Just saw this

[nv-hunter]

New rule requires Colorado hunting, fishing license to access public lands formerly free

The license requirement goes into effect July 1 and impacts nearly 600 Colorado Parks and Wildlife-managed properties that had previously been free to enter.

amp.coloradoan.com

 

[JimP]

I saw that yesterday in a local newspaper.

They are finally trying to get others to pay for what they use instead of having us license holders foot the whole bill for these areas. I'd like to see them do it to a lot more areas along with the hiking, and biking trails.

 

[nv-hunter]

Jim I totally agree 100%

 

[mallardsx2]

Great news for hunters, bad news for the hippies.

I wonder how many "Lovers of animals" will refuse to buy a license and still go there. I hope they fine the heck out of them if they catch them without a license. Lot of people riding the coattails of hunters and fishermen....

I have to buy a small game license just to get preference points and most years I dont even step foot in the state...

 

[Gr8bawana]

I have no problems with that. More states need to do this.

 

[mosquito]

Yep I love it . Why not the cost of maintaining are parks is astronomic. Every one should help with the cost.

 

[archbull]

Finally! I think it's Great!

 

[Buckbob]

Great idea, I wish more states would do this!

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I totally agree that everyone who uses these areas should help in the cost of public use. But....I also believe they should come up with another type of permit not called a hunting or fishing license. A user permit or fee that the user can purchase without them bitching of "I don't hunt or fish, so why do I have to buy a license?"

This is a step in the right direction of getting everyone to pay for public use areas and the maintenance of it.

 

[mallardsx2]

Personally, I like the idea of forcing a potential anti-hunter having to buy a permit.....but thats my sick sense of irony... lol

I guess as long as the money 100% ends up in the right place they could call it whatever they want to call it.

WIth this new potentially large source of income I would assume that the hunting license costs will be reduced now right............? Also a BIG LOL.

 

[nv-hunter]

I totally agree that everyone who uses these areas should help in the cost of public use. But....I also believe they should come up with another type of permit not called a hunting or fishing license. A user permit or fee that the user can purchase without them bitching of "I don't hunt or fish, so why do I have to buy a license?"

This is a step in the right direction of getting everyone to pay for public use areas and the maintenance of it.

After watching a discussion on another board I agree with you, this will inflate hunt/fish license sale and allow for more Pit/Rod funds to Co. The should do a parking permit like Fish and wildlife does on Federal refuges that I've been on, Permit or duck stamp to park and use, I know Oregon does something like that on some State areas too. That makes the bird watchers and dog walks pay their share

 

[Yell Co AR Hunter]

This would not be good for all States. I do not know the funding process for Colorado. In Arkansas there is an 1/8 cent tax that is applied to all outdoor related items which funds such things.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I totally agree that everyone who uses these areas should help in the cost of public use. But....I also believe they should come up with another type of permit not called a hunting or fishing license. A user permit or fee that the user can purchase without them bitching of "I don't hunt or fish, so why do I have to buy a license?"

This is a step in the right direction of getting everyone to pay for public use areas and the maintenance of it.

I agree. A separate permit would be better. If a nonresident comes to Colorado and wants to visit state land while not hunting, he/she will have to buy an expensive nonresident hunting or fishing license. How about a $10 or $20 annual permit required for all users regardless of resident or non resident status and regardless of type of use...hunting, hiking, sight seeing, etc? The fee they are proposing is a good idea, but poorly targeted.

 

[JimP]

Right now this rule only affects a few state wildlife areas and not the whole state.

However I would like for it to go state wide and as was mentioned they may need to look at it a different way and not make people purchase a hunting/fishing license but perhaps a access permit. They already do this for the state parks in Colorado.

 

[nv-hunter]

I agree. A separate permit would be better. If a nonresident comes to Colorado and wants to visit state land while not hunting, he/she will have to buy an expensive nonresident hunting or fishing license. How about a $10 or $20 annual permit required for all users regardless of resident or non resident status and regardless of type of use...hunting, hiking, sight seeing, etc? The fee they are proposing is a good idea, but poorly targeted.

The folks with the hunting and fishing licenses have already pad to access these lands

 

[highplainsdrifter]

The folks with the hunting and fishing licenses have already pad to access these lands

Good point. So how about a hunting/fishing license OR an inexpensive separate permit?

 

[dan maule]

Totally agree with what they are trying to accomplish, but I would not want to be one of officers trying to enforce this. I can just imagine all of the BS they are going to have to listen too.