Grasshopper's Link
1. One item deals with the allocation split between residents and non residents. I don't know any details they are considering, but I can say many legislators have asked why the CPW doesn;t just sell more licenses to non residents since they are in a budget crisis. The outfitters have suggested they do this too. If you value being able to draw a limited license - this is your chance to tell the wildlife commission. Some time ago, certain GMU's hit what was then the threshold to move from 65/35 split to 80/20. The commission did not make that change so as point creep went up residents were denied more licenses based on the criteria for 80/20 in other units. If you think we got the short end of the deal, send in your comments today - time is short to be heard.
2. The topic of how to spend Habitat Stamps dollars is on the agenda. The Certain legislators oppose the CPW buying land or using conservation or public access easements for various reasons. As of now the commission has decided to put on hold spending sportsman habitat dollars while they examine their options. Personally, I sent in comments asking they form a working group to come up with recommendations on how the funds should be spent. Personally, I feel a reasonable portion of the funds should be spent on short term access leasing, like BGAP, block management and Access Yes. This is your chance to send your opinion to those who decide where your money goes. We are talking about over 6 million dollars a year which can be coupled with GOCO money or other federal dollars like VPA-HIP to grow access, improve habitat or conserve critical winter range.
If you can make it to the meeting in Grand Junction - go and testify in person.
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2017/May/May_2017_Agenda.pdf
As far as the habitat stamp money, this is one of the reasons I'm against the CPW's fee increases, they are sitting on all this money that hunters bring in, yet we never see any of it and the hunting sheeple of this state say give them more! Lets see, again we have Commissioner Bray, he received an $800,000 grant from the DOW for Gunnison sage grouse on his land, so I can tell you what kind of habitat stamp freebies the Commission will hand out to his cronies. And all these well to do hunters that can take off work to speak to the state legislature for less than five minutes, saying hunters need to pay more for less, but never say a word to the legislature about Commissioners who have a HUGE financial conflict of interest by being on the Commission. Hell Bray was on the CPW group that came up with the idea to give out even more landowner vouchers, go figure! But all the sheeple that want to pay more said baa, baa, baa
I am counting on you to write the commissioners, I know your good for it. A stink should be raised on this one. This is a big deal, and to put this on the commissions agenda at this time really doesn't help any of us unless they are ready to pony up 80/20 hard caps.
I do write the Gov, and my Rep & Senator. But I'm probably the only hunter they hear from. I attend the SE roundtable meetings and its nothing more than a gathering of low information voters to include the so-called Reps from the SE. Pretty much my opinion of 90% of the sportsmen in the state.
Treeline's Link
I have found information on how much Colorado takes in for hunting license fees versus the other states from USFW for the period of 2004 to 2015 that I reviewed.
* Colorado takes in more money in hunting license fees than any other state. * Colorado averaged over $55M per year over that time period with a maximum over $60M and minimum of $52M * Overall non-resident hunters are approximately 20% regardless of the 80/20 splits on some high demand units. * Most western states limit non-residents to 10% or less of the total tags. * Wyoming did have 34% non-resident hunters in 2015, however they sold about half the total number of licenses as Colorado.
Why are they wanting to raise resident fees? We should be pushing for them to lower their fees and reductions of non-resident hunters.
It sounds like a lot of the backlog of maintenance and repair with CPW has to do with hatcheries and dams. Perhaps an increase in fishing license fees to pay for those items?
I, for one, would really like to see a reduction in the CPW killing smallmouth bass, pike, and walleye on the western slope. Not sure how much they are spending a year on that ridiculous program.
Open all State Trust Land across Colorado for hunting and fishing access and add licensing requirements for non-consumptive access to State Trust Lands. This is more in line with how the other western states manage STL.
They appearantly did a very good job of brainwashing the Sportsmen's Groups that they needed to raise fees.
Colorado Resident Sportsmen will lose, yet again.
Grasshopper's Link
The State Land board also has an opening.
You can apply here: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/boards-commissions
I will also throw my name in the hat for SLB. That could be a very interesting one as well. They probably wouldn't love me there either!
Coyote s kill most of the sheep the bear s come in and feed on them and get killed and the game damage pay's for it the sheep rancher have a real $$ maker lost sheep let the CPOW pay ???
This guys herders killed more bears than the whole Piceance Basin study we are spending money on defending in court would.
They shocked and killed over 80 walleye out of Stagecoach this spring and are shocking and netting pike like crazy. Mostly they do it at night so nobody sees them, however they are going full throttle again this morning.
Hard to believe I am funding the millions of dollars that are being spent to kill sport fish that are a huge draw to this area to save a fish species (squaw fish - aka in Colorado "pike minnow") that they pay a bounty on in other states...
