Proposed Colorado Resident Fee Increases

[_droptine_]

Check out this thread on Bowsite
http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=85031&MESSAGES=26&state=CO

 

[Bobbby]

I hope those new fees don't go through. I've heard that the majority decision will be left to the public, so lets let them know.

 

[Boman]

It doesn't look like this will go through.. This is from Ed Dentry with the Rocky Mountain News..

Dentry: Unpopular deal reduces chances for fee hikes
November 19, 2003

Prediction: As much as the Division of Wildlife needs the money, watch the drive for higher resident hunting and fishing fees shrivel up and go away until the smoke and mirrors clear.

A majority of Colorado hunters and anglers have supported the idea of paying higher fees since the idea surfaced in the late 1990s. Resident fees haven't been raised since 1990. The Division of Wildlife could use the additional revenue for its wildlife programs, and stakeholders groups have supported higher license fees.


Advertisement



Unfortunately, a controversial business deal between Greg Walcher, director of the Department of Natural Resources, and a Utah consulting firm is likely to scratch public support for the license hikes because it threatens to divert wildlife money to a decidedly non-wildlife use.

Walcher hired Utah-based Alta Ventures to find ways of saving money for agencies that operate under the DNR. Alta Ventures could get as much as 4 percent of the first year's savings and revenues, including a chunk from any higher license fees.

The deal will backfire. Any deal-making with wildlife cash will backfire as long as the one-man band keeps playing at the DNR.

Sportsmen are famously protective of their payments to the cash-funded wildlife division. They are not likely to go along with any diversion of money, especially to line the pockets of a Utah firm that didn't come up with the idea of higher fees in the first place.

If hunters and anglers don't support the fee hikes, it's doubtful the legislature, which must approve them, will support the idea, either. Higher fees for hunting and fishing will have to wait.

NONRESIDENT HIKES: Slight fee increases will go into effect for most nonresident big-game hunters in 2004. The Wildlife Commission gave formal approval Thursday to cost-of-living adjustments previously built into nonresident fee structures.

Out-of-staters will pay $295 for deer and pronghorn licenses (up from $290) and $490 for bull elk licenses ($480). Nonresident moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat licenses will go up to $1,640, from $1,618.

Nonresident hunting fees will stay at $250 for cow elk, black bear and mountain lion, however.

 

[txhunter58]

On the other hand, nonresidents already pay about 70% of the license revenue and their fees will be going up again next near for sure. I would contend that an increase in resident fees after no increase for 10-15? years would be only fair.

 

[COHunter]

I would agree to a fee increase if they made the hunting a little better in trade. Like a longer season (3 weeks), limit the amount of Non-residents, open up private lands like Montana's Block Management program.
Other States get by with less, so where is all of Colorado's money going ?

 

[cowboye]

looks as if it is time to move back to CO.......HUGE difference in $30 vs $295....I can remember when it used to be $120 and even further back lower......come on... $10 for 10-13 years.....what was that about cost-of-living?? wonder what the state agencies would do if they had to rely on just the local revenue? Seems as if all the states are on a FEE hike lately.....no wonder the hunter population/numbers are going down hill....wont be long till it is a pay-it-to-play heritage!...I really feal bad for those that used to look forward to going on a hunting trip out of state evey year, who in the last few years & now can not afford to go......just my thoughts, maybe I dont know the whole story.....Dwayne

 

[ELKMASTER101]

480 + bucks and 300 bucks gas.
for me to hunt elk, its about time the residence group picks up some of the tab.
its yur falt its going up anyway,
you raises the out of state lic. to the point that there isn't enough funds to go around.
if you were to lower your nonresident, you would double your funds,
its a no brainer.
at least for us nonresidencer it comes easy to see.
use your fingers and toes, and count your nose.
and you will see, that we pay 20 to one on the average.
and with a reduction in the fee for elk by 100 bucks for bulls would increase the number of tags sold by twice the previous year,
and over run your cash short fall by 3.2 million bucks.
its not brain space science. or a bookeeping wiszordrie,
Just supply and demand.
here in iowa we are overwellemed with the fact that our deer heard has hit a estamated high of 200,000 +
we are evendated with deer.
and there you sit on an elk heard of nearly 300,500 this year,
with cronnic wasting desease running ramped,
your heard is heading for desaster,
along with all your split hoved creatures.
lower your liscenes, and let us out of staters help curb this problem.
we want to help.
its our future to.
raise your fees and lower non-residence, we can unite as one to control this deasaster.

 

[txhunter58]

Yes, but Colorado residents want LESS nonresidents. So far they have had their cake and eat it too (less nonresidents and no increase in their fees). However, they are now looking at ways to decrease our numbers even more, at least in so called "trophy" units. If they really want this, which I can't begrudge them because I might if I lived there, then I think they are going to have to pick up more of the tab themselves. Or do they really think nonresidents should be paying more than 70% of license revenue?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Bobbby]

Well as a Colorado resident I'm not concerned with the actual fee hike but rather where the money is probably going to go. Most likely the money will be deverted to a non wildlife use, that is why I would like to shut the door on the hole deal. But as far as the resident non resident dispute, the two sides are always going to have opposite bias opinions on this subjest, its only natural. Bottom line is that although we residents may or may not see a slight increase in licence fee's out of state folks will always get the raw end of this deal and that is why you just can't win...

 

[COHunter]

One thing you Nonresidents ought to think about, is look at the hunting we Residents get in Colorado.

"One week" !!! If we get lucky and draw Elk and Antelope tags we can get up to three weeks.

When I was in the Army stationed at Fort Hood,Texas I got an almost two month long season with a 5 Deer limit and 3 could be Bucks. Because I was in the military I paid the Resident rate which was dirt cheap. I got a combo fishing/hunting lisence that came with all my tags for deer & turkey for under $30 and I bet its still cheap.

Iowa its what $26 for a "do everything" lisence as well ???


Here in Colorado I have to pay $30 for a small game/fishing lisence, $20 for "1" Deer, $30 for Elk, $20 for an antelope, it starts to add up. I'm not saying its right that you guys get hosed with fee's, but isn't every State dirt cheap for its Residents ???

I just want what folks in most of the other States have, a longer season, and a higher bag limit. If they were to limit the amount of Nonresidents, maybe we could have that here too. And if you've done any amount of hunting in CO you have to admit that crowding is a big problem in a lot of area's.

 

[PleaseDear]

depends on what 'dirt cheap' is here in my state we pay $180 for a drew elk tag-bull and $60 for a OTC type elk tag. Sheep $503, Mnt Goat $403, Buf. $403 and Moose $303 Thats how we keep the 90/10%% split on tags, We pay to do it that way. Plus there has already been 7 bulls taken over 400 inches and an unreal amount over 390. so it isn't like we are paying for raghorn-6x's in 300 inches.

I think you guys should look at it purely from the financial angle, same as yur Wildlife dept. does.
For every non-res. that doesn't hunt elk you guys have to produce 16 NEW res. hunters to make up for the lost revenue from 1 lost non-res.

So if you double your res. fees, the split might be at 70/30% or if you came up with a structured higher fees for draw areas ect, like we do or like N. Mex. does, they have like 3 tiers of elk fees, you might triple res. fees and be able to get close to 80/20% split.

Get rid of the Pref. point codes and forget about the Credit Card appl. and your Pref. Points needed to draw would drop more than one would think.
All states are looking for ways to increase revenue and the more they raise and change everything the more they loss hunters. Montana is actually thinking about LOWERING NON-RES. FEES on certain bull/buck options.

Keep the faith you guys in Colo. it aint like house payment type fees!!

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-03 AT 06:24AM (MST)[p]Quote: "One thing you Nonresidents ought to think about, is look at the hunting we Residents get in Colorado.
"One week" !!! If we get lucky and draw Elk and Antelope tags we can get up to three weeks."

Yes, and it costs us a LOT of money to hunt "only" that same week. $60 seems awfully cheap to hunt an elk. I bet I would think that even if I were a Colorado resident.

All the polling data I heard of said that Colorado residents were willing to pay more for their licenses if there were less nonresidents. Well? Was that just a ploy?

That is, of course, assuming that you can clear up where the money goes.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[COHunter]

I never said it was "right" that you guys pay so much,I'm on your side with that, but when you compare CO Resident Deer tag fee's to all the other State's Resident Deer tag fee's, are we still so cheap?, or are we paying about the same if not a little bit more than other State's.

I dont mind paying more, if we get something out of it. WY and UT operate on $50 Million, MT on $60 Million and here is CO with close to $90 million (2001-02) and what do we get for it ??? Can we claim our hunting is better ?

If the DOW needs more money, which I think it doesn't, they should charge a $20 Trout stamp fee. Fisherman are the one's that have been getting over when it come's to paying IMO.

Or they can get rid of Greg Walcher and all the money woe's will just go away (but thats another subject)

 

[Paul_Crawford]

I've hunted CO yearly since 1978. I've watched the non-resident fees go up, up, and up. I still go because I like hunting there. I do think it's about time residents kicked in their fair share. No sense in you residents whining about it. You've had it made for years. Put your money in the "kitty" and shut-up!! You don't get something for nothing. PC

 

[BruinBreath]

Paul, your not welcome in Colorado anymore, haha.

 

[Paul_Crawford]

Come on Bruin, PLEASE!!! I just wanted to stew the pot. hehe I had a feeling you'd find this post. Say, you never told me how your deer hunt went. PC

 

[bigtines]

it costs $52 for a resident to hunt a deer in Iowa , another deer will cost you another $26 , if you want a turkey another $23. Some may think its a little steep but I put my faith in the DNR that the funds will be used wisely. If the price goes up I dig a little deeper and feel theres a good reason for the increase. I feel its a good donation. Now when I go to Colo and pay $500 for an elk tag and dont hardly see an elk , thats disappointing and makes a guy think twice if you want to spend that kind of money again. I would like to see Colo drop the nonresident fees like maybe $350 for a bull.

bt

 

[Bambistew]

"Now when I go to Colo and pay $500 for an elk tag and dont hardly see an elk , thats disappointing and makes a guy think twice if you want to spend that kind of money again"

Are we talking about the same Colorado?

OK one question, what the heck did the DNR do with all the money that they brought in after they raised the tag prices for the Nonresidents??? That should have almost DOUBLED thier budget for the year and each year their after... They managed to opperate before that... I just don't understand where all the money goes in CO? I think the residents all ready pay their fair share. Shoot you can hunt elk in MT for about $20 if you're a resident... Heck for $60 you can shoot two deer, an elk, and a bear or antelope... MT still manages to make it, and only with giving out about a fifth of the NR tags$$$...

I think that CO is giving nonresidents a pretty fair deal. Look at all the other elk tags for NR in other states. Sheesh, NV is more than twice as much... All most all the other states are more than CO and people still complain... I bet if they were $10 someone would still whine...

As long as we are whining, I think that $250 for a cow is a little high, especialy since they are so desperate to get rid of em...

When I lived in CO I ran into a guy that was counting elk for the DNR up around Meeker and Craig... This guy would park in our driveway and ride his ATV all day counting elk from dusk till dawn. He was easily putting in 15-16 hours per day (summer), he did this for two weeks straight... How much money do you suppose was wasted paying this guy to tell us what could have been found out in about two mornings and evenings worth of flying??? Do they need to monitor 60,000 elk for a week every four months to tell us that there are a lot of elk there? I would think that twice a year would be plenty... shoot other states seem to get by with once a year, But I dont' work for the DNR...

It sure seems like CO has been missmanaged for years. I can't beleive that they spend as much money as they do and have no more to show for it than any other state. Sure CO may have a few more hunters but I don't think that many more than other states...

I think they need to do something with the managment end, like chit can about half of them and start with some fresh ideas, obviously the ones they have arn't working...

What has CO done that the other Rocky Mountain states hasn't??? Let in basically unlimed NR and all thier money... And they are asking for more???

You CO guys need to ask one question...
WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING???

Ivan

 

[PleaseDear]

Bamb....according to the Colorado Outdoors mag., the first year of the non-res. fee increase, non-res. participation dropped 40%, last year it was another 10% less than in 2001. So they aren't seeing the kind of money they thought they would by the fee increase considering the quality of bulls vs. the cost. I think they felt with almost doubling the fees that they would still see an increase in revenue but they didn't. They lowered the cow fee but they don't realize that it cost a guy the same to travel ect. and to just be able to take a cow isn't really good marketing to bring back the non-res. $$$. it isn't just Colo., Idaho still doesn't sell out it's non-res. deer/elk tags by the opening of bow-elk/deer in late Aug. since they raised the non-res. fees like 4-5 years ago.

Once one, only one Rocky Mountain state lowers it's non-res. tags fees and finally sells out will other states follow suit. I mean ya can't keep driving non-res. away with higher fees and the res. will get to a position that hey if I'm paying that much in my home state to hunt, I'm just going to build points for the premium units and maybe take a cow tag but put my $$ out of state for a quality hunt. All of us are dealing with the same $$$ gig. Keep the faith.....

 

[Bambistew]

I wasn't a where that that the participation dropped that much... But with only half as many people putting in, and tags being twice as much I guess they are running the same budget basically... But how do they take in all most twice as much money as the other states around them and still have no money? I just don't understand where all their money goes...

 

[kilbuc]

Where does all the $$ go? Not sure how Colorado works but most Wildlife Agencies are special fund agencies, they get hunting and fishing license fees and these fees are earmarked for huning and fishing activities. But, state legislatures saddle the Wildlife Agencies additional responsibilities, such as Environmental review, Threatened and Endangered species (T&E Species) and nongame acitvities but don't provide additional funding or manpower. Thus your hunting and fishing $$ are being used to pay for these programs.

Good ?? to ask your Wildlife Agency. Do they get additional general fund $$ to pay for these nongame programs and if they do, do they fully fund these programs so no hunting and fishing license $ are used.

My position, for 25 years, has been if these nongame programs are important and benefit the general public then the general public should pay for them. Currently in most states the hunter and fisherman does thru hunting and fishing license fees.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"

 

[COHunter]

Dont have a clue to where all the money is going, but I know there is a certain man (no names) that goes by Greg Walcher that wants it.

 

[MichaelJ]

Maybe what they're trying to do is increase the fees so there is less hunters and the same amount of money spent. That way there would be less people in your hunting areas. I simply don't know. I've never hunted CO and don't plan to in the future, so this is from an outsiders point of view.

Michael~All Gods creatures welcome, right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.