>Hard to reply with all the
>BS and other misinformation happening!
>
>
>First of all NR tags are
>tied and have been tied
>to the CPI. as a
>result they have kept up.
>Resident tags however can only
>be adjusted through the legislature.
>
>
>The increase is needed... Like most
>people this thread proves that
>hunters, like most are hypocrites.
>In one breath we brag
>about how hunting protects animals
>and is good for wildlife
>management. We brag that hunters
>are the primary funding source
>conservation, etc. But whine how
>we have to pay to
>play.
>
>The resident tag cost have not
>increased for 10 years. It
>is time for our prices
>to increase. We need to
>step up and supply the
>funding needed.
>
>For those blaming the Parks! You
>are completely wrong. The wildlife
>money and budget are handled
>completely separate than wildlife. One
>agency 2 sides. So no
>it was not parks fault.
>
>
>People complain about the tag price
>but for real even at
>$80 it is barely more
>expensive than a tank of
>fuel. Sorry but the tag
>even for NOnresidents is still
>one of if not the
>cheapest item on the hunting
>list. Hell most people spend
>more money on gadgets every
>year.
>
>The real issue is that by
>design the wildlife side has
>only one real revenue source.
>That is the sell of
>licenses. As such the number
>of licenses they can sell
>is limited. Even with LTC
>bull tags there are still
>only X amount they can
>sell.
>
>So in the last 10 years
>most things have increased in
>cost. For the CPW some
>big hits were Ovama Care,
>ESA, Sage grouse fight, upper
>COLORADO river endangered fish projects,
>then stupid crap like dealing
>with bears all summer, CNG
>trucks forced by state mandate.
>The cost of an average
>truck has increased,etc. The list
>goes on and on.
>
>When the last tag price increase
>occurred it did the same
>thing as the last several.
>For a couple years the
>DOW operated in the black
>and saved up excess revenue
>in a fund balance, then
>as the cost of business
>increases the black slowly turns
>red. Each year eating away
>at the fund balance until
>the balance is gone. At
>that point they either have
>to cut cost by closing
>programs, or increase revenue.
>
>Do I like the idea of
>increased tags? No but I
>also do not like the
>idea that we are shutting
>down programs or eliminating officers
>in the field, or selling
>off a state land to
>balance out, etc.
>
>Ultimately it would be best if
>the tags adjusted with inflation/cost
>but the system is not
>that way so the cycle
>continues. Increase fees, have extra
>money, cost eventually increase, go
>red, then before drastic cuts,
>increase funds.
>
>It would be nice to find
>another revenue source. Sadly there
>is no simple solution! Even
>raising lis fees sucks.
Good points Elks96. One point I differ in is where the increase should come and where I never have heard CPW talk of increasing fees.
Fisheries is a huge portion of the budget, do you hear any talk of increasing license fees for that side? Nope.
The actual cost of Wildlife is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue taken in. In that cost a big chunk is damage to PLO's.
Some guys really need to look at the numbers before they make comments about how the dollars should be created or spent.