Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game COLORADO hunting fee increase

Bighorn, I understand what you're saying. However, where does it stop? There are always those people that have more money than the rest and that can afford whatever they want with no issues. And, of course, there are always the poor that can never afford it. And finally, you have those in the middle, who as you say, if they really, really want something, can scrimp and save, and pay for what they want.

However, depending on the cost, that might take a year or more to save for. With regard to hunting, I personally don't want to have to wait to only hunt every other year or every third year while I save up the funds. I also don't want my kids to have to wait that long.

I guarantee that as long as the wealthy can afford something and willingly pay for it, the price will never go down. I'm sick and tired of hearing, every year from the Parks & Wildlife, how we need to attract more youth to hunting and then they make it even harder for kids to actually go hunting through lack of licenses, limited seasons, more regulations, and now increased cost.

And do you really think we're going to recruit kids to hunt if their parents stop hunting or if they can only go periodically?

The wealthy hunters always respond with, "Well, if you really want to go on XYZ hunt, you'll save up for whatever the cost is and when you can afford it, you can go." But the ones responding like that are typically the folks that never have to worry about "whatever the cost is." Look at the price of a Stone's sheep hunt or even a Brown Bear hunt. Think those prices are ever coming down? No, because there are too many well heeled customers that have the money and willingly pay what is asked, even if the price is outrageous and ridiculous for what is provided. And yes, I'm sure there are a few middle class folks that either borrow the money or save for many years and actually go on these hunts. But their numbers are very few.

Bottom line, I don't want the cost of a license in Colorado to go up since it will never come down. And the more it increases, the more difficult they make it for the middle class working folks or those on limited incomes to actually get out and hunt. When the hunters quit hunting, what do you think they're going to do? Raise the prices again until the vast majority stop hunting altogether and then they'll just do away with hunting for good since it will affect so few of the population.

Sorry for the rant.

Are we both talking about the same thing--an $80 elk tag?

How does that compare to all the other expenses of a big game hunt? It'd cover gas, if you're not driving that far.

And if they double the price of a youth tag, it'll cost $20.

Don't worry about it to much if you are resident.If Amendment 69 passes this fall,your sate income tax will increase another 10% to just under 15%

Does 5k still buy a pretty good hunt over a corn feeder down there?

Smokepole, don't feel too sorry for me. I can afford it if I want to. However, my point that perhaps you missed, is that once they start raising fees, they never come down and things don't get more affordable, they just get less affordable. To you or me, $80 may not seem like much. However, I know folks where $80 will definitely be too much, specifically for the reason you mention, all the other associated costs other than the license. And that doesn't include if you've got a couple or three kids that want to hunt. Yes, the youth tags are only $20 (or so) if they double (not including application fees, etc.) but try drawing a decent youth tag. A lot of kids will age out before they get one, depending on the area. And what do you think all those 18 year olds will do, think they'll all go spend $80 on an elk tag, deer tag, etc? A few diehards will, but not the majority. And what happens 3 years down the road when the hunter numbers fall off and they decide they need to double the fees again? I suppose that will still be alright with you.

Of course, unless you're ultra rich, everyone eventually reaches their limits. I quit hunting Montana a year after they raised the non-residents license fees to over $500 for a deer tag. It wasn't that I couldn't pay the $500 if I really wanted to, but with all the other expenses associated with going, I was looking at $1500-$2000 just to bring home a little deer meat. After weighing the costs and what I got out of it, I decided I didn't need to hunt Montana that bad. It was my choice. All I'm saying is that if we want to maintain or grow the hunter population, raising the fees does us little good overall and eventually more hunters will drop out.

Heck,even the Denver Post this morning is saying doubling the resident license fees is a losing proposition and that they need to look elsewhere for funding. We all know where that will lead.

Kind of you to say! Paying $700.00 or so for an elk tag is expensive to most of us actually. Considering the cost of travel, other money spent in the state it just seems you Colo Greenies are a bit too cozy with the leftist scum USF&W types. And how democrat of you to act as if paying more for a tag would benefit anyone or the elk. Voting Hillary are you? And for the fees to double? Add yourself to the Kissass left for sure.

Don't know where you got that price but when I looked into getting a private land lease to hunt Whitetails in Colorado it was looking like no less than $3500 and up. for less than two weeks. Which by the way is exactly twice what I pay to lease 1280 acres all year with fishing, hog hunting, turkey hunting not to mention dove and deer. So stand up for yourself blue stater!

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

Too funny, say something you don't agree with and out come the insults. I'm surprised you didn't mention Obama, but it was classy of you to capitalize "kissass."

If you go back and read my post, you'll see that one of the reasons I'm willing to pay more for a resident tag is that they charge non-residents so much it's embarrassing to pay so little.

But for you, I'd make an exception. Whiners like you give non-resident hunters a bad name.

And test, I hear you on hunter numbers. Personally I do what I can to help there by volunteering my time to teach the hunter ed. course here. I think I've helped over 700 students get their cards so far.

And I don't think the price of a tag will double anyway. As far as 18 year-olds not buying a tag if they go from forty-something to 60 or 70-something dollars, any 18 year-old I know will have help there from his parents. I don't think it's as big an issue as you do.

One proposal a few years ago was tying license cost increases to automatically go up with the cost of living index in the Denver Metro Area.
I suspect this is the opening of a dance they have done in the past, sort of a first step in the "art of the deal". Lets say you want to raise the fee by 10% so you throw out a crazy number of !00%. You'll get resistance no matter the amount of the increase and maybe after all the fuss you end up getting a 25% increase, great for you, and all of us unwashed out here win because we cut the increase in half.

True, but what else you pay for hasn't increased since 2005?

Gas!

But that is about it. Georgia started offering lifetime licenses about 10 years ago. For a 1 time $500 fee I'm covered for everything hunting and fishing related except a federal duck stamp for life. Even if I move and am no longer a resident. Buy before you turn 16 and it's $350. My son got one for his 16th birthday.

We have also started requiring either a "Georgia Outdoor Recreational Pass" or a valid hunting license to use many public areas normally used by hunters. This forces the mountain bikers,day hikers etc. to help pay the costs. It is experimental in just a few areas now, but I expect it to be used in more places soon.

Even tho I live only 14 miles from the state line, the cost increases is why I no longer hunt in Colorado.
Screw them. Shoulda left cow tags at 250.
Now they are ? , close to 500.
Nah, I'm good....

Thanks for posting that, it's a great idea.

And by the way, if you look at the average price of a gallon of gas between 2005 and now, for almost the entire period except for lows in 2009 and now, the cost has gone up. Way up.

Yes, I agree also, a high percentage of public lands in Wisconsin were purchased with hunting, trapping and fishing fees. Plus the Pittman-Robertson excise tax helps fund wildlife management.

The hikers, birders, tree huggers, wolf huggers, etc. need to put their money where there mouth is.

If I'm not mistaken, some years back there was a proposal to levy an excise tax on camping and hiking gear, similar to the P-R excise tax on guns and ammo. and D-J excise tax on fishing gear.

It went nowhere because there was no support. A buddy of mine says the solution is to tax mountain bikes, granola, and Subarus.

I guess I won't bitch about the license increase here in Alaska we are going from $25 bucks to $35 for a hunting license and general harvest tickets are free..

Your welcome!

Are you bitching or bragging?

How much are you paying for your lease this year starsky? What with the price of corn and all, I'm really struggling.