Ohio to buy AEP land?

[Ohiosam]

Has this been discussed?

“DeWine is asking legislators to consider a $47 million bond package that would allow the state to purchase all or some of the extensive AEP ReCreation acreage in southeast Ohio. The governor also is asking that the wildlife chief be allowed to increase future license fees with a process including legislative input.”

https://www.dispatch.com/sports/20190323/outdoors--dewine-shows-interest-in-sportsmens-concerns

 

[hickslawns]

Good. I like it. Now let's see who is the first to spin it.

 

[Jackalope]

Good. I like it. Now let's see who is the first to spin it.

No spin. Legitimate question. How until recently could the ODNR run a balanced budget and not have a shortfall of officer staffing under the current license price? None of these problems existed circa 2008, or untill recent years. Even just 5 years ago it seemed like there news articles being posted of new cadet graduate classes quite frequently with captions to where they would be serving.

I'm personally of the opinion that if license fees are increased they should go 100% toward the purchase of land. And not a dime of hunting licenses or deer permit increases should be spent for any general staffing or administrative use until the deer program is restored to previous levels.

 

[hickslawns]

In my reading it seems the last administration was the culprit. Be nice to have some info to support it. I'm mainly seeing opinions. It seems (and forgive me if I am a bit off on the details) one of the agencies was trying to bankrupt the other agency in efforts to merge the two agencies together. ODNR and DOW I believe. Seems as if it was non-wildlife knowledgeable appointees in positions making horrible decisions. I think it was within the DOW but again, forgive me if my details are off. There were a lot of people up in arms and consistent with these remarks. Nobody stepped in to defend or argue against the claims. When Dewine took over there was a lot on FB deer hunting groups talking about it. Lots of propaganda trying to clear the air of what had been taking place.

 

[Jackalope]

In my reading it seems the last administration was the culprit. Be nice to have some info to support it. I'm mainly seeing opinions. It seems (and forgive me if I am a bit off on the details) one of the agencies was trying to bankrupt the other agency in efforts to merge the two agencies together. ODNR and DOW I believe. Seems as if it was non-wildlife knowledgeable appointees in positions making horrible decisions. I think it was within the DOW but again, forgive me if my details are off. There were a lot of people up in arms and consistent with these remarks. Nobody stepped in to defend or argue against the claims. When Dewine took over there was a lot on FB deer hunting groups talking about it. Lots of propaganda trying to clear the air of what had been taking place.

Partially. That squabbling and posturing was really in the past year to two. My question is how did the DOW manage to have a balanced budget that is required by the state constitution for so many years at current licenses prices? There was no problem recruiting, training, and staffing wardens in every county at current prices back then. Why all of a sudden do they need millions more to accomplish this today? With all the warden vacancies across counties that has been going on for a couple years now, where did the money go that would have paid for them? If you could do it at $19 for a license and $24 for a tag for many many years before, why not now. And where did the money go that did it back then if you haven't been using it to fill those vacancies?

 

[bowhunter1023]

A decline in sales is easily covered by unfilled positions within the bureaucracy. I live it every day.

 

[hickslawns]

Not a surprise. I cannot get people to work for $7/hr like I did in the 90's. We have higher fuel costs, labor costs, material costs. Our government agencies deal with the same thing. Higher input costs. I'd imagine their revenue has declined some also but that is speculation on my part.

Back to the topic. I'm curious what everyone thinks on the land purchase as Sam posted. I don't see how this can be a bad thing?

 

["J"]

More land and access too it is worth the expense

 

[RedCloud]

Not a bad move but I'll hold that thought until I see what they want to do with that land. Some of it will be forested, drilled, and closed off to public use. This could go either way depending on what they decide to do.

I'm thinking and hoping it will be turned into something similar to the Wayne.

 

[Bigcountry40]

I like the move, actually buying more habitat. I would like to see some of these "nonprofits" help out such as Whitetails Unlimited, etc.

 

[Jackalope]

More land and access too it is worth the expense

I agree 100%. However, without a guarantee to dedicate said expense to land it isn't worth a dime.

 

[Jackalope]

A decline in sales is easily covered by unfilled positions within the bureaucracy. I live it every day.

Ding.

Not a surprise. I cannot get people to work for $7/hr like I did in the 90's. We have higher fuel costs, labor costs, material costs. Our government agencies deal with the same thing. Higher input costs. I'd imagine their revenue has declined some also but that is speculation on my part.

Back to the topic. I'm curious what everyone thinks on the land purchase as Sam posted. I don't see how this can be a bad thing?

Some? Hunting licenses and deer permits make up 34% of their annual revenue, Federal match makes up another 28%. Those three segments make up 62% of their revenue.


2008
Hunting Licenses Sold. = 448,807
Deer Permits sold. = 611,442

2014
Hunting Licenses Sold. = 410,179
Deer Permits sold. = 493,621

2008 - 2014 loss in sales.
Hunting Licenses Sold. = -38,628
Deer Permits sold. = -117,821

Let's assume the best case revenue loss scenario and say those are all resident licenses lost at $19, and the cheap $15 dollar tags.

-$733,932
- $1,767,315

2014 loss as compared to 2008.. -2.5 million. Add in the federal match and the number is around 5 million... That's a staggering number when your total revenue is sans fishing licenses is only 46 million. That's a 10% loss in yearlyfunding over a 6 year span.

 

[giles]

How pissed would you guys be if they bought it with our money and made it a nature preserve?

 

["J"]

How pissed would you guys be if they bought it with our money and made it a nature preserve?

Livid....

 

[bowhunter1023]

Yeah, that wouldn't be cool.

 

[giles]

Just saying...we don’t know enough about this from that article.

 

[Hortontoter]

How pissed would you guys be if they bought it with our money and made it a nature preserve?

This has happened before. Many lands that we helped pay for were used as wildlife refuges that are not open to hunting or even foot traffic for bird watching, photography etc. We may put up the funds but have no voice as to how the land is used.

 

[Bigcountry40]

How pissed would you guys be if they bought it with our money and made it a nature preserve?

I'd love it, I would have an entire nature preserve to hunt to myself !

 

[Chass]

I'd love it, I would have an entire nature preserve to hunt to myself !

But really. All the locals would laugh at that and probably prefer it that way as they would still use it as their own. It would take a big presence to keep people off. Alot of the Mead land that used to be public still has this issue.

 

[Bigcountry40]

But really. All the locals would laugh at that and probably prefer it that way as they would still use it as their own. It would take a big presence to keep people off. Alot of the Mead land that used to be public still has this issue.

This is where the old Robin Hood paradox comes in, if we paid for it, is it really tresspassing or poaching?