Colorado rakes in 20% more license $$
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
This from an article in this morning's Denver Post. I'm old school and get a paper in my driveway every morning. I can't find the article on their website, otherwise I'd post a link.
Well we knew the Big Game application changes last year would increase CPW's revenue but wow, a 20% increase! License revenues in 2018 were $80.5M but soared to $96.3M in 2019, a nearly $16M increase. Primary driver was the requirement to buy a qualifying license to apply in the limited draw. Though it doesn't mention it, I'm sure the new fees for preference points brought in a good chunk of change too.
I wonder how little of this new money will go to actually benefitting hunting.
It still won't be enough. Won't be enough. There never has been a government agency satisfied with the amount of money they have. The cost of elk reproducing remains the same...
I'm sure lot's will be wasted on various programs that don't benefit hunting. Like stated goverment agency's will never have enough, since they squander money like it grows on trees.
It’s not enough. A few years ago state legislature forced merger with parks and recreation. That was a disaster for the game and fish and they had no say in the matter.
I shot two squirrels with my small game license.
That Democrat tree hugger state didn’t get any of my money
Charlie, I hate to be the one to tell you, but that is what’s called “diminishing returns”. :-)
So, would you prefer a 20% decrease in revenues?
Matt
As the revenue goes up the quality goes down. Colorado is a hot mess....it`s one of the most poorly wildlife managed states in the lower 48. It`s right up there with my home state of Wisconsin.
Gee, for being such a "hot mess", a lot of non-resident hunters still seem to spend a bunch of their money in Colorado.
Matt
"...a lot of non-resident hunters still seem to spend a bunch of their money in Colorado."
Many because it was their ONLY choice if they wanted to hunt elk after not drawing anywhere else .
Matt, the 20% increase was on the backs of hunters with likely no increase in benefits. So yeah, maybe a 20% decrease would be better.
"How much is enough Grey Ghost?"
Only you can answer that for yourself. Tag fees are cheap relative to other recreational activities, IMO.
"Many because it was their ONLY choice if they wanted to hunt elk after not drawing anywhere else ."
Yep, and they should thank Colorado for that opportunity, instead of bitching about minimal tag fee increases.
Matt
Awesome!! I look forward to hunting being 20% better next year....
"So, would you prefer a 20% decrease in revenues?"
It wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. The CPW was 'fat' the year before and now only fatter. State Govt being flush with monies isnt always a good thing. I live that job.
Ziek: A Non-Resident can hunt elk every year in Utah. The NR tag fee for Spike bull or cow elk is $349. Best elk meat deal in the US.
I can't think of another common recreation activity that requires a higher State fee than hunting. Especially given the short time frame many tags are good for.
I didn't specify "state fees", Glunt. I said tags are cheap compared to the costs of other recreational activities. I can hunt elk for 30 days during the regular archery season for under $100 total tag fees. That's roughly the price of a 1/2 day on the ski slopes. I can hunt deer for 3 months for even less.
But, since you mentioned state fees, guess what the fees are to camp at a CO state campground with full hookups. $32 -$41 per night.
Granted, non-residents pay far more than I do for tags, but it doesn't stop them from invading CO every September, does it? Like I said, non-resident hunters should thank CO for providing the opportunity to hunt elk every year, or just stay home if they think it's too costly.
Matt
When your revenue is comprised of licenses and PR funds, and you’re tasked with managing all wildlife, this is what happens and why many game depts are looking at addl funding mechanisms.
Dirk,
You can ask it as many times, and in different ways, as you like. My answer will be the same. As long as there is ample hunting opportunities and populations of big game animals to hunt in CO every year, I'm not going to complain about to much CPW revenues. Yes, the number of hunters in Colorado every fall frustrates me at times. But, when I consider the alternative of fewer hunters, less game to hunt, and a reduction of the economic benefits that hunting generates, I don't stay frustrated too long.
Now, if you, or someone else, can show evidence of the CPW wasting those revenues, I may change my mind. Overall, I think Colorado has done a pretty decent job of balancing tag fees, hunting opportunities for all, and its wild game resources against the challenges of CO's ever exploding human population. Especially since much of that population isn't necessarily hunter-friendly.
Matt
'How much is enough Grey Ghost? '
I'm thinking Matt is preparing for the Wyoming Press Release...….
We Got Your Non-Ressy Elk Appl $$$$$ for MONTHS!!
And then for Many----> Thanks $ucker$ ~~OTC Colorado is still Your Option....
Don't Blame the Messenger Fella's......Matt is basically being a Realist.....
Good luck, Robb
They will need all the $ they can (waste) to manage wolf introduction.
No matter how u slice it Colorado takes in more $ than all others and they aren't even close to getting all they want I mean need. I have to also wonder how much would be enuff? How about how much will just be good enuff?
Dirk,
Simple answer. Few western states have the amount of wildlife resources CO has, when you consider all big and small game hunting and fishing. Combine that with the higher cost of living and doing business in CO, which also contributes to larger state budgets, and it's easy to understand why the CPW needs more than other western states.
I do share your concern about pricing out young hunters, but that ship sailed long ago with the commercialization of hunting. I don't know many young hunters who can't afford a $60 elk tag. But I do know many who can't afford a $6-$10K outfitted hunt.
Matt
"non-resident hunters should thank CO for providing the opportunity to hunt elk every year"
I've always said if non-residents would boycott Colorado for 5 years straight it would bankrupt the G&F and throw the wildlife agency into complete chaos and MAYBE there would be a bit of respect for non-residents and the part they play in wildlife managements and hunting
I still think its insane for non-residents to pay 10X to 15X or more costs. I don't know the answer either, but its insane that it happens like that and I can think of no other examples where price gouging is so glaring
Paid $158 in ID for Elk, Bull or Cow, Bear and any deer.
Lets see CO get with the program.
Because they made more does not mean they had more hunters or does it?
K
Money isn`t the issue for Colorado, they need to work on the quality of the hunting experience. Reduce the NR tags and start phasing out the point system and go to a lottery draw. If they wanted to they could increase the fee by leaps and bounds if they did that.
But like they say there is a sucker born every day
Stealthy,
How much does a Doll Sheep hunt cost for non-residents of Alaska or BC? I'll clue you in, it's more than most people pay for a vehicle. Why is that? Simple. Supply and demand. Elk hunting in CO is no different. We have the supply, and there's plenty of demand. The difference is, Colorado still grants the opportunity to hunt elk to an unlimited number of non-resident hunters every year, for a price that's comparable to other states with limited draws. If you are one of those non-resident CO elk hunters, you should thank the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Matt
We might have the best shiras moose hunting in the country if you can get a tag.
We are supposed to be spending that extra coin on public Hunter Access expansion, but they are dragging their feet like they are government or something.
Maybe they’ll use the extra for the Wolf introduction.
Grasshopper,
I filled my limit of pheasants on the eastern plains of CO a few weeks ago, on public access land that wasn't available a a few years ago. Yes, it cost the CPW a few dollars to enroll the private land into the program, and I was happy I helped support it with my small game tag fee that cost less than a tank full of of gas.
Matt
Matt is simply playing devils advocate. No logical counterpoint will be acknowledged or even entertained.
Colorado screwed up on multiple fronts when it comes to F&W funds. They luckily have good enough wildlife resources that people continue to put up with it anyway. I have hunted there before, I will again in the future.... still doesn’t make sense having a $100m revenue stream off of force feeding small game licenses to NR while simultaneously destroying any hope of actually drawing big game tags.
“,,,good enough wildlife resources....”
Does that happen by chance without proper wildlife funding nowadays? Think about it,
Matt
Instead of raising license costs...how about cutting back on unnecessary programs or expenses first? I've long been saying license costs are too much, especially NR tags. I think some of these F&G/DNR depts "invent" new programs just to spend money and claim their doing it for the people or the resource and then raise license prices. That is a classic govt mindset....trying to justify their existence (BTDT). They're feeding the hog and need to stop. Sooner or later our economy is going to slow down or hit another recession. When it does folks will not be as eager to spend money on hunting trips and these game depts that got bloated when times were good and license revenues high will be forced to cut back to where they were before they got bloated and claim they are hurting. A few years back I remember the Michigan DNR wanting to hire more CO's to keep up with the number of hunters and enforcement....and they did. Now that we're losing hunters, will they get rid of the CO billets they added...probably not. That is an example of getting bloated.
cnelk's Link
Here’s a good article about bloating Colorado govt - with a little wolf topic too.
“You only have to look at what happened to the Wyoming elk population,” Enstrom said. “Their herds have been knocked back to 10 percent of what it was.”
One of the most misleading comments I’ve seen in a while.
Actually he is 100% correct in that most mountain based game wardens will just be 2 things, bear conflict calls, and wolf conflict calls including livestock carcass kill confirmation. Maybe throw in occasional lion and coyote problems too.
Forget about them doing research, public ed, public relations, habitat work or ever doing actual law enforcement. But, no need to catch poachers when all the critters are gone.
I would be surprised if Enstrom actually said that 10% comment about elk referring to statewide. He certainly knows thats not the case.
There are places in the intro area that are that bad and worse like the Lolo region in ID (16,000 down to 1,000) but certainly not the statewide WY population. Maybe he said/meant a specific area or was referring to moose in the wolf areas.
Elk herds around the park from JC reports, 2008-2018, are down about 10%.
Focus on what he said about the $$$.
I didn't get the impression Enstrom was eluding to a "bloated" CPW. He mentions how the department has changed since he was there over a decade ago, when they were just the division of wildlife, not parks and wildlife. So naturally there's more people in the department and higher budget requirements now. In fact, it sounds like Enstrom is suggesting the CPW doesn't have enough revenues, and that reintroduction of the wolves would further compound those budget deficits.
Matt
I'm still surprised that Colorado does not have mandatory hunter harvest reporting. Maybe they can't afford it.
I get a post-season email from the CPW asking for me to fill out a harvest survey every year. To be honest, I rarely do it. I'm sure I'm not the only hunter who blows it off, which begs the question of how accurate their harvest statistics really are. I agree that mandatory reporting would be useful.
Matt
Bob said:
"Elk herds around the park from JC reports, 2008-2018, are down about 10%."
What is a JC report?
I agree with mandatory harvest reporting. Should be an in person with animal check in. Deer and elk will have antlers scored. Anything over a certain number of inches, you pay extra, per inch, a lot. Stick it to the trophy hunters, they seem to be the ones who want to price everyone else out. Let us meat hunters alone.
Job completion reports, link at the btm of the hunting page of WYGF.
Lots of data.
CO needs to dump that point system. If you have beaucoup points, you can trade em in for free green at the Colo Bud Emporium.
K
Can we please refrain from the useless and childish weed comments? Not every resident of CO smokes weed. Even if they do, it's absolutely irrelevant to this conversation. Grow up, boys.
Matt
Hemp Hemp Hooray, so your above the Fray?
Yes Peco in a state like this it would make sense for a detailed harvest report with lower jaw mandatory for a base line before Wolves get fast roped in. Again is the increase in $ because of more hunters or roughly same numbers with big price increases? K
If Colo won't at least go to an e-check system I can't see them messing with jaw bones. Just Calf-Cow-Antlered Bull (number of points) / Weapon / Game unit be helpful info. In Oklahoma no processor will take your animal without an e-check confirmation number. It takes less than 2 minutes to do it. If you are managing a game animal and limiting or not limiting the number of tags, you would think it might be helpful to know what hunters are killing.
The last thing I want is to add the expense and inconvenience of an in-person check in.
I'm ok with a mandatory online.
The survey system obviously isn't exact or close to it but it does show trends and year to year differences.
The more opportunities we lose based on the numbers the more I would like a step up in accuracy but I'm not in favor of having to visit a check-in or the expense of manning them.
I have hunted NE off and on for years and checked a lot of deer in. So glad they went to Tele-Check. Always seemed like we would hunt til dark, get camp packed up and be looking for a check station late, in some crappy weather and just wanting to get home. Both of the ones between where we hunted and the state line closed at 8.
We can register deer with our cell phone in Minnesota now, right from camp. There is no check in necessary anywhere. It's an automated system so you don't even talk to a person. Takes two minutes.
A simple CO app to register your success would be so simple. Not sure why CO can't figure that out. Everyone has a cell phone. If you don't report your harvest or non-harvest within a week your next year application should be invalid. Doesn't New Mexico do this already? It was easy and took 30 seconds for me.