State Funding for Wildlife

[Colorado Cowboy]

The current discussion about Wyoming's current desire to change the nonresident cost and availability of hunting permits for big game raises a question for all of us. My state of Colorado's position on funding for our Parks and Wildlife Department that it is a self funded organization and it gets no state funding. That position is not unusual for states, but it raises a question in my mind.......Why should hunters and fisherman fund the department when all state residents enjoy and are responsible for this management too?

Here in Colorado we had a citizen sponsored ballot question on reintroduction of wolves. The P&WD (and the hunters & fisherman) will be footing the bill. This state funding position also leads to the huge difference in the cost of nonresident hunting and fishing permits when compared to what residents pay. If the department had the ability to receive funding from the state, this difference would not be as important as it is today for their funding. I realize that politics would be involved, but it is today anyway. Wyoming's current situation is an example of politics rearing it's ugly head in this process.

Just my take...............

 

[go_deep]

I firmly believe there should be a non-consumtive user license, say $50 for the hiker, biker, birdwatcher, NF camper. They use it at no cost otherwise and the burden continues to fall on the hunters and fisherman regardless if your a resident or nonresident.

 

[kidoggy]

I firmly believe there should be a non-consumtive user license, say $50 for the hiker, biker, birdwatcher, NF camper. They use it at no cost otherwise and the burden continues to fall on the hunters and fisherman regardless if your a resident or nonresident.

cain't does that ! that'd be racist!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JimP]

Colorado started charging a user fee to those who don't have a hunting/fishing license in a few wildlife areas last year.

It will be interesting to see how that is actually going. They also started a voluntary hiking card that includes the search and rescue fee a few years ago.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

It will be interesting to see how that is actually going. They also started a voluntary hiking card that includes the search and rescue fee a few years ago.

I wonder how many of those they actually sell.

 

[taskswap]

It's a great question.

I personally don't see how a direct-pay, consumption-based licensing can work. It's just cost-prohibitive to enforce given the vastness of the territory we're talking about. And I definitely think the wolf thing was very badly mishandled, but let's not forget it wasn't CPW's idea to do it.

When it comes to the source of funding, I'm pretty biased. I have a strong provider complex (I think it's part of why I hunt) and I'm proud to help support our public lands and herds. If some sappy hikers high on weed and life get to hug some flowers in an area my dollars helped keep public, I'm pretty OK with that in the end. That's just me, but that's how I see it.

I see this problem from a different direction. Hunting is dying a slow death, and it has been for decades. Some will joke it's because of things like this, but it's not. The two biggest drivers are urbanization and the rapid approach of age 65 of the boomers, the largest group of hunters today. Let's face it, everybody has busy lives and 2 jobs plus a wedding to go to in September, and it's not hard to see why this is becoming a luxury for a lot of people. My hunt buddy this year is only joining me "if he can get the time off work". Hunting used to be the first thing he put in for time on. Now it's the last.

I believe if hunting is a luxury rather than a basic right, then it's just another Disney ride. People opposed to it (or just taking advantage) can argue all kinds of angles on why hunters should pay XYZ, but it doesn't matter what their reason is. If you see it as a luxury, you can impose all kinds of costs on it and not enough people will oppose it to stop it. I'm not defending it AT ALL. But I get it. I can see how it's happening.

Let's face it, the population and economy of the US are both booming. We all know how awesome elk tenderloin is on a flatbread, but most folks just want to grab Domino's before Richie's soccer game. You can't feed the current US population's meat requirements on hunting. That's it right there - what we do can't feed everybody. Most people can't take 5 days off work for a 20% chance to put an elk in the freezer. A luxury is "an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain". That's the problem.

I don't really blame politics for this. It's a nasty, grubby process, but it affects everything, not just hunting. In my opinion, the root cause is the decline, and we all need to do everything in our power to talk more about hunting, encourage new hunters, share meat with people that have never tried it, talk up how organic and natural it is, and anything else we can do.

I think it's a great question. I wish I had an answer. I have a pretty depressing view of what hunting will look like in 20 years and I feel powerless to stop it.

 

[BKC]

It's a great question.

I personally don't see how a direct-pay, consumption-based licensing can work. It's just cost-prohibitive to enforce given the vastness of the territory we're talking about. And I definitely think the wolf thing was very badly mishandled, but let's not forget it wasn't CPW's idea to do it.

When it comes to the source of funding, I'm pretty biased. I have a strong provider complex (I think it's part of why I hunt) and I'm proud to help support our public lands and herds. If some sappy hikers high on weed and life get to hug some flowers in an area my dollars helped keep public, I'm pretty OK with that in the end. That's just me, but that's how I see it.

I see this problem from a different direction. Hunting is dying a slow death, and it has been for decades. Some will joke it's because of things like this, but it's not. The two biggest drivers are urbanization and the rapid approach of age 65 of the boomers, the largest group of hunters today. Let's face it, everybody has busy lives and 2 jobs plus a wedding to go to in September, and it's not hard to see why this is becoming a luxury for a lot of people. My hunt buddy this year is only joining me "if he can get the time off work". Hunting used to be the first thing he put in for time on. Now it's the last.

I believe if hunting is a luxury rather than a basic right, then it's just another Disney ride. People opposed to it (or just taking advantage) can argue all kinds of angles on why hunters should pay XYZ, but it doesn't matter what their reason is. If you see it as a luxury, you can impose all kinds of costs on it and not enough people will oppose it to stop it. I'm not defending it AT ALL. But I get it. I can see how it's happening.

Let's face it, the population and economy of the US are both booming. We all know how awesome elk tenderloin is on a flatbread, but most folks just want to grab Domino's before Richie's soccer game. You can't feed the current US population's meat requirements on hunting. That's it right there - what we do can't feed everybody. Most people can't take 5 days off work for a 20% chance to put an elk in the freezer. A luxury is "an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain". That's the problem.

I don't really blame politics for this. It's a nasty, grubby process, but it affects everything, not just hunting. In my opinion, the root cause is the decline, and we all need to do everything in our power to talk more about hunting, encourage new hunters, share meat with people that have never tried it, talk up how organic and natural it is, and anything else we can do.

I think it's a great question. I wish I had an answer. I have a pretty depressing view of what hunting will look like in 20 years and I feel powerless to stop it.

It was cpw's fault to deny they had wolves, so they didn't have to manage them. They finally did acknowledge there were wolves here but too little too late to affect the public vote.

Also, I have seen Richie play soccer, He's terrible!

 

[tim]

pay to play is the usual way. Question, if non hunters are to pony up some money, they should have a seat at the table. Do you want that?

 

[kidoggy]

pay to play is the usual way. Question, if non hunters are to pony up some money, they should have a seat at the table. Do you want that?

nobody wants that but we get their two cents anyhow.