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

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