Colorado actually going to change things?

[ReaptheHeat]

You are only looking at tag/license revenue, not CPW’s whole budget.

I'm seeing CPW with 121 million in revenue with 49 million of that being NR Elk tags. Am I missing something here?

Edit: Im an idiot. Its YTD Q2. Still a significant portion of funds! Looking like 215 million total revenue for all of FY 20-21. Then Elk NR tags (70,718 sold) is 43.77 million in YTD Q2

 

[CoStick]

I'm seeing CPW with 121 million in revenue with 49 million of that being NR Elk tags. Am I missing something here?

License and passes last I looked were 50% or so of total funding, so yes you are missing quite a bit I believe.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

License and passes last I looked were 50% or so of total funding, so yes you are missing quite a bit I believe.

Check page 7 and 8...

 

[CoStick]

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

 

[ReaptheHeat]

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

You're right. CPW reports 329 million on their website (https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx) but I can't find any official source for a breakdown besides the prior document I shared. Would be interesting to get a breakdown.

 

[CoStick]

You're right. CPW reports 329 million on their website (https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx) but I can't find any official source for a breakdown besides the prior document I shared. Would be interesting to get a breakdown.

49 million of 329 is NR Elk. Next year state park pass is attachedto annual car registration and you have to proactively opt out. The revenue stream is changing and hunting is becoming smaller bit by bit. NR revenue is also becoming smaller piece of the pie .

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The nr love to quote that game but it’s been posted multiple times that the money the residents would need to make up isn’t nearly as high as the Chicken littles love to shout about. That being said, I’d pay a heck of a lot to restrict non-residents. If they don’t like it they can move out here and buy a million dollar house, pay high taxes, pay high gas prices, etc to enjoy the benefits of resident tags.

Who you calling a chicken little?

The nr love to quote that game but it’s been posted multiple times that the money the residents would need to make up isn’t nearly as high as the Chicken littles love to shout about. That being said, I’d pay a heck of a lot to restrict non-residents. If they don’t like it they can move out here and buy a million dollar house, pay high taxes, pay high gas prices, etc to enjoy the benefits of resident tags.

Something is not adding up with math you are suggesting. If NR’s are paying 10 times what a resident pays for an elk archery tag, and they do, then the math says you are wrong.

I don’t know the number of resident versus nonresident archery elk licenses sold. I don’t care either.

However, there is only two ways to look at this based on your post. You can allocate the number of licenses however makes you happy. You are simply not making sense John. If NR money doesn’t dwarf resident money as you suggest, that means resident hunters out rank non resident hunters 10:1. If that’s the case, I can’t see what the fuss is about NR hunters ruining residents elk hunting. Call me simple minded. But, that’s a no brainer.

Or, if the ratio of resident vs nonhuhters is as suggested in this thread, truly causing the problems, then the gap created by the 10 times higher NR license grows even wider over resident contributions.

You can call that chicken little if you want. It’s still wrong one way or the other. You can decide which one better fits. As stated, I could care less. But, you can’t flip flop and have it both ways. I’m not being a wise guy either. I’m just pointing out reality.

I truly understand every resident hunters feelings about nr hunters. I’m not saying they aren’t justified. But, the resident hunters problems in CO is one that is going to take residents putting their money where their mouth is. That’s what is going to get P&W’s attention. Not contradicting arguments.

 

[cnelk]

I have 3 NonRes buddies coming out hunting with me this Sept.

Looking forward to seeing them and having a good time

 

[Ucsdryder]

Who you calling a chicken little?

Something is not adding up with math you are suggesting. If NR’s are paying 10 times what a resident pays for an elk archery tag, and they do, then the math says you are wrong.

I don’t know the number of resident versus nonresident archery elk licenses sold. I don’t care either.

However, there is only two ways to look at this based on your post. You can allocate the number of licenses however makes you happy. You are simply not making sense John. If NR money doesn’t dwarf resident money as you suggest, that means resident hunters out rank non resident hunters 10:1. If that’s the case, I can’t see what the fuss is about NR hunters ruining residents elk hunting. Call me simple minded. But, that’s a no brainer.

Or, if the ratio of resident vs nonhuhters is as suggested in this thread, truly causing the problems, then the gap created by the 10 times higher NR license grows even wider over resident contributions.

You can call that chicken little if you want. It’s still wrong one way or the other. You can decide which one better fits. As stated, I could care less. But, you can’t flip flop and have it both ways. I’m not being a wise guy either. I’m just pointing out reality.

I truly understand every resident hunters feelings about nr hunters. I’m not saying they aren’t justified. But, the resident hunters problems in CO is one that is going to take residents putting their money where their mouth is. That’s what is going to get P&W’s attention. Not contradicting arguments.

Residents already outnumber non-residents so increasing the cost to 125 will have a big impact. Also, we aren’t trying to get rid of all non residents, just go 80/20 and cap Otc, rather than the bs 65/35 they do now. What you wrote makes sense, but you’re talking a few more residents, and a few less non-residents drawing controlled hunts in the 80/20 plan. I have no issue increasing the cost of non-resident tags as well to help make up for it, hell Wyoming is getting $1200 now.

Last year residents bought 56356 in the draw (not otc). If you increase tags by 65 dollars that’s $3,663,340. That makes up for 5635 non residents. So right there, take out 5635 non-residents, now you’re getting closer to 80/20, plus all the otc guys. Add another 50-100 to the Non-resident side and you’re still cheap compared to other states and you’re there. This comes off the first page of the elk draw statistics so the numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

I get it, non-residents want the glory days they’ve had in Colorado, but it’s time Colorado caught up with the rest of the western US. There are too many people coming west and north to hunt every year. Something has to be done.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Residents already outnumber non-residents so increasing the cost to 125 will have a big impact. Also, we aren’t trying to get rid of all non residents, just go 80/20 and cap Otc, rather than the bs 65/35 they do now. What you wrote makes sense, but you’re talking a few more residents, and a few less non-residents drawing controlled hunts in the 80/20 plan. I have no issue increasing the cost of non-resident tags as well to help make up for it, hell Wyoming is getting $1200 now.

Last year residents bought 56356 in the draw (not otc). If you increase tags by 65 dollars that’s $3,663,340. That makes up for 5635 non residents. So right there, take out 5635 non-residents, now you’re getting closer to 80/20, plus all the otc guys. Add another 50-100 to the Non-resident side and you’re still cheap compared to other states and you’re there. This comes off the first page of the elk draw statistics so the numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

I get it, non-residents want the glory days they’ve had in Colorado, but it’s time Colorado caught up with the rest of the western US. There are too many people coming west and north to hunt every year. Something has to be done.

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.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

i just dont understand why all the other user groups cant start paying to use the resources to offset the revenue loss from NR tags. Colorado trails are packed all over the front range every weekend now. Why cant they pay an annual use fee? Why does the burden have to be on hunters?

The best argument against this that I have heard is... "If you do that then you give them more sway on hunting regulations because you no longer have the argument that hunting funds everything."
Although I do agree. Other recreation should be chipping in more towards conservation of wild areas if they want to utilize, or have any say.

I went backpacking recently, and the gal I went with said some of her friends say "apple cores are unnatural and need to be packed out or they could potentially grow apple trees."
Luckily she doesn't see it that way.

But would you really want people like that to have more of a say?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The best argument against this that I have heard is... "If you do that then you give them more sway on hunting regulations because you no longer have the argument that hunting funds everything."
Although I do agree. Other recreation should be chipping in more towards conservation of wild areas if they want to utilize, or have any say.

I went backpacking recently, and the gal I went with said some of her friends say "apple cores are unnatural and need to be packed out or they could potentially grow apple trees."
Luckily she doesn't see it that way.

But would you really want people like that to have more of a say?

They already have a say. In the Sierra clubs, wilderness society, etc…. It’s time they put their money where their mouth is. Like hunters and fisherman have to do.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

They already have a say. In the Sierra clubs, wilderness society, etc…. It’s time they put their money where their mouth is. Like hunters and fisherman have to do.

No doubt. I agree for sure.

 

[ColoradoV]

The nr funding argument is dated and will soon be irrelevant.

Or how many non residents are going to be paying the new CPW “tax” of 29usd to register your car every year….

Oh yea zero. You know how many Co residents will or forget to opt out? About 55-60%…. Maybe more!! At just over 5 million registered vehicles that will be a extra 70-80 million usd yearly for CPW!! This “tax” us residents pay is going to be put in the coffers of CPW… Starts in 2022 = timing could not be better.

Some are right tags are too cheap so double the price for both res/nr and the good news is CPW (w the largest budget of any state) is actually revenue positive at 90-10!! Or the revenue argument some of you are using is not even a valad argument in the current setting.

Most non residents feel 80-20 is fair. I am on the fence if it should be 80-20 or 90-10.. One or the other is coming so nr should try and get behind 80-20 before they are stuck w 90-10.

 

[southLA]

Most non residents feel 80-20 is fair. I am on the fence if it should be 80-20 or 90-10.. One or the other is coming so nr should try and get behind 80-20 before they are stuck w 90-10.

Common sense NR quotas amirite? Think of the wildlife.

 

[Zslayer]

Residents already outnumber non-residents so increasing the cost to 125 will have a big impact. Also, we aren’t trying to get rid of all non residents, just go 80/20 and cap Otc, rather than the bs 65/35 they do now. What you wrote makes sense, but you’re talking a few more residents, and a few less non-residents drawing controlled hunts in the 80/20 plan. I have no issue increasing the cost of non-resident tags as well to help make up for it, hell Wyoming is getting $1200 now.

Last year residents bought 56356 in the draw (not otc). If you increase tags by 65 dollars that’s $3,663,340. That makes up for 5635 non residents. So right there, take out 5635 non-residents, now you’re getting closer to 80/20, plus all the otc guys. Add another 50-100 to the Non-resident side and you’re still cheap compared to other states and you’re there. This comes off the first page of the elk draw statistics so the numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

I get it, non-residents want the glory days they’ve had in Colorado, but it’s time Colorado caught up with the rest of the western US. There are too many people coming west and north to hunt every year. Something has to be done.

One big way way to make up the funds for cutting non resident tags and even gain funds would be have all these mount bike riders buy a registration sticker just like we do for our four wheelers!! $25 is nothing but do you know how many mountain bike riders there are in this state, that would bring millions! They use our NF just as much as hunters do and CPW is paying to put in trails for them all over the place. So why do they not have to pay for a $25 registration?

 

[CoStick]

One big way way to make up the funds for cutting non resident tags and even gain funds would be have all these mount bike riders buy a registration sticker just like we do for our four wheelers!! $25 is nothing but do you know how many mountain bike riders there are in this state, that would bring millions! They use our NF just as much as hunters do and CPW is paying to put in trails for them all over the place. So why do they not have to pay for a $25 registration?

Many already have to buy a fishing or hunting license to access certain trails. The hunting/fishing revenue is becoming a smaller part of CPW funding each year. The other groups are already starting to have more influence. Before the auto registration kicks in next year, NR tag revenue is down to less than 20% of annual funding. Hunters seat at the table, especially NR is becoming a smaller.

 

[Poser]

One big way way to make up the funds for cutting non resident tags and even gain funds would be have all these mount bike riders buy a registration sticker just like we do for our four wheelers!! $25 is nothing but do you know how many mountain bike riders there are in this state, that would bring millions! They use our NF just as much as hunters do and CPW is paying to put in trails for them all over the place. So why do they not have to pay for a $25 registration?

I believe CPW attempted to instate something similar and the Forrest Service said “no.” It’s federal lands. They do have to buy a permit for SWAs, though.

This is what you get into: on federal lands, the feds regulate the trails and use, not CPW. CPW does regulate the hunting aspect, however.

 

[amassi]

The nr funding argument is dated and will soon be irrelevant.

Or how many non residents are going to be paying the new CPW “tax” of 29usd to register your car every year….

Oh yea zero. You know how many Co residents will or forget to opt out? About 55-60%…. Maybe more!! At just over 5 million registered vehicles that will be a extra 70-80 million usd yearly for CPW!! This “tax” us residents pay is going to be put in the coffers of CPW… Starts in 2022 = timing could not be better.

Some are right tags are too cheap so double the price for both res/nr and the good news is CPW (w the largest budget of any state) is actually revenue positive at 90-10!! Or the revenue argument some of you are using is not even a valad argument in the current setting.

Most non residents feel 80-20 is fair. I am on the fence if it should be 80-20 or 90-10.. One or the other is coming so nr should try and get behind 80-20 before they are stuck w 90-10.

It's not a tax if you can opt out
I'm a nr and I'm in favor of capping non resident access to Colorado. It's ridiculous what's happened and needs to be reigned in.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Ucsdryder]

Let’s wake up from our fantasy world dream. Nobody is going to make hikers pay a fee, it’s a dumb idea. There are lots of reasons why. Let’s focus on reality, there are plenty of ways to get it done and there are plenty of tweaks CPW can make immediately to improve the situation with point creep, resident/non-resident allocations, pressure, etc. In all honesty, I don’t think CPW really cares. The big questions is why do states like New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming make it such a priority, and Colorado has to kick and scream to get CPW to create focus groups?!!!