Colorado actually going to change things?

[Gobbler36]

I completely understand. Couldn’t disagree with the reasoning. But, the P&W isn’t going to take a cut. Somebody is going to make it up. We both know who that is. And, most residents don’t want that. They want the NR money without the participation. It don’t work that way.

You could just cut NR tags and just raise the NR price more to compensate for the loss of applicants… some will throw a fit but guarantee you they sell out of tags still

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Why NR hunters aren't all bad. Some come in search of trophies and only shoot elk with their camera phone.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

You could just cut NR tags and just raise the NR price more to compensate for the loss of applicants… some will throw a fit but guarantee you they sell out of tags still

Maybe. As the general sentiment shows, most people understand CO requires more work to get the hunt you are searching for. As stated, if you increase the price on NR elk while limiting their participation, how much are people willing to pay? Do you believe that the average NR is going to pay Wyoming costs to hunt CO? I don’t.

Once again, limiting NR in any capacity is going to increase resident costs. How much is dependent on how many NR elk tags you cut.

Personally, If I were living there, I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs to do just that if I felt like you guys. And, if I lived there and spent the time hunting that you guys do, I’d probably share the sentiment

Resident prices are ridiculously low. Especially considering you are hunting elk!!!!!!!! I’d bet the fall out for a $300 resident tag would be minimal though. It’s $300. To hunt elk!!!!!!! And, there is good hunting there. It’d be way better with fewer hunters blowing bugles every 150 yards too.

I’ve read where resident hunters make the argument that prices them out of the game. That’s stupid. That’s what a whitetail license costs for an eastern state with the opportunity to buy extra tags. To hunt whitetail. In a setting far less majestic and awesome then the Rocky Mountains. So, I think it’s absurd for any CO resident to suggest they couldn’t pay a fee like that.

I just don’t think NR are going to pay competing prices until they see competing opportunity. At least enough to carry the offset created by decreasing tags while increasing price much higher.


I don’t know if I’m right or wrong. I could care less. I just get tired of hearing all the whining without people looking into the mirror. It’s a help yourself kinda thing before you demand to be given something. My goodness, you hunt elk cheaper then you can buy a resident fishing license’s in sone states.

If CO residents want better opportunities, they need to fork over two tanks worth of gas extra without complaining to experience it. It’s the cheapest vacation in the country for you fellas. That’s why it’s where it’s at.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

We already pay with our taxes, increased CoL, and dealing with Californians.

 

[def90]

Check page 7 and 8...

CPW annual funding is over 300 million, probably close to 400 at this point. I believe page 7&8, they aren’t the whole of funding

The story I was always told was that when they merged the two departments back in the 2011 was that they shared the same budget and that the wildlife side was paying for the parks side.

That is not true. When they merged they did roll together and share the back office functions, website and so on but both Parks and Wildlife have separate budgets and separate revenue streams. The fees raised from tags do not fund the parks dept and revenue from parks does not go in to the wildlife budget.

When you look at this link:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

It shows the first graph which shows the combined revenue for parks and wildlife at $329 million, however the next two graphs show the independent revenue of Parks at $124 million and Wildlife at $196 million.

At the very bottom it states about 2.5% of Parks and Wildlife expenditures are shared, this is the back office and website stuff.

So in the end $50 million of elk licenses covers the $196 million Wildlife division budget, which comes to 25% of their budget.

Some reading:

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/Sources_and_Uses_of_Funds_Fact_Sheet.pdf

 

[def90]

The simple way to cut back on NR applications and the current issue of having to have a second draw due to people flaking out on tags they won in the first draw is to reinstate the policy of paying for your tag up front.

Nothing like being a resident and losing the tag you applied for only to see two or three of the same tag show up in the second draw because someone else was applying for that tag along with tags in every other state and then playing the game of choosing which tags they really want when all of their other results come in because there is no incentive not to do so.

 

[CoStick]

The story I was always told was that when they merged the two departments back in the 2011 was that they shared the same budget and that the wildlife side was paying for the parks side.

That is not true. When they merged they did roll together and share the back office functions, website and so on but both Parks and Wildlife have separate budgets and separate revenue streams. The fees raised from tags do not fund the parks dept and revenue from parks does not go in to the wildlife budget.

When you look at this link:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

It shows the first graph which shows the combined revenue for parks and wildlife at $329 million, however the next two graphs show the independent revenue of Parks at $124 million and Wildlife at $196 million.

At the very bottom it states about 2.5% of Parks and Wildlife expenditures are shared, this is the back office and website stuff.

So in the end $50 million of elk licenses covers the $196 million Wildlife division budget, which comes to 25% of their budget.

Some reading:

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/Sources_and_Uses_of_Funds_Fact_Sheet.pdf

I asked that question at the office on Broadway in Denver and was told the opposite

 

[def90]

I asked that question at the office on Broadway in Denver and was told the opposite

The complete breakdowns of their seperate budgets and expenditures are public and available online and it is explained in the second link I posted as to why Wildlife has it's own seperate budget. They have to remain seperate to qualify for pittman robertson funding from the federal government.

 

[CoStick]

The complete breakdowns of their seperate budgets and expenditures are public and available online and it is explained in the second link I posted as to why Wildlife has it's own seperate budget. They have to remain seperate to qualify for pittman robertson funding from the federal government.

I asked in regards to the revenue from auto registrations and was told it was a shared budget. You could be right, just sharing what i was told.

 

[Maverick1]

Thread was doomed from the start.

 

[txjustin]

Maybe. As the general sentiment shows, most people understand CO requires more work to get the hunt you are searching for. As stated, if you increase the price on NR elk while limiting their participation, how much are people willing to pay? Do you believe that the average NR is going to pay Wyoming costs to hunt CO? I don’t.

Once again, limiting NR in any capacity is going to increase resident costs. How much is dependent on how many NR elk tags you cut.

Personally, If I were living there, I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs to do just that if I felt like you guys. And, if I lived there and spent the time hunting that you guys do, I’d probably share the sentiment

Resident prices are ridiculously low. Especially considering you are hunting elk!!!!!!!! I’d bet the fall out for a $300 resident tag would be minimal though. It’s $300. To hunt elk!!!!!!! And, there is good hunting there. It’d be way better with fewer hunters blowing bugles every 150 yards too.

I’ve read where resident hunters make the argument that prices them out of the game. That’s stupid. That’s what a whitetail license costs for an eastern state with the opportunity to buy extra tags. To hunt whitetail. In a setting far less majestic and awesome then the Rocky Mountains. So, I think it’s absurd for any CO resident to suggest they couldn’t pay a fee like that.

I just don’t think NR are going to pay competing prices until they see competing opportunity. At least enough to carry the offset created by decreasing tags while increasing price much higher.


I don’t know if I’m right or wrong. I could care less. I just get tired of hearing all the whining without people looking into the mirror. It’s a help yourself kinda thing before you demand to be given something. My goodness, you hunt elk cheaper then you can buy a resident fishing license’s in sone states.

If CO residents want better opportunities, they need to fork over two tanks worth of gas extra without complaining to experience it. It’s the cheapest vacation in the country for you fellas. That’s why it’s where it’s at.

As a NR who buys OTC tags each year in addition to points and license I’m at my max. I think $1k all in is the most I’ll pay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[def90]

Here's a Dept of Resources report.. of which CPW is a dept with the dept of resources.. This report goes in to detail all of the cash in and out for the depts.

They separate the two via the "Wildlife Cash Fund" and the "Parks Cash Fund".

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2022-23_natbrf1.pdf

Start reading at page 14..

Text from report:

"DISCUSSION CPW has a statutory mandate to continuously increase and improve outdoor and wildlife-related recreation opportunities in Colorado. Specifically, CPW shall continuously acquire, develop, and manage recreational lands, waters, facilities, and wildlife habitats.3 In staff’s view, CPW’s FY 2022-23 requests fall within this general statutory guidance, as well as guidance provided by S.B. 18-14.

Three decision items (R1 Outdoor Rec, R8 Asset Maintenance, and R9 Wildlife Council) cited S.B. 18-143 as an underlying driver of both revenue and the purpose of increased spending. That bill increased various hunting, fishing, and state parks fees. It also provided the Parks and Wildlife Commission with the authority to adjust hunting and fishing fees with inflation. Per the bill’s legislative declaration, these changes were aimed at providing sufficient revenue to: (1) improve service delivery and recruit and retain qualified employees, (2) reduce construction and maintenance backlogs, (3) increase the number of hunters and anglers in the State.4

The Department cited service delivery and recruitment in R1, saying the requested 15.5 FTE will help CPW improve wildlife populations and maintain state wildlife areas. Similarly, the requested increase in base operating budgets would help the Division adjust for increased costs related to both wildlife and state parks services. For R8, the Department linked its approval to the goal of reducing maintenance and repair backlogs at state parks and wildlife areas. For R9, the Department linked the request to the increase in revenue generated by S.B. 18-143, which would be used to educate the general public about the benefits of hunting and fishing.

WILDLIFE CASH FUND REVENUE AND FUND BALANCE
The Wildlife Cash Fund (WCF) receives most of its revenue from hunting and fishing license sales. Historically, nonresident elk hunting licenses make up the largest share of revenue for the WCF, but a very small share of sales volume. This occurs because nonresidents tend to pay substantially more for licenses than residents. Costs for both groups have gone up since the passage of S.B. 18-143, but more so for nonresidents.

A 12.5 percent rise in sales volume and the increased fees boosted revenue by almost 40.0 percent from FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21. The Department expects that the WCF balance will exceed $190.0 million in FY 2022-23 even when accounting for approval of the requested decision items and a $55.2 million capital construction request.

However, that $190.0 million balance comes with a caveat. Per the Department, a significant portion of that balance is earmarked for specific purposes and projects. For example, hunters and anglers have to buy a $10.40 Habitat Stamp once a year in order to purchase other licenses. This fee is deposited into the Wildlife Cash Fund, but statute requires that it is used specifically for improvement of and access to wildlife habitat. For FY 2022-23, CPW has earmarked $22.8 million of the $191.0 million balance as habitat stamp funds. The balance also includes $21.3 million in funds obligated for active large capital projects. Still, the end result is an “available” balance exceeding $57.2 million even when including increased spending for the FY 2022-23 budget and capital requests.

PARKS CASH FUND REVENUE AND FUND BALANCE
Like the Wildlife Cash Fund, fee revenue is the primary contributor to the Parks Cash Fund. The largest sources of fee revenue are campsite fees, regular annual passes, and day passes to state parks. The primary driver behind a recent increase in revenue is an increase in sales volume and visitation.

This increase in revenue was supplemented by a $17.5 million General Fund transfer to the Parks Fund via H.B. 21-1326 (General Fund Support DNR Programs). In addition to that bill, the General Assembly also passed S.B. 21-249 (Keep CO Wild) to increase revenue to the Parks Fund. The fiscal note for that bill assumed that revenue would increase by between $17.6 and 37.6 million. The end result is a fund balance that should sufficiently cover increased appropriations for FY 2022-23 (see graph on next page).

CONCLUSION
The balance of the Wildlife Cash Fund can support increased spending authority requested by the Department. The same holds true for the Parks Cash Fund, especially if the Keep Colorado Wild Pass (S.B. 21-249) is implemented as intended and revenue is remotely in line with the bill’s fiscal note. In staff’s view, CPW’s requests fall within authorities and intent provided by statute and recent legislation, such as S.B. 18-143."

 

[tdhanses]

So in the end CPW will instate some new feel good fees yet probably do nothing to reduce any funding sources, so NR numbers will stay the same overall, maybe there will be a change in trophy units, but in some units it takes 12pts as a nR and 5pts as a resident or so, doubt these change.

We all say something has to change but I wouldn’t bet on any significant changes outside of all otc going draw at some point.

 

[fngTony]

@WV Mountaineer Home prices and rent have skyrocketed but our wages haven’t so $300 for a resident elk tag is going to hurt. I’m not completely against it but there needs to be exceptions for certain criteria such as low/fixed income, seniors, military, first responders etc.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

We already pay with our taxes, increased CoL, and dealing with Californians.

Mensa membership denied.

 

[Ucsdryder]

We already pay with our taxes, increased CoL, and dealing with Californians.

You do live in kremmling. Let’s not get too crazy with COL.

 

[wapiti1983]

I'd be willing to double the price of Resident tags if they'd shift the muzzleloader season to Oct 1 and do something to address point creep. They also need to get away from the current method of pay later. 7 bucks and a small game tag isn't exactly skin in the game, imo, and leads to people applying who aren't gonna do much more than road hunt anyway. There's probably other things they could do, but I'm sure there are mitigating factors I'm unaware of, or it's outside CPW's wheelhouse, etc.

 

[SoloWilderness]

The simple way to cut back on NR applications and the current issue of having to have a second draw due to people flaking out on tags they won in the first draw is to reinstate the policy of paying for your tag up front.

Nothing like being a resident and losing the tag you applied for only to see two or three of the same tag show up in the second draw because someone else was applying for that tag along with tags in every other state and then playing the game of choosing which tags they really want when all of their other results come in because there is no incentive not to do so.

This is spot on. When they switched to pay later, every tag that I could reliably get as a 2nd-3rd choice became a 1st choice, 0-2 point tag very quickly. Years of carefully analyzing draw odds, and planning accordingly went in the toilet overnight.

 

[Overdrive]

I'd be willing to double the price of Resident tags if they'd shift the muzzleloader season to Oct 1 and do something to address point creep. They also need to get away from the current method of pay later. 7 bucks and a small game tag isn't exactly skin in the game, imo, and leads to people applying who aren't gonna do much more than road hunt anyway. There's probably other things they could do, but I'm sure there are mitigating factors I'm unaware of, or it's outside CPW's wheelhouse, etc.

The problem I see with moving muzzleloader season to Oct 1 is now you're messing with rifle Moose seasons a much more valued and hard to get license. I think they leave muzzleloader where it is but make it muzzleloader only for 7-9 days. This still leaves archery hunters 3 weeks the longest season still.

 

[Overdrive]

The simple way to cut back on NR applications and the current issue of having to have a second draw due to people flaking out on tags they won in the first draw is to reinstate the policy of paying for your tag up front.

Nothing like being a resident and losing the tag you applied for only to see two or three of the same tag show up in the second draw because someone else was applying for that tag along with tags in every other state and then playing the game of choosing which tags they really want when all of their other results come in because there is no incentive not to do so.

Just need the state to do a no refund policy, with a medical exemption like some other states already do.