Waring... CPW Commision thinks it is a business... CO Oak?

elks96 · Jan 5, 2017

On another Forum this was brought to my attention and thought I would share.

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...crease_Resolution_Approval-Jan2017-PWCMtg.pdf

I am not certain I like the direction this is taking. The use of the term "business" is really disturbing because the CPW is much more than a business etc.

I will let you draw other conclusions, but with BRAY on the commission for several more years and his want to increase NR tag allocations while cutting resident. This opens a serious can of worms.

Elkduds · Jan 5, 2017

Note this move comes on the same day the Repub US congress voted in favor of a step toward Public Land Transfer.

ColoradoOak · Jan 5, 2017

Don't worry, the sky isn't falling. This is a resolution to support legislation that would increase hunting and fishing license fees, and legislation that would give the Commission some discretion in setting those fees. The Parks side currently has the discretion to set their own fees, but that expires this year. The resolution, if passed, would support legislation granting the Commission continued authority to set Parks fees, and extend that authority to the Wildlife side. Any such authority would still have to be passed by the legislature.

CPW is a business. They provide a service and sell products to finance that service. If you are concerned about outfitters and landowners like Bray pushing for more NR licenses, then you better step up as a Resident and voice support for substantial increases in resident license fees. That's a simple fact. What residents who are so vocally opposed to fee increases are asking CPW to do is the equivalent of the government telling Ford that they must continue to build F-150 pickups, which must still meet all safety, fuel mileage and emissions standards, but they can only sell them for $20,000. How long would they stay in business?

COHunter · Jan 5, 2017

The revenue from hunting license sales has been carrying the weight for the wildlife side of CPW, I say its time to make the fishing side pay for its own programs at least.

Elkduds · Jan 5, 2017

Thanks, Oak, for the reassurance. I'm aware a lot of CPW programs are limited by current budget-funding rules. Do you think this latest move will have any impact on the move to increase resident license fees?

elks96 · Jan 5, 2017

I am still not sure I like the wording. I also strongly disagree with CPW being a business. As any business is all about maximizing profits and fund growth, etc.

Am I reading the statement correctly that this would allow the CPW to increase fees etc. On their own? Or will they still require approval from the legislature. While I like the CPW and have no problem with a resident fee increase, I also do not like the idea of the commission have singular control over fees.

COHunter · Jan 5, 2017

Thinking that the CPW is a business is like thinking the United States Gov't is a business and it should sell some public land to help pay for the services it provides. Now Commissioner Bray wants it to be a business and is trying his best to turn it into one.

But CPW is not a business, Its a part of the State Gov't who's only function is to manage the wildlife for the citizens of Colorado.

ColoradoOak · Jan 5, 2017

Currently any fee increase would require legislative approval, as would any attempt to give the Commission authority to set license fees without legislative approval. It all must go through the legislature first.

I am 100% sure there will be a bill introduced to raise resident fees, likely in the next month or so. This resolution simply supports any potential legislation to raise fees and/or grant Commission authority to set fees.

ColoradoOak · Jan 5, 2017

Play semantics all you want, but if you don't vote yea on the upcoming "tax" increase, don't whine when NR get more limited licenses.

2_Point · Jan 6, 2017

If they are a business they'll charge a market rate for the product. Seems safe to think the market rate to hunt a mule deer buck is more than $300. Maybe they will have prices based on management of a unit. A 44 4th season tag is $5,000 and a 71 2nd season is $400.

foulshot · Jan 8, 2017

"What residents who are so vocally opposed to fee increases are asking CPW to do is the equivalent of the government telling Ford that they must continue to build F-150 pickups, which must still meet all safety, fuel mileage and emissions standards, but they can only sell them for $20,000. How long would they stay in business?"

If they were only selling F-150's to locals, not long. But since they can sell these F-150's out of state & not only pay for them but also subsidize several other models that no one buys they stay in business.

Now if your business sold a product that no one bought certain models of, I'd discontinue the failing models & concentrate on the ones folks are repeat customers on....

How much of the intake goes back to source which created it?

COLOelkman · Jan 13, 2017

Some states do this and it seems to me one reasonable way to provide more funding to offset current shortfalls. As an example NM hunts are broken down by Standard, Quality and High Demand hunts so different costs for an elk hunt with higher costs for higher "quality" hunts.

I'm still a bit confused at how many other states Wildlife programs are able to generate adequate revenues to sustain their programs, but CO is not. My "perception" was that they were self sustaining but when they combined with the Parks, they now are promoting that they are short on revenue. Previous discussions I've read say the Parks and Wildlife sides are separate funding-wise but it just seems a bit of a change in sustainability to me. I'm sure others are more knowledgeable on this topic so my perception may be wrong, but it just seems a bit fishy!

foulshot · Jan 13, 2017

>Some states do this and it
>seems to me one reasonable
>way to provide more funding
>to offset current shortfalls.
>As an example NM hunts
>are broken down by Standard,
>Quality and High Demand hunts
>so different costs for an
>elk hunt with higher costs
>for higher "quality" hunts.
>
>I'm still a bit confused at
>how many other states Wildlife
>programs are able to generate
>adequate revenues to sustain their
>programs, but CO is not.
>My "perception" was that they
>were self sustaining but when
>they combined with the Parks,
>they now are promoting that
>they are short on revenue.
> Previous discussions I've read
>say the Parks and Wildlife
>sides are separate funding-wise but
>it just seems a bit
>of a change in sustainability
>to me. I'm sure
>others are more knowledgeable on
>this topic so my perception
>may be wrong, but it
>just seems a bit fishy!
>

You can look at the numbers yourself right here~ http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2016/May/Item_20-Financial_Update.pdf

Fubarracin · Jan 13, 2017

What if the f150 cost 20000 but ford got to sell a permit to everyone that wanted to use a public roadway for 10-15 bucks? Would generate more revenue with a lesser per household burden. I'm all for more revenue but I think there's better ways to do it than to double license costs.