Colorado Financial Strategy

C

cjoutfit

Member
Messages
79
Friends,

There ​could be some​ changes on the horizon for the management of wildlife from the CPW in the state of Colorado. The Strategic Planning process seeks to outline new funding opportunities for wildlife management and there is no secret that this will be proposed in the form of a tax - possibly from the non consumptive users and general fund. There has been a great deal of preparation on their part to get to this point as the links at the bottom of this page will show, as well as the Path Forward plan that was set in place a few years ago. Everyone who is ​a hunter or fisherman and those ​in the outdoor industry​ will be affected from State and local economies to Motels, restaurants, gas stations, meat processors, taxidermists, Landowners, outfitters etc... and needs to participate in the survey and this process.

There is a great deal of politics in wildlife today and have made many issues complex and divided sportsmen to where we are today. However in reality though it is a supply and demand issue and everything revolves around the supply, many local economies depend on hunting season revenues to survive​ and is their way of life.​ This 5 year season structure process should have made bigger strides and gains in obtaining those goals​ towards abundant wildlife​ but election year politics has kept it suppressed and leaned another direction.

By legislative statute title 33-1-101 it is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. It is further declared to be the policy of this state that there shall be provided a comprehensive program designed to offer the greatest possible variety of wildlife-related recreational opportunity to the people of this state and its visitors and that, to carry out such program and policy, there shall be a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife related opportunities.

The bottom line though is it comes back to the CPW and how they manage or mismanage wildlife and funding, there are many differences of facts and opinions within CPW that don't align with the majority of sportsmens. When populations of animals are reduced ​and other factors are not addressed that continue to cause the decline in wildlife populations ​and are struggling to recover such as mule deer, antelope and elk in some areas - then all of these other issues become passionate and emotional for sportsmen and they look to point fingers and fight among each other about who should get the opportunity to hunt.

There have been multiple reasons why these discussions become more emotional such as,

DOW going broke - went from a 60 million dollar surplus to a 12 million dollar deficit in 8 years

Wildlife Population declines

Amendments 10 and 14

Increased Depredation, Increased licenses, bears, coyotes, lions, eagles, poachers, ravens, crows, etc...

Management for opportunity

Increased Mortality - highway, ​CWD​, ​EHD​, fences,winter kill, lack of feeding programs, etc...

Lack of transparency​/accountability​ of CPW programs and expenditures

Increase in residency - ​M​ore hunters moving here

License Allocations - 60/40 - 65/35 soft cap

Loss of non resident Hunters -

​Politics​


Colorado has lost over 40,000 non resident hunters since 2000,​ and more than quadrupled that in new resident hunters - people moving here. ​I​t currently takes 13 residents to equal 1 non resident. With more resident hunters in the field and reduced wildlife populations there are fewer dollars coming into ​D​ow programs and State and local economies, therefore wildlife management suffers. Non resident license fees have almost tripled since 2000 and increased again for the 2015 season with no increase in resident fees.
There is no tax money that comes to ​D​ow for wildlife management except Pittman Robertson and Dingle Johnson Funds that can only go for habitat and research etc...- not operating money, so the ​D​ow depends on the non resident hunter - always has. Out of the 59 million dollars that ​D​ow receives annually in license sales - 45 million comes from the NR hunter, they pay for every program ​D​ow has and without it would cease to exist.FY 13-14 Q3 Financial Report
.
The North American Model for Wildlife Conservation also calls for equal opportunity on public lands of which there are 23,000,000 million acres in Colorado.
Given the fact that public land belongs to all people of the United States regardless of where one lives there should be an equal opportunity for both residents and non - residents. Wildlife needs to be enhanced and managed on public lands as well as private.

SCORP
Of Colorado voters
responding to the 2012
Conservation in the West
Poll, 86 percent said that
?Even with state budget
problems, we should still
find money to protect and
maintain Colorado?s land,
water and wildlife.? 82
percent said the same about
state parks.
?Conservation in the West Poll:
Colorado College State of the
Rockies Project.



Financial Sustainability Flier

public comment form​

​The bottom line is that sportsmen and women have always payed for wildlife management and should continue to,​



These programs and surveys are the voice for future management, please fill them out and pass it on to any and all interested and affected parties.

Thank You
 
I know and understand there is alot more to this than what I am about to say.

For me and my family as non residents. I see how the point system works and how far behind I am (8 points) with deer and elk that I want to use my points on lesser units and then never apply again, or just try to apply for deer just to hunt. I know of several people that feel the same.

I just dont think that I will apply for my kids when the time comes. Its not worth it.
 
"DOW going broke - went from a 60 million dollar surplus to a 12 million dollar deficit in 8 years"

Lets put the real truth to the budgetary short fall where it belongs... Is the fish and wildlife side really broke?

What transpired causing the DOW or "CPW" to go broke. Is the sportsperson who is hunting and fishing at fault while it was overwhelming proven the system work prior to the merger? What broke the system that hunters and fishermen built is the parks side. So would it make sense that rather than add more burden upon those who proved their ability to finacialy fund a government entity as compared to another government entity which totally failed (the parks side). I believe this is the area needing readdressed since the parks are over spending their budgetary share. I also believe the users of the state parks should have to kick in more since this is where the short fall is stemming from.


"Courage is being scares death but
saddling up anyway."
 
>"DOW going broke - went from
>a 60 million dollar surplus
>to a 12 million dollar
>deficit in 8 years"
>
>Lets put the real truth to
>the budgetary short fall where
>it belongs... Is the fish
>and wildlife side really broke?
>
>
>What transpired causing the DOW or
>"CPW" to go broke. Is
>the sportsperson who is hunting
>and fishing at fault while
>it was overwhelming proven the
>system work prior to the
>merger? What broke the system
>that hunters and fishermen built
>is the parks side. So
>would it make sense that
>rather than add more burden
>upon those who proved their
>ability to finacialy fund a
>government entity as compared to
>another government entity which totally
>failed (the parks side). I
>believe this is the area
>needing readdressed since the parks
>are over spending their budgetary
>share. I also believe the
>users of the state parks
>should have to kick in
>more since this is where
>the short fall is stemming
>from.
>
>
>"Courage is being scares death but
>
>saddling up anyway."

Sorry but the merger did not hurt the wildlife side at all and in many cases lead to savings on both sides. Some where in the process however it was discovered that the wildlife side had a major accounting error. This error had the wildlife side operating in the red for years. Despite what everyone wants to believe the merger was not the cause of the issue! There are many factors!

Of course the outfitters are going to complain that nonresident quotas are infair, in this very message it is easy to see that Chris is of the mind set that he needs more clients and that the only way the state can survive is with increased NR license allocations, etc. Good or bad that is an option. Is it time for a resident tag cost increase? Yes it is. Is it time to look at other funding sources? Yes it is. Is it time to reevaluate the process and the system? yes.

But realize that none of it is simple. There is no easy answer to the issues facing the department. at what point do we need to look at revenue from no hunters?

In one weekend there are over 600 mountain bikers who enter the Forrest around crested Butte, they impact animals, habitat, etc. Yet the never have to pay a dime to support anything. ATV users, hikers, backpackers, photographers, she'd hunters, mushroom collectors, horse back riders, etc. All impact wildlife and without being required to pay a dime towards the management of wildlife.

We need to be careful as we move forward. We have to look at funding sources that can help offset budgets but not give up control.

For example the game damage program. Hunters are paying for home repairs, crop damages, fence damages etc. This all comes from license sales. However it could very easily be added to the state budget since no hunters benefit from having healthy game populations as well.
I ask caution that as we limit resident access to tags and hunting, we also limit future recruitment and eventually the very people we will need inorder to protect hunting!
 
>I know and understand there is
>alot more to this than
>what I am about to
>say.
>
>For me and my family as
>non residents. I see
>how the point system works
>and how far behind I
>am (8 points) with deer
>and elk that I want
>to use my points on
>lesser units and then never
>apply again, or just try
>to apply for deer just
>to hunt. I know
>of several people that feel
>the same.
>
>I just dont think that I
>will apply for my kids
>when the time comes. Its
>not worth it.

That is your choice but there are many great hunts that require no points at all. Sorry but I do not feel sorry for you as you chose to hold points or cash them! In those 8 years of building points you could have easily had 5 or 6 really good hunts. Regardless of system, you would still face the same choice to hunt an easier to draw hunt or hold out.
 
To bring some of those non-residents back, Colorado needs to change their ridiculous preference points system and go to a system that has some sort of random draw component to it. Or better yet ditch the stupid preference point system all together and go to a bonus point system and one preferably like Nevada's. I don't say this as someone that has zero points either; I have over 35 points combined for elk, deer and pronghorn.

Once I burn my points in Colorado I'll be done with it completely and will likely never put my son into Colorado either due to the drawing system.
 
Cjoutfit has one thing in mind with this meandering and seemingly thoughtful thread, HIMSELF! Not thoughtful at all, and selfish as usual, with his plea for more landowner and more non-resident tags. More tags for non-residents and landowners equal more clients and money for you guessed it, himself! FUNNY!
 
If absolutely necessary, raise resident tag prices. Problem solved! That is until they spend it all and need to raise prices again. GOVERNMENT = INNEFFICIENCY & OVERSPENDING
 
In 2000 a non res elk tag was $150
A resident tag was $20.
This year a non res is $619 and res is $49. I don't think its a revenue problem.
 
Revenue problem? No sir. How many state park passes are sold annually? How about OHV, boats, and personal water craft fees? This is bigger than just the fish and game fees.

I will admit on the fisheries side colorado has significant mind set issues with regard to Colorado fisheries and blow millions annually on fruitless stockings of trout in warm waters which are not capable of sustaining trout. Maybe colorado could try an image change about all these blue ribbon waters.

Maybe Colorado could also try something different by putting more boots and long term projects on the ground rather into administration.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
Tha article is already old. The fact remains that despite everything they are forced by increasing cost and falling or at best stagnat revenue!

The process is simple, in crease tag cost gives increased revenue bumps. However once the bump is over funding stays at the same level while cos gradually increase! In this model, anytime there is a tagroce increase or an additional fee etc. You see a surplus of funds, those funds roll forward and eventually operation cost catch up with the increase giving a few years where everything balances then eventually years of working in the red until you increase funding! Imagine funding on a plateau and cost a gradual increase over time.

Also realize that cost are not just decisions made by the CPW. For example when chickenpooper mandated Compressed Natural Gas vehicle he required the CPW to also buy CNG trucks. This cost added around $10000 per vehicle when bought and ultimately they did not end up saving anything! Also realize that state mandates regarding insurance, wage increases all effect the CPW and all are not supports by any funding!

Other items.... Damage program has seen great cost increases. This is mainly due to bears and houses, but also livestock fences etc. Those reimbursementrpgrams all come from our hunter dollars.

It is a very complicated issue. It is an issue where we need to cut cost, increase revenue and still provide services! I have seen several positions cut, I know many officers who are working hard to cover areas larger than some of our states.

Is there waste? Yes there is always waste, but it is hard to envision a future where they have cut anther 30% of the budget and still have the ability to provide any services at all!
 
Howdy,

You got government deflated pricing for tags for years. Just wait and see how hunting regs and priCing get mixed up once all of the non-hunters realize they are supporting tag socialism. Enjoy your beds fellas.
 
The article was at the time of the discovery of the accounting error rebutting your claim the DOW was running in the red for years. The gas vehicle issue yer right, another dumb idea from a liberal lefty. The bear problem, dont let the public dictate by vote biology. Non resident elk tags (as well as the rest I'm sure) have increased an average of 27.5%/yr the last 15yrs. Warren Buffett wishes he could do that well! I'm tired of payin for the stupidity of others!
 
Revenue issues and preference point issues have nothing to do with each other. To say that you can't have some great hunts in Colorado without amassing lots of points is just not true. I have never missed a year hunting in Colorado for the last 25 years as a nonresident except when I went elsewhere (Alaska once, Montana twice and this year New Mexico). Loss of NRs has very little to do with the point system, but all to do with increasing tag prices. And as prices keep rising every year, a few more will drop out. Whatever side of the argument you are on there, thems the facts.

I believe, like in other areas of government, it is mostly pork barrel stuff causing the cash crunch. This program and that program, which by themselves is a worthy project, but once they get their mouth at the trough, they want a bigger and bigger slice each year.

So, just like our national government, they need to get simpler and cut programs. If that means cutting some peoples pet program so be it. But no, that can't happen!!! We must find more money, more taxes.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Whether or not you agree with cjoutfit, he is getting the word out that this survey is out there. If you disagree with him as it appears most do based on responses here, make your voice heard by completing the survey. Let them know how you feel. If you don't vote, you don't have a leg to stand on when you later disagree. Take a few minutes and fill out the survey so the CPW knows how you feel.

http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspx
 
Yes the they have been running in the red. It is simple budget term. When expenses exceed revenues you are running in the red. In this case, as I have explained, the history of the agency is always a system where cost increases over time at a fairly steady rate and revenue jump and plateaus. When the last round of license fees were increased, the revenue exceeded the departments operating budget, thus they had reserves. When this occurred they also spent a handful of years operating in the black and had the ability to pile up a chunk of reserve money.

In 2011 several things happened. First of all 4 state parks were turned into Wildlife areas. This meant the management of those properties shifted from the Parks to the wildlife. This created an increased cost for the department. Then not long after that move they combined the Parks with the Wildlife. Despite what everyone thinks this move did not really hurt the Wildlife side. As of today it still appears that both are treated as separate budgets with in the department. 1 budget for parks and one for wildlife. Due to measures in acted by the parks side at the time and the transition of those 4 properties, cuts etc. The parks have been able to maintain their budgets.

At the time of the merger as was mentioned there was the discovery of a $32 million accounting error. At that same time is when the budget started running in the red and essentially has been in the red since that time. That means FY 2011, 12, 13, 14 and now 15. There is a time in the near future where they will not have any reserves left and the revenue will not be enough to cover all cost.

With all of that being said, no the parks did not ruin the wildlife. Also regardless we are facing a situation where we no longer have the reserves to back fill the budget. The department has and will continue to cut cost where possible, but at the same time simply cutting services will not be effective.

So instead of arguing about how we got here, we need to really look at how do we move forward. What are some ways we can increase revenue and how much will those revenue sources generate.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15 AT 04:23PM (MST)[p]Go back and reread the denver post article from 2012 in post 5. In the 2nd paragraph they say they are far from broke. The cost of a non res elk tag has increased over 400% the last 15yrs, how much is enough?
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15
>AT 04:23?PM (MST)
>
>Go back and reread the denver
>post article from 2012 in
>post 5. In the 2nd
>paragraph they say they are
>far from broke. The cost
>of a non res
>elk tag has increased over
>400% the last 15yrs, how
>much is enough?

Yes 3 to 5 years ago they had enough reserves to cover the issue! It is like talking to a wall with you! What is the fix? Do you feel we have enough officers in the field? Do you feel that there is enough land preserved and habitat protected? Do you also totally discount the outside pressures that have cost operating cost to to increase? Health care is a huge one, also game damage, can't trucks cost a chunk, then the battle and effort spent to try and keep gun iron sage grouse from listing, plus the special projects the the endangered pieces act requires them to complete!

The simple answer of when is enough enough... The answer is never! There is never a point where I would say there is enough or even too much money to help maintain and protect our hunting and fishing. Is there really ever enough money for habitat protection? Enough money to have officer not covering areas the size of some states?

Again while they had enough money at the time, it does not stay that way!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]>So 2 million dollars for a
>non res elk tags not
>enough

I will address issues when you can actually have a meaningful and intelligent comversation! I would love to see a situation where there were 2 wildlife officers per unit and where the CPW had the opportunity to purchase private lands for sale. And the money to work cooperatively with the BLM, FS and private land owners on large scale mitigation issues, or he money needed to create multiple overpasses, underpasses where migration causes traffic issues... The list goes on and on! I will say that our wildlife, and the issues we are facing in this state carry a huge financial burden and without money we will only continue to loose and already declining resource!

But the bigger point if you could get off your head unstuck on NR tag cost is how do we increase revenue! But since your stuck like a broken record on the poor NR tag issue we will not be able to move forward at all with a discussion on how to increase revenue!
For anyone else please feel free to chime in with ways to increase revenue into the CPW! We all know tag prices will increase at some point. We also know that no matter what any sort of fee added is simply a tag cost increase!

So what are other ways to generate revenue? When the only product you have is hunting and fishing licenses!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15 AT 08:02PM (MST)[p]>$464 Non-Resident Cow tags is going
>to hurt, not help.
>I know I won't be
>buying one.

Yep that would be a total deal breaker! Of course you do realize the cost increase was not done for finincial reason but because they have brought herd sizes down and they do not need to sale as many tags as in the past! So fewer tags with a slightly higher cost!

I am certain you may not buy a cow tag at that cost but plenty of other people will! When they were cheaper people would buy them just incase, now they will probably only sale to people who are interested in filling the freezer!

I am pretty certain that they will be able to sale the majority of the NR tag quotas considering there are already cow hunts that are starting to take a PP to draw as a NR!
 
U ended the intelligent part of this discussion when u said the answer to when is enough enough the answer is never! Any wonder how payin 50% of our income to taxes has created an $18 trill deficit? Show me a private sector product that has increased its price by 400% in the last 15yrs? I want all those things u speak of as well but your talking $1000 deer tags and $3000 elk tags and thats the resident rate to make this fantasy come true! I've been checked by blm agents, state co's, nfs employees, and fed f&g agents. If u add those departments there's probably 2 or 3 per unit already. We have enough (way too many) government agents already which is a huge part of this financial problem you say we have. Before u say they don't make much, their income is just a fraction of what they cost us over their lifetime. The magic revenue generator is the one none of us wants and it's in the thread right by this one. I don't have a problem with a reasonable annual tag increase, that's to b expected. You know as well as I do the majority of the dog&p's revenue comes from non resident big game tags, they have no other revenue generator. So a smart company cuts it's operating costs. Unfortunately this is the government were talkin about so I expect a 1000% increase in tag costs over the next 15yrs.
 
>U ended the intelligent part of
>this discussion when u said
>the answer to when is
>enough enough the answer is
>never! Any wonder how payin
>50% of our income to
>taxes has created an $18
>trill deficit? Show me a
>private sector product that has
>increased its price by 400%
>in the last 15yrs? I
>want all those things u
>speak of as well but
>your talking $1000 deer tags
>and $3000 elk tags and
>thats the resident rate to
>make this fantasy come true!
>I've been checked by blm
>agents, state co's, nfs employees,
>and fed f&g agents. If
>u add those departments there's
>probably 2 or 3 per
>unit already. We have enough
>(way too many) government agents
>already which is a huge
>part of this financial problem
>you say we have. Before
>u say they don't make
>much, their income is just
>a fraction of what they
>cost us over their lifetime.
>The magic revenue generator is
>the one none of us
>wants and it's in the
>thread right by this one.
>I don't have a problem
>with a reasonable annual tag
>increase, that's to b expected.
>You know as well as
>I do the majority of
>the dog&p's revenue comes from
>non resident big game tags,
>they have no other revenue
>generator. So a smart
>company cuts it's operating costs.
>Unfortunately this is the government
>were talkin about so I
>expect a 1000% increase in
>tag costs over the next
>15yrs.

Well once again you show how little you understand on this issue! Nonresident tag prices are currently and have been fixed to only increase at thin rate of inflation!

You seriously think that one officer patrolling an area that is 19 miles wide and 32 miles long is enough! As far as BLM goes they have one Law Enforce,met Agen in the MW corner of the sate! In Moffat county alone the amount of BLM is larger than the state of Rhode Island!

It is also apparent that you have not looked at the department budgets and have not looked into what they have already cut! Look at the budget and let's see where we can cut! Anything left to cut will have a direct impact on what the CPW can do! Fewer people, smaller projects, less law enforce,met, etc. Businesses have 2 option increase revenue and cut!

So where else can the revenue come from? If not hunters then who? I am fine with tag increases to a point but I am also more interested in finding other revenue streams!
 
And I must have lousy luck cause I spent 10 days in that county and met the blm officer on day 3.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 05:30PM (MST)[p]tit will never be enough.

Cow prices were not raised to increase revenue

Thanks. I needs a good chuckle as it is warm and windy in my turkey blind. Guess the wind blows everywhere

Just like there are always things in my personal life/family where I would like to do more at some point you can't go to the well any more. I can work harder and try and offer a better product to consumers but I can't just pass more fees along to my consumers on an unlimited basis. That is one thing I thing Dw is trying to get across. And your state has lost not only 40,000 hunters and their license revenue but also 40,000 people who bought groceries and gas and stayed in hotels. They are actually running ads to try and woo them back

Txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 05:31PM (MST)[p]Freudian slip on the last post (really accidental). However since we are talking government the irony was too good to change it

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Forgot another agency I've been checked by, county park ranger. The dow has also begun to receive goco money in recent years. They sell 260,000 elk tags a year, no other state comes close to that. I doubt many other western states have a goco(lottery funds for u non res) type fund contributing a nice chunk annually. With the goco money and tag increases over the last 15yrs the agency should b swimmin in cash! Why aren't they?
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15
>AT 05:30?PM (MST)
>
>tit will never be enough.
>
>Cow prices were not raised to
>increase revenue
>
>Thanks. I needs a good chuckle
>as it is warm and
>windy in my turkey blind.
>Guess the wind blows everywhere
>
>
>Just like there are always things
>in my personal life/family where
>I would like to do
>more at some point you
>can't go to the well
>any more. I can work
>harder and try and offer
>a better product to consumers
>but I can't just pass
>more fees along to my
>consumers on an unlimited basis.
>That is one thing I
>thing Dw is trying to
>get across. And your state
>has lost not only 40,000
>hunters and their license revenue
>but also 40,000 people who
>bought groceries and gas and
>stayed in hotels. They are
>actually running ads to try
>and woo them back
>
>Txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

Yes I stand by the cow tag increase as not for revenue! They have cut the number of cow tags significantly! So instead the price increase is really to back fill the cost lost by the reduction in total tags available! To increase actual revenue they would have needed to raise the cost and keep the same tags or increased number of tags etc! You of course would know this if you took the time to look at the whole picture!

Furthermore, all states are loosing NR hunters! This is not just an issue for Colorado! The only exceptions are those with totally limited licenses and deman high enough to fill all NR Quotas! Even in those states there are fewer people entering the draws! Idaho, MT, CO, NM are all seeing NR decrease as is Wy in a majority of hunt types but not all!

This is due to many things, most of all economy! After all with the idiot in office we have seen slow to no economic growth, we have seen stagnant job markets etc! We have not lost all those hunters because the tags are now 564 when the pay were 514 last years etc.

In addition to the economy we have also seen significant migration of hunters into the state! We have not lost total hunter in the numbers indicated, but we have seen a lot of people who were NR move here to become residents!

Regardless, how do we increase revenue? So far all you guys want to do is ##### about tag cost!
 
>Forgot another agency I've been checked
>by, county park ranger. The
>dow has also begun to
>receive goco money in recent
>years. They sell 260,000 elk
>tags a year, no other
>state comes close to that.
>I doubt many other western
>states have a goco(lottery funds
>for u non res) type
>fund contributing a nice chunk
>annually. With the goco money
>and tag increases over the
>last 15yrs the agency should
>b swimmin in cash! Why
>aren't they?

Again do you even know what the GOCO funds can be used for? They can only be used for attainment of open spaces or the development of open space recreational opportunities! Not for staff, not for benefits, etc. attainment of new lands or adding a parking area to an existing land, or fencing and signage projects etc. It is very restricted money.

They are not because operating cost are also up. They have cut budgets, cut personnel, etc. The only next step is to start cutting programs.

You are still falsely assuming that increased tag cost are effective enough to cover increased operating cost! Hell bears alone have been costing a ton of money in the last 2 or 3 years! Other things like forced retirement plan inc eased cost, health care cost, transportation cost (remember just 6 months ago fuel was up in cost. Yes it is tax free but still high.

Like mentioned there has been a trend toward fewer NR tags and more resident tags, and a decrease in the number of tags the average hunter purchases. All departments struggle at time with funding. Right now it is the CPW, which has been solid for the last 15 plus years!
 
http://www.conservationalmanac.org/secure/almanac/rockymountain/co/programs.html
Looks like the wildlife side can use it for multiple things including staff. Why don't they have to work till 67 like the rest of us? Why do they get such a golden retirement? Your into the unfunded government liabilities part of the problem now and it's in the 100's of trillions. Our government has been makein promises and writein checks their ars can't cash and that's gonna come crashing down on us as well. TX and I are both small business owners, just out of curiosity elks, what do you do for a livin?
 
Raising the NR price is putting more of them out every year.
They are pricing alot of them out of the market.
One more small piece of the puzzle gone the Peta people are happy now.
.
"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-15 AT 08:27PM (MST)[p]>Raising the NR price is putting
>more of them out every
>year.
>They are pricing alot of them
>out of the market.
>One more small piece of the
>puzzle gone the Peta people
>are happy now.
>.
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".
>>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>>the MM green signature club.[font/]
So do you really want me to school you in how grants work? I can do that if you would like! The only part of that which can even be considered for personnel is management. having worked on multiple GOCO grants the only management they can pay for is the management in developing a specific project! So for GOCO the CPW gets 2 million to build shooting ranges. Inorder to get that 2 million they must either match it at a 25% rate or a 50% rate. That can usually be either in kind or straight cash match. Either way it is still a match from the CPW!

So continuing on with the shooting range. The grant will pay for management of the project and when you look into the specific laws, it will usually only cover management of the project until the project has been completed. So in the case of the gun range, a lead project person and a possibly one other person would be contracted under the grant to work for the CPW to ensure that the project is completed in a legal, and timely manner. The manager would also be responsible for submitting all reports and data to the state on the project. Once the project is completed that job and funding for that job are lost! The other issue with using GOCO is once the project is completed all upkeep, is now the responsibility of the organization who received the grant! So even though we used the grant to create a cool new shooting range, we now have an outdoor recreation facility that will need monitored, and will require up keep. While it may not be huge, the point is this... The grants are for very specific projects, once the project is completed it becomes the responsibility of the CPW to maintain and up keep the project. Also note that the projects are not for habitat, not for creating buildings, etc. It is simply either the attainment of land for outdoor recreation or the development of land to increase recreational use....

Again I have worked as a manger on 2 GOCO grants already, I have also been on a couple teams where we have applied for the grant! Which brings up another point! Inorder to get the grant, you must pay for someone, usually several people to develop the grant, in that process you will usually need data from an out side source, and then if your lucky you end up with a project that gets funded! In general only about 20% of all project ever get funded. In the GOCO grant the percentage are higher, but you also have to realize that they like to spread out the grant money in several parts of the state! For example if Craig Parks and Rec. Submits a qualifying grant and there is no other projects proposed for the NW section of the state they are almost guaranteed funding. However let's say that the parks and rec. applied, the CPW applied for a picnic areas at elk head, Hayden schools applied and Steamboat Youth Soccer all applied... Only 1 maybe 2 of those projects may get the award! Those projects not awarded still cost money to develop.

Most years the Wildlife side gets around 11 million. Not bad but again as the projects are completed it will add cost to the budget.


I do love how people always whine that the license cost puts them out. Yet they show up in $50,000 truck a $30,000 campers, and have 20,000 in atvs. Yet the breaking point is the $600 tag! Not to mention again, the NR tags can only increase now at the rate of inflation! So In theory there is no net gain from a NR price increase as it should be offset by the increased cost of inflation! Regardless, no where here have I really suggested raising NR tags. I have stated that it is time to review the resident tag cost.

I have also asked to any thoughts or ways to raise revenue... So far not one good idea has came from anyone! Just a bunch of whining and complaining!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-15 AT 09:11PM (MST)[p]The goco money still leaves the rest of dow's revenue untouched. It's enhanced the overall bottom # and allowed tag revenue to b used for all the other things the dow needs thus ultimately increasing overall revenue. Your description of the process only confirms we need less government and the red tape they bring with it to b able to accomplish more, more than we need more revenue. Anything suggested will be mute cause as you've said "it'll never be enough". Until that line of thinking can b changed we'll just be spinning our wheels.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-15
>AT 09:11?PM (MST)
>
>The goco money still leaves the
>rest of dow's revenue untouched.
>It's enhanced the overall bottom
># and allowed tag revenue
>to b used for all
>the other things the dow
>needs thus ultimately increasing overall
>revenue. Your description of the
>process only confirms we need
>less government and the red
>tape they bring with it
>to b able to accomplish
>more, more than we need
>more revenue. Anything suggested will
>be mute cause as you've
>said "it'll never be enough".
>Until that line of thinking
>can b changed we'll just
>be spinning our wheels.

The process I described is virtually true for any grant. Private grants, public grants etc. Grants are never free money given for places to with as they please. I currently am the grant manager for a college where we got over 1.7 million dollars! Inorder to get the grant we had to apply. I was not part of the application process, but was hired as the grant manager. The federal grants are way worse than others. The grantor wants to give money for very specific reasons and projects. Once the grantee receives the money they then have to use the money exactly as they described. Failure to do so can result in loss of funding and even worse a grantee being required to pay back the grant.

For me I would love to see unlimited funding to wildlife. I would love to see the state being able to supply enough fish so that everyone can catch 10 or 20 fish etc. While I know that will never happen I do hope that we can increase revenue and as a result increase quality of services to public.

So let's talk about options!

One I thought would be kind of cool is offering a random a person the ability to pay extra at time application for a chance to have their tag valid for all open seasons in the unit! So for a deer hunter in a unit, for an extra $30 you can apply for the special tag. Once all the application are in for a unit they pick only a couple tag holders from the draw and those tag holders can hunt any open season in that unit. So a guy might be able to hunt archery for a couple weekends, the 2nd season, third, season etc.

I also wonder what it might do for raffle sales on governors tags if I could buy them as I submitted my application online.

I would also argue that game da,age needs to be paid by the General fund and not by hunters. As all Coloradoens benefit from wildlife.
 
" So instead the price increase is really to back fill the cost lost by the reduction in total tags available! "

You certainly look at budgets/revenue differently than I do. When they lower the number of tags, they lose revenue, so they raised prices to INCREASE revenue back to ground zero. So even if they are lucky enough to remain flat as far as total revenue, they raised the price to increase revenue per tag.

I wish I could decide I want less clients, so I cut back my appts and raise prices and make the same money. Chances are I would lose more than I would gain there.

However, it will probably backfire on them again, because I know of several hunters who have said when they raised it this last time that they were dropping out. So you may see a more than anticipated drop in NR cow tag applicants

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
The logic is always different depending on whether your feeding at the trough or fillin it!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-15 AT 12:24PM (MST)[p]



Yep

Also, would you please tell me how many less cow tags they are selling statewide? The two units I hunt (one in the southwest and 1 in the central mountains) has not seen a drop in cow tags in the last 3 years. In fact, in one of them, they now have either sex tags for muzzy and 1st rifle season in addition to cow tags.

That said, they have dropped from a harvest of around 19,000 cows 4 years ago to around 17,000 this past fall, so that would probably indicate they have dropped tags somewhat (or just a bad year on the harvest side). But it hasn't been that many years ago they were killing in the range of 23,000 so that probably means they have lowered cow tags statewide. Would be curious to know the exact numbers because the harvest could just reflect bad winters and less cows out there to shoot.

For instance, last fall for all the rifle seasons, they averaged 22% success on cow. Compare that to 2008 where they killed 4000 more cows, but the success rate was 27%. When you lower tags, success rate generally climbs, all things being equal. Of course hunting never has all things being equal!

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
as far as total tag reductions, I am not sure... I do know that some places have stayed the same, but others they have cut. Unit 3 for example now takes 3 points to draw a late season cow. In 2002 I got that tag as a left over. Unit 11 late season cow now takes 1 preference point to draw 5 years ago there were typically 300 left overs. Unit 22 late cow was also left over for late season then about 5 years ago it was 100% on first choice and now takes 1 point resident to draw. Realize the best and most effective cow hunts are always the late season tags first. So they are the first to be added when numbers are high but also the first to be cut.

Ultimately no matter what the system is based on supply and demand. In the cow tag issue, the state really wanted to kill lots of cows as most elk Keres were over goals. So they had a surplus of elk. when there is a surplu of supply with a corresponding demand surplus the price of any product must be reduced in order to sale the product or in this case enough of the product. Now the herds are smaller, there is less product to sale so then you have to redefine the price point. Price it too high and you do not sale enough, price it too low and you are loosing potential revenue. I can sell 500 widgets at a 1 profit or I could sell 1 widget at a 500 profit.

Regardless the pricing should be set as a result of maximizing profit for any product sold. Will a higher price mean some guys drop out, maybe... Will it mean some may decide to just buy a bull tag instead, maybe, it might also mean that guys who pay out the price will se less hunting pressure and as a result have a better hunt worthy of the increased cost! I know I. Unit 22 this last year the late season cow hunt was a lot of fun for my dad. We hunted 6 days with out seeing another hunter on weekends. The elk eventually cooperated, but the quality of time spent on that hunt was far better than the exact same hunt the last couple of years.

Harvest states for last year.... I a, sure that state wide kill and success rates were lower than average. Last fall was not very hunter friendly. During 2nd season we were hunting at 10,000 feet we typically only needed a ligt jacket in morning and evening and by 9 I was in short sleeves. I saw very few animals in town and when I talked to the packer in Meeker who also guides he was down in business. Last year the weather was not our friends at all.
 
"Regardless the pricing should be set as a result of maximizing profit for any product sold."

Do you really believe that in regards to big game licenses?
 
Yep, if you join that thought with there is never enough money, then resident prices should at least triple.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>"Regardless the pricing should be set
>as a result of maximizing
>profit for any product sold."
>
>
>Do you really believe that in
>regards to big game licenses?
>

Yes, but maximizing profit is not just a goal for one point and one time! So in this case the price point when set should ensure that the product is sold in such a manner that it makes the profit it can now, but also includes the ability to keep and or grow your target market. So maximizing profit in the case of the CPW is a balance between several factors. Those factors have to include longevity and the ability to either maintain or grow market demand by recruiting customers. Raise the price to high and you may have good profit but in a few years you have eliminated demand as people give up. If the price is too low the customer maybe happy but the lost revenue will hurt the businesses ability to function, expand, improve product etc. Again this is all based on business models the other problem is all these factors are constantly changing as well! So the CPW is constantly trying to figure out that price point for customers.

I still stand by the idea that as a business owner you always should shoot for a price point that maximizes profit, while ensure sustainability of demand and provides you the ability to grow your market as a reasonable rate.
 
>Yep, if you join that thought
>with there is never enough
>money, then resident prices should
>at least triple.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

Oh yes, but we all know that if NR prices tripled then the actual profit could very well decrease. It is easy for a person to pick out one thing and fixate only on that one aspect! In this case I argued that there is never enough money! Back to that country song.... To much money, too much fun, a car too fast, a girl too pretty...

Ask anyone of the conservation organizations if there is ever enough money to cover all the projects they would like? is there every enough money to buy and conserve resources? The answer is no.

I never did say that all the money has to be gouged from your pocket or my pockets, but am more concerned about where do we get that money from!
 
And I'd like an example of a product or service that has increased its price 400% over the last 15 yrs that isn't goverment related.
 
Swimmin in cash!
8774ht_wine_tub_2_jef_120416_wblog.jpg
 
If CPW were to maximize their profit, they would be auctioning licenses instead of selling them at a fixed price point. Just something to think about.
 
My first Colo outa state hunt was in 1977. We could just about hunt wherever we wanted in those days.

My last trip was in 1992. Hunted up around Silverton, had a blast, saw a lot of game, but they were to raise the tags and when they did that, this ol boy said enough.

Had some awesome hunts and a lot of great times in Co. Sadly, they don't miss me. :)

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
"Ask anyone of the conservation organizations if there is ever enough money to cover all the projects they would like? is there every enough money to buy and conserve resources? The answer is no. "

No big surprise there. If you ask any person (not a govt employee) if there is ever enough money to cover all the projects they would like, guess what the answer would be? But they can't just pass another tax.

Ok, so they only double resident fees? Still a bargain right? After all, it is "still a bargain" at $615 for an elk for us? Shouldn't lose any/many hunters that way. Just trying to get back to what you want to talk about: finding you some more money. Doubling yours would probably raise another $6-8 million

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>Yep, if you join that thought
>with there is never enough
>money, then resident prices should
>at least triple.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)


I think it would be a politically hard sell to triple resident fees. As a resident, I support raising resident fees for this reason: CPW has to be fiscally responsible, so $ speaks loudly to their management and their bosses, the state legislature. That is just reality, whether right or wrong. Higher resident fees would give residents more "skin in the game," meaning resident opinions would be more valued, compared to nonresident opinions RE mangement. Because the resident opinions would equal more $/influence than they do in the current system. IMO, higher resident fees are a realistic way to reduce the influence of outfitters, landowners and Wildlife Commission Chair Bray (the sound a donkey makes).
 
>And I'd like an example of
>a product or service that
>has increased its price 400%
>over the last 15 yrs
>that isn't goverment related.

Here we go in damn circles again! Obviously the demand is higher than the the supply, as a result they are able to imcrease the price point! Examples of things that have seen major price increases in the last 15 years... Coffee is a great example! $7.00 at Starbucks! Big Mac in 1999 was a dollars now the sand which is around 350. That's 350 %. Tires for light duty truck in late 90s could be had for around 40 to 60 a tire. A BFG all terrain looking at a price point of aroun 180 per tire. That's 300%.

Pricing is determined where supply and demand meet! Your all bitching about it but there are still plenty of no residents applying, and hunting! Would a price decrease increase NR number, yes but at the the same time selling too many tags will decrease the quality and at some point too many cheap licenses manages to have a negative effect as well!

If all you have if a ##### about about how your too broke to hunt then shut up and do not hunt!

Maybe sun bathing is so wing you can afford!
 
>And I'd like an example of
>a product or service that
>has increased its price 400%
>over the last 15 yrs
>that isn't goverment related.


Ok let's play that game! Big Mac in 90s was on the dollar menu. Now the sandwich locally that is 350% increase. Desire in 1997 $1.25 per gallon went over 4.00 a gallon. Right now it is down only due to a supply battle between the U.S. and the Middle East. It will soon jump back up.

What about tires? Big all terrains in late 90s were running around 60 a tire. Now 202 a tire on a f150.

Regardless price is determined by supply vs demand. But again if hunting is too expensive then maybe you could take up golf instead? It is your choice as a NR to hunt or not hunt here... If the rice gets too high then we loose numbers if the price is too low we loose numbers due to crowding etc.

Once again you are all bitching about NR tag prices but never once did I say we needed to increase lic. Cost! Other weird numbers. Since February 14th real estate prices are up over 15%. Right now demand for housing in Demver is really high and supply is really low, as a result the market is going crazy!
 
>If CPW were to maximize their
>profit, they would be auctioning
>licenses instead of selling them
>at a fixed price point.
> Just something to think
>about.

No if you look at what I stated, maximizing profit also considers future customers. While auctioning certain tags would work, it is also counter productive to growing a customer base! So no selling to the highest bidder does not ensure the greatest profit potential! It only get max dollar amount for that item at the time!

Supply and demand drive the market, no business is ever perfect! Some people want dirt cheap prices, other want more quality and are willing to pay more!

Maximizing profit is more than just raising prices!
 
>My first Colo outa state hunt
>was in 1977. We could
>just about hunt wherever we
>wanted in those days.
>
>My last trip was in 1992.
>Hunted up around Silverton, had
>a blast, saw a lot
>of game, but they were
>to raise the tags and
>when they did that, this
>ol boy said enough.
>
>Had some awesome hunts and a
>lot of great times in
>Co. Sadly, they don't miss
>me. :)
>
>Joey
>
>
>"It's all about knowing what your
>firearms practical limitations are and
>combining that with your own
>personal limitations!"

It is too bad you were priced out but economics is all about making decisions! You decide what to do with your money and every decision has a cost and bennefit.

Does Colorado miss you? To a certain extent yes. But at the same time if they are selling all of their tags or close to it means they are still competitive! At some point they can go to far, and it will hurt badly! Hopefully they avoid that issue! On another point if they just let you old timers the sa,e cheap tags and freedom you once had there would be no game left!
 
>
>
>Maximizing profit is more than just
>raising prices!


Standing from a position of a +400% increase over the past 15yrs that statement looks a might hollow.
 
>>And I'd like an example of
>>a product or service that
>>has increased its price 400%
>>over the last 15 yrs
>>that isn't goverment related.
>
>
>Ok let's play that game! Big
>Mac in 90s was on
>the dollar menu. Now the
>sandwich locally that is 350%
>increase. Desire in 1997 $1.25
>per gallon went over 4.00
>a gallon. Right now it
>is down only due to
>a supply battle between the
>U.S. and the Middle East.
>It will soon jump back
>up.
>
>What about tires? Big all terrains
>in late 90s were running
>around 60 a tire. Now
>202 a tire on a
>f150.
>
>Regardless price is determined by supply
>vs demand. But again if
>hunting is too expensive then
>maybe you could take up
>golf instead? It is your
>choice as a NR to
>hunt or not hunt here...
>If the rice gets too
>high then we loose numbers
>if the price is too
>low we loose numbers due
>to crowding etc.
>
>Once again you are all bitching
>about NR tag prices but
>never once did I say
>we needed to increase lic.
>Cost! Other weird numbers. Since
>February 14th real estate prices
>are up over 15%. Right
>now demand for housing in
>Demver is really high and
>supply is really low, as
>a result the market is
>going crazy!

In 2000 gas averaged $1.50, I payed $2.11 last night. A big Mac was $2.51 in 2000, today it's $4.79. Tires have probably roughly doubled in 15 yrs. The only thing that isn't government that I could find with the type of increase non res colorado elk tags have had ($150 in 2000, $616 in 2015) is gold $272/ounce in 2000, $1,185/ounce yesterday. These things are easily looked up. Facts are facts, your not entitled to your own. Nothing realistically compares to what the tags have done and that is a simple fact. How can they b short of money with that type of increase + the goco money in that short of time frame? It's either mismanagement, or somebody's movein money around that shouldn't be moved.
 
>>And I'd like an example of
>>a product or service that
>>has increased its price 400%
>>over the last 15 yrs
>>that isn't goverment related.
>
>
>Ok let's play that game! Big
>Mac in 90s was on
>the dollar menu. Now the
>sandwich locally that is 350%
>increase. Desire in 1997 $1.25
>per gallon went over 4.00
>a gallon. Right now it
>is down only due to
>a supply battle between the
>U.S. and the Middle East.
>It will soon jump back
>up.
>
>What about tires? Big all terrains
>in late 90s were running
>around 60 a tire. Now
>202 a tire on a
>f150.
>
>Regardless price is determined by supply
>vs demand. But again if
>hunting is too expensive then
>maybe you could take up
>golf instead? It is your
>choice as a NR to
>hunt or not hunt here...
>If the rice gets too
>high then we loose numbers
>if the price is too
>low we loose numbers due
>to crowding etc.
>
>Once again you are all bitching
>about NR tag prices but
>never once did I say
>we needed to increase lic.
>Cost! Other weird numbers. Since
>February 14th real estate prices
>are up over 15%. Right
>now demand for housing in
>Demver is really high and
>supply is really low, as
>a result the market is
>going crazy!

A big Mac hasn't been on the dollar menu since the 70's. I'm guessin b4 u were old enough to eat 1!
 
This thread makes it seem as the only funding mechanism the CPW has is through tag sales. Before the merger I could understand but not today.

"courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I would like to see, mountain bikers, rock climbers, hikers, kayakers, bird watchers, shed hunters, anyone that stomps around in the national forest should have to purchase a habitat stamp.
that would be a simple fix.
 
>This thread makes it seem as
>the only funding mechanism the
>CPW has is through tag
>sales. Before the merger I
>could understand but not today.
>
>
>"courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."

Again, despite the merger, the 2 budgets are remain separate from one another! There is a parks side and a wildlife side. There are areas where the two blur over, for example the DNR officers can be contracted as park rangers as well. But in that case it is determined what percent of that employees time will be as a wildlife officer and the percent spent as a park ranger. The parks side has camping fees, day use fees etc. Which are used as the primary funding source for parks related cost. The Wildlife side is currently stuck with tag sales as their primary source.

Will there be a time I which the budget merge? Possible, but in that case any money pulled from one to give to the other will have an effect.
 
Now is there chance that we could have a wildlife surcharge added to fees on the parks side specifically meant to supplement the wildlife budget. I am not sure if that is something the commission would be allowed to do of if that is controlled by statue. If controlled by commission it could be an easy sale. If controlled by legislation it could be a big old mess.
 
>I would like to see, mountain
>bikers, rock climbers, hikers, kayakers,
>bird watchers, shed hunters, anyone
>that stomps around in the
>national forest should have to
>purchase a habitat stamp.
>that would be a simple fix.
>

This has came up several times. I believe that this is a path that will be explored and pushed soon. Unfortunately this would have to be a legislative rule as it is beyond the scope of the commission. Except for shed hunters. There is a chance that we could require a shed hunters license to remove sheds. It is after all a consumptive use of wildlife.

How that would look? Not sure but a small fee could used...

I fully agree that others who impact wildlife need to pay up as well! Just not sure how that moves forward! I heard that last year we got screwed by the legislatures on the habitat stamp issue. I will look that up and see what occurred, etc. I believe that the CPW was trying require habitat stamps for users in and around the Denver area for certain high use properties, but the people got rallied up and used the legislatures to block the requirement!

I would not mind seeing atv registration increased and the requirement of ATVs to have an identifiable plate instead of a sticker. I am sur ethe at. User would be upset at that idea!
 
well they got $3000 from me today... and I hope I don't get it back, but I don't have to points to get drawn for anything yet.
-JR
 
I like how you guys in Colorado handle the Pig. Don't response to that dip$h!ts moronic comments and he just slithers away. The guys in utah should take note.
 
Increase resident fees, go to a bonus point draw like Nevada. Revenue would climb, problem solved.
 
THE REPORT SAID, ITS A 13 -1 RATIO DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WHEN RESIDENTS BUY TAGS VS. NON RESIDENTS.

RAISE ALL RESIDENTS LIC.,TAGS.....SAY 30-40 %.....THEN DOW MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE !!!!

SOUNDS LIKE COLORADO DOW MIGHT GO THE SAME WAY AS IDAHO & NEW MEXICO........TO THE POOR FARM,,,,,,................YD.
 
>
> THE REPORT SAID,
>ITS A 13 -1 RATIO
>DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WHEN RESIDENTS
>BUY TAGS VS. NON RESIDENTS.
>
>
> RAISE ALL RESIDENTS
>LIC.,TAGS.....SAY 30-40 %.....THEN DOW MIGHT
>HAVE A CHANCE !!!!
>
> SOUNDS LIKE
>COLORADO DOW MIGHT GO THE
>SAME WAY AS IDAHO &
>NEW MEXICO........TO THE POOR FARM,,,,,,................YD.
>

There is talk about a resident increase! Unfortunately I believe this requires a legislative action! The DOW does not have the ability to randomly increase tag fees! If this does go forward it will be up to residents to get on board! I feel it is time for an increase, but not sure how much! Elk tags at $60 is not too bad. Deer in the upper $40s, small game and fish for $50. Just depends on how others feel!
 
Agreed. High time for a resident tag price increase sufficient to leverage Wildlife decisions more in favor of resident hunters; instead of favoring outfitters, landowners, nonresidents. $$ talks, CPW can't afford to care about your "native" bumpersticker.
 
>There is no problem besides a
>spending problem.

I've seen their budget and it is a spending problem. Common issue throughout the state.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
>>There is no problem besides a
>>spending problem.
>
>I've seen their budget and it
>is a spending problem. Common
>issue throughout the state.
>
>"Courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."


Anyone can see the budget and make assumptions all the time! But do tell what programs do they need to cut further? Are you willing to give up certain services for those cuts? Maybe they should be selling off land and closing hunting areas that require money? Maybe stop sticking fish? Maybe cut back in personnel? There are certain things they can trim, but they have already trimmed back a bunch.

So do tell where and what should be cut. I would like to know as you may have something that has not been discussed already!
 
>Agreed. High time for a resident
>tag price increase sufficient to
>leverage Wildlife decisions more in
>favor of resident hunters; instead
>of favoring outfitters, landowners, nonresidents.
>$$ talks, CPW can't afford
>to care about your "native"
>bumpersticker.
This is very true. Want to know why we are always fighting to keep resident quotas and tags... Why we have not seen new units go the 80 20 split. Because we do not pony up the way we need to get things done. Not just tag fees, but as a general group the vast majority is not involved, be it money, time, education, etc.
 

Similar threads

J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
luckyluciano2
Have you heard of Howl For Wildlife
Replies
2
Views
340
bullskin
bullskin
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
16
Views
1k
Bluehair
Bluehair

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_6652.jpeg
84581.jpeg
2A26C9E4-F8EB-4161-8795-863D7F2A5AF5.jpeg
New Mexico Muzzleloader Bull for Osprey
20230726_075255.jpg
20230726_075053.jpg
20230726_075046.jpg
20210402_130617.jpg
IMG_5100 copy.jpg
C7C71C2C-31BC-4CE1-AFAE-551D9AB85215.jpeg
20220415_174102.jpg
IMG_8099.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom