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: richw88 Posted: Apr. 21, 8:45:05 AM Points: 12
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: 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: 1230
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: 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.
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: DLH Posted: Apr. 22, 8:55:29 AM Points: 190
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: 12
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 588
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...
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: 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.
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 ?
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.
I just sent my representative the following email:
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: Apr. 24, 6:17:04 AM Points: 588
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.
Reply by: 007 Posted: Apr. 24, 7:40:58 AM Points: 10
All you fine folks on here who have expressed skepticism and opposition toward this bill, I would encourage you to contact your state representatives now. Otherwise we will have little or no say on future fee and license hikes after this decision making authority is transferred to an un-elected commission.
Reply by: esoxrocks Posted: Apr. 24, 8:48:29 AM Points: 2371
Ranger Green, while I have numerous questions on the CPW budgeting/rule-making process, a couple off the top of my head include:
Shared Services - You mention that the two entities are kept separate for budgeting purposes...but what about allocation between Parks and Wildlife for shared services within the two largest expense categories i.e., salary/benefits and operating expenses (....assuming many of the the same employees patrol the parks, check licenses, drive CPW vehicles...etc.). How does this work?
ANS - Can you tell us why the ANS program is tied to the severance tax? As a necessity these days, why wouldn't this program be a normal operating expenses within the budget? Also, does the ANS budget come 100% from the Wildlife side? If so, why would this be the case when a good portion of the ANS program is devoted to recreational boaters vs fishermen?
Hand Launched Boat "Sticker" - One more question..can you tell us if 10' hand launched kayaks, canoes, pontoons, etc are going to be inspected for ANS in the future? If not, why would there be a charge for a service that is not applicable to these vessels? If so, will this mean that lakes will face closure to all boats (including hand launched) if they don't have ANS inspectors due to budget cuts? Also, do you have any idea how 10' got to be the length criteria for this new sticker (should I buy a 9' kayak so I can continue to put-on at non-motorized lakes without inspectors in the future?).
I'm guessing that most of my answers are buried deep within the politics of the legislative process or the bureaucracy itself ...but any input you can provide is appreciated. Thanks!
Reply by: adrenaline_junkie_ff Posted: Apr. 24, 11:20:01 AM Points: 3836
Great point that I failed to consider. As a former wildland fire fighter, we had to split our time based on what specific projects we worked for given hours as we were working from different pools of money as well. I have been out of that sort of work for 15 years so had forgotten how the different pools of funding worked. Thanks for the reminder. However, as you saw in the email, I feel it is still unfair that those of us who access state parks via automobile have to pay for maintaining the infrastructure and others get a free ride on us. I feel everyone should be expected to contribute at least to the infrastructure itself.
I understand you feelings towards bikers using the park for free. Unfortunately we haven't found a way to feasibly charge cyclists and how to tell them apart from those who do drive in and pay before biking.
This is easy at parks like Eldorado Canyon where there is literally one way in and out so everyone has to pass by the check station.
Here at Chatfield we have 2 actual vehicle entrances along with another 8 or so that are walk in from major commuter trails like the C470 trail which makes things even more complicated since multiple agencies helped build it, but if one begins to charge an entrance fee what happens then?
Reply by: Whelenman358 Posted: Apr. 25, 1:43:32 AM Points: 113
How to provide for a way for bicyclists to pay? How about a bicycle reg fee of $35 and that allows you to ride on public roads, state parks, and SWAs...were applicable of course. If you don't have the sticker on the bike, same fine as not having a license on a vehicle. Easy solution.
Or, perhaps a bicycle driving license. Costs the same as a regular drivers license. Don't have it on ya when bicycling? Same fine as driving without a license in your pocket. Easy solution.
Of course to implement either of these, the politicians would have to let go with the idea of stabbing hunters and fishermen in the back.
Reply by: ChatfieldSP Posted: Apr. 25, 7:17:02 AM Points: 588
Sorry I didn't reply last night my toddler had other plans.
Shared Services: This is the hardest and the one I'm most unfamiliar with but the way I understand it is Parks each get a certain budget for everything (maintenance, seasonal salary, operating expenses) per year which is allocated from the region. Once the park gets this money that's all they have for the fiscal year. They can use this money for anything, but if we build a super fancy fish cleaning station here at Chatfield we wouldn't have anything left to buy toilet paper for the bathrooms, make sense? I believe the Full Time Staff get paid directly from the region's budget but again it is split between Parks and Wildlife. So in short a parks pass is no more paying a Wildlife Manager's salary than a hunting license is paying a Park Ranger's salary. When the agency did combine some positions that would have overlapped (region managers) were combined into one role so there was a lot of salary savings to be made there.
ANS Severance Tax: So yes when the ANS program was put in place the legislature said the state would fund it through severance tax (at that time the oilfield was booming). Well just last year the oil companies filed suit saying they were being taxed twice. This went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court where the oil companies won and the severance tax money ANS was operating on disappeared seemingly never to return. The only reason the program is afloat is because the program leaders saw this coming and did everything to save money for this season so we are truly scratching the bottom of the barrel for funding. Before we were well withing operating expenses and putting money in the bank for just this circumstance.
Hand Launched Vessels: From what I know there is no plans to begin inspecting Exempt watercraft. This would be a logistical nightmare here at Chatfield... I don't think this will close any lakes open to exempt watercraft in the future it will just require the vessel to have the "sticker" if on any waterbody in the state. As for the 10'... your guess is as good as mine and I still don't know why paddleboards were suddenly exempt, but the raft guides are probably going to be a bit unhappy as well. I would think you are fine owning an over 10' kayak as long as you buy the $15 sticker each year there won't be any added inspection (at least not at CPW managed properties). My yak is 10'6" so I'm with ya.
Reply by: esoxrocks Posted: Apr. 25, 8:06:41 AM Points: 2371
Thanks for your input, it is very much appreciated. I wonder if anyone, even the bill sponsors, know the whole story behind a bill like this. The old adage that "a camel is a horse built by committee" probably applies here. .
With this in mind, the best most of us can do is look at results, then comment and vote, accordingly. My personal opinions are:
1) Sportsmen are willing to pay more to support the our hunting and fishing resources, but we would like to see costs spread more fairly among other users of the resources.
2) ANS has become a core requirement to the continued recreational use of our lakes. It is time for this area to become a general budget item for the CPW and not held hostage to an unreliable revenue source.
3) As I suspected, the hand launched "ANS sticker" is just a revenue generator, and not designed to pay for inspections of hand-launched craft. I guess that is good news, and bad news. The goods news is that it appears that I will still be able to launch at Jefferson Lake, etc. without an inspector present...the bad news is that I will be paying for the inspections anyway. But I can live with that.
My major gripe on this one is that IF the fee has nothing to do with actual inspections (of a specific sized watercraft)...then charge the fee to all hand-launched watercraft including whitewater play-boats, cat-rafts, pontoons, etc, etc....i.e., the 10' rule makes no sense.
I say, if we are just paying a "ANS tax" then let everyone who floats on a waterway help pitch-in for it's protection (maybe we can charge baby-floaties half-price...heh).
Reply by: ChatfieldSP Posted: Apr. 25, 9:22:25 AM Points: 588
I can't say I disagree with anything you have said. The sticker is part of a revenue generation idea to create sustainable funding for the ANS program for the future. I'm sure there is plenty of politics that went into the decision of 10' but I don't know the reason so unfortunately we are in the same boat there.
Here is the CPW fact sheet about the Financial Sustainability Bill.
Reply by: ChatfieldSP Posted: Apr. 25, 10:00:30 AM Points: 588
I don't think you are out of place in that thinking whatsoever esoxrocks, but the big question is how? Would a special tax on all bicycle sales or all recreation equipment help tremendously, sure but getting public support is a whole different issue.
We understand that recreation has been evolving and we need to evolve ourselves and our funding strategies with it, but only time will tell how that happens.
I know written emails/letters go a long way in this agency so if you have a complaint/idea please email me and I will send it up the chain and make sure it gets heard and you get an answer from someone.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Apr. 25, 10:11:09 AM Points: 3021
esox, I totally agree, however, I am going to put a different spin on this. The amount a user pays should be equal to the amount of resources used. No matter how much people want to complain, fisherman are hard on the resources. We keep fish that have been stocked, we kill fish that aren't kept, we leave fishing line (all of us do this, since we all break off, some just leave more than others), we leave hooks, trash, etc... I know, every one of us on FxR are model fisherman who leave an area better than we found it... But how many of us have gone fishing and can tell immediately where others have been fishing. There are posts after posts complaining about slob fisherman.
A bicyclist rides a bike through the park. Might use the bathroom. Now, while I tend to find them annoying, particularly when they ride abreast instead of single file, they are not being particularly hard on the resources.
I spent a good part of my life barely getting by, and things like boats weren't even part of the equation, so I get it. More fees make it harder for people. However, I also believe that owning a boat means understanding all the cost associated with it. And one of those costs need to be ANS fees. I don't feel that non-boaters should in any way foot the bill for ANS inspections. I have no idea how much we should charge, as I don't have the annual budget along with the number of boats in the state, but I do feel it should be like Wyoming, and boaters pay for ANS.
I love that a family can load into a car, and for $8 spend a day at Chatfield. Yes, even if they aren't fishing, many of those families are nearly as hard on the resource as a fisherman, just without the fishing line and dead fish.
I do think we need to reinstate the $5 habitat stamp for SWA for all users. I remember when I had to pay this when I wasn't fishing, and didn't have a problem with it. Make it an option for the annual state parks pass, for an additional fee it includes the SWAs.
All of us are experts at running the CPW. Because running a multi-million dollar budget across multiple departments while being constrained by the legislative process is something that is just easy to do, you know, as long as I get my way! (:
Reply by: esoxrocks Posted: Apr. 25, 10:36:38 AM Points: 2371
Shiver - You make excellent points. I agree, since I use the resources more than the average person, I should pay more than the average person...much more.
However as fishermen and hunters, we DO pay much more than the average person. Even so, I still feel that I get good value for my investment and I don't mind paying even more, if that is needed.
That said, I just think that all users should contribute "something". Maybe a $5 "resource fee" for all users, basically something to cover the fixed-cost of running these areas, while still charging incrementally more for those (like us) who use the resources more frequently, or have a greater impact. A small "resource fee" spread over a very large group of occasional users might go a long way to help support CPW services.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Apr. 25, 11:54:25 AM Points: 3021
esox, the problem is the cost benefit. Like Ranger Green mentioned (either on this thread or one of the others we've had recently), how do you enforce it? While I agree that cyclists should have some skin in the game, how do you ensure all the cyclists have paid the usage fee? Now do we have to increase the enforcement of making sure? That takes resources away from other enforcement areas, and we are already complaining about that.
It is the special interest and corporate influence that makes it all difficult. In my job, I can allocate my resources as needed, make budget changes that best benefit the customer and the company, etc... I don't have one group (cyclists) pushing back, making me afraid I'll lose my job (not be re-elected) because I required them to add value to the chain (pay their share).
There includes some out of the box thinking in the Senate Bill, for example the ANS program would potentially derive its own funding source via the registration sticker for all watercraft over 10ft, keeping in mind the majority of watercraft are pleasure boats, not angling boats, the program is spread out.
The senior license fee was introduced after polling thousands of anglers with more supportive of the idea. A major point missing, with some politicians not aware of, was the numerous town hall meeting hosted statewide during 2016. It would have been great if the politicians took notice then and participated.
Yea I noticed (after more review) that there are ANS expense lines in both the Parks and Wildlife budgets...so my assumption that all ANS expenses are covered totally under the Wildlife budget was not correct. Imagine that!
Still think if the ANS fee is simply a revenue generation tool (i.e., it's not designed to cover inspection costs for 10'+ hand-launched boats) it should apply to every watercraft ...you are getting enjoyment from the use of the resource whether you are in a 12' kayak, SUP, or a 7' pontoon. Every user should pitch-in.
There are risk assessments in all walks, teenagers pay more for car insurance, folks with bad credit pay higher interest rates, if you've been at your job 20 years you likely make more than the new hire......risk management.
The chances ANS is spread by carry on watercraft is a much lower risk. And likely more important there is the risk of losing access for the carry on craft, I've fought very hard to get waters open just to belly boats....municipalities view these as an additional risk....luckily we've made some inroads, I'd hate to move backwards. Can't please everyone but I like the direction we are moving.
...frankly I don't see any risk assessment involved in the 10' rule. If the fee is not to cover ANS inspections of these hand-launched boats, but only to generate additional revenue, there is no logic to eliminating some craft from the fee, except to please a constituency.
Which, unfortunately, is logical at a political level I guess.
..oh, and belly-boaters should pitch in along with everyone else...and swimmers, and rock-skippers, and people who just look at the water..dam it. (heh)
I'm a fisherman, cyclist, bird watcher, hiker, camper etc.....I do it all. I would guess quite a few folks are like me. I am a senior, I should and would pay more, most of us would. Even a modest increase to 10 or. 15 bucks would help and truthfully how could anyone complain? Now if a senior does not fish enough to make it worth while there is a daily fee.
I just get sick of the bickering and denigrating of the state park and DPW employees, I have never had a bad expieience with any one of them. They are not lazy, they do not go out of their way to give us a hard time. They do their jobs, there are not enough of them to properly staff , enforce and maintain OUR property. JMHO?
My first hunting and fishing license in Colorado was 1954 and I have purchased them every year since. I do not remember what the first fishing license cost. For several years now I have had a senior license but I have sent a donation to CPW that is larger than my license fee would be. I hunt, fish and camp and will pay the fees needed to continue. I fell that fishing in Colorado is as good as it has ever been.
The thought of raising fees bugs me to a certain extent for several reasons some have already been mentioned
Bicyclist, hikers, bird watchers etc,etc. sportsman fit the bill for all of their enjoyment and most of the time just get harassed in one form or another while trying to enjoy what they have paid for bums me out.
The main reason that I am not in support of a raise in fees is the hpp program there is a very large amount of sportsman dollars 2.2 million a year that go to private land owners. This is money from license sales that is given to private land owners and I will never see any use except no trespassing signs or a large trespass fee to hunt "state" game. This program should be cut before there is any increase in license!
Reply by: Green Head Posted: Apr. 26, 3:43:43 PM Points: 0
I noticed that future increases in fees and licenses will be based on the Denver, Boulder, Greeley cost of living. I'm sure people in other far less prosperous areas of the state will love that. I'm wondering how many of us living on the front range think the whole state is as prosperous as we are or ski country in the mountain areas. If you wondering I can assure you they are not. I'd guess that one of their most enjoyed activities is hunting and fishing, not going to Bronco games, nice restaurants and golf. Just because many of us that live along the front range may be more prosperous and far outnumber them shouldn't mean they don't matter in political and economic issues facing Colorado.
I just recently started a job where I'm not able to fish as much. If and when this junk goes through it will unfortunately deter me from paying more for no notable differences in my life. I will have find a different hobby. We need to call our reps and say "no." It becomes a barrier for youth and low income families who use fishing and hunting to supplement their grocery expenses. (Youth because they're the future anglers.) I protest, but will not just sit here and accept this. Reps don't see this or other forums. We need to voice our concerns. I'm going to call my rep. Please do the same.