that there was more travel done in years with openers that happen mid-week versus people "staying close to home" on weekend openers. I thought that was a pretty interesting statistic.
-
I remember that aq few years ago Ray.
I've been reading this 30 page proposal. I'm not dumb but not the sharpest tool in the shed and if I read correctly there also looking into how they can charge the folks that enjoy the outdoors for free. Like moral mushroom hunters,hikers,ect. If anyone is interested I have contact information that I can give you to the person that sent me this email containing this packaged proposal. Just pm me for it.
If these prices go up I will pay the price to be legal and I will still enjoy myself the best I can. But i would like to see what the lands and lakes of Michigan will get out of it will I see food plots on state lands,will I see more fish planting,will I see our resources taken to a new level that I will be happy with it. I have personally witnessed poaching,trash dumping, illegal baiting, and have reported these with no action or miminal action taken. There are a lot of people that I hunt and fish with that share a lot of the same opinions as I read here and feel that the DNR is slipping and keeping a half open eye to sportman and paying to much attn. to insurance companies, anti's,wich there lies another problem. How much time, enregy, and money do the insurance companies and the anti's suck out of the department taken them to court over hunting,tag and fishing. :banghead:
-
Very complicated licenseing you guys have there. Interesting axe they hold over your heads between the lines and how they use funds from hunting and fishing licenses for so many other endeavors. They are pricing the licenses up to get through to 2010/11. It would seem simpler to have a more generalized license instead of all the nickle diming going on in the existing system. Also wouldn't it have been simpler to price the license to the adjusted rate as it gives in the chart and just build in an inflation rate increase for each year so it is small increases over time as opposed to a huge leap every 5 years as they are positioning this for?
A lot going on in those 30 pages.
-
Pennsylvania hasn't had an increase in eight years and is proposing an increase of about $15.00 per license. I think that not too many here would do without pay increases in eight years. I could understand it better if we didn't spend much more than those increases on Coke and Pepsi in a month's time. Not to mention beer. How much are you putting out this Christmas for electronics? Cell phone bills...X-Boxes, etc. We are a bit spoiled.
-
I have no problem with an increase, I think our license fee's are crazy cheap for the entertainment they provide. I only hope for a better accounting od where the money goes...
Related to this, I was in a sporting goods store yesterday, browsing through the isle while listening to 2 guys discuss the increase..."hell no I won't buy 3 doe tags next year...not for that kind of money...I never get checked anyway..."
I hope this increase doesn't bump up the poaching activity, increasing the workload for the field officers, effectively canceling out the benefits of the increase.
-
Roger,
I think you bring in a couple valid points and are on my line of thinking...first is "accountability." Tough to get in a government system. But this is a substantial increase in funds and "whoever" gets this increase owes a reckoning to those who pay.
Second, is the potential increase in poaching. It happens. I believe it will increase with a combo jumping to $75 which will cause a need for an increase in Field Officers. Of course this is already needed in most counties.
I will pay the increase but it will be begrudgingly until there is a complete and full breakdown of where every dollar is to be spent. I'm not one for handing more money to a government that has proven it's not so great with money.
Dean
-
OH Crap,if you guys are getting an increase that means we're next.....again. Monkey see,monkey do rules everything we do (at least it seems that way in Indiana).
-
Guys here is what I actually WITNESSED last Sunday:
Two guys shot a doe with a .22 in a STATE PARK, not on state land, 100 yards off the road, and about 400 yards from the DNR station!!
Yes I tried to bust them; no I did not, because I could not get their plates! (Long story--these guys KNEW what they were doing, and I suspect they had a decoy vehicle...got the plate # from that one, but they circled around and took the deer out from a different direction and with a different truck!)
If this is happening right in state parks that are in Southern Michigan and just barely out of highly populated areas, then HOW BAD is the poaching in the more rural areas??
This park is frequented by runners, joggers, hikers, etc...even on that Sunday with 20-degree temps!!
So I would also agree with the higher tag/more poaching theory...
Also, speaking of state parks, the state of Michigan stopped supporting the parks two years ago. The daily fees went from $4/day to $6/day, and the annual tag went from $20/year to $24/year.
So there has already been a 33% increase STATEWIDE for the parks. This is already filling some of the budgetary gap, so I am still baffled by the expanse and disproportionate percentage of any potential tag fee increase.
So some of you say there has been no increase in ten years. I find that as incorrect. Yes some of the tags have been "discounted", as in the full fee was not being charged. (I'd have to go tag-by-tag to prove examples). However, those gaps have been narrowing in the last two years--i.e. the combo tag has gone up $2, or about 7%, etc...
And some people from other states say we're spoiled and whining about fees that are so low already. However, I see that it's either Ohio or Indiana that states that landowners/family/farmers and grandchildren or even TENANTS are not required to buy a license at all!
Don't get me wrong, guys and gals--I would support a PROPORTIONATE increase, but ONLY one that is well-explained and that is used in CONJUNCTION WITH increases in ORV permits, etc...etc...etc...
As far as the new legislation to guarantee that our license fees go to the right source, well...that well was only tapped once two or three years ago...so that legislation does little to fill any budgetary gaps that exist in reality. All it does is guarantee that our license fees stay in the proper kitty. It does not guarantee that the states general fund will be used to fill up the rest of the cup!
So long story short, I can live with a 10-15% increase across-the-board that is well explained. I just will not support 150% increase just because some moron pulled that figure out of their you-know-what in a greedy attempt at exploiting those who have been paying for the majority of the budget for decades.
Just my rant....
Marc
Take Care,
Marc
-
Poachers are poachers regardless. License fee increase do little to affect poaching.
It is only going to get much worse if the dept. goes bankrupt and there are no Wardens in the field. Sounds like they are stretched pretty thin as it is since they haven't replaced retirees or attrition losses for several years.
Also you need to look at how they set-up the increase, it is averaged out over the next 5 years at inflation as opposed to raising it a little each year. In simple terms in 5 years this will be happening again. They need to do some long term planning or have a simple cost of inflation adjustment to bring license costs into todays dollars and then just have a built inflation adjustment to keep licenses priced at the rise of inflation so it is little bites and not a huge adjustment every 5-10 years.
-
I have frequently overheard people comment that they don't but a license unless they get a deer. I think that type of activity is what will increase.
I agree that poachers are poachers and this will probably not do much increase these numbers.
We do have a serious shortage of conservation officers. I've called the DNR RAP (Report All Poaching) hotline on several occasions and was told that they did not have officers available to investigate. This is definily something I would like to see changed.
-
From $35 to $75....sounds a bit steep to me. With kids in school, paying a mortage, paying for this and that...I got into hunting to relax and enjoy the outdoors. I never will be a trophy hunter cause I can't afford it.Pretty soon I won't be able to afford a license and thats gonna hurt me the most.
-
Lawmakers seek opinions on proposed DNR license hike
>
> LANSING - Michigan residents can weigh in with their opinions and
> concerns on proposed hunting and fishing license fee increases at a
> Wednesday hearing with state lawmakers in Lansing, or by sending
> written comments by Dec. 15, according to a press release issued by
> State Rep. Howard Walker (R-Traverse City).
>
> "A Natural Resources Commission advisory panel has recommended
> increasing license fees in Michigan that would include doubling some
> resident license fees. Lawmakers really need to hear from the people
> that have a stake in the programs and the benefit from their
> investment - the hunters and anglers," said Walker in the press
> release. "As the DNR House Appropriations chair, I want to make sure
> we have properly gauged the wishes of Michigan's outdoor sports
> enthusiast before the Legislature acts on the panel's
recommendation."
>
> The proposed license fee schedule includes doubling deer and turkey
> licenses from $15 per tag to $30 apiece. The deer combination license
> would increase from $30 to $75. Antlerless deer tags will triple
> going from $10 this year to $30, while bear hunters would also see a
> hefty increase with prices going from $15 per tag to $50.
>
> The cost of an elk tag is proposed to double from the current rate of
> $100 to $200. Those who target waterfowl, small game and fur-bearers
> would also have license fee increases on the horizon under this
proposal.
>
> Fishermen would see an increase from $15 to $20 for a restricted
> license and the all-species version would increase from $28 to $40
> under the proposal.
>
> Although senior citizens would still receive a discount on their
> various licenses, the dramatic price hikes are even larger for this
> segment of the outdoor community. Seniors have been paying $6 for
> their deer and bear licenses, but that would increase to $24 and $40,
> respectively. Older anglers had been purchasing restricted fishing
> licenses for $6 and all-species for $11.20, but that would go up to
> $16 and $32, if approved.
>
> Anyone wishing to speak on this matter is invited to attend the House
> Appropriations DNR Subcommittee meeting at 9 a.m. Wednesday in the
> House Appropriations Room on the third floor of the state Capitol
Building.
>
> Those who are unable to attend this special session can send written
> comments to Walker's Office via fax or e-mail. To fax a written
> comment call 1 (517) 373-9240 or e-mail comments to
[email protected].
>
> "The more input lawmakers have, the more the final decision will
> reflect the stewardship necessary for our state's game resources and
> ensure the vitality of the industries that rely on them," said Walker
> encouraging sportsman to voice their opinions on this matter.
-
excellant post Jason..You laid this post out clearly and to the point.Thanks for the headsup and your time in putting it together!Shoot straight!
-
Thankyou Steelhead, You don't know how much that means to me. Thankyou. Jason B.)))------->
-
I'm seriously thinking about making the trip out there to attend. Thanks for the info!
-
Wow that is quite an increase now isn't it! What I don't get is single deer tag purchases are to be raised from 15 to 30 dollars but a combo tag (2 deer tags) will rise from 30 to 75???? What gives, why more of an increase for the combo tag?
And 30 per doe tag! I remember not too long ago when they were only 3 bucks!
Don't really know what to think of all of this. The only way that I would be on board with this is if ALL of the license money went specifically to Hunting and Fishing programs!
Kevin.
-
Everyone who can should attend these meetings, take notes and write down who makes what promises. Something needs to be changed or you'll have serious troubles in your DNR financially. A lot of western states are looking at the same things you guys are and the money has to come from somewhere, you just have to make sure that it goes to where it should. I trust legislators less than PETA, at least you know what PETA really wants.
-
Kevin, I emailed that question without any reply. I would go for some increase cause we all know stuff just aint as cheap as it once was. There asking for my right arm!!! :eek:
-
Thanks for posting Jason. I'm writing Howard Walker to tell him what I think. I have bought hunting, and fishing license's since I was old enough to buy them, and now I'm turning 65 this year, and will have to pay more then I ever payed in my life to hunt. So much for seniors getting a discount.
-
You can also contact state representative Tim Moore. toll free: (866) MOORE-97 or E-Mail [email protected]
-
Email sent, Thanks archer one. I have had one heck of a time pulling email addresses from the goverment sites. where do you fellas find them at.
-
insttech1
Ohio tennants (and their children) are exempt only if they actually derive a majority of their income from agricultural production on the land. The following is the list of exemptions from the DNR site:
License Exemptions
Certain categories of persons are exempted from buying various licenses, permits, and/or stamps.
• Ohio residents who are holders of veteran’s license plates displaying the international wheelchair symbol - Must apply in writing for a free hunting license, fur taker permit, deer permit, spring or fall turkey permits and Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp. Applications are available from wildlife district offices.
• Certain permanently disabled veterans who are Ohio residents - Must apply in writing for a free hunting license, fur taker permit, deer permit, turkey permit, and Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp. Applications are available from wildlife district offices.
• Ohio residents who are Former Prisoners of War - Must apply in writing for a free hunting license, fur taker permit, and Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp. All other licenses and permits are required. Applications are available from wildlife district offices.
• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty, while on annual leave or furlough - Are not required to purchase a hunting license or Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp. All other licenses and permits are required.
• Landowners and their children - Are not required to have a hunting license, fur taker permit, deer permit, spring or fall turkey permit or Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp when they are hunting or trapping on land they own.
• Tenants and their children on land on which they reside and from which they derive the majority of their income from agricultural production on that land - Are not required to have a hunting license, fur taker permit, deer permit, spring or fall turkey permit or Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp when they are hunting or trapping on land where they reside.
• Grandchildren under 18 years of age - Are not required to have a hunting license or an Ohio Wetland Habitat Stamp while hunting on their grandparent’s land. All other licenses and permits are required.
License costs are:
LICENSE TYPE/COST
PERMIT TYPE/COST
Deer Hunting - In addition to your hunting license you’ll need one or more of the following deer permits.
Resident Annual License $19.00
Youth Annual License $10.00 *Special Deer Permit
Non-Resident Annual License $125.00 Resident & Non-Resident $24.00
Senior License $10.00 Youth (Resident & Non-Resident) $12.00
Resident Free Senior License $0.00 Resident Reduced Cost Senior $12.00
*Non-Resident (Tourist) 3-day License $40.00 Resident Free Senior $0.00
**Urban Deer Permit
* It’s not valid for deer, turkey or furbearers.
Resident & Non-Resident $15.00
Youth (Resident & Non-Resident) $15.00
Resident Reduced Cost Senior $15.00
Resident Free Senior $0.00
Hope the above helps,
Joe
-
Jason,
Tim Moore sent me a thank you for filling out a hunting survey, and his E-Mail was on the letter head. I have tried to find them to, and all I get is the page cannot be displayed. Thanks for sending him a E-Mail.
John.
-
ITS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE HUNTERS,OR GAME CAUSE THE MONEY IS GOING OTHER PLACES!........JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ROUND HERE
-
I think we may be safe for another year as far as increases. I could be wrong, but I thought heard it was too late for the increases to take effect this year. We'll see. I'm hoping with the new bill passed, that all hunters and fishers money goes into the states wildlife and habitat. I don't mind a reasonable increase, but the proposed amounts definitly gives me sticker shock. I know that each license I purchase helps to make hunting possible. I have access to thousands of acres of state land which is a blessing, but it needs some serious help in the habitat condition and animal numbers. I see a great amount of deer and turkey, but the rabbits, squirrels, pheasents, grouse and woodcock are pretty depleated. I have also seen and heard a ton of coyote, which could explain the small game numbers.