hoshour
Veteran member
CC, just noticed you have over 1,500 thanks from people on here. Lots of helpful posts. Thanks for all your help.
Colorado Fees for Hunting, Fishing & State parks to rise.
- Thread starter Colorado Cowboy
- Start date
Centennial
New Member
Im going to step in here. We as Colorado residents are supposed to have a voice in how this happens and we do IF we actually voice our opinions to our elected representatives; for or against. Unfortunately, we as a group are not good at standing up for ourselves.
CPW needs to be funded and costs go up over time so increases should be expected over time.
However, I am against this legislation primarily because I believe a 50% increase in license fees to residents only isn’t the right approach. If you run the numbers, I believe that these increases will preclude some residents from even having a chance to participate in hunting some species. A resident hunter that applied for all of the big game species in 2017, spent $933 just to apply. Under HB 17-1321, it would cost an individual $1352. Extrapolate that out to a family of 4, and it’s excessive to even apply for the chance to hunt.
The CPW is very quick to point out that they have not increased license fees. While technically true, it’s a long way from the rest of the story. As many of you know, CPW has been nickel and diming hunters for years with gimmicks and added required fees such as habitat stamps, changes to preference points and how they are awarded (pay to play), and just last year charging to return a licenses that can’t be used. It’s a deceitful argument by the CPW in my opinion.
Additionally, by their own admission, the CPW has not managed and accounted for their funding very well. I don’t think giving them more money solves that problem. If programs cost more than you bring in, you cant do the programs. We all have to live within our financial constraints. I believe there is plenty of fat to trim from the CPW before this bill passes.
Finally, there is nothing in the bill that limits CPW spending. In fact, as an Enterprise, the CPW is exempt from other spending constraints most governmental branches must function within.
CPW provides a service to us and it’s our opinion of how valuable that service is, not theirs that counts. Im not sure they fully understand that. It appears that their attitude is what’s good the CPW IS good for CO and that is the wrong paradigm in my opinion.
They need money but HB17-1321 isn't the solution.
CPW needs to be funded and costs go up over time so increases should be expected over time.
However, I am against this legislation primarily because I believe a 50% increase in license fees to residents only isn’t the right approach. If you run the numbers, I believe that these increases will preclude some residents from even having a chance to participate in hunting some species. A resident hunter that applied for all of the big game species in 2017, spent $933 just to apply. Under HB 17-1321, it would cost an individual $1352. Extrapolate that out to a family of 4, and it’s excessive to even apply for the chance to hunt.
The CPW is very quick to point out that they have not increased license fees. While technically true, it’s a long way from the rest of the story. As many of you know, CPW has been nickel and diming hunters for years with gimmicks and added required fees such as habitat stamps, changes to preference points and how they are awarded (pay to play), and just last year charging to return a licenses that can’t be used. It’s a deceitful argument by the CPW in my opinion.
Additionally, by their own admission, the CPW has not managed and accounted for their funding very well. I don’t think giving them more money solves that problem. If programs cost more than you bring in, you cant do the programs. We all have to live within our financial constraints. I believe there is plenty of fat to trim from the CPW before this bill passes.
Finally, there is nothing in the bill that limits CPW spending. In fact, as an Enterprise, the CPW is exempt from other spending constraints most governmental branches must function within.
CPW provides a service to us and it’s our opinion of how valuable that service is, not theirs that counts. Im not sure they fully understand that. It appears that their attitude is what’s good the CPW IS good for CO and that is the wrong paradigm in my opinion.
They need money but HB17-1321 isn't the solution.
sheephunter
Active Member
So, which programs are you willing to give up if CPW doesn't get the funding they need? Fish hatcheries are high on the list. At the CPW Sportsman's Roundtable meeting I attended a few months back, after the funding issues were explained, EVERYONE in the room was supportive of fee increases.
And as far as increasing the fishing license for seniors (but please leave the veterans licenses out of it-that's a whole different animal), shouldn't the fee for the license at least cover the cost of issuing it? If someone can't figure that out, I'd hate to see how you balance your own personal checkbook.
Centennial
New Member
Hmmm.
To answer your insinuation, I balance my checkbook by not spending more than I make. I didn’t bring up Sr or Military discounts but ill comment now. I retired after 26 years in the United States Army Infantry; multiple deployments. I served only because I believed that this nation was worth serving for, getting discounts anywhere never entered into my decision making process. I chose on my own to return to my home of record, so ill pay resident fees in full. When im eligible for a Sr discount, I would be willing to pay them as well; we agree there. Im not looking for a handout.
I think I stated that CPW needs funds and we all need to expect them to increase over time. Perhaps that was missed. I support fee increases as a matter of necessity. And, there are many compelling reasons the CPW gives for the increases. Look no further than their Financial Sustainability link, its full of them. However, just because it briefs well doesn’t mean its the best solution, necessary, or required. I would say this to the CPW, show me you are financially responsible and ill be more trusting when you ask for more money, and much more generous. Right now I believe their agenda is to have more money at their disposal.
As stated, my primary concern is that these high costs and fees, especially to apply, may keep residents from participating. And I believe high costs are in direct conflict with the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which in part states that wildlife is held in public trust. The NAMWM intent was to break from the European model in which the nobility and landowners alone had access to and controlled wildlife. CPW teaches this in their hunter safety classes. I believe that these prices may remove the average Colorado resident from applying and having an opportunity to participate and that shouldn’t be allowed to happen to Colorado residents.
I get that we are not all going to agree on details and I understand that differences of perspective will be presented. I would close by saying It doesn’t help the conversation to make it personal.
To answer your insinuation, I balance my checkbook by not spending more than I make. I didn’t bring up Sr or Military discounts but ill comment now. I retired after 26 years in the United States Army Infantry; multiple deployments. I served only because I believed that this nation was worth serving for, getting discounts anywhere never entered into my decision making process. I chose on my own to return to my home of record, so ill pay resident fees in full. When im eligible for a Sr discount, I would be willing to pay them as well; we agree there. Im not looking for a handout.
I think I stated that CPW needs funds and we all need to expect them to increase over time. Perhaps that was missed. I support fee increases as a matter of necessity. And, there are many compelling reasons the CPW gives for the increases. Look no further than their Financial Sustainability link, its full of them. However, just because it briefs well doesn’t mean its the best solution, necessary, or required. I would say this to the CPW, show me you are financially responsible and ill be more trusting when you ask for more money, and much more generous. Right now I believe their agenda is to have more money at their disposal.
As stated, my primary concern is that these high costs and fees, especially to apply, may keep residents from participating. And I believe high costs are in direct conflict with the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which in part states that wildlife is held in public trust. The NAMWM intent was to break from the European model in which the nobility and landowners alone had access to and controlled wildlife. CPW teaches this in their hunter safety classes. I believe that these prices may remove the average Colorado resident from applying and having an opportunity to participate and that shouldn’t be allowed to happen to Colorado residents.
I get that we are not all going to agree on details and I understand that differences of perspective will be presented. I would close by saying It doesn’t help the conversation to make it personal.
Last edited:
I personally don't believe that residents are paying a lot for their permits/tags, even with the proposed increase. If you look at other western states, we are not out of line.
Remember the military "discount" is actually a free license for a disabled vet. they must be at least 60% disabled to qualify.
I don't care what state or federal government agency you look at, there are areas that need some "belt tightening", When they start doing budget projections for coming years, they use the current budget + the increases they say they need. I come from a business background where we did zero budgeting every year. You start from scratch and justify every dime in the budget every year, not pad each years budget with the fat from previous years plus the projected increases. I believe the worst thing Colorado did was combine Parks with Game & Fish. I could be wrong, but I just don't think the overhead savings that was projected has been realized. I also thing the example of someone with a big family spending $1352.00 to hunt all species is questionable. I don't believe someone with a big family is going to take the time off their job, spend the extra money for for sheep, moose and other tags, Deer & elk, probably, an extra 8 or 10 dollars for a tag isn't going to put hunters in debt, especially when you look at all the other costs associated with hunting beside licenses.
Just sayin...........
Remember the military "discount" is actually a free license for a disabled vet. they must be at least 60% disabled to qualify.
I don't care what state or federal government agency you look at, there are areas that need some "belt tightening", When they start doing budget projections for coming years, they use the current budget + the increases they say they need. I come from a business background where we did zero budgeting every year. You start from scratch and justify every dime in the budget every year, not pad each years budget with the fat from previous years plus the projected increases. I believe the worst thing Colorado did was combine Parks with Game & Fish. I could be wrong, but I just don't think the overhead savings that was projected has been realized. I also thing the example of someone with a big family spending $1352.00 to hunt all species is questionable. I don't believe someone with a big family is going to take the time off their job, spend the extra money for for sheep, moose and other tags, Deer & elk, probably, an extra 8 or 10 dollars for a tag isn't going to put hunters in debt, especially when you look at all the other costs associated with hunting beside licenses.
Just sayin...........
Centennial
New Member
CC, I agree, the individual cost of a license is worth it even with the increases.
If my wife or I ever want to hunt any of the big 3, I have to apply every year for all 3 in hopes that we draw something. But, if I don't apply, there is no chance and we are "burning daylight" as it were. Like all parents, I want more for my kids. So, I am putting them in for the big 3 every year (points or licenses) in hopes that they will get to hunt while still in the prime of their lives. I am very fortunate to be able to do that and I am very, very aware that im in a unique position in that regard. If I weren't here (didnt make it back from a deployment) and my wife had to apply every year for license, there is no way she could afford ANY of the big 3 applications for anyone in the family; its too expensive. Im guessing a single school teacher cant apply for them either. That's my biggest complaint to the prices increases. It's not that a big family will hunt all they apply for because they will never get all they apply for but that they have to pay to apply or to get points and that adds up to a significant amount, past reasonable for a family. Believe me, it's spreadsheet hell every year for me to try to figure out what to apply for so that I minimize conflicts with work, school, sports, hunts im likely to draw, hunts I hope to draw, etc. It's as bad as taxes.
My math is accurate. I spent $3560.50 to apply for licenses and or points for my family this year (2 youth hunters). Under this bill, that will rise to $5165.00. That is a lot to put out at one time or in a very short period of time.
Thanks, Im tracking the details of the Mil discounts.
The CPW swears up and down, the merger hasn't impacted the wildlife side but for most of us, it's not passing the smell test. If there is a "savings gained through efficiencies" as outlined in Question 6 of their FAQ (linked on the sustainability page) then there must be some form of cost overlap/sharing which conflicts with their statement that they remain separately funded.
Incidentally, the "revenue challenges" as the CPW puts it began in 2008 according to them. After all of those years in existence (decline of deer in the 70 and the lousy elk hunting before the 4pt restrictions) how did these shortfalls show up in 2008? Prices were higher in 2000 than in 1965 and there wasn't an issue in 2000?
If my wife or I ever want to hunt any of the big 3, I have to apply every year for all 3 in hopes that we draw something. But, if I don't apply, there is no chance and we are "burning daylight" as it were. Like all parents, I want more for my kids. So, I am putting them in for the big 3 every year (points or licenses) in hopes that they will get to hunt while still in the prime of their lives. I am very fortunate to be able to do that and I am very, very aware that im in a unique position in that regard. If I weren't here (didnt make it back from a deployment) and my wife had to apply every year for license, there is no way she could afford ANY of the big 3 applications for anyone in the family; its too expensive. Im guessing a single school teacher cant apply for them either. That's my biggest complaint to the prices increases. It's not that a big family will hunt all they apply for because they will never get all they apply for but that they have to pay to apply or to get points and that adds up to a significant amount, past reasonable for a family. Believe me, it's spreadsheet hell every year for me to try to figure out what to apply for so that I minimize conflicts with work, school, sports, hunts im likely to draw, hunts I hope to draw, etc. It's as bad as taxes.
My math is accurate. I spent $3560.50 to apply for licenses and or points for my family this year (2 youth hunters). Under this bill, that will rise to $5165.00. That is a lot to put out at one time or in a very short period of time.
Thanks, Im tracking the details of the Mil discounts.
The CPW swears up and down, the merger hasn't impacted the wildlife side but for most of us, it's not passing the smell test. If there is a "savings gained through efficiencies" as outlined in Question 6 of their FAQ (linked on the sustainability page) then there must be some form of cost overlap/sharing which conflicts with their statement that they remain separately funded.
Incidentally, the "revenue challenges" as the CPW puts it began in 2008 according to them. After all of those years in existence (decline of deer in the 70 and the lousy elk hunting before the 4pt restrictions) how did these shortfalls show up in 2008? Prices were higher in 2000 than in 1965 and there wasn't an issue in 2000?
One thing to remember, if you apply and don't get drawn, almost all your money is refunded. I get almost everything back from my sheep & moose application every year. Like to see a year when I get no money back and a tag instead!!
Centennial
New Member
Boy, isn't that true. I am really am starting to doubt that I will ever sheep hunt in my life.
Yep, you get most of it back but you have to put it out first either on a credit card and cover interest or dig into savings and hope you don't need it (if you have that much in saving to start with)
CC, I frequently go out to Breen CO. Are you in that area or actually Delores?
Yep, you get most of it back but you have to put it out first either on a credit card and cover interest or dig into savings and hope you don't need it (if you have that much in saving to start with)
CC, I frequently go out to Breen CO. Are you in that area or actually Delores?
Half way between Cortez and Dolores off Hwy 145. I go thru Breen on my way to Farmington, it's about 40 or so miles SE from me.
sheephunter
Active Member
I'll certainly agree with one thing stated here, I don't think DOW's combining with Parks did hunters & anglers any favors. But that horse is outta the barn and it ain't coming back.
fackelberry
Active Member
Sorry not a resident in Colorado, but Wyoming is raising their resident and non-resident fees next year also. We had this kind of discussion on another thread. I'm with Colorado Cowboy, i don't think the resident fees are that bad. and like he said, if no money comes in your programs will disappear. I also agree that there probably aren't many familys that put in for every big game animal, points maybe but not actual tags. I can't see a family of 4 eating that many or having enough freezer space for EVERY big game animal. I think it would suck to have to front the money for every tag instead of buying points for moose and sheep like we do, But i bought another deer point this year in Colorado for 399 bucks and had to front it. They go up 10 bucks a year for last 4-5 years my records indicate. And as said earlier, people HAVE to live within their financial constraints. If it's too expensive to purchase liscenses maybe a person should prioritize what is more important to them. Maybe skip a few rounds of golf, or sit out poker night for a few months, or not buying that 10 dollar Starbucks coffee every day on the way to work. Save that money. If hunting is REALLY that important to you, you WILL find a way to pay for it. I do.