CPW budget cuts

[Oak]

As most of you CO guys know, CPW has been tasked with exploring ways to cut $10 million from their budget and/or increase revenue, to offset a projected budget shortfall in the next couple of years.

The CPW Commission will be discussing several potential alternatives at their meeting in Montrose next week. You may want to read through the documents to see what cuts are being proposed, and voice any concerns at the meeting or in emails.

Budget reduction alternatives

Revenue concepts

 

[Dinkshooter]

Why don't they eliminate wildlife damage claims? Should save some wasted $.

 

[JohnCushman]

Some of this is pretty brutal. I would support raising the fees on hunting licenses before some of these proposed cuts would be implemented

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

wow. lots of things I would struggle with for sure. . . I think its starting to be like this everywhere, in every state. Sad that we are pricing ourselves out of our pastime.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Why don't they eliminate wildlife damage claims? Should save some wasted $.

In fact looks to be about 1.2 million in the current budget. Only 8.8 million to go. Next?

 

[jryoung]

Does Colorado have any other departments or agencies where $80M in spending results in $2.5B of revenue? My fuzzy math says that is a 31x return. Seems like a no brainer that one would want to continue to invest in Colorado Parks and Wildlife as it is a huge driver for economic expenditures in the state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

In fact looks to be about 1.2 million in the current budget. Only 8.8 million to go. Next?

Are the damage payments statutory or administrative in nature? Can't cut what the Legislature tells you to do.

 

[spook12]

Why don't they eliminate wildlife damage claims? Should save some wasted $.

You don't want to piss those land owners off. What would you do with all those,pesky tags that they wouldn't take off your hands if you make them mad?

 

[Oak]

Are the damage payments statutory or administrative in nature? Can't cut what the Legislature tells you to do.

Yep, statutory.

33-3-104. State shall be liable - when



(1) Subject to the limitations contained in sections 33-3-103 (1) and 33-3-103.5, and in part 2 of this article, the state shall be liable only for:

(a) Damages to livestock or personal property used in the production of raw agricultural products, which under this article shall be no more than five thousand dollars per head of livestock injured or killed, caused by big game; except that damages to livestock shall be limited to physical trauma resulting in injury or death;

(b) Damages to real or personal property, when such damages are caused by wildlife that is being moved or is otherwise under the direct control of division personnel at the time the damage occurs;

(c) Damage to real or personal property caused by the use of damage prevention materials if the use of such materials or equipment is under the control of any personnel who are under the direction of division personnel at the time damage occurs;

(d) Damages caused by those species of wildlife enumerated in section 33-1-102 (2) to orchards, nurseries, crops under cultivation, and harvested crops, damages to lawful fences as defined in section 35-46-101 (1), C.R.S., when such damages exceed ten percent of the value of the specific fence involved, and damages to livestock forage in excess of ten percent of historic use levels for privately owned and fenced ranch or farm units which are specifically limited to hay meadows, pasture meadows, artificially seeded rangelands, and grazing land which is deferred to seasonal uses. Damages to aftermath on alfalfa shall be paid to the full extent of such damages without regard to historic numbers of wildlife. Historic levels shall be designated by the claimant at the time of making a claim. Historic levels shall be expressed in average numbers of wildlife present on the property in question based on the twenty-year period ending January 1, 1973. If the division does not agree with the claimant on normal historic levels or any element of a damage settlement, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration within ten days of notice by either party. The arbitration panel shall consist of one arbitrator chosen by the landowner, one arbitrator chosen by the division, and one arbitrator chosen by the other two arbitrators. If the two arbitrators cannot agree within ten days on a third arbitrator, a request by either party shall be made to the district court for the judicial district of the county in which the damage is located for appointment of a third impartial arbitrator. The division and the landowner shall equally share the cost of the use of the third arbitrator. Historic levels or any element settled by arbitration may be included in an appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction, and the court shall not be bound by the finding of the arbitration panel.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The burden of proof shall be with the claimant for all claims for damages enumerated in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, pursuant to rules established by the commission pertaining to wildlife damage.

(4) If the commission has not promulgated rules relating to damage by wildlife, pursuant to sections 33-1-104 and 33-1-108, the division shall not refuse to pay a claim for wildlife damage.

(5) If for any reason a pertinent rule of the commission relating to wildlife damage is declared void or suspended, the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall not be applicable.

(6) For the year 1979, any damage claims received by the division after June 21, 1979, shall not be denied until and unless considered under the rules promulgated by the commission relating to damage by wildlife. If such rules are not promulgated by January 1, 1980, the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall apply.

(7) Repealed.

(8) All rules concerning damages by wildlife adopted or amended by the commission on or after July 1, 1979, shall be subject to sections 24-4-103 (8) (c) and (8) (d) and 24-4-108, C.R.S.

(9) Reimbursement for wildlife damages shall be reduced by the amount of claim awarded by an insurance company for the same damages.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Deer tore up Crab Apple trees in yards last night what a mess, how do I get in line? My winter diet consists of Crab Apples for breakfast.

 

[Dinkshooter]

I'm thinking $75,000 should cover it.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Jeez look at all the DWM cuts, is that really smart?

 

[justdada]

wow.. That list of cuts looks pretty bad!
It would make it hard to properly manage wildlife resources when cutting DWMs and reducing/eliminating research and monitoring budgets.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Some of this is pretty brutal. I would support raising the fees on hunting licenses before some of these proposed cuts would be implemented

Well, I glanced over some of the stuff and if the residents don't think their eutopia isn't worth a few more dollars, why should the Non-residents? Colorado sportsmen need to take a hit this time and quit baiting a trotline for the out of staters. John

 

[noharleyyet]

Taking for granted that NR's will buy anyway despite CPW's move to become 'less accommodating' might not be a formula for increased revenue.

 

[Blacktailbc]

"Taking for granted that NR's will buy anyway despite CPW's move to become 'less accommodating' might not be a formula for increased revenue."


I agree. What happened last time they tried to raise Cow Elk tag fees?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So MT, CO & WY are facing tight budgets. Hopefully this will help unite us as a community and start the push for meaningful funding alternatives beyond license fees.

 

[JohnCushman]

Well, I glanced over some of the stuff and if the residents don't think their eutopia isn't worth a few more dollars, why should the Non-residents? Colorado sportsmen need to take a hit this time and quit baiting a trotline for the out of staters. John

I agree, John. We haven't had an increse in tag prices as residents in several years. I remember the uproar that happened the last increase, but we are still buying tags. I may be an oddball or end up as an outcast on here, but I would support raising resident prices if it meant not losing alot of the things on those lists.

 

[jryoung]

So MT, CO & WY are facing tight budgets. Hopefully this will help unite us as a community and start the push for meaningful funding alternatives beyond license fees.

Since in most states "wildlife viewing" outstrips hunting and fishing expenditures it'd be great if there was a direct way to make these users pay to play....but I know that "wildlife viewing" number is as squishy as my beer gut. Still, there are millions in the US that enjoy our natural resources and avoid direct fees and taxation like we do.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Since in most states "wildlife viewing" outstrips hunting and fishing expenditures it'd be great if there was a direct way to make these users pay to play....but I know that "wildlife viewing" number is as squishy as my beer gut. Still, there are millions in the US that enjoy our natural resources and avoid direct fees and taxation like we do.

There was a way: In the early 2000's, IIRC, the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition tried to get an excise tax on outdoor gear not already under PR/DJ/WB. Retailers like REI killed it. The reason it had to be at the federal level versus state was due to interstate commerce issues, again, if I remember correctly.

On the state level, I think AR (Under Mike Huckabee no less), MO & a few other states show us a model that works: A percentage of the sales tax.

States like Montana that don't have a sales tax will need a different solution.

Personally I prefer state based solutions over trying to get Congress to do anything other than screw it up.

At any rate, hunters & anglers need to develop partnerships with the tourism & environmental industries to help get anything done. That means even having non-consumptive users appointed to state game commissions. Most state commissions already have special interests on them, such as livestock producer, farmers, hunters, anglers, etc. If we're going to require they pay, then they should have a seat at the table.