Ohio's anglers, hunters increasingly going digital for their tags and licenses

Ohio’s angling and hunting license buyers increasingly are working at the speed of “E.”

With the state having gone to the use of an electronic-based system in 2004 – presumably one the Russians won’t see any value in hacking – the number of both hunters and anglers phoning in or clicking a computer mouse to obtain their required paperwork continues to rise.

Hunters also are more inclined to obtain their documents on-line than are anglers who more often than not visit one of the state’s approximately 1,100 brick-and-mortar businesses and which are state-sanctioned license-issuing agents.

“We believe that has to do with the fact that anglers have to stop into a store to buy bait anyway, so they buy their licenses while they are there,” said John Windau, the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s communications manager.

“Hunters on the other hand, already have their gear at home and don’t need to stop at a store before heading out.”

Even so, the numbers do clearly show that senior citizens rely on electronic means much less frequently as a percentage than does the rest of the hunting and angling population.

For resident anglers in 2016 – and as a percentage – 1.6 percent fewer eligible Ohio resident senior citizens bought their reduced cost fishing licenses via the Internet than did resident adult anglers as a whole. For resident hunters the gap was substantially greater: 8.9 percent.

Also, less than one percent of those eligible to buy a reduced cost/senior citizen hunting license last year employed a mobile device such as a cell phone or tablet.

No group, however, utilizes on-line license buying more than do non-resident anglers and hunters. In 2016 fully 36.4 percent of non-resident anglers bought their annual fishing licenses on-line. Another 8.6 percent did so using their “smart phones.”

By comparison, only 16.4 percent of adult Ohio residents bought their fishing licenses on-line and 5.8 percent utilized a mobile device. For those Ohioans eligible for the state’s reduced cost licenses the figures are even smaller: 14.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.

For hunters, however, all of the numbers are greater; including for non-resident hunters. In this category, nearly 41 percent of non-resident hunters last year used the Internet to buy their general hunting license while 7.1 percent used a mobile device.

And the sale of resident hunting licenses via the Internet eclipsed those sold to resident anglers, too, as last year 24.7 percent of them were sold over the Internet. Another 5.1 percent utilized a mobile device, a slightly smaller figure than for resident anglers.

Again, though, non-resident deer hunters were more likely to employ the Internet than were Ohio residents. Last year 25.1 percent of Ohio resident either-sex deer-hunting tags were sold via the Internet and another 4.7 percent via mobile device.

The number was 39.2 percent when it came to either-sex deer tags being sold to non-residents via the Internet, however, with another 6.6 percent by the use mobile devices.

Although sales of both spring and fall turkey-hunting permits still favor brick-and-mortar locations, Internet-based sales are robust. In 2016, 33.6 percent of resident adult spring turkey permits were purchased on-line. A figure, by the way, which jumped to 49.5 percent for adult non-resident turkey hunters.

Fall turkey hunters rely more on the Internet than do spring turkey hunters, too. Last year 42.9 percent of Ohio adult resident fall turkey-hunting permits were sold via the Internet. Meanwhile, 55.4 percent of adult non-resident fall turkey-hunting permits were sold by means of the Internet.

And in very nearly every category the number of both hunters and anglers reaching for their cell phones or using their home computers to buy their necessary licenses and tags has increased since 2014. Examples include for resident anglers where the rise was 2.4 percent and resident hunting licenses with an increase of 2.7 percent.

In fact, Windau says, the growth in Internet/mobile device sales of all licenses and tags is demonstrating a growth rate on the order of one percent-plus annually.

Expect nothing but further development in this arena as well, though the state legislature will have a big say in any expansion.

“Internet sales are a way for the Division of Wildlife to better serve our customers,” also says Karen Norris, Wildlife Division communications specialist.

“As technology improves we would like to continue to make things more convenient for our customers. Someday this might be to have a paperless system. Currently, under the Ohio Revised Code, hunters are required to validate their deer and/or turkey tags.

This requirement limits the Division from being completely paperless now.”
In all last year, Ohio issued 388,036 general hunting licenses and excluding such special tags as those required to trap, hunt deer, turkey and waterfowl and also shooting range permits; along with issuing 885,641 fishing licenses of all kinds.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischk@Ameritech.net

Ohio's proposed game laws could include use of AR-platform rifles for deer

Ohio’s hunters will all but assuredly encounter more of the same for the up-coming 2017-2018 hunting season.

 

The Ohio Division of Wildlife presented its laundry list of game law proposals to the eight-member Ohio Wildlife Council on February 8^th. The following day various agency officials presented the same during a tele-conference with outdoors writers from around the state.

 

Much of what was presented were boilerplate/house-keeping duties involving the starting and ending dates for various seasons as well as bag limits for small game, waterfowl and wild turkeys. In the middle the Wildlife Division is proposing that the daily bag limit on canvasback ducks be increased to two from the present one while the daily bag limit on black ducks shrink from the current two to one.

 

Also, the age for participating in the youth-only two-day waterfowl hunt could rise from the present 15 to 17 in order to conform to federal law.

 

For turkey hunting the state is proposing adding another 11 counties to the fall season with the season bag limit still entrenched at one bird of either sex.

 

The arena of questioning and answering pretty much focused on Ohio’s proposed deer seasons, deer-hunting regulations and the status of Ohio’s deer herd. On those scores the agency is shuffling the deck chairs as to which counties will see increased or decreased bag limits.

 

For this the Wildlife Division’s troupe of law enforcement agents, wildlife biologists and paper-shuffling administrators all of these officials agree that while tweaking the rules is necessary a wholesale and game-changing series of new regulations is not necessary.

 

At least not until the ink on a work-still-in-progress/10-year deer management plan is finalized. That effort is not expected to be completed until May with a potential host of major rule shifts more than likely to appear sometime around 2020.

 

What is needed now, says the Wildlife Division, is for everyone – biologists, wildlife law enforcement, farmers, hunters and other stake-holders – to begin looking at the long view in terms of deer harvest trends and not so much at comparing one hunting season’s kill numbers against another.

 

“We (all) need to step back and look at the larger picture and not get so hung up on year-to-year (harvest) differences,” said Mike Tonkovich, the Wildlife Division’s deer management administrator.

 

Tonkovich did say that while no one portion of Ohio is seeing any “worrisome” decline in deer herd strength, the Wildlife Division is proposing some “adjustments” to all-seasons’ bag limits in northwest Ohio. This, in order to “give a boast” to that region’s deer herd which remains in the deer population shadow of the rest of the state, Tonkovich says.

 

“We’re in a good place by and large in the state, and it seems that folks are generally happy,” Tonkovich said. “I definitely feel that we are moving in the right direction.”

 

Even so, the Wildlife Division admits that most deer hunting license sales have either remained stagnant or else have declined of late. Sales of the resident either sex tags were down 5.45 percent while those for non-residents showed a moribund increase of 0.22 percent, for instance.

 

Other proposed deer-hunting regulatory moves would include allowing the use of any straight-walled rifle cartridge of at least .357 caliber but not greater than .51 caliber. Such a change would permit the use of such cartridges as the .450 Bushmaster and the .50 Beawolf, among many others.

 

Both of these calibers have a strong presence in AR-platform rifles; the kind frequently cited in the media as being “assault weapons.” A point that Ken Fritz – the agency’s law enforcement administrator – said was of no concern to the agency since type-casting a firearm is not what drives hunting laws.

 

Fritz noted that the agency has long-recognized a wealth of different shotgun styles and has not seen any ill effects by doing so, either.

 

As for eventually allowing the use of large caliber air rifles or the futuristic-looking “air bow,” Fritz said the agency has not even discussed the topic in-house. The reason is because few proponents of these implements have stepped up to the plate and approached the Wildlife Division regarding any rule change on them.

 

Here are the proposed specifics as to what the Ohio Division of Wildlife is requesting as to all-seasons’ deer bag limits for Ohio’s 88 counties:

 

It shall be unlawful to hunt or take more than two deer per license year from the following counties: Allen, Athens, Auglaize, Belmont, Butler, Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Coshocton, Darke, Defiance, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Fulton, Gallia, Geauga, Greene, Guernsey, Hancock, Harrison, Henry, Hocking, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Madison, Meigs, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Perry, Pickaway, Preble, Putnam, Sandusky, Shelby, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Washington, Williams, or Wood counties, provided further,

(a) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take more than two deer per license year under the authority of a deer permit outside of a division of wildlife authorized controlled hunt, from the following counties: Allen, Athens, Auglaize, Belmont, Butler, Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Coshocton, Darke, Defiance, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Fulton, Gallia, Geauga, Greene, Guernsey, Hancock, Harrison, Henry, Hocking, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Madison, Meigs, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Perry, Pickaway, Preble, Putnam, Sandusky, Shelby, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Washington, Williams, or Wood counties.

(b) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take any deer under the authority of an antlerless deer permit, outside of a division of wildlife authorized controlled hunt, from the following counties: Allen, Athens, Auglaize, Belmont, Butler, Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Coshocton, Darke, Defiance, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Fulton, Gallia, Geauga, Greene, Guernsey, Hancock, Harrison, Henry, Hocking, Jackson,Jefferson, Lawrence, Madison, Meigs, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Perry, Pickaway, Preble, Putnam, Sandusky, Shelby, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Washington,Williams, or Wood counties.

(4) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take more than three deer per license year from the following counties: Adams, Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carroll, Clermont Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, Defiance, Fulton, Fairfield, Gallia, Guernsey, Hardin, Henry, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Lake, Lawrence,

Licking, Logan, Lorain, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Paulding, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Seneca, Stark, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Union, Vinton, Washington, Wayne, Williams, and Wyandot counties, provided further,

(a) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take more than three deer per license year under the authority of a deer permit, outside of a division of wildlife authorized controlled hunt, from the following counties: Adams, Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carroll, Clermont,

Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, Defiance, , Fulton, Fairfield, Gallia, Guernsey, Hardin, Henry, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Lake, Lawrence, Licking, Logan, Lorain, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, , Paulding, Meigs, Monroe,

Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Seneca, Stark, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Union, Vinton, Washington, Wayne, Williams, and Wyandot counties, and

(b) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take more than one antlerless deer per year under the authority of an antlerless deer permit, outside of a division of wildlife authorized controlled hunt, from the following counties: Lake, Lorain, Portage and Stark, counties.

(c) It shall be unlawful to hunt or take any deer under the authority of an antlerless deer permit, outside of a division of wildlife authorized controlled hunt, from the following counties: Adams, Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carroll, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, Defiance, Fulton, Fairfield, Gallia, Guernsey, Hardin, , Henry, Harrision, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jackson, Jefferson, , Knox, Lawrence, Licking, Logan, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Paulding, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Putnam, Richland, Ross, Scioto, Seneca, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Union, Vinton, Washington, Wayne, Williams, and  Wyandot counties.

 

- By Jeffrey L. Frischkorn

JFrischk@Ameritech.net

 

A lackluster Ohio's deer season highlighted by some significant county declines

A statistically insignificant drop in Ohio’s 2016-2017 all-seasons’ deer kill still remains highlighted by some serious drops in any number of counties.

However, deer harvest gains occurred in enough of Ohio’s other counties to have helped compensate for such shortfalls.

In all, Ohio deer hunters shot 182,169 whitetails for the 2016-2017 all-seasons’ deer kill total, representing a 3.27 percent decline from the 2015-2016 all-seasons’ total deer harvest of 188,329 animals.

And of Ohio’s 88 counties fully 55 of them registered declines, of which 17 each saw a shortfall of 10 percent or more. One of the counties taking on the biggest hits was Adams. Adam County  posted a whopping 21.29 percent decline: from a total of 4,157 deer killed during the 2015-2016 season to 3,272 deer for the 2016-2017all-seasons’ total.

Other significant declines were seen in such stalwart and deer-harvest giants as Hocking County (down 12.13 percent from 3,727 animals to 3,275 animals); Vinton County (down 12.78 percent from 3,059 animals to 2,668 animals); Clermont County (down 16.94 percent from 2,821 animals to 2,343animals); and Scioto County (down 18.29 percent from 3,034 animals to 2,479 animals).

Buffering such severe drops was noted in the state’s remaining 23 counties, a few of which saw marked gains. Among them was the standout Cuyahoga County which saw its all-seasons’ harvest climb more than 38 percent from a total deer kill of 814 animals in 2015-2016 to 1,124 deer for the 2016-2017 total tally.

In Cuyahoga County the near unanimous belief for the increase stems from the fact that in 2015 voters in five communities there approved allowing controlled archery deer hunting. Thus such a tool is evidence that archery hunting is a positive deer management tool, state biologists believe.

“With the addition of several cities in the western part of Cuyahoga County allowing archery hunting for the first time this past season, there is likely a strong correlation to that and the significant harvest increase in that county,” said Geoff Westerfield, the assistant wildlife management administrator for the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s District Three (Northeast Ohio) Office in Akron.

Other counties gaining deer-harvest ground included Erie (up 15.73 percent at 868 and up from 750); Trumbull (up 12.33 percent at 3,699 and up from 3,293); and Ashtabula (up 4.05 percent at 5,040 and up from 4,844).

And as a region, Northeast Ohio appears to have demonstrated the most consistent rise in the county-by-county deer harvest when stacked next to their respective 2015-2016 all-seasons’ numbers. Of the 19 counties associated as being inclusive of Northeast Ohio, 15 posted harvest gains.

Granted, some of the drops and some of the gains in Northeast Ohio and elsewhere in the state number less than one percent (plus-0.65 percent in Stark County and minus-0.63 percent in Harrison County as two such examples) a wide range of contributing unknowns almost certainly come into play and which may well be beyond wildlife management influence, let alone, wildlife management control, says Westerfield

“While this year counties such as Medina and Trumbull saw fairly large increases over last year, variables such as mast crop, crop removal, harvest regulations, and current herd trend can play into those changes,” Westerfield said.

Perhaps in some cases – particularly in highly urbanized Northeast Ohi , Westerfield says also, fragmentation of land use and “no hunting areas” likely creates refuges that combine with a still-growing deer herd that has probably helped increase any potential harvest.

“Even stuff like the number of hunters who must stay closer to home because land where they once had permission to hunt on they no longer have access to can drastically affect a particular county’s harvest,” Westerfield said.

This could be true for any Ohio county that saw an increase or a decrease in its respective all-seasons’ deer harvest, says Westerfield.

“In the end, what is most important is not what the number is doing on a county level but locally what is going on; not only for that year but over the last seven or eight years,” Westerfield said. “Keep in mind, too, that hunter desires for herd growth and herd structure can vary from one side of the fence to the next.”

A list of all white-tailed deer checked by hunters during the 2016-2017 deer season is shown below. The first number following the county’s name shows the harvest number for the 2016-2017 season, and the 2015-2016 season number is in parentheses.

Adams: 3,272 (4,157); Allen: 1,039 (1,102); Ashland: 2,954 (3,026); Ashtabula: 5,040 (4,844); Athens: 3,646 (3,979); Auglaize: 751 (828); Belmont: 3,236 (3,205); Brown: 2,448 (2,754); Butler: 1,231 (1,382); Carroll: 3,586 (3,557); Champaign: 1,118 (1,242); Clark: 661 (759); Clermont: 2,343 (2,821); Clinton: 719 (789); Columbiana: 3,189 (3,299); Coshocton: 5,929 (5,700); Crawford: 1,113 (1,165); Cuyahoga: 1,124 (814); Darke: 679 (738); Defiance: 1,675 (1,767); Delaware: 1,527 (1,684); Erie: 868 (750); Fairfield: 1,800 (1,955); Fayette: 312 (310); Franklin: 837 (817); Fulton: 826 (802); Gallia: 2,720 (2,914); Geauga: 1,871 (1,886); Greene: 816 (835); Guernsey: 4,565 (4,435); Hamilton: 1,589 (2,007); Hancock: 1,179 (1,185); Hardin: 1,220 (1,270); Harrison: 3,763 (3,787); Henry: 708 (684); Highland: 2,587 (2,919); Hocking: 3,275 (3,727); Holmes: 3,731 (3,717); Huron: 2,279 (2,204); Jackson: 2,870 (3,194); Jefferson: 2,800 (2,663); Knox: 4,495 (4,465); Lake: 961 (908); Lawrence: 1,942 (2,113); Licking: 4,971 (5,364); Logan: 1,919 (2,071); Lorain: 2,511 (2,458); Lucas: 755 (759); Madison: 482 (497); Mahoning: 1,933 (1,835); Marion: 886 (892); Medina: 2,109 (1,872); Meigs: 3,476 (3,592); Mercer: 661 (603); Miami: 774 (833); Monroe: 2,571 (2,598); Montgomery: 591 (684); Morgan: 2,992 (3,096); Morrow: 1,486 (1,437); Muskingum: 5,118 (4,966); Noble: 2,855 (2,970); Ottawa: 450 (424); Paulding: 954 (1,064); Perry: 2,787 (2,867); Pickaway: 724 (803); Pike: 2,083 (2,382); Portage: 2,211 (2,178); Preble: 847 (965); Putnam: 709 (704); Richland: 3,246 (3,189); Ross: 3,029 (3,425); Sandusky: 862 (874); Scioto: 2,479 (3,034); Seneca: 1,842 (1,785); Shelby: 961 (1,050); Stark: 2,778 (2,760); Summit: 1,572 (1,487); Trumbull: 3,699 (3,293); Tuscarawas: 5,039 (4,921); Union: 842 (932); Van Wert: 458 (492); Vinton: 2,668 (3,059); Warren: 1,095 (1,266); Washington: 3,402 (3,526); Wayne: 2,020 (1,971); Williams: 1,687 (1,836); Wood: 857 (841); Wyandot: 1,484 (1,515). Total: 182,169 (188,329).

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischk@Ameritech.net

Ohio's Division of Wildlife employs "Plan B" for its steelhead stocking program

For the past two years Ohio has drafted Wisconsin steelhead eggs after Michigan’s trout eggs went AWOL.

The Ohio Division of Wildlife found it necessary both in 2015 and 2016 to obtain fertilized eggs from Wisconsin when Michigan was unable to supply the same from its  Little Manistee River. And the Wildlife Division might find it necessary to again seek out Wisconsin's assistance if Michigan’s Little Mainistee strain of steelhead trout remain uncooperative.

For several years the Wildlife Division has obtained fertilized steelhead eggs from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan’s fisheries biologists would strip live-net-captured female steelhead of their eggs and males of their sperm, or milt.

The fishes came from that state’s Little Mainistee River, located on the upper west coast of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and also a Lake Michigan tributary.

These fertilized eggs were then transported to Ohio Division of Wildlife’s Castalia Trout Hatchery. There the eggs hatched in steelhead fry, growing and fattening up for eventual release into several Northeast Ohio streams.

However, for reasons associated with nature and egg availability and not politics or college football, Ohio was unable to obtain Michigan/Little Manistee River steelhead eggs.

Consequently, the Wildlife Division turned to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. And here Wisconsin plumbed its Lake Michigan tributaries for Chamber Creek and Gaharaska River strains of steelhead. The former stream is found in Washington State and the latter stream in the Province of Ontario.

Importantly for Ohio’s steelhead fisheries program the fish that develop from the Wisconsin-supplied eggs are scarcely different from those trout that develop from Michigan’s Little Manistee-supplied eggs, says Phil Hillman, the fish management administrator for the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s District Three (Northeast Ohio) office.

“Our first priority is to obtain eggs from Little Manistee steelhead but we had to look elsewhere so that was Wisconsin,” Hillman also said. “It’s good to have a back-up.”

In fact, says Hillman, when the Wildlife Division was first angling for a replacement for its home-grown London-strain of rainbow trout the agency looked at the possibility of utilizing the Chamber Creek-strain found in Wisconsin.

“That strain has been a very solid performer wherever it’s been stocked,” Hillman said of the Chamber Creek steelhead strain.

Hillman said the Wildlife Division even offered an exchange of some sort for the eggs but Wisconsin was happy to oblige.

So what Ohio obtained in both 2015 and 2016 were all ready fertilized eggs; enough in each case to fuel the state’s Castalia Hatchery to raise and then release 450,000-plus steelhead for stocking into five Northeast Ohio Streams: the Vermilion, Rocky, Chagrin, and Grand rivers along with Conneaut Creek, says Hillman.

And possibly for this year as well: the Ashtabula River, which might see a planting in April of around 50,000 six-inch to eight-inch long steelhead, Hillman also says.

For Ohio’s trout anglers, Hillman quickly points out, the deviations between Little Manistee steelhead and the trout raised from the Wisconsin-supplied eggs are negligible in terms of what to expect fishing-wise.

“The timing of the runs is much the same, and the lengths and weights will be similar (too),”” Hillman said.

Asked if it might make sense for the Wildlife Division to capture its own steelhead stock from one of the Northeast Ohio streams, Hillman said such an effort is technically achievable but less practical than simply knocking on the door of a neighboring Great Lakes state natural resources department.

“That would likely require us to close off a portion of one stream during the run and also require us to perform extensive testing for disease,” Hillman said. “It’s a whole lot less expensive to obtain eggs elsewhere.”

And if Little Manistee-strain fish are once again unavailable, well, then, Wisconsin has become a dependable partner, says Hillman.

“We’re happy to get the eggs from Wisconsin, and we very much appreciate that state’s willingness to help us; we don’t want to see any interruption in our successful steelhead fisheries program,” Hillman said.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischk@Ameritech.net