Bowsite.com

Question on License Fee Increase

I read through the summary and it appears there is now going to be a "phase in" of the fee increases over the next few years which makes this whole thing a little easier to swallow. Does anyone know if the $20 non-refundable application fee still stands? That's a real hard one to swallow.

I understand the CBA was trying to change it to $5. Great idea and much appreciated!

Bill has been amended. I need to read it a couple times to understand the changes. Mostly looks like a change to where the increases get capped after the 50%, some splitting of violation fines with the general fund and free fishing to age 18.

(11) With respect to licenses which THAT are issued in limited23 numbers for the taking of game wildlife, the division is authorized to MAY24 collect from each license applicant a nonrefundable processing fee not to25 exceed three TWENTY dollars, WHICH FEE THE COMMISSION SHALL26 ESTABLISH BY RULE

I suspect that they will raise this a little each year until they get to $20.

The DOW 12 years ago, and now the CPW claim that to process the license applicant/refund, the actual cost by all departments, to do so was/is $17. By charging only $3, the Division has lost money over the years. The past thinking, not to increase this fee up to $17-20, was to not discourage ANYONE from applying for a Colorado license and coming to Colorado to hunt. Seems like a reality check is in order.

There are options that would reduce that cost that have been brought up at a number of meetings. The CPW guys just nod their heads and nothing changes. Part of why I am against the fee increases - along with the fact that Colorado currently takes in more from hunting license sales than any other state or territory already.

I don't doubt the cost being $17.00. When we go all electronic next year, and if they eliminated issuing and mailing paper refunds, it seems it would be much lower. There are millions of purchases, forms, registrations, applications, bid requests, etc. that people do every day electronically and the cost to the entity processing them is no where near that.

With more opportunities going limited and 1/2 the species already totally limited, the increase is big. Applying for a tag or point for deer, bear, antelope, sheep, goat, & moose would be $140 per family member, per year + the increase in tag prices for the ones they draw.

They also deleted one word during amendments that might sway me all by its self. "Vouchers" was deleted. If that means the landowner voucher application fee doesn't increase along with the public's application fee, count me out.

Paul,

No doubt a reality check is in order, the. CP&W needs one. The application cost will be down due to going all electronic applications next year.

And no increase to PLO voucher apps?

The fleecing of America continue 's.

The financial sustainability bill fail today. I hope all of those who are opposed to it will be at the commission meeting tomorrow for the discussion about resident-nonresident allocation that is on the agenda. The reality check will be when residents lose licenses to nonresidents because there are unwilling to pay more.

Losing tags may be the outcome but I'm not ready to lay the blame on folks unwilling to support the bill. I think quite a few who aren't supporting this bill are willing to pay more. Maybe some of the blame for lack of support could be shared with those that authored the bill and the performance of the CPW with the current $150 million budget.

Glunt you hit the nail on the head. Willingness to pay is there, once all other options have been exhausted and the expenditure side of the balance sheet properly managed. I am suprised it didn't go through without a hitch but cannot say I am disappointed that it didn't pass.

Tying fee increases to the CPI would have just made the issue worse as increases would become standard allowing for poor expenditure management.

Anyone can see the economics behind lower hunter recruitment and ask all those participants to pay more. It would have done nothing but hurt recruitment. This continuing to lower the overall gross revenue stream.

CPW needs to take a hard look at where sportsmans dollars are going. At the end of the day sportsman dollars are paying for the management of game species. Everything that is funded by CPW outside of game species (i.e. Non game species studies, management,etc) needs to either be cut or funded from another source of revenue. I've said it once and I'll say it again; the only long term, financially sustainable option at this point is and will be the general fund.

I testified at the meeting today, but couldn't stay until the end. It was a really long day but very educational, had to listen to the longest discussion about what I believe was a bill about business energy programs like green rebates. It about put me to sleep, and was killed in the bloody end.

While I didn't stay for the finally vote, and I haven't looked at the results, I would guess it highly likely the vote was 2 dems for, 3 republicans against. Partisan.

Personally opinion, but I thought it was in really poor taste of the outfitters to testify at the meeting about how they feel they deserve more cap based licenses.

After the house meeting, I had the chance to have a great interchange with my local republican house of reps guy and I asked him why he voted no. The guys is a life long hunter. He stated and I directly quote "the CPW has long undermined the trust of their public"

If you think about it, 3 years ago residents had 80/20 yanked out from under us by the commission - undermining public trust. I am sure you guys could all sight your trust issues.

If outfitters continue to whine about caps or worse - get more licenses - it undermines the trust. Bottom line in my opinion - steps need to be taken to establish and regain trust.

If I recall, next year is mid term elections. There will be reluctance to run a bill.

One of the arguments both from the outfitters and the republicanshave was about economics. The truth is the economy in populated areas of Colorado doesn't need help, it is smoking hot and you can't find anyone to hire. In rural Colorado, wildlife recreation is doing as much as can be asked with unlimited OTC elk tags, yet we still have median incomes at or near the poverty level in most rural Colorado counties. The legislature needs to have a way more comprehensive plan to help rural colorado economically - beyond wildlife as the cash cow.

One way, in my opinion, to start regaining trust, is to use some of the habitat stamps funds to expand public access for big game using leasing. Hope you guys can get behind that because I need help.

My own republican party is going to hear from me on this. While I can appreciate the support of low taxes and gun rights - the much of rest of the platform agenda sucks.

+1 liv2hntbigbulls, I to am surprised it didn't pass, but definitely not disappointed either. CPW needs to do a better job on where the real cuts need to come from, and I still stand behind a general fund supported by the public at large, everyone pays into it whether they hunt/fish or not, the resources belong to all state residents, therefore it's everybody's responsibility to help fund it. If those that attended the first meeting after the merger of Parks/wildlife the wildlife side claims they had made a 10 million dollar accounting error, these are the people we wanted to give a raise to!? This is why I didn't support the bill, fix the accounting issues first before you ask for a raise. As mentioned above, there has been a huge trust issue between the wildlife agency and the public. Now lets see what these legislators and management of CPW come up with next.

I am actually shocked that the bill did not pass. I certainly thought it was a slam dunk to pass.

I did write and send letters to the legislatures. Doubt that made any difference as I never got any response.

I belong to numerous organizations in this state that were all 100% pushing for this bill. I really do not understand their position.

Colorado currently ranks #1 for hunting license revenue and #13 for fishing license revenue based on USFW data. Last year, for hunting license sales, Colorado took in more than any two western states combined! The OTC areas are over-run with non-residents and crowding is a big issue.

Colorado ranks #13 for fishing license sales and takes in $5M to $10M more than the other western states (with the exception of California).

The fee increase will hit hunters the hardest and many of the big ticket items (hatcheries and dams) have nothing to do with hunting. Fishing should fund hatcheries. I would further say that any dams should not be the fishermen's issue either because they do not own the water rights associated with those dams. The owners of the water rights should be responsible for the repairs.

This program of eradication of game fish (walleye, pike and smallmouth bass) has been costing millions of dollars a year. Those fish generate money and are self sustaining (no need for a hatchery).

CPW is saying that non-consumptive uses bring more to the overall Colorado economy than consumptive uses (hunting and fishing) and yet they pay nothing for the benefit. Some funding mechanism needs to be developed to capture income from those sources by CPW.

Until CPW fixes their internal problems, raising resident fees will not be a solution.

Just looked up the USFW data for Federal State Wildlife Grant funds. Colorado gets over $1M from that source as well.

Pennsylvania has a great system: PA game dept, PA fish dept. PA parks dept. Each with unique funding issues. No on size fits all bill is appropriate for each. Guess what, PA game dept has adequate to surplus funding every year. Fish dept also has adequate to below funding. Parks dept is always crying that it has no money. One dept should not subsidize the others. All have unique missions.

I would agree to an increase in license costs, but not without n/r limits (80/20), and more funding for access and easements. Also $20 application fee too much.

I don't know that much about water rights or water law but considering the value of water in the West. It seems like owning some of the storage infrastructure would be a plus on the revenue side.

Voted down. I guess we'll see what happens next. Typically these sorts of defeats result in cuts to the most visible and popular programs, as a form of "see, we told you so".

The whole of 1321? I couldn't find anything in a brief giggle search.

I can't find anything published either but was informed yesterday by a CBA official who is tracking it (unnamed unless he wants to unmask himself) that it failed in committee by one vote.

The Denver Post has a small article about it.

I for one am glad it failed. I was a bad bill that again makes hunters responsible for carrying the load of everything. If they have to make cuts due to its failure to pass, make the cuts at the underperforming sections. Shut down boating on waters where inspectors cant perform ANS checks, reduce the limit on trout, charge a heck of a lot more for voucher applications, etc...

Maybe we could hire the Directors of Montana and Wyoming to show the CPW how to spend money more wisely since you could run Montana's FWP ($76 mil) AND Wyoming's Game & Fish dept ($63 mil) and still have a surplus with the CPW's wildlife side only budget ($141.5 mil)

current populatons:

WYO= 583,000 Wyo budget= $63 million

Montana= 1 million Wildlife budget= $76 million

Colorado= 5.5 million CPW= $141 million

Seems to me that the more people in the state, the higher the budget needs to be to satisfy the users and nonusers and I am sure Wyo and Montana both have non consumptive users.

Paul,

Look at the budgets for Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, etc.

Arizona and Washington definitely have a higher population.

More stringent non-resident restrictions for hunting (like 10% maximum - not 10% set-aside).

State Trust Lands all open for hunting (including MT and WY)

Similar or more acreage than Colorado for all the above.

Several of those states have SIGNIFICANTLY lower priced resident tags.

Colorado already takes top spot in the US for hunting license revenue. Why, because of the unlimited OTC elk tags and large numbers of deer tags.

What is Colorado doing different than 50 other states that receive significantly less in hunting license revenue?

What is Colorado doing different than the 37 other states that receive significantly less in fishing license revenue?

None of that is even considering the parks fees and recreational vehicle registrations.

Why is CPW in financial trouble?

Until they fix what is broken internally, any increase in fees will do nothing but encourage them to overspend more!

Perhaps, but Montana's budget includes parks as well, I broke that off of Colorado. CPW over all budget is $214 million.

Colorado is 104,000 square miles, where MT & WY combined are 245,000 square miles. Lot more area to take care of.

Wyoming spent $8.8 million on mule deer management, Colorado spends $2.4 million. In fact Colorado only spends $4 million combined for all big game management! That's less than 3% of its budget. So does Colorado really need to raise big game tag fee's if the money they take in doesn't go to big game? Now go take a gander at what they spend on the aquatic side. January commission meeting has details if you're interested.

Other comparisons, MT & WY have OTC deer & elk tags good for archery & rifle for residents only. State Trust Lands to hunt in and Private land access programs as well. Both of those are lacking here. WY has a 42% success rate on elk as well.

Sure Colorado has more people than WY or MT, but what has that got to do with anything. It's far from being the most populated state, but show me what state takes in as much in hunting license revenue? Shouldn't that be Texas, Pennsylvania, or whatever states that have higher hunter numbers and overall populations?

Treeline, you beat me to replying to Paul

Having watched fees increase and (fishing) limits decrease since the 60's, it just seems inevitable. I can recall a time when you could actually bring enough fish home to justify the expense of the trip (not to mention all of the enjoyment). 'Glad it will be at least another year or two this time around. My wife likes to go hiking with a group of girl friends. None of them would object to paying a small "habitat access" fee - seems like an untapped fortune when you consider the number of "freeloading" hikers.

I can actually remember when I could float a section of the Yampa and catch fish that most people only dream about - I am talking 5 pound+ smallies and 20 pound pike.

That was not just maybe one in a full year of fishing, but every time!

Those days are long gone and CPW spends more to kill fish on the western slope than they do for any improvements to big game management.

They have basically eradicated the game fish in the river to bring back trash fish that other states pay a bounty for. CPW destroyed a fabulous, SELF SUSTAINING (NO HACHERY REQUIRED), fishery that turned out trophy of a lifetime type of fish. They are still spending millions of dollars and working in the dark of night up here on Stagecoach killing walleye and pike. Gill nets that are indiscriminate and basically catch and kill any fish over about 16" (trout included) that gets in them. Shocking crews that are working most nights up here to kill pike and walleye. Really sucks ass. These programs are taking millions of dollars to manage and they have to have extra biologists to manage the programs. WHY?

Colorado has been sticking it to the big game hunters in the backside by selling so many tags to anyone that will pay the price for the "opportunity". There is absolutely no concept of "quality" of the hunting experience.

You bring up some good points.

It seems that years ago, when the DOW was flush with cash ,so to speak, or at least a break even status, they started a lot of research projects that may be still ongoing today and are hard to give up on. thanks, Paul

Register here to reply to this topic