Habitat Stamp Changes?
Colorado
Can anyone comment on Senate Bill 09-235 regarding Habitat Stamps? It seems to me that the requirement to have a stamp is changed by this bill. Now only hunters and fishermen are required to buy one. Before, anyone using a State Wildlife Area was required to have one, whether hunting, fishing, or reading a book. The idea was to bring some outside money (outside the hunter fisherman community) in from SWA users for Wildlife Mgt in Colorado (DOW gets no funding from taxes.) The language "or using a State Wildlife Area" is stricken from current statute by this bill. What happened?
Can you attend the Statewide SAG meeting in Buena Vista on the 6th? ...should be a good discussion on this there.
Chris
What happened? Generally this is what I understand. I may have some of the facts distorted but I believe them to be basically correct. If someone knows the facts better, please chime in.
THe Division's yearly budget ( 100 million) consists of:
76% hunting and fishing license revenue
12% Greater Colorado Lottery Fund money
12% Federal money like the Pittman Roberts fund which is a percentage pay back to the States from Federal taxes on hunting,fishing, equipment.
Some of this Federal money, on a matching basis, is used to help purchase the Colorado's State Wildlife Areas. When the Division was audited/ programs reviewed, it was discovered that nonconsumers (ie, non hunters and fishermen) were being charged, via, the Habitat Stamp fee, to utilize the SWA, the Feds basically said, that this charge was not consistant with their grant or matching fund programs and the SWA should be open to anyone, hunter, fishermen and the nonconsumer of wildlife. The Division had to refund or repay, back to the Fed, part or all of the Federal money gererated by those nonhunters and fisherman. Also the Fed required that the Division had to stop charging the HS fee, to those that do not purchase a Colorado hunting and fishing licenses, and also could not prevent them from using the SWAs.
The Habitat Stamp is supported 97% by hunters and fishermen (mandatory) and only 3% by others. There was great hope that the "others", would be more supportive of the HS program and what it means to the management and purchase of wildlife and fisheries habitat, public access, in Colorado. I believe the Division will try to be more proactive in promoting the HS to the nonhunters and fishers.
That is proposed for 2010 is that, The Habitat Stamp will now cost everyone (Colorado hunters and fishermen), a flat rate of $10. In the past, only a charge of $5 was the fee for a fishing license or if a hunter only purchased one hunting license (exempt are those under 19 and over 65 year). Also, a Habitat Stamp must be purchased by a resident or nonresident, prior to applying for or purchasing a license or even a preference point. If a resident or nonresident does not receive their limited hunting license and this was the only license applied for, the Habitat Stamp fee is not refundable.
Generally speaking, my comments are as correct as I remember without doing any research. Paul
If we can't charge the nonhunter/fishermen to use the SWA's, then I think they should scrap the program all together. I don't mind paying the fee for the stamp if everyone who uses the land has to pay as well. But if all it amounts to is the sportsmen & women footing more of the bill for all others to use the land, then it needs to go away. If they insist on charging us more to pay for everyone, I would prefer they just increase the cost of the licenses to cover this stamp issue & make things simpler. This would also cut down on the amount of blue tags I have to carry around in my wallet.
If the DOW is losing matching funds for those non hunters using the land, then double the cost of the stamp for them to cover the lost revenue. If it's only 3%, that doesn't seem like a lot of money.
The HS program is much more than access to SWA. This program is supported by the majority of hunters and fishers and provided valued money to purchase migrations coradors, wildlife habitat, and increased public access.
I believe that the majority of states have a HS program and, as always, sportsmen are more that willing to step up and help wildlife, big game and fish.
SB235 institutes a new program (fund) called the Colorado Wildlife Passport. This will replace the habitat stamp for the non-consumptive user. Money collecteghd from it will not have to be reimbursed to USFWS because it is not required for access to SWAs. The Passport fund can use some of its moneys for marketing which should increase sales without taking anything away from the Habitat Stamp moneys that sportsmen pay. A number of conservation organizations are quite enthusiastic about the Passport. It remains to be seen how effective a voluntary program is in raising funds. A late amendment to SB235 will delay enactment of many of its provisions until June 2010 and requires that the Joint Agriculture Committee meet at least once during the next year to see if adjustments need to be made. Thus, the program will not change much in 2010, but in 2011. An early amendment by Sen. Brophy changed the sunset date from 2015 to 2013, so there will only be a year or two of experience with the bill before we will have to be running the next one.
Sounds like discrimination against the hunter & fisherman to me. But what do I care, I'm to damn old to buy one anyhow!!!!!
As announced today by the Division, June3,, the HS is not needed by thoes nonhunter/fishers to enter SWAs.
Thanks Paul, you've explained it quite well. I suspected the low participation from non-consumptive users may have been the reason, but the federal funding used to purchase the SWAs is the clincher. As a hunter ed instructor and past volunteer in the education office at DOW I'm pretty familiar with the restrictions placed on federally funded programs. I hope the marketing effort for the passport goes well, but I've never seen much enthusiasm for voluntary payment programs either. Jeff
Sportsmens always pay for everything. If we want to hunt/fish use state wildlife land. We pay. Lets make no exception. If anyone wants to use state wildlife land, lets make it equal to all persons who step foot on state wildlife land. Buck up or stay off. Everybody who wants to use state wildlife land. Buy a habitat stamp or find other land to leave your footsteps on
Now can the non-resident hunter fee be addressed as it is outrageous fee charged to a non resident of Colorado to hunt Federal land. I think they should have a Federal land license and a state land or private land license.
Huntperch is right, non res lic's in CO are too expensive. If I were you, I'd stay home!
Well, lets see for my privilege to hunt Kansas deer last year my nonresident archery license cost nearly $400. My Arizona nonresident archery deer was nearly the same, both totaling around 775$. My Nebraska nonresident turkey tag cost $107 plus Conservation Stamp. I took my wife so double the above tag price.
My Kansas buck weighed 150 # and my Arizone Coues buck was 110#, for a combined weight of 260#.
Each # of buck, hunting two states, = $29 per #. Plus I spent another $1000 for travel and board.
If you kill a average bull in Colorado, you get more meat for the buck$$$$$. Even a cow elk.
I lucked out and killed two bucks but I could have come up empty.
Like all nonresidents, including myself when I hunt out of state, I can stay home or find a way to support my passion.
Plus I spent another $25, each state to join their State Bowhunting Organization. Just a thank you for the privilege and their work in promoting bowhunting.
Colorado tags too expensive???? It is all relative to your situation and wants in life. I want to hunt and I will find a way, in state or out. It all comes down to your priorities in life. I first hunted Colorado in 1989 and the nonresident elk licnese was $250 so 20 years later it has doubled. Every other state's nonresident licenses has also increased. If a nonresident hunted Colorado every other year, that is only $250 per year, the same as it was 20 years ago. Too expensive???????
I doubt very many nonresident bowhunters make the trip to Colorado every year. Good Luck when you do make it out.. Paul
I know its off-topic, but Holy Cow, anyone complaining about CO NR tag costs better take a closer look! IMO as a NR myself, the state of Colorado is BY FAR, the #1 state in the west when it comes to treating NR fairly. You can buy an either-sex or cow elk tag over the counter, and have a quality hunt every year. Cow elk tags cost a pittance, a couple hundred bucks, which is about half the cost some midwestern states are now charging for their NR
deer tags. You can also hunt CO deer and bear every year by picking up a plentiful limited draw tag. CO has some of the cheapest NR application fees for their limited draw tags of any state. They don't make you buy a general hunting license to apply for limited tags. They don't charge percentage-based "convenience fees" to apply for limited draw tags. They allocate specific tags to NR for the big-3 species hunts, which is a vastly better deal for NR than other states offering only "up to" style quotas for NR. They use one of the most clever and functional preference point systems in the west, and unique to Colorado. They have millions upon millions of acres of public land to roam on. I could go on and on, but you might want to glance at the 'deal' other western states are offering before sniping at CO....because it just doesn't get any better than CO's NR program!
Wow hit a nerve. Yes Colorado is the "best deal" but I'm saying I'm hunting National Forest land not State land. It's a National forest so why not issue a tag that is good on National Forest lands vs state or private? I started hunting Colorado late in life at the age of 40 and have done it 3 times and hope to never miss a season again I fully enjoy it and hope to always afford it.
There is no charge to use the National Forest unless you use one of their maintained campgrounds or special use areas. Come on out and wander all you want my friend. If you want to hunt wildlife that belong to the people of the state of Colorado you will need to get your wallet out.
Pretty simple The feds own the land, but not the wildlife.
