Fish Explorer Logo
Colorado
Colorado Fishing FishExplorer.com
Colorado Fishing
Login Usr:Psd:
Don't have an account? Register now...
 
 
spacer spacer
spacer
Go back to Main FxR Forum listings

CPW proposed fees

Post By: nparker      Posted: 4/20/2017 1:53:29 PM     Points: 328    
Here is a link to the current CPW bill 2017A 1321. Fishing fees are on page 9. Here are the proposed annual fishing license fees.


resident 37.50

nonresident 100.00

senior annual fishing Not available

[log in for link]
 Reply by: Pathway      Posted: Apr. 20, 3:35:58 PM     Points: 516    
Section 24
changes the penalty for a violation of statutes and rules
concerning parks and recreation for which a specific penalty is
not listed
from a class 2 petty offense to a misdemeanor and raises the fi
ne from
$50 to $100.
So if you break a park rule you will be charged with a misdemeanor. Make sure you don't speed through your favorite park.
 Reply by: skiman      Posted: Apr. 20, 7:00:51 PM     Points: 1194    
32 pages of legislation and what you're worried about is the change in section 24 increasing the penalties and fines for breaking a park rule?

(How about you just don't speed period!)
 Reply by: fish4fun      Posted: Apr. 21, 2:13:38 AM     Points: 470    
Since when has giving the government more money became the answer for everything. And when has that ever worked? Oh by the way we already pay close to that with habitat fee
 Reply by: Wmdunker      Posted: Apr. 21, 7:24:08 AM     Points: 358    
Feed the pig!
 Reply by: richw88      Posted: Apr. 21, 8:45:05 AM     Points: 3    
Regarding the Sr Fishing, if you scroll to the next page, I think it says the Sr Annual license would be $18.75, not Free anymore. Still a bargain, IMO. The NR Sr license is the one that's (still) not available.

Also, all these fees seem to be Maximums. CPW can implement at their discretion. From what I've read, the NR fees, especially Hunting, they feel are high enough already, since they're tied to the CPI so the increases would mostly be on Residents. Most of the NR Big Game fees remain unchanged.

The new ANS fees should make the bank and wade anglers happy too. Puts the responsibility for inspection costs on boat owners, not all visitors.

Regardless, I know the Division has been surviving on smaller and smaller budgets every year .As a manager of people and tasks, I know how hard that is to do. So I'm all for paying our own way. A 365-day Fishing license is still a lot less than a carton of cigarettes or a bottle of good hooch.
 Reply by: Pathway      Posted: Apr. 21, 8:54:23 AM     Points: 516    
Misdemeanors usually do not result in the loss of civil rights, but may result in loss of privileges, such as professional licenses, public offices, or public employment.
 Reply by: culinarypunk      Posted: Apr. 21, 8:56:08 AM     Points: 66644    
fish4fun, charging more and still "not making enough" to cover cost is the new norm... sad

I like the idea of raising the fines and the prices for the res and non res sound good
 Reply by: esoxrocks      Posted: Apr. 21, 9:16:07 AM     Points: 2371    
So, if I read this correctly, I will pay $12.50 more for my fishing license, $25 more for my powerboat, and $30 more for our (2) kayaks. This is on top of the fees we already pay...and doesn't consider any increases in parks passes or registration fees.

Even so, I wouldn't complain (as I understand the funding issues) if I felt that the CPW was honestly trying to source additional funding from other outdoor enthusiasts... instead of taking the easy path of automatically collecting more from hunters and fisherman.

BTW, does this mean they will be inspecting hand launched 10'+ vessels going forward? If not, why would they assess a fee on 10'+ boats for nothing? Also,while we are at it... what is so magical about 10'? Either charge all hand launched vessels a fee, or don't charge any of them a fee. Dumb provision...as if an 8' boat couldn't harbor a piece of milfoil or mud snail...only a 10'+ vessel?

I am betting the 10' limit is so white-water kayaks aren't charged. That said, even though their potential for transporting ANS is low...these are the exact types of users that need to "pitch in" to the system. For example, how about a "sticker" for the privilege of running rivers in the Arkansas Headwaters area? There are tons of improvements and facilities along that stretch of river that need to be supported...same with the Royal Gorge, the Shoshone Section of the Colorado, the Poudre...etc,etc...
 Reply by: skiman      Posted: Apr. 21, 10:31:18 AM     Points: 1194    
The river-runners are just some of folks that need to pay their fair share. Add to that the bicyclists, mountain bikers and hikers, etc., and there are several
other people who use the resources and don't pay a dime. I propose a User Fee for that would be used for Search and Rescue and maintenance of state parks and land. Personally, it rubs me wrong when our tax dollars are being used to create amenities for minority users. MYO

P.S. Pathway...if you're concerned about being denied a license or employment for a misdemeanor, I reiterate, don't break the rules.
 Reply by: Ajax5240      Posted: Apr. 21, 10:32:22 AM     Points: 19547    
I'd guess someone better make a 9'11" long paddle board!

Sure would hate to see less of them on the lake.... wait....
 Reply by: bigbear57      Posted: Apr. 21, 11:30:28 AM     Points: 3    
Everybody really needs to read this. I think that basically a 50% increase in all licenses (including Hunting) and fees is a bit much. And to take away the free fishing license for seniors is B.S.. I'm not a senior but that was one of the best programs we had to show some respect to our elders.
 Reply by: 007      Posted: Apr. 21, 11:38:58 AM     Points: 10    
We need to pay more, for sure, costs have gone up and that is understandable. But this bill doesn't address the fundamental problems facing CPW. Raising license fees is reasonable, but raising fines and registration costs as a revenue source is not. As others here have mentioned, other users are still getting access to the benefits from wildlife and their habitats scott free. CPW also ironically said they need to raise these fees and costs to "increase hunter and angler recruitment programs" when the cost (gear, gas, licenses etc) to get involved is already a significant barrier for many of the youth today. I called my Rep and let me him know this bill wasn't the answer, you all should too.
 Reply by: A10FLYR      Posted: Apr. 21, 12:03:05 PM     Points: 26    
BigBear,

I'm a senior citizen and thanks for the respect part, but I think it is only fair that we pay more than we do. We may be old but we still use the resources that someone has to pay for the upkeep. My boater friends feel the same way regarding ANS inspection. I guess we call it being responsible. If one uses the facility....one should pay. Even if it is just riding your bike in a state park!

It seems that all the money we were told would go to parks and recreation went to politicians favorite "other funds". :)
 Reply by: skiman      Posted: Apr. 21, 12:13:49 PM     Points: 1194    
A10,
I agree 100%. Being a retired senior , I have no problem with a fee for my fishing license. I just want to be sure the $$ goes for the right programs.
Ski
 Reply by: DLH      Posted: Apr. 22, 8:55:29 AM     Points: 150    
I wonder how much it cost to film and air the new hug a hunter commercial that is being aired? I have watched it several times and it seems as if it is telling the not paying users to thank the hunters for a free ride. Seems to me the bikers, hikers, etc are using the entitlement card. If everyone paid their fair share maybe CPW wouldn't be in the mess they are in.

 Reply by: Green Head      Posted: Apr. 22, 10:04:32 AM     Points: 0    
I realize that some seniors will have no problem paying more but let's not forget the others that will. If I understand the proposal correctly their will be built in increases based on the cost of living. I don't know anyone on SS that's getting an increase that even comes close to the cost of living. I would suggest leaving the present senior fishing license alone and anyone willing and able to pay more to fish can simply donate an additional amount each year when they renew their license.
 Reply by: Fishneveryweek      Posted: Apr. 22, 10:55:14 AM     Points: 27    
The senior increase is actually about 7X: 18.75 for a license, 15 for a habitat stamp, and 7.50 for a two rod stamp = $41.25 (previously $6). For boat fishing, add about 35 for boat registration, 30 for trailer registration, 25 for ANS = a grand total for boat fishing of $131.25, and that's just for a senior! And, of course, there is boat/ trailer insurance, maintenance, gasoline, and another state fee, the parks sticker. Just the state fees are near $200, so some poor old guy can go fish with his boat for the year maybe a half dozen times or so if he is physically up to it. More than a few will bale out on the deal.
 Reply by: richw88      Posted: Apr. 22, 11:32:19 AM     Points: 3    
C'mon, FEW. Get real. You\'re trying to make a case out of thin air.
Seniors don't need to buy Habitat Stamps. Over 64 are exempt.
And Low Income Sr's can still get a Free Lifetime license.
And no one NEEDS a Second Rod stamp, Sr or not. Even though they do come with a free lawn chair.
And anyone who can afford a boat, motor, trailer, gas, maintenance, insurance, Parks Pass, and boat & trailer registration, and a car to tow it up with, all of which he'd need anyway, can certainly afford a few more bucks to pay his fair share of the costs.

Half of this board wants to stick it to the other guy, ANY other guy, and the other half just doesn't want it stuck to him.
 Reply by: Whelenman358      Posted: Apr. 22, 1:05:52 PM     Points: 110    
I am not sure who wrote or introduced this bill, but it is sponsored by 2 republicans and 2 democrats. Until the mindset of "hunters and fishermen pay for everything" is changed in state governments across the country, we will continue to be stabbed in the back by these people.

I would suspect that the reason why the general public doesn't pay taxes and fees (as hunters and fishermen do in terms of licenses) for non-fee areas (SWAs, ect) is because the politicians believe it will hurt their chances at getting votes. That is one reason why bicyclers don't pay any registration fees to use the roads and paths they depend on to get around...they don't want to lose their votes in the next election. So they get a free ride.

Increased fees have a tendency to push people out of the pool of users. Probably only a small percentage, but it does happen. I know I changed my license buying after the last so called 50% increase. I used to buy four big game licenses. After the change, I went to just one elk and one deer, just based on the principle that hunters and fishermen get stabbed in the back by the State. I don't have any old fishing regulation books, but do have hunting regs going back to 2001, so I will highlight the increase in hunting costs since then.

This "50% increase" enacted in 2006 actually turned out to be on the order of 72% if you purchased two hunting licenses (elk/bear & deer/antelope for example), 77% if you just bought a deer or antelope license, and 69% if you just bought an elk or bear license. These are resident fees I speak of. The reason their "50%" figure in the 2006 book was wholly misleading is because of the other fees they added in on top of it. The 75 cent surcharge and the habitat stamp. And a lifetime habitat stamp in 2006 was $200.

Then on top of that, in 2006 they began a fee for getting a preference point (if you didn't actually PURCHASE a license from them the previous year) and also instigated a system whereby you lose your points if don't continuously send them money. What would ya all think if you went to Cabela's to get a refund on something and they said they were going to keep $25 of it because you didn't buy anything from them the previous year? Only government comes up with these schemes to screw people out of their money.

Now let's look at the fees in 2017. In the first scenario, if a guy is buying two licenses (elk/bear + deer/antelope) for the year, the current cost for a resident is still the same. If a person just hunts with a single elk license, it is now 85% more than pre-2006. If you are just hunting with a single deer/antelope license it is 102% higher than pre-2006 levels. And that lifetime habitat stamp, well it is now $300!!! And that preference point fee enacted in 2006 (unless you spent $$$ with them the previous year) is now $30 or $40 depending on species.

In the end, their 50% was just a sham to get a lot more than that. And this current bill is also aimed at more than that. I would bet, by the time this bill is done, the fees required to hunt and fish go up around 70 to 75% this time. The Democrats enjoy a majority in the Assembly and they hate hunters...so you can bet this will pass for that reason alone.

Larry
 Reply by: Whelenman358      Posted: Apr. 22, 1:15:56 PM     Points: 110    
Hey richw88 ,

How are hunters, fishermen, boat owners, ect NOT paying their fair share as you are suggesting? Who else pays for the DOW's budget? Are bicyclers paying to go to SWAs? Are non fishing/hunting hikers, runners, kayakers, canoeists, ect paying for SWA's? Are non-hunters/fishermen paying anything to enjoy nature when they are out in the woods or on the many trails in this state? Guess the answer is no huh. Looks like hunters and fishermen are the only ones paying their fair share.

Larry
 Reply by: Walleye Guy      Posted: Apr. 22, 1:45:21 PM     Points: 100    
I'm a Democrat, I don't hate hunters.
 Reply by: Budha      Posted: Apr. 22, 3:57:55 PM     Points: 151    
The biggest issue with the bill is that it allows CPW to raise costs of fishing/hunting licenses in the future without legislation. I'm all for supporting an appropriate license increase now but giving CPW the power to increase license cost at their own discretion is a slippery slope.
 Reply by: richw88      Posted: Apr. 22, 4:11:45 PM     Points: 3    
Go back and read my post and the one previous, Larry. All I'm saying is that it isn't unreasonable to ask a Senior to fork out $19 for his license every year, half what the rest of us will pay, instead of getting it free. Everyone paying his fair share, as we both put it.
FEW was implying that $19 was some enormous yearly burden to a poor old guy who already has (sniffle) the expenses associated with trailering up and fishing with 2 rods from a registered, insured boat in a State Park. He's the one lobbying for the free pass, not me.
 Reply by: A10FLYR      Posted: Apr. 22, 5:44:20 PM     Points: 26    
I fish at least once a week so that means I pay about $2.50 every time I go out. I understand where you are coming from but you have to admit it's dam cheap entertainment. :)
 Reply by: Whelenman358      Posted: Apr. 22, 11:59:26 PM     Points: 110    
richw88:
Yes, I do see where I didn't read your post very clearly. Sorry about that. Still I personally believe that a free fishing and small game hunting license for 65 years old and over is not a bad idea. Most of the folks that age fishing or hunting have paid into the system for decades. Not unreasonable to give them a break.


Walleye Guy:
I am glad you don't hate hunters. Unfortunately, a lot of Democratic politicians show that they do by how they vote on legislation.


Here's an example of users (who don't pay their "fair share") causing the DOW to make special regulations because these users cause problems for hunters and fishermen (paying customers). In the 2015 State Recreation Lands booklet, there was a new rule put in at Mount Evans SWA, and I quote : "...has become a popular destination for hikers, bird watchers, mountain bikers, campers, and most significantly dog walkers. One of the unintended consequences the increased popularity and use of this SWA is the decrease in use by elk and deer and the impact that has had on hunters...". So they restricted use from the day after Labor Day until end of 4th rifle season to hunting and fishing only. Sounds like this SWA is inundated by users who don't pay a dime to support it. That needs to end.

Maybe a new 1% tax on cell phone bills, sent directly to DOW, would be a great revenue enhancement for Parks and Wildlife without having to raise license fees. Sounds good to me.
 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: Apr. 23, 7:18:43 AM     Points: 585    
Hey all I know how confusing this bill is and it has already changed a fair bit with the 2 committees it has already passed through. I'm not going to get involved in any of the arguments, because everyone has a right to their opinion and I can see both sides being a kayak fisherman, small game hunter, waterfowl hunter, big game hunter, as well as being employed by CPW as a Parks Officer.

If anyone has any direct questions about certain parts of the legislation please post it here like...

Chatfield SP

???

And I will do my very best to answer in a timely manner.

P.S. unless something has changed again anything descrbied as a "stand up paddleboard" is exempt from the proposed ANS sticker now. As for why... I don't have the foggiest clue...
 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: Apr. 23, 7:21:24 AM     Points: 585    
[log in for link]

This is the most up to date version of the bill.
 Reply by: Fishneveryweek      Posted: Apr. 23, 11:07:28 AM     Points: 27    
Richw88: It sure is obvious you have no sympathy whatsoever for senior fishermen. Perhaps you'd like charge them extra. Nowhere, that I see in these versions of the bill, do I see any exemption for seniors on the habitat stamp requirement. I would fully expect that will go 'out the window'. My other numbers stand, as I presented them. Registering boats and trailers used for fishing is not some luxury option, but a legal requirement, no mater how old and used they might be. Having 2 rods is also being more needed for lakes, especially such as the few ones around the Western Slope, like the Gaps, that have, or soon will have, their best fish species destroyed by irrigators, CPW, FWS and their various respective "management" programs. As I read in the paper this morning, the bill has already now passed the House. Looks like it is a done deal.
 Reply by: skiman      Posted: Apr. 23, 12:01:27 PM     Points: 1194    
Chatfield SP...
Is there any truth that the Habitat Stamp exemption for seniors is going away, or does it have to go through the legislature? Thanx! Ski
 Reply by: Raskal      Posted: Apr. 23, 12:20:12 PM     Points: 1718    
Chatfield SP - do I read it correctly that boat owners will need to have another sticker on their boats ?

(6) (a) COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2018, IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPERATE OR USE A VESSEL TEN FEET OR MORE IN LENGTH ON THE WATERS OF THIS STATE OR TO POSSESS A VESSEL AT A VESSEL STAGING AREA UNLESS AN AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES STICKER HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE VESSEL AND PLACED ON THE VESSEL.

What I'm not reading is that there is any 'privilege' or 'right' associated ? Just another annual registration fee ? To help pay for the ANS inspection program ?

Do you know how this will be issued ? Maybe along with the boat registration ?

 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: Apr. 23, 1:30:14 PM     Points: 585    
Raskal

You are correct if this gets adopted anything over 10' long will be required to have this sticker to operate on any waters in the state just like a registration.

Again Stand up Paddle boards are exempt from this... But I'm not sure how they plan on putting this into effect and I'm not sure they know either. This is just like the ANS sticker program Wyoming has.

Ranger Green
 Reply by: Raskal      Posted: Apr. 23, 1:54:55 PM     Points: 1718    
Thanks Ranger - we do appreciate what you do to clarify things on this forum.
 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: Apr. 23, 2:00:21 PM     Points: 585    
That's what I'm here for.

Skiman I haven't forgotten about you I am still looking through the rules and regs trying to figure out the habitat stamp exemption and if it is affected or not.

Ranger Green
 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: Apr. 23, 2:16:07 PM     Points: 585    
Skiman

After some more extensive research that was necessary I discovered the Habitat Stamp language is in 33-4-102.7

The new bill goes from 33-4-102.5 straight to 33-4-117 so the exemption for seniors will remain in place. (unless it gets added in one of the committees.)

Ranger Green
 Reply by: adrenaline_junkie_ff      Posted: Apr. 23, 2:17:22 PM     Points: 3449    
I just sent my representative the following email:

"Ms Danielson,

I would greatly appreciate your support in defeating this bill. I am an avid, year round sportsman and encourage others to enjoy the great outdoors we have available to us here in Colorado. In addition to helping to introduce scouts to the enjoyment of fishing, camping and hiking, enforcing Leave No Trace guidelines, I am also the President of Just One Day, a veteran founded and run non-profit that focuses on introducing veterans and active duty military personnel to the therapeutic benefits of fishing by organizing and hosting monthly fishing trips. 

This bill can be detrimental to hunters and fishers, who already carry the brunt of the burden of our state's CPW and apparently will carry an even larger burden. I understand that our state park system main expense is to provide hunters and fishers a world class experience but many other users are allowed to utilize the parks without contributing. I gladly pay my annual parks pass, which has increased numerous times since I began enjoying the benefits of our parks but get very upset when I see users being catered to by spending this money on paved bicycle and walking paths from the funds provided by these passes yet, bicyclists and pedestrian access is free. The state could create a larger pool of financial resources by issuing annual pedestrian and bicycle passes for a modest fee. Bicyclists continue to demand equal treatment so you could satisfy that demand by introducing legislation that would require bicyclists, whom access state parks via bicycle, to purchase and affix a parks pass to their chosen mode of transportation and charge them a modest fee, such as $35 annual or a day pass of $4. This would seem reasonable as they contribute to at least half of the wear and tear as well as law enforcement.

I hope you consider this as a potential solution to our state's CPW financial problems. "

Not sure how well it will be received but I am sure it will be more effective if they received similar letters from everyone than just discussing it here.
 Reply by: ChatfieldSP      Posted: 6:17:04 AM     Points: 585    
adrenaline_junkie_ff

I respect your opinion I just want to clarify that even though we are now one agency the pots of money are still split internally. This means wildlife and fishing licenses pay to support big game research as well as the people who manage it and the fish stocking program (along with many other things) and NOT state parks.

This is the same how the revenue generated from parks passes does not support the Wildlife side of the house only state parks.

We are one agency, but financially speaking it is two completely pots that do not get shared unless extreme circumstances occur.

I hope this can clear up some misconceptions about what happened when our agencies merged.

Ranger Green


Back to top...