CO Future Generations Act

[JohnCushman]

Does it make sense to anyone besides me that if they wants money for fisheries and things like that, then raise the cost of a fishing license? Why take money from big game management to go to fishing related things when there's a fishing license available?

 

[BuzzH]

Does it make sense to anyone besides me that if they wants money for fisheries and things like that, then raise the cost of a fishing license? Why take money from big game management to go to fishing related things when there's a fishing license available?

I would check the number of licenses sold and divide that by the cost...that will answer your question.

Not everything pays for itself when you have a mandate to manage all wildlife within in the State.

 

[JohnCushman]

According to this PDF.... https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/WAFWA-License-Fee-History.pdf ...there was about 800,000 fishing licenses sold. Now, if you increase the fishing license cost by $5, that's a lot of revenew towards fishing related expenses. Especially now that Colorado forces NR to buy a fishing license.

 

[Oak]

...there was about 800,000 fishing licenses sold.

Eight million over 25 years.

2015 total license sales are attached.

 

[JohnCushman]

Even with those numbers, there's a lot of money to be had towards fisheries with a fishing license price increase.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I think a lot of people are stuck on the whole "fishing licenses pay for fisheries projects", "big game for big game projects", etc. That's not the way it works. The proper way to manage fish, wildlife, and natural resources is by managing an ecosystem. In Wisconsin we have specific stamps, such as a trout stamp that goes toward trout stream restoration, but otherwise it is lumped together.

Not trying to be a jerk: but if you Colorado residents are whining about $53 for an elk license then I wish I had your problems.....

 

[Zach]

I think a lot of people are stuck on the whole "fishing licenses pay for fisheries projects", "big game for big game projects", etc. That's not the way it works. The proper way to manage fish, wildlife, and natural resources is by managing an ecosystem. In Wisconsin we have specific stamps, such as a trout stamp that goes toward trout stream restoration, but otherwise it is lumped together.

Not trying to be a jerk: but if you Colorado residents are whining about $53 for an elk license then I wish I had your problems.....

I'm not stuck on it, I'm looking at the numbers. Is asking the fishing crowd to step up and pay a little more for their part to much? Of which I'll be one.
I don't know of a singe resident who doesn't understand that big game pays for most everything else, specifically NR elk. I'd think the NR crowd would be a little more vocal too, but maybe they should just be happy at whatever price CPW has the OTC elk tags at since they can get one every year without having to do squat.

Tell me, in WI, how long is your deer season and how many can you take? and how cheap is your resident tag?

 

[waygoner]

I also support an increase in the cost of a fishing license. For $26 I can fish every day of the year - $0.07 a day!. That's a bargain.

 

[COEngineer]

I also support an increase in the cost of a fishing license. For $26 I can fish every day of the year - $0.07 a day!. That's a bargain.

No argument here. Contact your DNR representatives and promote it.

But the issue at hand is big game licenses.

 

[JohnCushman]

...and there's the token NR telling us how we should feel about our pricing and management....

 

[Northwoods Labs]

...and there's the token NR telling us how we should feel about our pricing and management....

NO, just simply stating the facts that now days management is focused on ecosystems and you don't really manage for one specific species. I am not telling you how to feel on management, just simply stating what is or should be. You can feel however you want about pricing. For all the $ I see a lot of folks on here spend, I think $53 for an elk license is more than reasonable. You may disagree and that is fine.

By the way John, thanks for letting me know that non-resident input on topics regarding Colorado land and wildlife are not welcome. I am now informed

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I'm not stuck on it, I'm looking at the numbers. Is asking the fishing crowd to step up and pay a little more for their part to much? Of which I'll be one.
I don't know of a singe resident who doesn't understand that big game pays for most everything else, specifically NR elk. I'd think the NR crowd would be a little more vocal too, but maybe they should just be happy at whatever price CPW has the OTC elk tags at since they can get one every year without having to do squat.

Tell me, in WI, how long is your deer season and how many can you take? and how cheap is your resident tag?

Ha...kinda complicated depending on where you hunt.
Gun license is $24 for the 9 day season, which gets you a buck tag plus a farmland doe tag. (Hence my thought that $53 for elk is a bargain). Archery license is same price: season from Sept-Jan most places. Bonus tags for a doe are $12 and availability varies widely depending on county, typical trend being the further north the less the availability.

 

[cedahm]

No argument here. Contact your DNR representatives and promote it.

But the issue at hand is big game licenses.

The bigger issue for the folks on this thread (and of course, the bigger dollar impact that is generating much debate) is certainly the big game licenses, but looking at the bill text, it IS calling for both.



In fact - the Fishing fee increase is a higher % than the Big Game increases: R annual fishing is proposed to go from 25->33 (32%). Versus R Elk which would go from 45->53 (18%). The proposed NR fishing increase is even higher percentage wise (which I can interpret as both a needed correction as well as a pre-positioning move to requiring a combo license before applying in the Big Game Draw).

I am surprised they dropped the Boat Sticker Fee from the last version. That seemed to have widespread support.

 

[Oak]

I am surprised they dropped the Boat Sticker Fee from the last version. That seemed to have widespread support.

I think this was addressed with a separate bill.

 

[COEngineer]

But the issue at hand is big game licenses.

The bigger issue for the folks on this thread (and of course, the bigger dollar impact that is generating much debate) is certainly the big game licenses, but looking at the bill text, it IS calling for both.

View attachment 80591

In fact - the Fishing fee increase is a higher % than the Big Game increases: R annual fishing is proposed to go from 25->33 (32%). Versus R Elk which would go from 45->53 (18%).

I stand corrected. Thanks cedahm

 

[Zach]

I also support an increase in the cost of a fishing license. For $26 I can fish every day of the year - $0.07 a day!. That's a bargain.

So, with a $33 annual fishing license the costs goes to .09/day. I'd pay that for big game....





























^It's a joke....

Northwoods, I believe John was referring to your use of the word "whining". I'm not whining about anything. I'm involved in the discussion about license costs and what CPW does with the money. I welcome everyone to get involved.

 

[squirrel]

Any time, on any subject, if government sells it as "for the children", the actual children have NOTHING to do with any of it, unless it is their OWN children having college tuition money and a nice car to leave home in...

How many of the bleeding heart "(We) need to pay more" guys go in and buy licences for those who will not use them or can go for free ???

Just about the same number who toss in a check to the IRS for a few thousand above and beyond what they owe.

But let them reach into someone ELSE'S checkbook and their largess knows no bounds. Their hearts are all encompassing.

Once (against my instincts) i went to a meeting where they were proposing to kill all the deer to see if they would then have more?? or less?? deer. (ok that is a slight exaggeration, but not by much)

100% of non uniformed spoke against it. The uniformed 100% in favor (WHICH IF YOU UNDERSTAND THEIR RULES OF COMMENT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS) The final plea was "we need to kill these deer for the sake of our children" It was actually so bad it was kind of funny.

Of course at the end they thanked us for showing up and said they were going to kill those pesky deer and hoped we would come around to their way of superior thinking and back the proposal since support was overwhelming. The newspaper article spoke of overwhelming support shown at the public comment hearings for the policy, they somehow neglected to talk about the "public" vs the "badge wearing" split of opinions.

Did I mention it was 100%no/100% yes?