Senate Bill 18-143
Colorado
Hot off the press. CBA board meets Feb 10th at 6060 Broadway. I would believe we will develop a board position on this bill at our meeting if not sooner. If you are a CBA member, and wish to participate in the meeting and discussion - our meetings are always open to the membership.
The CBA has hired a lobbyist firm this year. We got a good one with established relationships, and excellent understanding of issues we face.
Another bill which is not CPW driven was thrown in the lap of sportsman late last week. It would have to do with raffling more governors tags. As written, it has incredible and immediate opposition from sportsmen conservation groups. If you want a copy, shoot me your email addy.
Here is the other bill. The group behind this did ZERO outreach to collaborate prior to drafting this.
So are the Grand Slam tags, in addition to the existing Governors tags for some of the same species?
Yup, but we have never had a raffle for Desert Bighorn, etc, etc.
Personally, I'd be fine if we changed our raffle so that all tickets are purchased from the CPW web site. Done that way in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. All moneys could be put into a fund with specific usages defined in law, with public access at the top of the list. This whole commitee of 4 deciding grants, and NGO stuff is silly.
Just my opinion, but that is how I will vote.
This is ridiculous. Are they going to cut goat, moose, and sheep tags from the regular draw to compensate for more raffle tags?
The tags gotta come from somewhere, and the thing is if you waited half your life in preference points to draw unit 201 elk or that coveted desert tag - you get more crowding from gov tag holders. They all generally go to the same units
Grand Slam bill is a definite "NO!"
Have to wade through the other one.
Am I reading this correctly, Sec 6 "establishes an annual residential youth fishing fee" ? We are going to start making kids buy a fishing lic? That is absurd! Then they talk about a raffle to raise money for hunter recruitment? While also pushing kids away?
Section 8 authorizes the commission to establish by rule a special licensing program for young adult hunters and anglers.
First of all, the raffle bill has nothing to do with the CPW bill, ask Big Game Forever on that one.
I think a ton of licensing stuff for kids has historically been approved by the commission. I can't recall a youth initiative put before the commission that has ever failed.
Last year, a group of 16 year olds got up and testified in front of the committee about how they needed free fishing licenses. Next thing, we ended up with an amendment for free kids fishing. If you give it away, you get no federal match for Pittman funds. Same with free senior fishing, another proposed change. Personally, I'd rather teach my kids nothing is free and they need to pay.
Last year, we had a 75 page bill, this year it is short, to the point, simple and understandable. This bill has been assigned to Senate Finance for a date of Feb 13th. That is where it died last year. My personal hope is it passes without getting drastically changed in the legislative sausage grinder. If it doesn't, its unlikely things will get better in CPW programs.
I take tons of kids fishing as an introduction to the outdoors, its hard pulling kids away from their phones and video games as it is. Now they want me to pay to take a young person 1-15 years old fishing for a day, seems like a net Loss over time instead of a gain that they are looking for. These kids are the future and if you turn people away it could be the final nail in the coffin! my 2 cents
My two cents also serving on the Sportsmen's Roundtable is that the Grand Slam Raffle Bill is a end run around statewide sportsmen and is bad news. Make no mistake increasing Governor tags is a BIG DEAL, and they have some controversy, noting Colorado already has 18 such Governor tags, raffle and auction. The 10 new tags proposed equates to a 55% expansion to these Governor tags. Excluded was most major sportsmen organizations input/debate as well as statewide individual sportsmen input opportunity. Representative of gaffs in the bill was inclusion of a Desert Ram tag, which for good reason and low population #s and only a couple of tags has never been a Governor Tag in Colorado. Also a 4 person sportsmen Grand Slam Committee having complete authority over grants in the issuance of 1/2 of the remainder of net raffle proceeds is a concentration I oppose. Sportsmen's Roundtable call-in tomorrow (Thursday 2/1) will have this bill being part of that discussion. P.S- Without a House Sponsor to date the bill nevertheless has been slated for introduction to the Senate Finance Committee on Feb 8th, 1:30 P.M.
Thanks for your input, I'd certainly encourage writing the cba and legislators.
I pay fees for volleyball, basketball, piano, dance and more. Today I dropped 2100 for braces on an 8 year old. It all adds up, and I get it.
I have no problem with a small youth license cost. In fact I believe that they should have to pay something. It is good for kids to realize that nothing is free.
I will also add ths and this is something that completely puts a bur under my saddle. The license for kids is good because it will prevent some from taking excessive amounts of fish. Around here it is not uncommon to see groups of families go out and in the group there is one licensed adult and a crap load of kids running around. When they get done you see them pull out a stringer with some 20 fish on it and walk away. If they get stopped by CPW they then say kid one caught this one and this one, kid 2 caught, etc. Yet the kids never even picked up a pole. Unless the CPW officer sat there and watched all day they could not prove otherwise. This way the people doing this would have to produce a license for the kids.
The worst example of this was one day when I saw a group in a local stream take nearly 40 fish home. Big family picnic but only 2 adult fished...
Also I knew with out any prompting that BGF was behind the increase governors tags. They are an enemy to the public hunter.
Big Game Forever is an not only an enemy to public hunters, but to public lands, and ethical sportsmen. Their founder called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation socialist propaganda. The NAMWC champions the premise of fair chase, the publics stewardship of wildlife, sound wildlife management by the states, and so on. BGF gets their support by constantly preaching the doomsday scenario of wolves. That scenario is real, but BGF uses it because it strikes a tone with most sportsmen and women, and they know sportsmen and women are always willing to reach into their pockets to support this, however it's a front for greedy landowners to line their pockets from the wildlife, which sportsmen pay to support. Notice I say greedy landowners. That is a distinction between the property owners who don't chase $$$ at the expense of everyone else.
Steve (Grasshopper) wrote; "Personally, I'd be fine if we changed our raffle so that all tickets are purchased from the CPW web site. Done that way in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. All moneys could be put into a fund with specific usages defined in law, with public access at the top of the list. This whole commitee of 4 deciding grants, and NGO stuff is silly."
I agree 1000% and also with those that stated there feeling about BGF.
I am a current member of the Grand Slam Club and I do attend their banquets. I have watched as Governor tags get sold for well over $100k for one animal. These tags are usually going to some guy that needs a particular animal to complete a World Slam or some other slam. Where all the money actually goes, hopefully, is for conservation of that particular species. I can agree with the state giving out a Governor's tag for a raffle for each of their species and where residents of the donating state can purchase tickets. But, I do not agree with giving additional Governor tags to be auctioned off at organizations in other states. I'm sure that some of my friends will be very upset at what I have just said. Why do I feel that way? An example is, I have been applying for a Colorado moose tag for 19 years and some guy can step up and buy the tag just because he has a lot of money in his wallet. Heck, it took me 20 years of applying for my Colorado Unit 2 elk tag. That bothers me. Why should someone with a lot of money be able to step in front of me just because he is rich? Hell, why don't we make all the tags available to the highest bidder and, then we would have plenty of funds available to run these agencies. My guess is that they would squander the money away for this and that and be trying to figure out how to get more after it is gone. Then we wonder why people are not hunting anymore. Do I purchase raffle tickets? You bet I do. At least I have a chance of winning but I don't have a chance at winning at an auction where the prices are over $100k.
Coelker,
Did you call the CPW when you witnessed 40 fish being taken by 2 adults? Did they respond?
"The worst example of this was one day when I saw a group in a local stream take nearly 40 fish home. Big family picnic but only 2 adult fished..." "Coelker, Did you call the CPW when you witnessed 40 fish being taken by 2 adults? Did they respond?" OK, I get that a lot of fish were taken, but you say big family picnic. How many rods in the water? and did they do anything illegal?
Since we're all for in the nothing for free crowd, lets get rid of the free fishing weekend.
Based on discussions in the Sportsmen's Roundtable call in yesterday, the ill created Grand Slam Raffle Bill is supposed to be pulled. As such the other bill, the 'good' bill (Fee Bill now known as the Future Generations Bill) will be introduced first on Feb 13th at the Senate Finance Committee. This is excellent and deserving. It is my hope the Grand Slam Bill does not even re-enter later this session, and specifically advocated by several of us was there should be an extensive, no time limit, statewide series of public meetings between wildlife/hunting organizations and at-large sportsmen as to any continuing discussion of Colorado adding additional Governor big game tags, format, structure included. Without such vetting, and re-entry this session, the Grand Slam Raffle Bill will undoubtedly receive much opposition. Hopefully the proponent got the message. Stay tuned.
coelker, we take photos of fish violators with cameras and cell phones and email them to our local CPW WCO. Including vehicle photos and license plates. If it's ironclad like trespassing they can issue citations. At the very least they can contact the perps and put some fear into them (hopefully).
SFW and BGF won't stop until all licenses are sold through them, with them taking a cut of each one. They would love to see ALL big game hunting privatized and available for sale to the highest bidders. They are dangerous because BGF and the sister organizations operate under the guise of "representing sportsmen", so legislators and policy makers are fooled into thinking they are doing something good for hunters.
the 'good' bill (Fee Bill now known as the Future Generations Bill)
What's good about it? More money for nothing in return? When the CPW already makes a profit ($10+ million last year) and has a huge cash reserve (+17+ million)? NR OTC Bull tags sales will probably bring in even more money this year with the current economy! Where were these conservation groups that so badly want a fee increase when the CPW put together the joke of a landowner voucher committee a few years back to take more tags away from the draw and hand them over to the highest bidder? Why are these same groups and individuals opposed to the raffle tag? I don't get it!
How about a bill guaranteeing more than 52% of the draw tags for residents if they want to recruit more hunters?
Note: The Future Generations Bill # is SB-18-143, a bill all sportsmen gain with approving a responsibly funded CP&W. Aspects which we want, like more access, tie back to $. Beyond any years profit, look at what was not funded. Also, historically DOW/CP&W has had major disease challenges with both big game and fisheries, with surprise challenges like CWD and WD costing many millions to deal with. Fiscal reserve replenishment is also absolutely important, kind of like rainy day funds. The CPI Index is also hugely important in this bill helping avoid future year deficits and insure resident revenue pricing can move in the direction of expenses. What is bad about this Future Generations Bill...nothing. We will pay more for gas on basically one of our outdoor excursions than will be our added cost of investing in our wildlife and fisheries.
The cba board will vote on a position on Feb 10. Members are welcome. Some members have suggested the cost of living index is unwise, and it doesn't encourage wise spending. We don't have coli on our taxes. My personal opinion is the application fee should have a cap, your doing the online labor and it should be automated with software. Pay later just saved all the refund burden.
This is everyone's chance to voice their own opinion, to the cba and or legislators. Specific language or price points are more helpful than complaint based objections.
The only thing I don't " like" about the Bill is the increase for the application fee. Since going totally internet based, with little or no labor increases required, it seems like it is not justified. But overall, the Bill is a good solution to the wildlife we need to fund, and I'll be supporting it.
There is a lot that is wrong with this bill.
The fee increases are not as great as what they asked for last year but there continue to be a major disconnect between the CPW and resident hunters and anglers.
My biggest issue with this bill is that it places a greater financial burden on hunters for issues that are not hunting/wildlife related by increasing fees for each application and each license that we apply for or purchase. The big ticket items specifically listed are:
(VI) Identifying and beginning to plan the development of a new Colorado State Park and investing in other initiatives to increase park visitation, maintain excellent customer service, and generate revenue; WHY ARE HUNTERS FUNDING THIS? SHOULD THIS NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY PARKS REVENUE?
(VII) Reducing the $44.76 million maintenance and repair backlog by 50% for the 11 dams owned and operated by the division that pose the highest risks to life and property and establishing an appropriate funding stream to continue maintenance of all of the division's 110 dams; THIS IS CRAZY! WATER IN THE STATE OF COLORADO SHOULD PAY FOR ITSELF THROUGH WATER RIGHTS LEASES OR SALES! WITH EXCESS REVENUE! WATER IS GOLD IN COLORADO - IF IT CAN NOT PAY IT'S WAY, THERE MUST BE SIGNIFICANT GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND MISMANAGEMENT BY CPW!
(VII) Increasing the number of fish stocked in Colorado to more than 90 million through the development of a statewide hatchery modernization plan, renovation of one of the state's 19 fish hatcheries, and reduction of the maintenance backlog for all hatcheries, many of which are 70 to 100 years old; AND HUNTERS ARE BEING ASKED TO PAY FOR HATCHERIES? WHY? HOW MUCH IS SPENT BY CPW PER YEAR TO KILL GAME FISH THAT ARE REPRODUCING NATURALLY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR HATCHERIES?
(IX) Reducing the division's known $26 million large capital construction and maintenance backlog by 50% and establishing a capital development backlog strategic plan to provide a stable funding stream to address future maintenance projects at state wildlife areas and state parks; HOW MUCH OF THIS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION IS FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH WILDLIFE OR HUNTING?
This is even more upsetting considering that Colorado already takes in more in hunting license revenue than any other state (Look at the USFW Hunting License Sales Data) . MORE THAN ANY TWO OTHER WESTERN STATES COMBINED! Additionally, our resident license fees are already above the midpoint versus other western states with significantly higher quality hunting!
None of the goals stated in this bill will do anything to help the resident hunter with respect to reducing overcrowding or increased access - basically hunt quality. Actually the goals stated are in opposition to improving resident quality (Goal #1 is to increase the number of hunters!).
The verbiage in (IV) to support access programs on public and private lands is very amorphous and does not state a specific goal that we as hunters can hold the division accountable for. It could be as little as 1 acre opened to the public and CPW can say that they achieved their goal!
The Goal stated under V is the same old payout to private land owners for "conservation" with NO access provided for public hunting. There may be some value to the wildlife highway crossings, but that is already being covered through our taxes that go to highway construction.
Resident Hunters are getting screwed by this bill.
I will work up a full response and will be forwarding it to the supporters of this bill.
BTW - How much with CPW be saving this year with the changes to the hunting application system? It has to be several hundred thousand and possibly another million or more.
The closest western state to Colorado for hunting revenue is Montana.
Montana residents can get a Sportsman's License for $85. A Montana Resident Sportsman's License includes: a Conservation, State Lands, General Deer, General Elk, and Black Bear license and authorizes fishing, and hunting of upland birds, excluding turkey.
Add up what those licenses cost us in Colorado as residents. And we still do not have access to the vast majority of State Trust Lands!
Why is it so expensive for us as Colorado residents? Especially when we have to deal with much lower quality for our hunting.
I have to agree with you Treeline. Wouldn't it be nice to purchase a license that the tag could be used for elk, deer, antelope or bear or whichever one you came across first and wanted to harvest instead of purchasing every one of them separately? I can tell you this, anything that government touches will end up wasting your money. They don't know how to live within their budgets because people are too stupid to put a stop to it. Good examples are our Federal budget and school budgets.
Thank you, Merle.
Unfortunately, the CPW has spent the moneys that we have been providing them to develop a story wherein we hunters are "not paying our share". Hell, they continue to throw out that "wildlife viewing" brings in more than double fishing or hunting to the state.
Since "Wildlife Viewing" brings in exactly $0 to CPW, that aspect needs to be struck from their litany.
Just for reference to compare Colorado to Montana for the fees above:
Combination Small Game and Fishing - $45 (with extra rod stamp) Habitat Stamp - $10 Elk License - $45 Deer License - $30 Bear License - $40 TOTAL = $170
Additionally, you can add an antelope for $19 for general antelope hunting units. Colorado is $30.
At current Colorado license fees, we are paying double the cost versus Montana. Additionally, we can not hunt on all State Trust Lands as allowed in Montana.
Montana also works hard to maintain quality hunting by limiting non-residents to a maximum of 10%, not guaranteed, of the unit's quota for all species.
CPW has issues because of BAD MANAGEMENT that WILL NOT CHANGE if we give them more money!
Why would the hunters of Colorado fall for the BS that is being fed to them by CPW?
Why would any hunter or fisherman be for raising their fees for LOWER quality?
