Where is CPW headed?

[cnelk]

This is an old myth. The parks division and the wildlife division operate on two separate budgets/funds and money they generate goes to their own funds. When you buy a parks pass that money goes to the parks budget/fund, when you buy a hunting license that money goes to the wildlife budget/fund. The only thing they share is administrative office space and staff such as HR, IT / website. You can find all of the operating budget info online.

Only 3% of the revenue that is raised by both departments is shared to fund those administrative expenses that are shared by both.

https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx#:~:text=CPW%20employs%20a%20user%2Dpays,the%20majority%20of%20CPW's%20proceeds.

Sure is strange how Parks suddenly became flush after joining the Wildlife side - like within 2 years

 

[Sccritterkiller]

DIE Culture is code for neo-Marxism. Period.

Fixed it for u...

 

[Marble]

DEI is code for neo-Marxism. Period.

It is. And it is sad. Seriously. I've watched California go to shit in the last 20 years.


We hunters are talking about improving the habitat for several different species and are willing to put our own money into it. These other groups are not willing to do it on the scale we do.

And when it comes to running a business or committee, or even life,whenever you say yes to something, you inherently are saying no to something else. Putting the DEI stuff into all aspects of game management is misplaced. It shouldn't be part of the conversation. It just distracts from what the commission should be doing.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[def90]

Sure is strange how Parks suddenly became flush after joining the Wildlife side - like within 2 years

Their budgets and accounts need to remain separate in order to qualify for Federal grants such as Pittman Robertson and other things. If they were using money raised by the wildlife side and spending it on the parks side they would lose those grants. The FEDs are serious about that stuff.

I think the parks side has done a good job in raising revenue over the last decade by raising camping rates and entrance fees at state parks as well as selling park passes. It also helps with the population explosion that the state has seen in that time frame as well, many of those people are getting outdoors and buying passes. They even managed to add the $29 annual park pass to all vehicle registrations in Colorado unless you "opt" out.

 

[UncleBone]

they have definitely raised the rates!!

 

[cnelk]

Their budgets and accounts need to remain separate in order to qualify for Federal grants such as Pittman Robertson and other things. If they were using money raised by the wildlife side and spending it on the parks side they would lose those grants. The FEDs are serious about that stuff.

I think the parks side has done a good job in raising revenue over the last decade by raising camping rates and entrance fees at state parks as well as selling park passes. It also helps with the population explosion that the state has seen in that time frame as well, many of those people are getting outdoors and buying passes. They even managed to add the $29 annual park pass to all vehicle registrations in Colorado unless you "opt" out.

Yada. Yada.

Remind us again why Parks couldn’t make it as a stand alone entity?

 

[def90]

Yada. Yada.

Remind us again why Parks couldn’t make it as a stand alone entity?

They were getting by previously, there was a push at the time to make cuts and save money throughout the entire state government and the idea that parks and wildlife could share on the administrative side and cut 48 high paying jobs, go from separate regional offices to shared regional offices and a single headquarters and save the state $3-4 million a year was floated and eventually passed.

The downside of the merger was that each individual agency used to receive money from the state general fund and as part of the merger the general fund money was cut off leaving the agency to rely 100% on generating their own funds via licenses, camping permits/fees, grants and so on. The agency as a whole was struggling with the cut in revenue even with the downsized admin costs with the parks side projecting an $11 million shortfall and the wildlife side projecting a $30 million shortfall by 2025 which led to the increase in parks pass fees and licenses fees back in 2018/19.

 

[Overdrive]

They were getting by previously, there was a push at the time to make cuts and save money throughout the entire state government and the idea that parks and wildlife could share on the administrative side and cut 48 high paying jobs, go from separate regional offices to shared regional offices and a single headquarters and save the state $3-4 million a year was floated and eventually passed.

The downside of the merger was that each individual agency used to receive money from the state general fund and as part of the merger the general fund money was cut off leaving the agency to rely 100% on generating their own funds via licenses, camping permits/fees, grants and so on. The agency as a whole was struggling with the cut in revenue even with the downsized admin costs with the parks side projecting an $11 million shortfall and the wildlife side projecting a $30 million shortfall by 2025 which led to the increase in parks pass fees and licenses fees back in 2018/19.

General funding is a very small part of funding, the Parks actually lowered their parks pass down to $29 and piggyback it with vehicle registrations now in 2023 with an "opt out" option, so the funding they were counting on is unknown at this point. Most people will opt out if they don't use Parks or have multiple vehicles.

This combination of Parks and wildlife was tried before I believe in the 80's and it failed back then that's why they divided. But the Hickenlooper merged them together again and it still isn't working out.

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

 

[Gadjet]

They even managed to add the $29 annual park pass to all vehicle registrations in Colorado unless you "opt" out.

This should be illegal! Plane and simple! Tells me everything I need to know about the crooks running CPW!

 

[Overdrive]

This should be illegal! Plane and simple! Tells me everything I need to know about the crooks running CPW!

It may have been considered illegal if there wasn't the "opt out" not everyone will buy the pass.

The Parks got the bright idea because they are always chasing $'s. Colorado has about 1.9 million registered vehicles. Now not all people will buy the pass and those that do buy the pass and regularly use Colorado Parks will get them at $29 instead of $80 so if the same number buy the pass, the Parks is actually loosing money, that takes some real brains there to cut your own profits.

It's typical government nonsense.

 

[Gadjet]

It may have been considered illegal if there wasn't the "opt out" not everyone will buy the pass.

The Parks got the bright idea because they are always chasing $'s. Colorado has about 1.9 million registered vehicles. Now not all people will buy the pass and those that do buy the pass and regularly use Colorado Parks will get them at $29 instead of $80 so if the same number buy the pass, the Parks is actually loosing money, that takes some real brains there to cut your own profits.

It's typical government nonsense.

I've had a big problem with this since I heard about it. All they had to do was give people a chance to "opt in" instead of opt out. Lowlife scum counting on taking advantage of people. Like I said, it should be illegal.

 

[Overdrive]

I've had a big problem with this since I heard about it. All they had to do was give people a chance to "opt in" instead of opt out. Lowlife scum counting on taking advantage of people. Like I said, it should be illegal.

It's really not a big deal "opt in" or "opt out" is tomato-tamato. It's disclosed before you pay, weather it's online or in person. If people get caught they obviously need to look at what they're paying for. It's no different than buying a hunting license online and they ask if you'd like to donate to non game or other things before you check out.

 

[Gadjet]

It's really not a big deal "opt in" or "opt out" is tomato-tamato. It's disclosed before you pay, weather it's online or in person. If people get caught they obviously need to look at what they're paying for. It's no different than buying a hunting license online and they ask if you'd like to donate to non game or other things before you check out.

Being charged for something that you didn’t intend to buy whether it’s disclosed or not is a slimy business move.

 

[Overdrive]

Being charged for something that you didn’t intend to buy whether it’s disclosed or not is a slimy business move.

Sorry you don't get it, but they don't charge you for it, you have to select it basically as an add on to your registration. They Do not charge you unless you select it. Pretty straight forward to me.

 

[5MilesBack]

Sorry you don't get it, but they don't charge you for it, you have to select it basically as an add on to your registration. They Do not charge you unless you select it. Pretty straight forward to me.

I haven't renewed a vehicle since the first of the year, but all indications from the state was that the pass would "automatically be added to the registration" UNLESS you opt out. In other words, you don't have the option to "select it".......you only have the option to "opt out". And in most cases, most people will not even see it and will be surprised when the pass shows up, and they won't even know they actually paid for it.

 

[Titan_Bow]

I just renewed my registration the other day. When you go to check out, there’s a summary of what you are being charged, and there’s a check box beside the Parks pass. You can uncheck it before proceeding with payment. There is also an info note telling you that the $29 is a 60% savings versus buying it outright.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gadjet]

Sorry you don't get it, but they don't charge you for it, you have to select it basically as an add on to your registration. They Do not charge you unless you select it. Pretty straight forward to me.

I absolutely get it. I guess I'm not getting my point across. Like Titan_Bow said, you have to uncheck the box before checkout if you don't want it. This is absolutely taking advantage of people that may not be paying attention, and they're absolutely counting on that. I don't care if it's 29 bucks or 5 cents, it's the thought of taking advantage of people that really pisses me off! It's never enough for these low life liberal pricks.

 

[dtrkyman]

Like any Gov. controlled entity it's headed right for the ditch!

You should not have to opt. out of paying for anything, shady!

 

[GringoBling]

The language of the how the CPW Commission is comprised is shockingly anti-hunter and outdoorsman. Adding to that, only 4 of the 11 have to be from the Western Slope, where almost all of the hunting and fishing takes place.

The 2 at-large members are Karen Michelle Baily and Richard Reading , neither of whom could be described as advocates for outdoorsman. Bailey's CPW bio says, "She also has a commitment to justice, equity, diversity, accessibility, and inclusion in science and natural resource management and conducts research to amplify the voices of those most impacted by environmental change." Reading's job title is "Vice President of Science and Conservation at Butterfly Pavilion."

"The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife-related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide."

 

[sneaky]

This is an old myth. The parks division and the wildlife division operate on two separate budgets/funds and money they generate goes to their own funds. When you buy a parks pass that money goes to the parks budget/fund, when you buy a hunting license that money goes to the wildlife budget/fund. The only thing they share is administrative office space and staff such as HR, IT / website. You can find all of the operating budget info online.

Only 3% of the revenue that is raised by both departments is shared to fund those administrative expenses that are shared by both.

https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx#:~:text=CPW%20employs%20a%20user%2Dpays,the%20majority%20of%20CPW's%20proceeds.

They're just better at cooking the books. If it's an "old myth", why is this the second or third time they've had to roll Parks in with Wildlife because they were broke?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk