License Increase Bill (HB17-1321)

C

cedahm

Member
The "Colorado Parks and Wildlife Financial Stability" Bill - proposing License increases - was introduced Wednesday:

Text is here:
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017A_1321_01.pdf

Cliffs Notes:

- All Resident license fees would (most likely) increase 50% for all species/types
- NonRes Fishing/Small Game/etc increases from ~30%->80% (no increase to NR Big Game)
- Application fees from 'Max of $3' to 'Max of $20'
- CPI Tie-in for future resident license fee increases (already in place for NR)
- New 'Aquatic Nuisance Species' stickers required for all boats over 10' long

The commission would have to set the fees, but likely they would choose the maximum amount.

I'm on board with this in a general sense, we haven't had a resident fee increase in over a decade. I would like to see better allocation/accounting of funds based on contribution level of CPW users (e.g. as hunters, the vast majority of fees come from us, but the overall user base is much higher for non-consumptive users).

I wish they would have brought back the Walk-In Access fees as part of this and directed that money specifically to the program - hard to say what impact WIA will see.
 
Nothing but bureaucrats looking for more money.

Figured this was coming as the "Parks Department" was such a mess and money pit when our useless governor combined the two...
We didn't seem to need an increase when DOW was its own entity and ran in the black. Then suddenly they tie a loser on and now the hunting community is being called on to keep it afloat. How much money do you think it cost Colorado when Hickenlooper signed the pathetic feel good gun bills?

Do you honestly think they will spend any of this money on habitat or hunting pursuits? If you do you don't know DOW or the Parks Department very well.. DOW cares about two things rainbow trout and Elk. The rest is nothing but fluff to them and birds are the very last on their list. Extra monies will be thrown at building docks, park entry booths, bike paths, and etc. Everything else except bird hunting.

I don't know if I'm willing to fork out $67 a year to fish and hunt in Colorado. Why don't they start charging by the person to enter the parks instead of the car load? Probably make some money then. Why should my hunting license fees go to prop up a floundering parks department? Why don't they go after the freeloaders like the parks users, the mountain bikers, the rest that neither are licensed or pay fees to pursue their outdoor sports?

Pheasant hunting has improved in this state since I was a kid but it doesn't hold a candle to Kansas or Nebraska. Not even in the drought years.
Kansas and Nebraska provide far more opportunities to pursue birds with their walk in programs and you don't have to throw extra dollars out to use them. I don't have to make reservations or apply for special access permits when I want to hunt on a weekend or holiday. I noticed this little clause for some of the public access and state lands.

If they boost up the tags here for residents and I'll stop buying a license here and I'm probably not the only one. DOW should put it out there for public conversation and see what we hunters have to say.

A bit of a rant but this state is changing and not for the best in my opinion.
 
Uplandhunter67 said:
Do you honestly think they will spend any of this money on habitat or hunting pursuits?
...

Why don't they go after the freeloaders like the parks users, the mountain bikers, the rest that neither are licensed or pay fees to pursue their outdoor sports?
Click to expand...

That was the main concern I had noted. The report specified in the bill is intended to address that since the few hunters that did turn up during public meetings were overwhelmingly saying the same thing:

(2) (a) ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2018, THE DIVISION SHALL
13 PREPARE A WRITTEN REPORT ON:
14 (I) NONCONSUMPTIVE USERS' USE OF DIVISION-MANAGED LANDS;
15 AND
16 (II) RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW NONCONSUMPTIVE USERS COULD
17 HELP COVER THE DIVISION'S COSTS FOR MAINTAINING THE LANDS,
18 INCLUDING ANY LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
19 (b) ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1, 2019, THE DIVISION SHALL PRESENT
20 ITS FINDINGS AND A SUMMARY OF THE REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO
21 SECTION (2)(a) OF THIS SECTION TO A JOINT SESSION OF THE AGRICULTURE,
22 LIVESTOCK, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE OF
23 REPRESENTATIVES AND THE AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND
24 ENERGY COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR COMMITTEES.


Pheasant hunting has improved in this state since I was a kid but it doesn't hold a candle to Kansas or Nebraska. Not even in the drought years.
Kansas and Nebraska provide far more opportunities to pursue birds with their walk in programs and you don't have to throw extra dollars out to use them. I don't have to make reservations or apply for special access permits when I want to hunt on a weekend or holiday. I noticed this little clause for some of the public access and state lands.
Click to expand...

Here's a place I differ. NE and KS have a LOT more quality pheasant habitat than we do. And also a much larger base of pheasant hunters and pheasant habitat landowners managing (at some level) for the birds. We have maybe 4-5 counties with generally 'good' habitat and about the same number with generally 'marginal' habitat (with local exceptions for sure). CO will never have the quality of pheasant hunting that our Eastern neighbors enjoy, but we sure as hell won't have much if we don't fund it. PF has done some fantastic work in CO, but CPW can and should be chipping in more to help. An easy button way to do that is to charge for WIA stamps and at least cover the land lease costs instead of running them as a deficit. At a minimum that preserves the level of leased ground we have now, and in theory could open up funds for habitat work, lease acreage expansion, etc.

DOW should put it out there for public conversation and see what we hunters have to say.
Click to expand...

They did. There were a series of meetings and roundtables last summer and fall. Not a lot of sportsmen attended. They also were not well-publicized, which bugs me. We get emails from them all the time (although they are FAR less communicative in general than WY, NM, AZ) - how hard is it to send the roundtable schedule and topics?

A bit of a rant but this state is changing and not for the best in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Since I moved here in 1996, the population has nearly doubled. With that many folks comes that many more issues.

It's a very challenging topic. I don't want to fund everyone else's recreation, either, but if there is better distribution and accounting of spend targets vis a vis revenue sources, I am willing to pay higher fees.
 
The title on the state government website bothers me the most
"Parks And Wildlife Financial Sustainability"

Growing up hunting (pushing 40 years now) here I have some great advancements and some nasty follies committed by DOW. I remember the days when the ditches of Eastern Colorado were either mowed or burned. Pheasant habitat was almost nonexistent. If you wanted to hunt upland game you either pursued grouse or traveled to other states. I have to say the PF has done some amazing work promoting the restoration of habitat in Colorado. If it wasn't for them most farmers would still be practicing burn and mow. I'm sure DOW assisted a bit but again not their prime objective.

I am not surprised they didn't publicize the meeting more. Probably would have drawn more hunters along with a bit of ire and condemnation.

WIA originally had a fee. If I remember correctly it was a $10 fee. Then they stopped charging for WIA and the $10 habitat stamp appeared which swept up fishermen, big game, and small game hunters alike just like the addition of the search and rescue fee. I think they realized they could make even more money by charging everybody instead of the fewer WIA users.

I agree with you about KS and NE along with SD that they manage and promote their bird population. Colorado does not. I said earlier DOW only really cares about elk and rainbow trout. Just look at the cost of a NR elk tag at $644. Faced with that amount of revenue from a single license where would your resources go to?

So when they impose the proposed increase then our combo tag jumps to $60 not including the $.25 fee for search/rescue and the proposed $15 habitat fee. That brings us to $75.25. Plus I noted some detail about an increase for CPI which I am sure they will use whenever they feel necessary. Then on top of that you are willing to spend another $15 for a WIA stamp, which would bring you up to $90.25. So for another $15 dollars I can buy either a NR KS or NE tag and have more area to hunt than I can walk. Plus I can hunt prairie chickens and sharp tailed grouse with generous bag limits.
When it comes to governmental agencies and fiscal responsibilities I have grave concerns. They have proven their incompetence in the past and I don't think it will change now. Once the ball starts rolling where will it stop? They can't increase taxes without a vote thanks to TABOR but they can impose any fees and fee hikes they wish to generate revenue similar to Ritter's changes with vehicle registration.

Don't get me wrong I would consider paying a bit more for better opportunities but I honestly don't believe the monies raised will go to that. They would have to provide proof that they were using the monies as stated.

I will continue donating to PF as at least they spend my money on things I think are important.

Matt

FYI:
The main sponsor of this bill Jeni Ardnt is not a friend of the sportsmen of Colorado. She is an anti-gun legislator from Larmier county... So I am sure our best interests are not hers.
 
Last edited:
jlmatthew said:
Most of the money goes to everything but hunting, especially fishing. Cant support this. Biggest CPW priority right now is dam repair which I could care less about. Fishing license should at least cost as much as a deer tag since they suck off the most money

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2017/Jan/Item_25-Financial_Update-Jan2107-PWCMtg.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great information. I noted the dollar amount they spend on quail and pheasant conservation.... Not much in the scheme of things...

Matt
 
its all about money for the bureaucrats, hire a couple more biologists to tell us there is a shortage of habitat and there you have it......big gov. bullshit!:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top