Bowsite.com

"Outdoor recreation significantly impacts Colorado's economy, including the following total economic benefits: $919 million from hunting; $1.9 billion from fishing; $2.3 billion from wildlife viewing; and $1 billion from state park visitors"

What is interesting here is that they are saying that hunting generates less than 1/2 the amount generated by wildlife viewing. Not sure how that number is calculated and it does seem a little hokey. What is truly interesting is that wildlife viewing does not generate any revenue for the conservation of wildlife.

Since this bill is looking at increases in fees to the CPW, these numbers should reflect the direct contributions from the sources to CPW and have a separate section on the overall contribution to the economy from each source.

Unfortunately, when numbers like that are used as precedent by lawmakers, the biggest number will get more attention. Prime examples are when the wolf lovers call for "reintroduction" of wolves and predator lovers call for more limits on hunting of bears, lions, and coyotes. Using the numbers above, they have a larger voice even though they have absolutely ZERO skin in the game!

The fishing side will benefit the most, but the license is still less than a deer tag???

If you want to have a civilized discussion around non consumptive users having a say take a look at Brainard Lake and moose as a case study and see how much the sportsman say matters.

Shows that hunters are kind of low-man on the totem pole and fall far short of the lookie-loo's based on how much we contribute. That is pure BS.

The non-consumptive use people will use these numbers to full benefit in discussions with lawmakers and decision makers.

I find it hard to believe that hunter's full benefit to the economy is so much less than "wildlife viewing". NO POSSIBLE WAY! Hunters buy bows, arrows, binoculars, camo, unscented soap, scopes, tripods, tents, sleeping bags, etc. as well as spending huge amounts of money for outfitters, hotels, gasoline, food, etc. There is no possible way that hunters contribute less to the overall economy in pursuit of what we do than "Wildlife viewing". These are totally bogus numbers.

How do we get a voice to dispute them?

These are the numbers that are being touted to the House and Senate.

They give HUGE credence to non-consumptive users in decision making for rate increases that we as hunters will bear the brunt of and make it look like we are bums compared to the lookie-loos that pay absolutely nothing for management not only of game animals, but huge expenditures for non-game animals.

They drive the policy that CPW must follow.

Based on the advertised dollars, hunters and fishermen are obviously the bums.

Why are hunters always griping that they are not getting a fair shake?

Why are they wanting to hunt in areas that so many "wildlife viewers" want to view wildlife in?

Don't these bums that obviously don't pay their fair share know that wildlife viewing is a much better option that generates more dollars?

Wildlife viewers want to view moose, they do not want someone to kill a moose in their area - they want to view it in. It is horrible that someone would kill an animal when others were out there just viewing them! Jeeze, just look at the economics, wildlife viewing brings in more than twice as much money as hunting!

These "economic benefit" numbers are bogus. They are extremely detrimental to hunting and give SIGNIFICANT power to the groups that are totally against hunting.

Who came up with these numbers?

What are they based on?

Why do they give so much credence to non-consumptive users that do not contribute to animal welfare?

How do we, the ones that do pay for wildlife, straighten this out?

Continued reinforcement of data like this will lead to more lost opportunity, additional restrictions, lost public access for hunting, reduction in ability to control predators, reintroduction of wolves, etc. Hunters lose.

This is unbelievable that this kind of data is being pushed thru the Legislature, especially in the context of fee increases for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

But seriously there are certainly a lot of vacationers who spend lots of money in specific vacation areas of Colorado. I suppose one can generally label these "wildlife viewers". But they need to ask communities like Craig who brings money in to their locale.

Those dollars are not benefiting wildlife or fisheries in this state (actually the opposite with traffic, water, wastewater, displacement of wildlife, etc), yet are being advertised as higher value than hunting and fishing economic impact in a bill to increase Colorado Parks and Wildlife fees across the board.

To my point about shoppers and golfers - they won't rank "golf" or "shopping" or "rafting" or "walking around Breck " as high priorities because they do that anyway. That's what they came here for. They want to see a moose or an elk on the golf course or wandering around town, which then makes them "wildlife viewers" and the total money they spend goes into the big number.

Whoever contracts with the survey company can skew the results simply by framing the survey. Every hunter is a wildlife viewer, but not every Vail shopper is a hunter. So we actually count against ourselves in the survey results.

Watch closely. Media blitz from these groups will include majestic photos and videos of big pretty wolves, cute little fur-ball baby wolf puppies, and the beautiful sound of wolves howling freely in their wild, natural setting.

Along with that message, there will also be an undertone that "WILDLIFE WATCHING" pumps a massive $2.3 Billion dollars into the Colorado economy every year. Just think about how much more money will be brought into the economy with wolves out there to see!

It absolutely makes no sense that hunters, who claim to be for all wildlife, would be against bringing wolves back to their historic range! Those bum hunters don't bring in 1/2 as much to the economy as "WILDLIFE WATCHING" at a paltry $919 million. Heck, with "WOLF WATCHING" brought back to the beautiful high country of Colorado, any losses will more than be made up with the all the extra WOLF WATCHING TOURIST dollars that will flood into the state by the bucket loads!

Jeez, why continue to allow hunting of big game in Colorado at all? Hunting obviously does not bring in the revenue like WOLF WATCHING and every deer, elk, or moose that a human hunter kills is an animal that won't feed a poor, defenseless little wolf puppy. How HORRIBLE! Bring back the wolves and they can manage big game so much better. Just look at how horribly humans have managed game populations over the last 200 years - humans killed all the buffalo, grizzly bears, wolves, lions, lynx, etc, etc, etc. Not only that, just go out for a drive from Denver and try to find any animals - you hardly see any big game animals driving up to the mountains on I-70 or one of the other highways out of Golden up to Idaho Springs when you leave bright and early at 9:00 am and get back to the city in time for dinner. Obviously, those nasty hunters have decimated all the wonderful animals! HORRIBLE INDEED!

As for the fee increase, we also knew that was coming to, but 50% mark-up!? I agree with Lou, it's all about marketing, and when you have the money to do so, you usually get what you want or close to it.

Recoup transaction costs associated with resident hunting license applications (not including over-the-counter licenses) by increasing the limited license drawing application fee up to $20.

$20 just to apply for a license?????

Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of insanity in the CPW. They continue to disregard good ideas and advice, do things the same and expect different results....

The BS about transaction fees was brought up at the last one I was at in Meeker. I made the suggestion that, if they were going to a 100% internet based application system, they should do like most of the other western states and require purchase of a hunting license prior to application (higher fee for NR, of course), charge the application fees only at application, then charge for the permit fee if you draw. Saves a MASSIVE amount of money in the application process that Colorado currently spends to generate refund checks and mail them out and generates MORE revenue by the requirement of everyone to purchase a hunting license to apply.

I would love to know how many total man-hours and materials costs were spent.

Would not be surprised if the cost of that little circus was more than the cost of several employees for a year.

By the way, if all those CPW employees were tied up for several days on that insanity, are their jobs really necessary?

I understand that CPW is, in some sense "a business", however since it is also a government agency, they are prone to get out of hand financially and grow past their revenue just like any other government agency. It is much easier to spend someone else's money than your own.

It is very upsetting to see a bill put in front of the Legislature that very clearly states that "Wildlife Viewing" generates more than twice the amount to the economy than hunting. I live near a resort area and tons of tourists come through here year round. I do not see more than one or two people a year actually stopping to view wildlife. There is no way that "Wildlife Viewing" is directly generating massive amounts of money to the economy. "Wildlife Viewing" definitely DOES NOT generate any money that goes to wildlife or habitat in Colorado or any other state. Hunters and Fishermen purchase licenses, firearms, and fishing equipment that is specifically taxed to provide for wildlife management, habitat preservation, and habitat improvement. Not only do we fund this for the animals that we hunt, these funds also pay for management of non-game and endangered species!

"Wildlife Viewing" pays for absolutely none of this and there is absolutely no way that it has an economic benefit greater than hunting!!!

Stating that "Wildlife Viewing" has a greater impact to our economy is a push by liberals to continue to lower hunter's status to the conservation and preservation of wildlife. It is also the method that the Wolf groups are using to justify reintroducing wolves and preventing management of that species.

I do not see that extra support coming from the wildlife watchers or the many "conservation organizations" happening unless there is a general tax developed for all Colorado Citizens to support the CPW and wildlife and habitat.

It is BS and is EXACTLY what anti-hunters and Wolf Lovers use against us.

The way these numbers are presented, it appears that hunters are the bums not paying for all those poor defenseless animals that they are killing to the detriment of the Wildlife Viewers that are paying so much more!!!

Paul,

Who put these "estimated economic benefit" numbers together?

How are they coming up with this astronomically high dollar figure for wildlife viewing that provides ZERO economic benefit for any wildlife?

How and Why are they coming up with such a dismally low economic benefit from hunters?

What is the purpose of presenting these "economic benefit" numbers in this manner?

As Sportsmen, How to we correct this misinformation? Who do we focus on?

If you want to know why anti-hunters, wolf lovers, lookie-loo's, bicycle riders, etc get such a loud voice at the CPW meetings, just look to this kind of misinformation.

They ABSOLUTELY do not pay for wildlife. NEVER have! We continue to get the shaft.

And most hunters are also too uninformed to know what they are buying into, pun intended.

After talking to a relative who grew up in CA. he said this is how it all started for them back in the 60's-70's, slowly picking away at hunting till only those who can afford to hunt hunted, and regulated the heck out of it.

But these are legislators we're talking about. It's a bit much to ask them to make reasoned, logical decisions that go against the grain of beliefs of the people (read: Front Range numbskulls) who voted them in.

That said, I voted for Trump because of his supreme court nominations, but some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth makes me cringe. I think you need to take everything with a grain of salt and you've got to take the good with the bad. The glass is half full for me on this one.

Also, and this is my opinion, this bill is not at all a given. Some might say its a long shot. The senate is still republican controlled. If you want improved hunter access, renovated fish hatcheries, dam repairs, toilet paper and graded roads at state wildlife areas, and much more - I'd suggest you send emails supporting the bill. My 2 cents for what it is worth. If the bills fails, start writing the wildlife commission about what gets cut first, and last. Maybe we lose the state trust lands we have today, maybe we lose walk-in pheasant - who knows?

Just re-read the entire bill. Also re-read some of the information that I have from sportsmen's round table meetings and went through information on CPW's website.

The numbers were apparently generated by the CPW. They are not helping sportsmen by that kind of advertisement. If Wildlife Watching generates $2.2B (Still believe that is total BS! - what is included in that calculation???) and does not contribute in any way to wildlife management, conservation, etc - It is a detriment to CPW and they need to develop a fee structure to capture some revenue from those people.

This statement, by the CPW, gives a huge voice to the non-consumptive users and minimizes the voice of hunters in the decision making process. Just based on "economic benefit". That is pure BS and allows groups like Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, and others to push their agendas. Hard to believe the CPW, that is funded by hunting and fishing dollars, would put out numbers like that. (maybe not, watching some of the CPW's decisions with respect to game fish and big game management...).

I live in a tourist area and am out fishing and hunting a lot. I see very few people over the course of a year actually watching wildlife. Even when it is right in front of them. I watch wildlife all the time, and point out wildlife to others that are wandering along and totally missing it. However, I spend a ton of money on fishing and hunting licenses, optics, archery gear, fishing gear, and shooting gear that is all taxed for fish and wildlife. My wildlife watching is associated with hunting and being paid for through licenses and taxes. There is no way that specific wildlife watching - not associated with hunting - is generating that much "economic benefit".

We, as hunters and fishermen, provide the funding for fish and wildlife in this state. There are some small $$ generated by parks fees and boating fees that are not for hunting and fishing. These price increases will hit hunters the hardest - across the line for each species. It is actually funny that Colorado is comparing the cost of an elk license to other state's resident fees - there is a significant quality factor that is not taken into account.

There are multiple ways for CPW to be more efficient and increase revenue without raising the costs so much on the backs of hunters. With these increases, they are making recruitment even more difficult.

I am not sure that I support this bill as written. It is a huge cost increase with no incentive or directive to the CPW to become more efficient in their operations. Additionally, the CPW had misrepresented the contributions from sources that pay nothing for fish and wildlife as well as the contributions from hunters who are footing the bill.

I can understand that the costs of employees and services increase and the costs of licenses that pay for the operations must also increase to pay for it. I would really like to see some requirements for efficient use of the money that I contribute as well as acknowledgement that my contributions are what maintains those operations - not giving more credit to those that are against hunting.

I have buddy who was "rescued" hiking down the road to his truck after deciding to spend the night when he was way back in at dark. Always let your wife know the plan if you might stay out :^)

Unfortunately the CPW see hunters as a blank check for everything since we don't demand any accountability of funds. Too bad, we could have something great if we demanded it as a group.

On the bright side my draw odds might now improve if lower income hunters and fixed income seniors stop applying for competing tags (that's sarcasm)

The real discussion about what actual fees would become would be with the wildlife commission in the months following the bill passage. There is no way to predict what your increase might be as we don't know what specific tags would cost. I would expect long discussions with hunters and angler input on how to make it affordable for lots of segments.

There was a group of young bass fisherman who testified asking fishing for free up to age 18.

There was three amendments offered in the hearing. One of them had to do with phasing in any increases over time. Another with fee simple real estate, and I think the other was maybe clarification amendments, not sure

I had to leave before the final vote, although I did get to testify. I supported the bill as my personal preference is to grow programs, not cut them. While I say that, my personal opinion is cow and doe tags should remain at current prices or less for those who have budget constraints and still want to participate.

20 parties testified, I don't recall any outright opposition.

There was comments from multiple legislators that perhaps the CPW should just focus on selling more limited licenses to non residents. All you guys opposed should think long and hard about what might happen of this bill fails, they could just sell your tag to higher paying non residents.

Dennis, I ran some statistics that were very interesting with respect to resident hunting/fishing combo along with elk, deer and antelope tags for 10 western states. Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Washington and Oregon.

Colorado $160.00 Mean* $171.50 Max $366.00 Arizona Min $89.00 Montana * Several state's combination licenses include additional species

Currently, Colorado hits right in the middle of the pack at #5 for the price of those licenses. With the proposed increase, Colorado moves up to 3rd highest price for those fees.

Some of the states in the comparison are somewhat similar to Colorado with respect to OTC tags and some are much more limited (AZ, UT, NV, and NM) due to more limited availability of habitat and tag numbers. However, Colorado sells far more tags than all of these other states. Since they sell far more licenses (resident and non-resident), they should be taking in more money than those other states with the resident fees where they are.

With most likely the highest revenue generation of any of the Western States, why is Colorado Parks and Wildlife needing to increase fees?

How do we (the ones footing the bill) hold CPW accountable for their expenditures, particularly for items that are not related specifically to the funding source?

Several of the items that I recall being brought up at round table meetings were fish hatcheries and dams that needed attention. Why are hunters going to bear the brunt of the costs for hatcheries? Why are the costs of dam maintenance and repairs falling on the shoulders of hunters or fishermen? The majority of dams in this state hold water that is owned by someone for municipal or irrigation use. Why are the owners of the stored water not responsible for any required maintenance?

I can not support this bill and will write my representatives with my concerns today:

1. CPW did not accurately reflect their funding sources and skewed the numbers in favor of groups that do not provide funding and actually are a detriment to scientific fish and wildlife management. 2. Current license and fee structure is near the median when compared to 10 Western States with similar game animal and fish species. Colorado currently ranks #5 out of 10 Western states for normal tags and licenses (fishing/small game combo, elk, deer, and antelope). The proposed increase will move Colorado to 3rd most expensive. 3. CPW currently takes in significantly more revenue through higher license sales at current prices than Western States with similar game animal and fish species. 4. There is no accountability to direct fees collected specifically to items related to the funding source. 5. There is no funding mechanism or fee structure proposed for "wildlife viewing" nor other "non-consumptive" uses that are utilizing wildlife resources but currently pay nothing to support it.

I would be very much in favor of fee increases if CPW accurately reflected their funding sources and:

1. focused on improving hunt quality - reduce numbers of hunters and focusing on improving age structure of game animals, 2. improved access for hunting and fishing 3. direct fees collected to areas related to the funding source, and 4. provide for some funding from "non-consumptive" uses or license requirements for things like shed hunting.

Couple other items to note, Tom Behunin the CBA rep testified in support. BHA testified in support, and so did CWF, DU, and more.

Representative Lebsock expressed he isn't happy about the predator study, which brings up something hunters should be aware of. There is an animal rights caucus at the legislature, called Colorado Legislature Animal Welfare (CLAW) Representative Lebsock from the house AG commitee sits on it. I hear they get far more attendance than the sportsmans caucus. Just my opinion but guys need to start showing up at events, it is not enough to just pay dues to a conservation org and let them do it for you.

Last thing, item 4 of this bill has to do with real estate. We buy habitat stamps that amount to over 6 million dollars a year that used to be used for conservation easements, and the purchase of land. Apparently many in the legislature do not want the state to own more land, and also don't like easments on land as it diminishes the future value. The cattlemens association expressed they don't like CPW as their neighbors due to a poor maintenance track record, noxious weeds, etc. This bill has language in it that funds from any increase will not go towards land purchases. In the future, the question of how, when and where habitat stamp dollars will be spent needs to be answered. Until decisons get made, the funds will sit.

One of the bill sponsors, Jim Wilson from Salida is a true sportsman. I'd recommend if you've got a minute to spare, to write him a thank you letter. He gets it, and is one of our advocates.

The fishing group that wants free licenses will get they're wish, the livestock folks that don't want anymore SWA's and easements will get there way, and I'll just get a more expenses licenses for less opportunity thanks to folks like Ivan James who testified how we need more vouchers given away a couple of years ago and now testifies we need more expensive tags.

But you guys took the bait and bickered about the wildlife viewing number and missed the real issue.

Recorded audio isn't up yet~ https://coloradoga.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13

Next is going to be the introduction of the arctic grey wolf, these idiots have in the last two weeks gained so much support and momentum that it will take a major upset to stop this from happening. As mentioned above, Coincidence? Not! These fee increases are a future for seen need for CPW other than what they are pitching to us now, just my 2cents conspiracy theory thoughts :).

There is actually a dis-incentive for CPW to purchase properties for wildlife/public access.

More money to a government agency with no strings attached.

How is this good for sportsmen?

Hard to take an increase when so many benefit without paying. How much do the following pay to the CPW?

A landowner who sells 5 miles of the South Platte for premium due to the wildlife opportunities.

Outfitters

The guy who calls the CPW to get a bear out of his tree or who enjoys watching two rams fight above Georgetown.

A hotel in Craig booked full in October with hunters.

I get that prices will rise since costs rise. Just get the feeling that I will pay more and not see any meaningful improvement while still taking some losses on opportunities. I'll read it again. If it had some specific access or improved opportunity language it wouldn't be as hard to be onboard.

I am an avid hunter and fisherman and have been a resident of Colorado for over 25 years and hunted and fished in Colorado as a nonresident regularly for another 15 years prior to moving here. In 2016 and 2017, I attended several Sportsman’s Roundtable and Commissioner’s meetings and listened to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s position on this issue. Many options were presented in those meetings that would greatly reduce costs and increase efficiency in the department. Unfortunately, it appears that no action has been taken by the CPW nor the Wildlife Commission to implement any of those actions. I have read and studied this bill and the supporting documentation from CPW. After a significant amount of research and deliberation, I feel I must voice opposition to this bill. • Under Section I, 1, (b) Outdoor recreation significantly impacts Colorado's economy, including the following total economic benefits: $919 million from hunting; $1.9 billion from fishing; $2.3 billion from wildlife viewing; and $1 billion from state park visitors. The verbiage above came from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and indicates a very large economic benefit ($2.3 billion) to “wildlife viewing”. Wildlife Viewing does not provide any funding to CPW. That funding is provided by the sale of licenses and fees for hunting, fishing and state parks. The text above skews the perceived economic benefit in favor of groups that do not provide funding and are actually a detriment to scientific fish and wildlife management.

• The current resident license fee structure is near median when compared to 10 other Western States. The table below compares the combined costs of a Combination Hunting/Fishing License, Deer Tag, Elk Tag and Antelope Tag. Colorado currently ranks right in the middle at #5. With the proposed increases, these fees jump to $240.00 which raises Colorado to the 3rd highest state for resident license fees. Comparison of Combination hunting and fishing, Deer, Elk and Antelope Resident Tag Fees 1 Montana* $ 89.00 2 Washington $ 147.00 3 Idaho** $ 155.50 4 Wyoming $ 159.50 5 Colorado $ 160.00 6 Utah*** $ 183.00 7 New Mexico $ 221.00 8 Oregon**** $ 228.00 9 Nevada $ 284.00 10 Arizona $ 366.00 * MT Sportsman’s License includes: hunting, fishing, State Trust Land access, conservation stamp, general elk and deer – antelope is additional at $19.00. ** ID Sportsman’s Package includes: hunting, fishing, deer, elk, bear, lion, wolf, turkey, steelhead and salmon – antelope is additional at $31.25. *** UT charges higher prices for Premium Tags. The value in the table was calculated based on the lower priced, general license amount. **** OR Sportsman’s Pac includes: angling, shellfish, and hunting licenses, combined angling tag, spring turkey, cougar, bear, elk, deer, upland bird and waterfowl validations – antelope is an additional $48.00.

• These states are all more restrictive in their tag allocation, primarily due to lower total game animal numbers than we have in Colorado. Since CPW sells significantly more licenses, they should receive significantly more revenue at the current prices than the other Western States with similar game animal and fish species. If the other states Fish and Wildlife Departments can operate on less income and under smaller budgets, why is CPW having problems working within their larger budget?

• In the Sportsman’s Roundtable Meetings, CPW has stated that the current hunting license application process is very expensive. CPW currently requires all applicants to send in the full amount for the tag plus the application fees and then mails out refunds to all unsuccessful applicants as well as applicants for points only. Other Western States with application systems require purchase of a hunting license and then charge the application fees. They only charge the license fees to the successful applicants. This eliminates the significant expense of printing and mailing refund checks for all species to all the unsuccessful applicants and provides a definable annual income due to the required license sale. CPW does not appear to be willing to make these changes that will be more efficient and cost effective.

• There is no accountability, incentive or requirement to direct fees collected specifically to areas related to the funding source. Several of the items that I recall being brought up at round table meetings were fish hatcheries and dams that needed attention. Why are hunters going to bear the brunt of the costs for hatcheries? Why are the costs of dam maintenance and repairs falling on the shoulders of hunters or fishermen? Most dams in this state hold water that is owned by someone for municipal or irrigation use. Why are the owners of the stored water not responsible for any required maintenance?

• There is no funding mechanism or fee structure proposed for "wildlife viewing" nor other "non-consumptive" uses that are utilizing wildlife resources but currently pay nothing to support it. In the Sportsman’s Roundtable Meetings that I attended, the subject of requiring licensing for activities such as shed hunting and mountain biking (similar to ATV registration) have been brought up. This fee structure does not include any reference to those concepts. I would be very much in favor of fee increases if CPW accurately reflected who was funding their programs and who is not along with: • A focus on improving the quality of the hunt - reducing numbers of hunters and focusing on improving age structure of game animals, • Improving access for hunting and fishing – particularly on State Trust Lands to be more in line with other Western States. • Allocating fee structure based on the fee base – ie, hunting fees to wildlife management, fishing fees to fisheries management and maintenance. • Provide some fee structure and funding from “non-consumptive” uses – require licensing for shed hunting and bicycle registration. There is actually an additional dis-incentive built into this bill to cease purchase conservation easements and/or public access for wildlife management. Sportsmen have been required to purchase habitat stamps that have been generating approximately $6M per year that is now not available for improvements to public access. HB 17-1321 basically gives CPW a blank check and does not provide any incentive for them to become more efficient in their budget management nor improve services to the constituents that are paying for their services. Please take the above into consideration when you cast your vote for HB17-1321.

Sincerely, Tavis D. Rogers Tavis D. Rogers Concerned Sportsman

I've heard back from one of my reps so far. "No" will be his vote.

Maybe there can be some amendments to this bill that would make it more palatable, but as it is, it is basically - we hunters pay more for less and are supposed to be happy.

Sorry, Steve and the others who have worked very hard in tons and tons of meetings with the CPW on this issue. The bill just missed the point. Could have been a huge WIN-WIN if even a small portion of the improvements to CPW that were brought up in our Sportsmen's Roundtable meetings would have been included.

It was obvious that a State bureaucrat wrote this up and missed the point that CPW operates on funding from Sportsmen and they really should be held accountable to use the money generated by specific groups to be utilized for the benefit of the area we are paying for. The way this is written, it is a slush fund for CPW to use or abuse however with no repercussions.

I will gladly pay more for a fishing license if those funds are directed at improving fisheries - not necessarily for repair and maintenance of hatcheries or the massive sport-fish eradication program that has been going on for the last 20 years up here in NW Colorado.

I would gladly pay more for hunting if I could have an increase in hunt quality and improvements to public access for hunting.

If there is a necessity to pay for dams that are CPW's responsibility, CPW needs to take a hard look at who the beneficiaries are - water rights owners? - and pass the costs to the groups that are benefitting. Sportsmen and women should not be responsible for footing the bill for these costs.

Wondering if there is a way to do an easier "send to all" - House, Senate, and CPW...

One of the bill sponsors is Jim Wilson. The guy had a sheep tag in S9 last year. He believes fishing should pay its own way. He specifically mentioned in the legislative caucus our declining access to federal lands. If you read the declaration, The first goal and objective on the list is enhancing public access, (item dI). BHA has talked to all 4 regional managers about leasing the unleased tracts of State trust. They need money to do it.

As far as accountability, its in the bill. Annual reports to the the legislature, and you can sure get to comment on it when the reports come out. Listen to Director Broscheids testimony, he specifically addresses acountabilty. He has said it over, and over. I believe the guy.

Hell, Denny Behrens supported the bill. While I don't agree with him on everything, getting Denny on board is not an easy task.

The fee arguments come after the bill passes. That is where you say fishing needs to pay for dams, not now.

You guys are all entitled to your own opinions, and I won't hold it against you but we continue to be our own worst enemy. JMHO

I have a really hard time understanding why Colorado is in such bad shape financially when our resident and non-resident license fees are already at or above the median for 10 other Western States and Colorado sells far more tags than any of those other states. The total revenue generated has to be far greater for Colorado than any of the other 10 Western States that I reviewed.

And guess what, all 9 of those states allow access to State Trust Lands (if they still have any) for hunting and fishing and non-consumptive users can only go on if they have a permit! Even Montana with their significantly lower resident license and tag fees! I am sorry, but the language in the bill is not very clear regarding increasing public access on lands that have public access in most other states. I am not sure why CPW would enhance access or any services by "non-consumptive" users unless they are paying their own way as well. Additionally, there is an addition to the Colorado Revised Statues: 33-1-105.5. that now precludes purchase of any land or water by CPW for any reason. That appears to put a huge damper on a large amount of money that Sportsmen have been required to pay in for that purpose under the Habitat Stamp program. Will we get a refund? Can that money be directed to hunting and fishing access to State Trust Lands in Colorado or are leases precluded as well?

I have hunted and fished in most of the Western States, Canada, and Alaska over the years and, for the most part consider Colorado an opportunity state for most species, including fishing, rather than top quality hunting experience. The numbers of hunters in the field have increased to the point where it is ridiculous - even in what used to be primitive weapon only. Is it too much to ask for some relief if we are going to be charged more for our licenses? A number of states allow residents general hunting areas with OTC tags and limit non-residents in those same areas.

The lion's share of these fee increases fall on the backs of hunters. If you look at the increase in cost for tags for several species - say deer, elk and antelope - the additional amount is $52.50. It adds up fast. Throw in a bear (+$20), small game/fishing combo(+$20), and wildlife habitat stamp (+$5) and we are looking at an almost $100 increase real quick.

Some of the highest price tags on the listed goals are directed at fish hatcheries and dams. Fishermen buy one license and a rod stamp. The proposed increase for a fishing license is $12.50, with an extra rod stamp increase of $2.50, the additional amount out of pocket for fishing is only $15. Not a very large increase per fisherman and probably not enough to cover the stated goals. Where is the remainder for hatcheries and dams coming from? For that matter, who owns the water rights associated with the "more than one hundred dams owned by CPW"? Shouldn't they be responsible for operation and maintenance of those facilities? Not hunters nor fishermen.

The increases to State Parks fees are also much less per capita than those affecting hunters. Quite a bit of revenue is required to manage and operate the State Parks system. Looking at the Fiscal Note, it appears that the Parks are in pretty good shape where they are at for fees as well.

There are additional revenue streams that have not been tapped that do impact wildlife and fisheries resources that currently are not paying to help support those resources. Two that come immediately to mind are shed hunting and registration of mountain bikes. Shed hunting has increased dramatically over the last few years and they are taking wildlife derived products - license requirements would not be out of line for that activity. Mountain bikers riding off paved roads do not currently require registration and they do impact wildlife utilization of areas plus, we have to register ATV's and boats - Why not registration of Mountain Bikes?

I have met Director Broscheids and believe he is trying to develop better accountability and efficiency within the CPW. However, the laws of physics apply and it is very difficult to change direction of a large mass that has been moving in the same direction for a long time.

I have know Denny for a very long time and, yes, he can be very critical in certain areas. I am pretty sure he was swayed to focus on getting the bill passed in order to work on the stated goals and then work hard to figure out how to allocate the money. That has always seemed to be an uphill battle with CPW and I would certainly prefer that the allocations be made up front and clearly to ensure that Sportsmen and CPW have clear understanding of what they are getting and how those goals will be achieved.

Grasshopper is right, we are our own worst enemy. By being apathetic and letting the CPW & Commission ride roughshod over us. Hunters pay this bills and now they have gotten a little too accustomed to it. Some hunters want to continue to pay the bills because they think it gives them a voice, but they just cant see how little the CPW or Commission cares about them other than being a blank check.

I would like to see some strings attached to a fee increase, especially opening up STL to hunting. The CPW says they don't have money for it (while running a surplus?). Well lets make some cuts to the nonperforming section of CPW. Maybe lower the trout limit from 4 to 2 fish for a start? create a hatchery stamp equal to the cost of a deer tag to fish any waters stocked with hatchery raised fish? Access permits for waters behind Dams in need of repair, ban boats from nonresidents if boaters from out of state don't want to cover the cost of invasive aquatic species since they are bringing that crap here.

We sacrificed enough by giving up tag quota to landowners recently, ending BGAP, not allowing more GMU's go 80/20 due to resident demand. I say show us we we're going to get for once, not what we're going to lose.

New trucks cost a lot more every 10 years but dang, they are really nice now. I can't say that hunting experiences or opportunities have maintained or improved, so it's harder to volunteer to pay more. If we would have been increasing fees all along, would that money have been used in a way that would have changed my perception that things have slid downhill? I don't know. That makes me hesitant to expect things will be better or at least stop declining with this increase. My expectation at the moment is that the only real impact I would see is a lighter wallet. My hope is that if passed, it gives them some room to open up to some new ideas and we see some progress on issues that improve opportunities.

Odds of CO getting a tax like Missouri are slim. We might have some non-consumptive user revenue added in the future but I doubt it will be on that scale. Thats a tough one to expect to get introduced and/or pushed through.

Some specifics on how fast they plan on going to the increase limit would help. I'm not thrilled that I would have to pay for, and hassle with, getting stickers for a couple of 10'+ kayaks we take to the same lake 2 or 3 times year. I'm a zero risk of introducing an aquatic nuisance. Even if I did kayak at lakes out of state or in-state where invasives have been found, I'm still not a risk because I understand the issue and would follow the protocol. I will try to listen to the audio of the comments and get some more information. My default answer whenever the government wants to increase taxes and fees is "NO!". I'm at "maybe" on this one.

Why not require mountain bikes and the bicycles on public roads to be registered? They are getting in the way of licensed vehicles on our highways - absolute nuisance up here in the mountains! Wildlife avoids areas where mountain bikes are regularly ridden - from what I have seen, deer and elk will keep about 1 mile away from trails used by bikers. We could call it the "Bicycle Nuisance Sticker". Most mountain bikers ride on public roads as well (even if they are on USFS roads).

Wildlife also avoids areas that are used by hikers. Depending on how many hikers are using the trails, wildlife may stay 2 miles or more from the trails. Take a little drive above Almont in the summer to the trailhead at Kite Lake - You can't find a place to park in the middle of the day within a mile of the trailhead and the snake of people going up and down is unbelievable! The 14'ers have a big impact in that area and you will not find elk, deer or bighorn sheep near those areas of high use. Hikers definitely impact wildlife use and movements.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in Colorado. Although wildlife and fisheries management is paid for by hunters and anglers, Colorado has always allowed open public comment. The anti-hunting groups have been much better at organizing and getting numbers of people in front of the Wildlife Commission and Legislatures as well as being very quick to go to the courts and get a judge to file injunctions to support their agendas.

Bear hunting went to ballot and the media blitz was staggeringly against bear hunting. Every commercial break on all the local news had an add against the brutal killing of the cute, cuddly bear cubs or the horrible orphaning of those cute little cubs. Most of the money paying for the commercials was coming from out of state, but the blitz definitely swayed non-hunters and even split the hunting community. There was absolutely no response from the DOW at that time in favor of spring hunting. The hunting community could not organize any kind of coherent response. We lost in the voting booth to people that did not know any better and contribute nothing to wildlife management.

Look at what is going on now with respect to the wolves. There is a concerted media blitz that is at it's early stages being funded by out of state organizations that are working on the emotions of the masses. They have developed statistics that show that reintroduction of wolves has increased "economic benefit" due to increased tourism, improved habitat due to reduced overgrazing by wildlife, reduced overpopulation of elk, and are even pushing that wolves may be the cure for CWD.

I realize CPW has gone on record as opposing wolf reintroduction in Colorado, but what do you think the response from CPW will be to the media when wolf reintroduction gets pushed to a ballot initiative by Defenders of Wildlife? Will they support hunters or wolves? Will they support commercials showing how wolves have decimated moose and elk in Yellowstone or show some of the video footage of wolves dragging down a pregnant cow elk in deep snow and eating the fetus out of her while she is still alive? Will the networks even allow it? I would surmise that the silence will be deafening from CPW when that day comes - especially if history is any indication.

Wolves would make for another "endangered species" in Colorado that would require additional personnel and resources to manage. Wolves do not care about private property boundaries and can't be cited for trespass. They will control wildlife populations without CPW having to deal with so many applications, license sales, etc. With wolves in the mix, the big game populations will be decreased so they will not have nearly as many people to deal with in the field during hunting seasons. Most likely, there is Federal funding available to help with the lost revenue from hunters and there would be more sympathy for CPW in the legislature when they show the impacts to hunter revenue and the requirement for more resources to manage wildlife and wolves. Heck, they may get more funding with wolves than without! Kind of makes you wonder which way that ball will fall when it happens.

Boats should pay because they need to be checked for mussels and the checks cost money. There is a lot more maintenance done using taxpayer money for vehicles and boats. Many of the MTB trails on public land were built by volunteers. For example, Headwaters Alliance in Grand Country/Winter Park. Most of those trails, bridges, maintenance, signage etc are paid for or volunteer time through the one organization.

I have spent a huge amount of time hiking, observing and hunting near the Colorado Trail and trails to the 14'ers. My observations have been that, yes, hikers and mountain bikers do influence wildlife use and movements near those trails - sometimes significantly. The construction of the trails, bridges, maintenance, etc also influences animal use and movement in those areas - volunteer or not.

Hunters and Fishermen also do a tremendous amount of volunteer work - with CPW and with Conservation Organizations like the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Bowhunters Association, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, Muley Fanatic, Wild Sheep Foundation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc. We build water sources for wildlife, we do population surveys, we help clean up and provide host services at Parks, we build fences and barricades, we assist with fish shocking surveys, we help with maintenance of facilities, we help build board-walks, trails and safety fencing at interpretive areas, we install signage, we help with education, we give money for protection of wildlife habitat to non-government organizations, we fund programs for intensive research to supplement State Wildlife Agencies. Yes, hunters and fishermen do a significant amount of volunteer work as well as pay significant amounts in licenses and fees for the privilege.

No, I am definitely not against logging, oil & gas, or mining on our public lands. There is room for it and it is wise use of our natural resources for the good of the country. Industry does a good job of cleaning up the messes they make and there are very stringent regulations in place that ensure that they are good stewards of the land. Some of the best wildlife habitat in North America can be found on areas that have been logged or reclaimed from mining activities.

Tradi,

I and every sportsman I know (as well as a large portion of the non-sportsmen population) would stand behind legislation that stated clearly that the funding for wildlife and fisheries management has been and will continue to be a burden borne by hunters and fishermen. The direction and goals of the State Agency tasked with management of these resources must be to support the groups that are funding them. Those that do not provide support to the management of fish and wildlife shall have no access to the decision making process - Wildlife Planning, Wildlife Commission nor Legislative.

The ANTI-HUNTERS what to hood-wink everyone (that does not hunt and all hunters they can stoop) into thinking that wolves would be cool, majestic, spiritual.

People per Square mile Idaho: 19.5 Montana: 7.0 Wyoming: 6.0

32 People per square mile in 3 states!!! Total of 3 states, Aprox 325,000 Square miles

Colorado: 52 people per square mile. 103,000 Square miles!!!

The CPW OFFICERS want to keep their jobs!!!! Their families fed!! How many will be FENCE HOPPING when the times comes to chose sides????

The ANTI-HUNTERS DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE, YOU AND I TO KILL ANIMALS!!!!

THATS IT!!!

I know i'll get shit for all this but come on.

Ive been in the woods more and more over the last 7 year. This winter and spring and last, Ive seen more and more Cat & Cat Tracks, Mountain Lions, Bobcats and Lynx!!! Coyote, Bear, Wolf and tracks too!!

ANTI-HUNTERS

Hate US!!! They hate me, they hate you!

I have not received any response from my emails to my representatives regarding the fee increases. They will likely pass.

In the grand scheme of things, these fee increases are not a significant increase.

The big concern is that the CPW should be one of the best funded state entities in the US already due to the volume of tags sold. If they are having financial difficulties now, these fee increases will make no difference and the mismanagement issues will continue, no matter how high they raise fees.

There is nothing in this bill that encourages CPW to increase efficiency and reduce wasteful spending.

There is nothing in this bill that holds CPW accountable to allocate expenditures to funding source.

This bill actually gives credence to non-consumptive users and wildlife viewing activities that have not and do not provide any funding for wildlife or fisheries. That credence translates into the anti-hunters, wolf groups, and other predator protection groups having a voice in the decision making process, even though they have never provided any funding for historic recovery of our big game species nor continued conservation of our natural resources.