Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hunting And Fishing Licenses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to move Ohio senior hunting, fishing discount from 66 to 65
Summary
The House Natural Resources Committee held a first hearing on House Bill 64, the “Senior Sportsman Fairness Act,” which would lower the eligibility age for reduced hunting and fishing license fees from 66 to 65. Sponsors said the change would align this license discount with most other senior benefits; fiscal impacts will be assessed.
Representative Thomas and Representative Dieter presented House Bill 64, the "Senior Sportsman Fairness Act," during a first hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee, urging the panel to lower the age for senior discounts on hunting and fishing licenses from 66 to 65.
Representative Thomas, sponsor, told the committee the age 66 rule traces to 1913 and that most other senior benefits in Ohio begin at 65. “If you don't have an answer for a policy, you change the policy,” Representative Thomas said, urging members to support the measure.
The bill would change the age of eligibility for the specific license discounts that currently begin at 66. Thomas said the changes to license costs would be modest: she described reductions “for fishing, it changes the traditional from 25 down to 10,” and “for hunting, the regular adult cost from 19 to 10,” and argued that an extra year of eligibility would encourage seniors to spend time outdoors with family.
Ranking Member Rogers asked whether the sponsors had consulted the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Representative Thomas said they had informal conversations but had not yet completed a formal fiscal discussion; the committee will receive an official fiscal analysis after the bill is introduced. Director Mary Mertz, later in the hearing on the ODNR budget, estimated the statewide fiscal impact of moving the age by one year at roughly $250,000 to $300,000 annually and said the department did not object to the policy change.
Committee discussion noted a second question: whether making licenses free for seniors would be preferable. Sponsors said they planned to preserve license sales to retain federal matching funds that come with license revenue.
There was no motion, amendment or vote on House Bill 64 at the hearing; the item received testimony and committee questions and was closed for the day.
The committee proceeded immediately afterward to a separate budget hearing; no final action was taken on HB64 during this meeting.
