CO Future Generations Act

COEngineer · Feb 23, 2018

The gist of the bill is increased resident license fees and several other methods for increasing CPW revenue. Resident license fees would automatically increase according to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) just like the non-resident fees. I support this bill and will contact my legislators.

This is the e-mail I received from CO DNR:

Partners in conservation,

I want to thank each of you for your involvement in and support of the Hunting, Fishing, and Parks for Future Generations Act (Senate Bill 143, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-143). Your outreach efforts made a significant impact. The Senate Finance Committee unanimously passed the bill, 5-0, on Tuesday, Feb.13. It will be heard next in Senate Appropriations.

We ask that you continue to contact legislators, most importantly the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to voice your support for the Future Generations Act before the bill is up for a vote. The bill has not yet been scheduled, but it could be heard early next week. The Appropriations Committee does not allow testimony during the committee hearing, so your outreach prior to the vote is critical.

A list of the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee follows:

Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg
[email protected]
303-866-6360

Sen. Leroy Garcia
[email protected]
303-866-4878

Sen. Kent Lambert
[email protected]
303-866-4835

Sen. Bob Gardner
[email protected]
303-866-4880

Sen. Kevin Lundberg
[email protected]
303-866-4853

Sen. Dominick Moreno
[email protected]
303-866-4857

Sen. Andy Kerr
[email protected]
303-866-4859

If the Appropriations Committee approves Senate Bill 143, it will then be heard on the Senate floor. For that reason, we also request that you contact your individual senators here (http://leg.colorado.gov/find-my- legislator) and ask them to support CPW’s Future Generations Act (Senate Bill 143).

A fact sheet on Senate Bill 143 can be found on the CPW website (http://cpw.state.co.us/Future-Generations-Act). You will also find several other valuable resources on the site.

Thank you for your continued support of our most valuable resources. The only way this bill will pass is with your help. Please call your legislators to let them know you support CPW’s Future Generations Act (Senate Bill 143) and ask for their support to ensure future generations have the opportunity to experience Colorado’s amazing natural resources and recreational opportunities.

Doug Vilsack
[email protected]
Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources

jlmatthew · Feb 23, 2018

CPW should re-title the bill to "The NO Future Resident Big Game Hunters Act"

Soon we'll have the most expensive resident tags and the least opportunity, such a winning combination for increasing hunter numbers. Hope this bill dies in the Appropriations Committee. Hunters need to be told specifics, instead of the BS they give out about increasing access and hunter numbers. So far the only thing the CPW is saying they are going to do with the money is fix dams and modernize fish hatcheries

Mudranger1 · Feb 23, 2018

jlmatthew said:
CPW should re-title the bill to "The NO Future Resident Big Game Act" So far the only thing the CPW is saying they are going to do with the money is fix dams and modernize fish hatcheries

We need those farm fish don't you know

BuzzH · Feb 23, 2018

jlmatthew said:
CPW should re-title the bill to "The NO Future Resident Big Game Hunters Act"

Soon we'll have the most expensive resident tags and the least opportunity, such a winning combination for increasing hunter numbers. Hope this bill dies in the Appropriations Committee. Hunters need to be told specifics, instead of the BS they give out about increasing access and hunter numbers. So far the only thing the CPW is saying they are going to do with the money is fix dams and modernize fish hatcheries

Looks like "least opportunity" all right....

https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?281079-Buschy-s-2017-Season-Review

COEngineer · Feb 23, 2018

jlmatthew said:
Soon we'll have the most expensive resident tags and the least opportunity

$38 for a deer license and $53 for an elk license is too much?? You can't fill your truck's gas tank or take your family out for one dinner for that. And opportunity? We have the biggest elk population of any State in the whole country.

I think they gave quite a few specifics. Did you even click on the links provided or are you just against any price increase ever? If that's what you mean, I think that is a reasonable opinion, but wish you would just say that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

I agree with you about the fish hatcheries in particular. Artificial populations don't entice me to go fishing.

But overall, I agree with the need for more funding - I have volunteered with the CPW directly and through RMEF projects and have yet to meet a CPW biologist or warden that I don't think is doing great work with a limited budget.

Increases based on CPI seem reasonable and avoid having to come back to this issue every few years.

jlmatthew · Feb 23, 2018

BuzzH are you actively trying to get Wyoming to convert to the Colorado system?

You cry over 160 tags in the pronghorn forum, what would your reaction be if Wyoming adopted the same landowner preference system? That would be 1000's of tags taken away

Or if Wyoming opened general elk tags to everyone that wanted one? Wouldn't have your access program if that happened would you with all the leasing that would happen to private land?

How about no OTC deer tags and only 52% of the tag quota in the draw?

Having to pick your method of take?

Bet you wouldn't like this system one bit if Wyoming adopted it

jlmatthew · Feb 23, 2018

COEngineer said:
$38 for a deer license and $53 for an elk license is too much?? You can't fill your truck's gas tank or take your family out for one dinner for that. And opportunity? We have the biggest elk population of any State in the whole country.

I think they gave quite a few specifics. Did you even click on the links provided or are you just against any price increase ever? If that's what you mean, I think that is a reasonable opinion, but wish you would just say that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

Latest released numbers (from 2016-17)

CPW Budget $229,983,671 with Wildlife side over $120+ million

Big Game $3,560,130 budgeted / $1,197,633 actual cost

Small Game $980,334 budgeted / $308,468 actual cost

To quote a very recent Director of the DOW, "The big game herds cost the state virtually nothing"

Last year they made a profit of over $10.7 million, they are sitting on over $17 million in cash.

I'm not against fee increases when needed, but tell me why they need more when running surpluses? Look at what other states are doing on so much less.

A government agency needs more money, go figure. I work for the USAF, and they claim we are broke and cant buy airplanes or conduct training, but at the end of every fiscal year they come around saying we have all this money, make up a wish list to spend it. Then they cry to Congress that they're broke the next month

BuzzH · Feb 23, 2018

jlmatthew said:
BuzzH are you actively trying to get Wyoming to convert to the Colorado system?

You cry over 160 tags in the pronghorn forum, what would your reaction be if Wyoming adopted the same landowner preference system? That would be 1000's of tags taken away

Or if Wyoming opened general elk tags to everyone that wanted one? Wouldn't have your access program if that happened would you with all the leasing that would happen to private land?

How about no OTC deer tags and only 52% of the tag quota in the draw?

Having to pick your method of take?

Bet you wouldn't like this system one bit if Wyoming adopted it

I rarely fight fee increases for Residents. Those other items you listed have absolutely no relevancy to the discussion about the CO resident fee increases...none. Try staying on point, and if you want to talk about those other things, and why I would oppose them, start a new thread.

If you have a budget surplus, ask the commission to spend it on worthwhile projects.

Sounds like your hatcheries could be upgraded, tell the commission to do it.

Residents of all states are getting off pretty cheap when it comes to tag fees...and that's across the board in nearly all states.

COEngineer · Feb 23, 2018

Matthew, can you send me a link to those budget numbers? I do not understand this surplus you refer to.

jlmatthew · Feb 23, 2018

You probably aren't against resident fee increases because Wyoming does a good job with those fee's. But here in CO the increases in big game tag costs wont go towards big game management, it will primarily go to fishing and watchable wildlife programs. There I stayed on topic

Thanks for agreeing that Colorado sucks for resident hunters

jlmatthew · Feb 23, 2018

COEngineer said:
Matthew, can you send me a link to those budget numbers? I do not understand this surplus you refer to.

Listen to the September Commission meeting on YouTube. Comm Vigil is worried they wont get the fee bill passed because they have too much cash laying around on hand

http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMeeting2017-9.aspx

Other reading material here

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...werPoint-Financial_Update-Sept2017-PWCMtg.pdf

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2017/Jan/Item_25-Financial_Update-Jan2107-PWCMtg.pdf

Zach · Feb 23, 2018

BuzzH said:
I rarely fight fee increases for Residents. Those other items you listed have absolutely no relevancy to the discussion about the CO resident fee increases...none. Try staying on point, and if you want to talk about those other things, and why I would oppose them, start a new thread.

If you have a budget surplus, ask the commission to spend it on worthwhile projects.

Sounds like your hatcheries could be upgraded, tell the commission to do it.

Residents of all states are getting off pretty cheap when it comes to tag fees...and that's across the board in nearly all states.

I personally don't want the hatcheries upgraded. I'd like them to spend more of the big game revenue on.....big game(shocker). And express that sentiment at meetings and in correspondence.

Of course residents are cheaper, that is the benefit of being one.

Zach · Feb 23, 2018

jlmatthew said:
Listen to the September Commission meeting on YouTube. Comm Vigil is worried they wont get the fee bill passed because they have too much cash laying around on hand

http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMeeting2017-9.aspx

Other reading material here

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...werPoint-Financial_Update-Sept2017-PWCMtg.pdf

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2017/Jan/Item_25-Financial_Update-Jan2107-PWCMtg.pdf

and for past reference, the 14/15 numbers http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2016/May/Item_20-Financial_Update.pdf

Mudranger1 · Feb 23, 2018

BuzzH said:
Looks like "least opportunity" all right....

https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?281079-Buschy-s-2017-Season-Review

I do believe this is what he was responding to Buzz

BuzzH · Feb 23, 2018

Zach said:
I personally don't want the hatcheries upgraded. I'd like them to spend more of the big game revenue on.....big game(shocker). And express that sentiment at meetings and in correspondence.

Of course residents are cheaper, that is the benefit of being one.

Wont happen, although you and I may agree that big-game revenue should stay with big-game, to the best of my knowledge, that doesn't happen anywhere in any state. The GF/DOW/FWP agencies are mandated to manage ALL wildlife within its borders, and there would be no way to do that if each pot of money was kept separate. Plus, there is value in big-game license fees being spent on other line items, including things like hatcheries, fish stocking, etc. If we're going to down that road, I would suggest that bighorn sheep management should come to a halt, or only the money raised via direct sheep license sales, should go to manage bighorns. Here in Wyoming, pronghorn license sales help fund bighorn management, since bighorn sheep management doesn't come close to paying for itself. BTW, I view wildlife management as a "package" deal, and would NOT want to see separate pools of money.

Fishing is a great way to introduce people to the outdoors, and is a huge economic benefit to the various States. Its a great family activity that is, and always has been, somewhat economical.

If there is 17 million sitting around, tell you commission to spend that on big-game, I don't care...its your cash, your commission, you can lead that discussion. In the meantime, I would also suggest spending some of that on upgrading fish hatcheries too. Seems there's no shortage, do both.

elkduds · Feb 23, 2018

COEngineer said:
The gist of the bill is increased resident license fees and several other methods for increasing CPW revenue. Resident license fees would automatically increase according to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) just like the non-resident fees. I support this bill and will contact my legislators.

This is the e-mail I received from CO DNR:

Thanks for posting. Phoning my support to those listed.

My barber just raised his price from $12 to $15 after 10 years, without updating his joke roster. It has been longer than that since CO resident tag fees went up (2006). There is a fast-growing CWD problem among other wildlife needs unmet.

ID_to_NV2012 · Feb 23, 2018

There are legitimate reasons for price increases. For every dollar of funding the state generates it is matched by federal excise taxes 3 to 1. This makes a significant difference in the amount of money that is available for management of fish and wildlife species.

I am pretty sure in one of the Hunt Talk podcasts, Big Finn brought up the funding of wildlife management. In the late 1930s, great depression era, the Pittman-Robertson Act was supported by men that were willing to pay more at the checkout counter to ensure there would be wildlife for future generations. I think when states raise tags or license fees, it's a response to increase cost of managing wildlife.

It's a small price to pay in order to hunt and fish, while having our wildlife populations managed for the future.

COEngineer · Feb 23, 2018

BuzzH said:
I view wildlife management as a "package" deal, and would NOT want to see separate pools of money.

I thought this was generally accepted, but I am glad you spelled it out. After re-reading all the above posts, I think this is the crux of the matter.

Personally, I would rather see more money spent on habitat and enforcement. Improved habitat is always money well spent. And reducing poaching, illegall OHV use, and other douche-baggery would go a long way to improve hunting's image to the general public.

I have no idea what $10M (the 2017 increase in reserve) buys you in terms of personnel or habitat improvement, but I would guess that it's not as much as some would think.

I will just re-iterate that I think CPW does a pretty darn good job with what they have and I would be happy to contribute a little more to their efforts. I cannot say the same for a lot of other government agencies.

HONEYBADGER · Feb 23, 2018

Did anyone really think they would only try to squeeze non-resis? Politicians have a never ending thirst for other people's money, whether it be people in their state or out, it doesnt matter.

Zach · Feb 24, 2018

BuzzH said:
Wont happen, although you and I may agree that big-game revenue should stay with big-game, to the best of my knowledge, that doesn't happen anywhere in any state. The GF/DOW/FWP agencies are mandated to manage ALL wildlife within its borders, and there would be no way to do that if each pot of money was kept separate. Plus, there is value in big-game license fees being spent on other line items, including things like hatcheries, fish stocking, etc. If we're going to down that road, I would suggest that bighorn sheep management should come to a halt, or only the money raised via direct sheep license sales, should go to manage bighorns. Here in Wyoming, pronghorn license sales help fund bighorn management, since bighorn sheep management doesn't come close to paying for itself. BTW, I view wildlife management as a "package" deal, and would NOT want to see separate pools of money.

Fishing is a great way to introduce people to the outdoors, and is a huge economic benefit to the various States. Its a great family activity that is, and always has been, somewhat economical.

If there is 17 million sitting around, tell you commission to spend that on big-game, I don't care...its your cash, your commission, you can lead that discussion. In the meantime, I would also suggest spending some of that on upgrading fish hatcheries too. Seems there's no shortage, do both.

Never suggested separate pools of money, but I'm guessing when budget proposals need to be submitted, they are done so by breaking down expenditures to various species. I simply suggested that more money be spent on the species that created the revenue not the whole pot.

CO Future Generations Act

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page