Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Proposal to increase CO resident big game fees mtg

Hunters and anglers invited to Sportsmen's Roundtable caucus July 14, resident license fees on the agenda
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. ‐ Colorado Parks and Wildlife urges hunters and anglers, or anyone who wants their voice heard regarding wildlife issues, to attend the next southeast region Sportsmen's Roundtable caucus in Colorado Springs on Thursday, July 14, at 6 p.m. at the Hunter Education classroom at Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s regional office, 4255 Sinton Road.
“These roundtables are imperative for CPW to have a finger on the pulse of what our anglers and sportsmen of the region want to see in terms of regulations and resource management, and to better understand how this agency is perceived amongst a key stakeholder group,” said Southeast Regional Manager Dan Prenzlow.
Several important topics are on the agenda, including a presentation by CPW's Policy and Planning section seeking sportsmen's input on funding the future of wildlife management and conservation in Colorado.
CPW anticipates budget shortfalls which could be offset by increasing resident license fees. The last increase occurred in 2005, and since 2009 CPW has cut or defunded 50 positions, and cut $40 million from its operating budget. Wildlife managers caution that additional cuts are inevitable without an increase in revenue.
"Colorado's natural resources are experiencing the pressure of a growing human population, increasingly fragmented habitat and declines in the number of young people involved in hunting," said Prenzlow. "This agency has done it’s best to manage resources on an already shoestring budget, but now we need to find effective ways to increase revenue. We need to have this important discussion with our sportsmen and women."
CPW’s wildlife management programs are funded by user fees, generated primarily by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Unlike other state agencies, CPW does not receive general fund revenue.
Currently, a limited elk license for resident adults costs $46. Resident youths pay $10.75 for limited deer, elk and pronghorn licenses. Limited deer license and pronghorn licenses are $31 for resident adults.
"Colorado big game hunting opportunities are arguably some of the best in the country and that is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the state's wildlife managers," Prenzlow said. "When you compare our resident license fees to states that do not provide the same quality opportunities, you might understand why an increase is necessary. Colorado hunters and anglers care deeply about our wildlife resources and we are prepared to make our case in front of them."
The roundtable leadership consists of four appointed members and two elected members. Twice each year, the Statewide Roundtable, which has representation for each region caucus, meets with the CPW Director and other members of CPW's leadership for detailed discussions about a variety of wildlife management challenges.
Prenzlow said the need for selecting region representation for the statewide caucus and feedback on a possible fee increase makes this meeting one not to miss.
Anyone interested in becoming an elected caucus representative is encouraged to attend the meeting. The election will be held the same evening with votes cast by attendees. Elected members can serve two‐year terms and are expected to organize regional caucus meetings and be available to constituents, serving as their representatives for regional concerns during the statewide meetings.
Who: Sportsmen's Roundtable Caucus
What: Regular caucus meeting and election
When: Thursday, July 14, 6 p.m.
Where: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Hunter Education Classroom, 4255 Sinton Road. Call (719) 227‐5200 for additional inf

Parks and Wildlife- Wildlife provides the funds and the damn parks spend it

If they're not careful, they'll rise prices too much and lots of folks will say [bleep] it...I ain't hunting anymore...Montana did it, and they ended up losing total revenue. I think Montana's situation involved NR fees, but the principle remains.

Seems many of those making the decisions didn't take many economic classes.

I'm trying to help Colorado's "shortfalls"

Problem is........I send them $2k and they send it back

Year after year I try to be a paying customers but to no avail......they won't keep my money

Maybe they should open a pot shop or two - CPW Rocky Mtn High - or just sell out their offices.

The logo could be a Bighorn munching on some "green".

They keep your $3 application fee and $10 Habitat Stamp fee., plus the interest they made off of your generous loan.

I'd like to know what they'd spend the extra revenue on but a $10 (or so) increase on resident tags is something I could live with if they'd spend it wisely. Still a great deal especially compared to NR fees.

I'm sure they know they are going to raise the fee. Those round table meetings are to make you feel good, as if you helped with the decision.

It's just more tax.

Arizona and Utah make you buy a license just to apply and get a preference point. Wyoming makes you buy points...Colorado is still the best deal going.

Oregon also makes you buy a license to get into the draw, I stopped hunting there when they had left over tags in my unit but I got caught up in the non resident 5% tag cap. I figure Colorado will just increase the cost of non resident tags like they usually do.

Just another Bureaucracy needing more money ! When are they going take some serious measures to address point creep..

Point creep is a byproduct of too many hunters and too few tags.
The next generation will see the opposite problem.

Too many people with too much money. I'm guilty. My daughter and I are up to our necks in the Colorado point system. I'm coming out when I cash in my deer points. After that it's all about taking her for elk and deer. She should have a nice pile of points when she graduates college. Like so many folks I got in with big ideas. Then found myself caught up in the "creep".I started in 2007. Great timing eh? I'm going to hunt unit 66 one way or another. Rut hunt preferably.

There is no way to reign in these upward spirals in license costs. Short of a boycott. Don't see that happening.

I predict in the not too distant future we will see a drastic change in the preference point system and a lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy..

One change could be to stop issuing them and let people use them up,but even that may take one generation

Colorado screwed up the small game hunting with so many regulations, fees, and madatory surveys that I quit hunting pheasant, doves, and quail about 15 years ago.

Prior to that, Colorado added a wildfowl fee on top of the Federal fee, so I stopped hunting ducks and geese.

Their fishing and camping became so overly regulated and expensive that I now fish only in Nebraska, even though it is a 500 mile round trip to do so.

Having to buy a $10.00 non-refundable habitat stamp just to take a chance at a deer tag is crooked enough IMO. Raise the rates much more and I will say screw it to Colorado period.

Wyoming is looking more and more like the next state I will become a resident of.

JMO

BH63

Resident tags for Colorado are a bargain. Before they had to absorb Parks CDOW was run as close to a entrepreneurial enterprise as a state agency could be run.

One of the biggest problems this state has are the number of consumers who leach off the enormous public system putting pressure on limited resources that only sportsmen financially support. They won't significantly increase fees on anything due to the wringing and gnashing of teeth that come from all corners.

This isn't a welfare program, but one of the very few government models that actually work when funded properly and administered by people other than bureaucrats.

If Wildlife funds did not supplement parks funding, there would be enough money to fund the wildlife department. Initially we were told parks would not get any money from wildlife now they do.

And that is about the standard of how CO govt works and has for years. Make statements to lease the masses and then do what ever they wanted to do in the first place.

Now if Wildlife is to support parks, what happened to the lottery money, 50% of which was to cover openspace and parks? Oh yeah, it went elsewhere.

Yep, same as road and bridge fee increase for vehicle registration was suppose to go for road and bridge repair. Now we find it it is being syphoned off for other things. Then here in El Paso county the idiot voters pass the Pikes Peak Rural Transit Authority tax for road improvements and maintenance. Then the county quickly diverted the funds that were already being spent and put them else where and then spends the PPRTA moneys for other things than road improvement It is almost most comical but the Colorado Springs voters then approved another sales tax to fix pot holes. You guessed it the money is being spent for other road projects.
Colorado Springs sales tax is just shy of 10% now

I will be out of town this coming week but,I hope others can attend that meeting and demand ,no increase in license fees until no money is given to parks that came from wildlife funds

After 62 years I have a plethora of the lies to reflect on.

Wish I could but a little out of my way that day.

Saddlesore, I plan to attend. I went to the same meeting last year and we were told then that no money was going from wildlife to parks. I'm guessing they will say the same if I ask again. Do you have a specific example or budget line where you know this is happening, so I can reference that?

I would support a 10% increase in my license fee but the non-resident fee would need to be raised by 10% also.

I submitted a proposal some years ago to charge the same for non-resident tags as their state charges for a comparable NR big game tag. If they had no comparable it was to go to the highest tag on their list with a floor price.

It had no traction, but I still like the idea.

You're willing to generously chip in an extra 5 bucks for a Bull tag, as long as I chip in another 65 bucks?

POUND SAND.

Yep.

Interesting concept. I like it.

Folks in the west would not like it nearly so much as easterners, back when I researched the idea.

They can double the price of my elk tag, I'll still go every year.

Unfortunately, I can all but guarantee that the prices will go up no matter what we say or do. As others said, it is just a front so they can say they gave you your say and then they'll raise the prices anyway. As a professor once told me regarding the university bureaucracy, "it's not whether or not you'll get f**ked, the question is how hard you'll be f**ked." With all the preference point creep and way too many hunters for way too few tags, access issues, private property tags, etc. Colorado hunting is going the way of the dodo bird. I understand all the folks saying that they'd still spend their money, no matter what the price goes up to, but when is enough, enough? Hunters end up supporting all the parks people and all the anti-hunters who want nothing more than to end our sport. Rant over.

They were on the right path a few years back when they required an annual habitat stamp for all users of state lands (I think this was before DOW and Parks merged), but they did away with that requirement and left it as only being required for a hunting or fishing license. It might not have been perfect, but it helped ensure that everyone using the resources had a stake.

Gregdoo.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I got back yesterday from a week in the Flat Tops.

A member of the CPW commision informed we a week or so ago that the parks are now supplemented by the wildlife money

The non-hunters complained and that's why it got removed. That was back when it was only $5 too. They keep trying to get the 'non-consumptive users' i.e Hikers, Bird Watchers, etc. to pay for wildlife but they aren't willing to. It's mainly hunters, and truthfully it's non-residents hunters, that pay the bills for wildlife in Colorado.

I had briefly thought of getting the Colorado Parks and Wildlife license plates for the truck.
They are shown on the back of the Big Game brochure.
They state "Hunting and Fishing Fund Conservation" and are pretty nicely done.

I guess I don't feel the need to fund the Parks Dept. when they won't participate in sharing some financial burden themselves.

Link here

I went to the meeting and that question was asked. The response was that it was not financially feasible. It cost an additional $200k to administrate and enforce but only provided $67k in actual income. In addition due to the wording of the law (agreement) with the fed that income of $67k was subtracted from the amount given from the fed, net gain = zero. Also it was reiterated that Parks and Wildlife have separate budgets. Wildlife is funded from licenses, Habitat stamps, GOCO funds and a little from the fed. Parks has funding from legislature.

[quote=Prwlr Also it was reiterated that Parks and Wildlife have separate budgets. Wildlife is funded from licenses, Habitat stamps, GOCO funds and a little from the fed. Parks has funding from legislature. [/quote].

They might have separate budgets that each has to get approved by the legislature, but what pot that money comes from is a totally different subject.

A commissioner told me that parks are supplemented by wildlife funds