Colorado hunting fee increase

Dow was doing fine, until it became Parks and Wildlife.
I knew from day one that Wildlife would generate income and Parks would get the funds.

"They're hoping to solve the problem by doubling the cost of in-state hunting and fishing licenses. Those fees haven't increased since 2005."

That's crazy talk! Only non-resident licenses should be increased.

Tracks, I think you are probably right. As an example, the Lake Pueblo State Park has been busy this summer pouring brand new concrete bike and hiking paths, re-paving roads, replacing foot bridges, etc.- none of this benefits wildlife, and comes at a cost, for sure.

They have separate budgets, funds are not mixed. I can see an increase in some licenses. IMO a $45 elk tag is pretty cheap, $90 seems OK. I think that they should have a tiered price tag----cow vs bull/either sex. Doubling the cost of deer tags---that's a little bit different. I will probably give that up and just hunt elk.

There is the law of diminishing returns. No way is a doubling of a small game license worth it. I buy one now just to carry a gun looking for a grouse, when I'm actually scouting for elk. Instead I will just hike & enjoy the changing of the aspens. No way is a spring gobbler worth going from $20 to $40. No way is a fishing license worth going to $50.

But doubling the cost of bighorn sheep. mtn goat & moose will make them money. I'll pay $500 for those tags.

The DOW is in a bad spot. Raising the cost to get more money may end up costing them money. The cost of Colorado's wildlife needs to be born by every citizen of Colorado. We sportsmen have carried the total cost long enough--there is no free lunch.

If the CPW got all the money back that was put into the general fund or wherever it goes,you would not see a problem.The CPW requests a budget with so much money and the legislature gives back what they want to give.

Then you have the CPW Wildlife doing dam and maintenance work in state parks like Pueblo in the name of doing wildlife habitat. Just how in the heck do bike paths benefit wildlife. CPW should not be in the business of property maintenance, building shooting ranges, and a host of other expenditures that private entities should be doing.

If someone thinks $90 is OK for an elk tag, go talk to families that are trying to fund 3-4 kids on an elk hunt, even if the tag fee is reduced for youth. Maybe if a person is on good payroll but many hunters, like myself,being retired are on fixed income and although I support n maybe 10 or 15% increase in fees,I sure as heck don't support doubling them. Charging $500 for a sheep,goat or moose tag is only going to make 50% at least stop applying and then you get into the situation that all hunting is a rich man's sport. Of course those who can afford it have no qualms about it

If everyone on this forum would go to the link provided in the initial thread post and from there go to the survey page ,fill it out,then you might see some response from CPW. As it is now, those statewide meetings are attended by maybe a 100 people at each meeting.So input is limited. Of course,CPW is going to do what ever they want.

Link to the survey:

https://www.research.net/r/CPW-Wildlife-Funding-Public-Comment

Try being from out of state. My Bull license is $600 and cow another $4XX something. We are also forced to purchase fishing licenses as well. Many of us are also retired, so any additional increase in out of state licenses will really hurt. When you factor in hotels, food, gas and licenses it costs me over $2,000 a year to come up there for one week a year. When I started coming up there in the 80's it costs us around $700. But, I do not pay state income taxes, property taxes, fuel or sales tax all year long. Since residents do, I believe for CPW to double your fee's seem unreasonable. Even though the cost of your Elk license is less than the cost of my instate deer license of $78. Unless I want to hunt with a muzzle loader, that is another $34 and archery is yet another $34. That is until we turn 65. At that time we can get a lifetime combined license good for most hunts for $50. Maybe Colorado should consider something like that. Let those who are still working and under 65 pay more and then reduce the costs to those of us over that age.

Start taxing the kayakers, bikers, hikers, 14'er climbers, etc. I'm tired of having to foot the bill for every outdoor enthusiast out here.

I've said this for a long time. Usually met with "well then they will have a seat at the table and a say in how wildlife is managed".

Well guess what, they already have a say, a big one. Might as well pay for the privilege like hunters do.

BTW, anyone know who got the 55 4th season re-issue this morning? I think that system is rigged.

Every state should adopt a version of Missouri's "Design for Conservation." Years ago, Missouri voters passed a initiative that created a constitutional amendment that directs 1/8th of one percent of the money gleaned from the state sales tax to wildlife and conservation. As a result, Missouri's game and fish department is the best-funded such organization in the country. The cost is borne by all of the citizens of Missouri, not just hunters and anglers.

It generated so much money that the state legislature passed legislation allowing it to divert some of the funds to other needs, but the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the funds could only be used for the conservation purposes included in the constitutional amendment. It has been imitated in several other states, as well. It effectively removes the entire burden of supporting wildlife, fisheries and parks from the backs of hunters and anglers and spreads it lightly (one penny out of every 8 dollars collected) to the entire population.

I agree completely with you Saddlesore. It's getting to be ridiculous and the hunters foot the bill for everyone. Doubling the price of a fishing license won't amount to much, but doing it with all hunting licenses and they'll see plenty. I sure don't see my access to hunting property increasing, or my seasons getting any longer, and my odds of drawing a hunting license in the first place has been greatly reduced, so just what am I getting in return for this increase? I guess it is simply that I get to "buy" the privilege to hunt. Every time I think about the "Parks and Wildlife" I want to puke. I realize there are some good folks that work there, but the management/bureaucracy keeps making it worse and worse and anyone that thought merging with the Parks Dept. would help the hunters was smoking something.

I do disagree that filling out the survey will make any difference. The fix is in and I know there will be no turning back.

Try buying a non-resident bull elk and Mule Deer buck tag if you really want to complain!

Just applying for Colorado tags almost kills me and my wife

Elk x2
Deer x2
Pronghorn x2

Add in the habitat stamps and a small game license

Over 3K just for Colorado

Yep.

Guess they will raise the park passes also? For all the revenue from the marijuana industry, you would think they could get their hands on that.

But in reality it doesn't matter, the more they get the more they want and what do they have to show for it?

True but with what they charge NR's, to tell the truth I'm embarrassed to pay as little as I do for resident tags. In that respect, I don't mind paying more.

Tag price increases! They are already too high. With all the revenue from the pot boom they want more money? Vote the jackasses out and protest physically.It is time for hunters and fisherman to stand up to what is tyranny. Happy with your "blue" state?

I generally like Texans but I'd be happier if you stayed in Texas. And minded your own business.

Compare the cost of hunting a and fishing licenses in CO, both resident and nonresident, to the cost of lift tickets for a week of skiing for your family in, say, Vail.

It's all a matter of priorities.

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.

I sent the suggestion instead of increasing license fees by 100%, why not increase the application fee across the board? If they increased the application fee to $10-15 across the board but not increase the overall cost of the license wouldn't they bring in more revenue? The application fee isn't refundable and the base sharing the costs would be greater. There is already a $15 fee on any turned in tags for refund or point returns they could just add that fee to all refunds.

There was almost 200K elk applications in 2016 and at $10 non refundable application fee that would be almost 2 million dollars and a net gain of almost 1.4 million. Net gain for deer would be nearly 1.3 million and a nearly 400K for pronghorn. So right there they would see a 3 million dollar revenue boost without raising the overall cost of any big game tag. There isn't an application fee for small game or fishing so why not just increase the tags by $5 for each one or $8 on a combo.

I wonder what's going to happen with tags like OTC bear. Who's going to throw an $80 tag in their pocket for the slim chance of seeing a bear on an elk or deer hunt. I'll still apply for all my normal tags, but I'll stop picking up OTC tags for areas I didn't want to originally hunt. I'll start saving that money to go on hunts out of state or overseas. If I start throwing all my refunds into a slush fund for hunting at $1000 per year in Colorado apps for my daughter and I, and $2000 with 100% increase it wouldn't take long to go somewhere else on a hunt.

If you want to see what raising the license fees way high you have to look no farther than California. Almost a 40% drop in sales since 1986. Fishing license sales are also way down. You get absolutely nothing for you license money. Except for the Game Wardens and Biologist your money goes to the fat cats in Sacramento who sit on their asses and make up rules and laws that border on the edge of absurd. Their whole plan revolves around how much money they can generate. No Senior break on fees, so called lead free zones, no hunting Bear with dogs which has caused their population to double to the detriment of the Deer population. I could go on and on but I wouldn't mind paying if I got something back for it. Oh, and the Governor can dip into those fees anytime he wants.

Not the case here.

Way cheaper to trespass.

We run into this at my job sometimes. Because of the very nature of the experience we provide it won't change much over the years, but the cost of providing that experience goes up as maintenance supplies, wages(always a big one), etc increase overtime. So people sometimes whine when there is a fee increase since their basic experience doesn't change all that much but they have to pay more for it.

But unless you can figure out a way to end inflation and keep wages stagnant you're always going to deal with fee increases, even if the basic experience you're paying for doesn't change all that much.

There is inflation of 3% and there is an increase of 100%. Poor fiscal management does not equate with this large an increase

I read the article, and it said that CP&W had cut both staff and annual budget. And as Pitkin pointed out, costs continue to rise.

It never made sense to why organizations choose to not deal with inflation annually. The range I shoot at doubled their day rate from $5 to $10 after holding at $5 for 10 years. Folks bitched then got over it.