I would be OK with an increase in the cost of resident hunting licenses IF I thought that the money was actually being spent on wildlife management. Unfortunately I think that the parks department is dipping into wildlife funds. They use any excuse they can to make it sound like they are spending the money on wildlife and hunting. But in fact they are spending wildlife finds on parks. New rifle ranges, dam maintenance, maintenance of roads and trails in "hunting areas" on state parks are all examples of these abuses. Those abuses amount to obvious misappropriation of funds.
So until they convince me that they are spending the money properly, I'm against increasing fees for hunting licenses.
The Colorado Parks Department is poorly managed. Colorado State Parks are generally over developed, and over regulated, and expensive when compared to the cost of parks in Wyoming and New Mexico. A perfect example is Cheyenne Mountain State Park on the edge of Colorado Springs. The park is surrounded by thousands of acres of National Forest that you access for free but you have to pay a day-use fee of $7 just to enter the park and go hiking. It costs an additional $20 to $30 if you want to camp.
Mueller State Park, on the West side of Pikes Peak, is another example of an over-priced, over regulated park.
The Parks Department is not financially self sustaining. It must receive money from the general fund every year in order to balance its' budget. The old Division of Wildlife was always financially self sustaining until it was merged with the parks department. Now they need money. It's not hard to explain what happened.
When you ask them if wildlife funds are being properly accounted for they say "Those funds are strictly regulated". Pittman-Roberts funds are regulated, but not funds from hunting licenses. Since they can abuse the system, they do.
KC
