New CPW requirement for SWAs

[Poser]

All user groups required to have a hunting or fishing license.

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

 

[street]

At first approximation, this seems like a good thing to me. But I'm sure there will be negative consequences.

 

[realunlucky]

My opinion is it's a good thing. Licensing is where the funds come from to support those properties so seems pretty straight forward common sense to require users to pay thier way. No doubt some groups in Colorado will be in an uproar.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[bbrown]

Pay to play like the rest of us - bout damn time! No downsides to this that I can see

 

[rob86jeep]

I don't see this lasting as I don't think it's the right/appropriate way to go about it. You shouldn't force people to purchase a hunting license to access land. If they want to generate funds, or protect access to SWA's, they can always create an SWA "stamp" or something else that accomplishes the same thing.

There are people that are morally against hunting, which although I think is strange, it's their right to feel that way. Forcing them to purchase a hunting license to access land isn't right. Imagine if the government took that approach to other aspects of life?

 

[willfrye027]

We had this in Virginia, but there was an option to pay $15 or so for an “access pass” instead of a hunting/fishing license. But there was probably a lot less non hunting/fishing use of those properties compared to Colorado. The properties were VERY nicely maintained and even managed for wildlife. Plus the state acquired new properties every year, usually several thousands of acres each. I see this as a good thing for Colorado.

 

[huntineveryday]

I like the idea behind this. It makes sense for all users of the area to contribute to the cost of owning and maintaining them. I actually really like the way Colorado handled it. If you make all users pay to use, you will be giving other users a voice in how they want to see that property used. Having them purchase hunting/fishing liscence rather than a stamp should keep the focus on wildlife habitat access for hunting/fishing rather than putting in parking lots and hiking trails, etc.

 

[Whip]

“By policy, state wildlife areas are acquired with hunter and angler dollars, and are intended specifically to provide wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation,”

I can't see where people who don't hunt or fish have a leg to stand on. Sure seems like a policy that was long overdue to me.

 

[Vandy321]

Awesome, I'm all for it.

Another option, should this get challenged, is to just have a daily entry fee requirement, similar to those at alot of the state run pullouts / parking spots for access to stretches of public water, rec areas, etc. Drop some money in an envelope, put the receipt on your window...no big bad hunting license required.

But agreed, about time the rest of the public paid their fair share. Why should I pay to fish catch and release, but Mr. Bird watcher gets to use the land for free?