CO License Fee Increase

[Chuckle]

What does everyone think of the Colorado Parks & Wildlife proposal to increase license fees by 5 bucks?

 

[Big Fin]

I spill that much in coffee each month. Fine with me.

 

[wolfpup]

I am a CO resident and it does not hinder me from purchasing and applying for almost all game species! I also think considering a the size and quality of animals Colorado has to offer, the non-resident fees are reasonable.

 

[Jorgy]

What does everyone think of the Colorado Parks & Wildlife proposal to increase license fees by 5 bucks?

I think it's not enough, were talking about non-residents, right?

 

[noharleyyet]

I think it's not enough, were talking about non-residents, right?

Obviously, 5 bucks for a resident would incite a riot.

 

[Oak]

Residents: would you support a 75% increase in your resident hunting licenses? ($80 for an elk tag)

I think a 75% increase is reasonable.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Residents: would you support a 75% increase in your resident hunting licenses? ($80 for an elk tag)

I think a 75% increase is reasonable.

Yes, I would.

I would also like to see NR tag fees raised as well. Here comes the hate mail.

 

[Jorgy]

Residents: would you support a 75% increase in your resident hunting licenses? ($80 for an elk tag)

I think a 75% increase is reasonable.

I am at a point in my life where $80 doesn't affect my bank account one way or another, years ago this would have cut down on the amount of tags that I do buy though.

I would support any increase, we need to open our wallets and pay for what we are receiving.

 

[8andcounting]

I am a CO resident and it does not hinder me from purchasing and applying for almost all game species! I also think considering a the size and quality of animals Colorado has to offer, the non-resident fees are reasonable.

I would agree .... I pay 624 roughly, for the OTC bull tag and im fine with that. That's fair. The $800 for Montana is ridiculous for NR's

 

[Matt Foley]

Residents: would you support a 75% increase in your resident hunting licenses? ($80 for an elk tag)

I think a 75% increase is reasonable.

I would definitely keep buying my tags. I think this would be a much better solution than increasing the land owner and NR allocations.

 

[sneakem]

Residents: would you support a 75% increase in your resident hunting licenses? ($80 for an elk tag)

I think a 75% increase is reasonable.

I'd be happy with a 100% increase as long as the NR draw percentages fell in line with other states. Sell the crap out of the OTC tags to whomever...

 

[DirtyDan]

"5 bucks here....5 bucks there..... It's no big deal, it's only chump change"
I for one am sick and tired of being nickel and dimed to death. I'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this but why should any NR have to pay for the masses? I can see paying a premium if I want to hunt a different state, but over 15 times? Let's put this another way, let's say your sister Betty moved out of state to a beautiful place with a nice pond in the back yard fjust ripe for a fishing linea. You figure what a great opportunity to catch up with relatives and while we're at it we'll have a fish fry. You crossover the state line and you need gas. So you pull in and find out that in staters pay at the pump $2.50 a gallon but NR have to pay $25.00 per gallon. Kinda puts a damper on the whole trip now doesn't it?
Why not make everyone using the backcountry pay a REASONABLE $ for using this commodity? And I mean everyone, mountain bikers, hikers, bird watchers, fisherman and anyone else. Why is it always the NR that has to shell out big money for all to enjoy?

This turned into quite the rant, but I would like for someone to educate me as maybe I am missing something.
Fire away!

 

[Big Fin]

This turned into quite the rant, but I would like for someone to educate me as maybe I am missing something.
Fire away!

Here you go. A video we did last winter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqglAucuZ34

Might not be the answer you wanted to hear, but it is the history of how we got here and why we get charged differently as a non-resident than what we get charged as a resident.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'd be happy with a 100% increase as long as the NR draw percentages fell in line with other states. Sell the crap out of the OTC tags to whomever...

Homers be liking limited entry tags being exponentially subsidized by MotherTexas.

 

[DirtyDan]

Thanks Randy for the link. I've listened to the argument on several podcasts and I think I understand why there is a difference between resident and non. Don't get me wrong, I believe that if I or you or anyone wants to use that non home states resources that we should have to pay a premium. But why is it that only western states feel that they charge these exasperated prices? Take for instance my state of Ohio. I pay somewhere around $50 for a hunting license with a deer tag, an out of stater pays (or used to) $125. Why isn't it more in the range of $600? I'm feeling the pinch of out of staters coming into my state paying leases and land locking me out of old farmsteads that I could go and work bailing hay, punching cows, or fixing a roof for permission to hunt. Should Ohio raise its NR tags to help me get back into the woods? Maybe my gripe should be with MY congress men instead of with other state price. Now I don't think it needs to be a tit for tat that "well you guys charge me x amount so I'm going to do the same to you". I think that it falls more into the realm of let's just see how much money a certain state thinks they can push it until they start loosing revenue.
Maybe some laws need to be revisited and changed for the better of all sportsmen instead of just saying that well that's the way it's been and either lump it or leave it.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks Randy for the link. I've listened to the argument on several podcasts and I think I understand why there is a difference between resident and non. Don't get me wrong, I believe that if I or you or anyone wants to use that non home states resources that we should have to pay a premium. But why is it that only western states feel that they charge these exasperated prices? Take for instance my state of Ohio. I pay somewhere around $50 for a hunting license with a deer tag, an out of stater pays (or used to) $125. Why isn't it more in the range of $600? I'm feeling the pinch of out of staters coming into my state paying leases and land locking me out of old farmsteads that I could go and work bailing hay, punching cows, or fixing a roof for permission to hunt. Should Ohio raise its NR tags to help me get back into the woods? Maybe my gripe should be with MY congress men instead of with other state price. Now I don't think it needs to be a tit for tat that "well you guys charge me x amount so I'm going to do the same to you". I think that it falls more into the realm of let's just see how much money a certain state thinks they can push it until they start loosing revenue.
Maybe some laws need to be revisited and changed for the better of all sportsmen instead of just saying that well that's the way it's been and either lump it or leave it.

I can't say for sure why OH is not charging NRs $600. I suspect because either the market would not bear that price when whitetail hunting is so abundant in that part of the country. I suspect the Farm Bureau and the auto insurance industry would lobby against any efforts that would reduce deer harvest and would make the case that increasing NR fees to $600 would reduce deer harvest.

Even though I did that piece that gives the history of how we got here, I have been a loud advocate that residents of western states need to start paying more and be less dependent upon non-residents. Westerners wonder why it is so hard to get non-residents interested in public land issues out west. Well, let's see.... We charge them 10X-30X what we pay. We limit them to a small percentage of the tags. And then, we as westerners seem confused when non-resident folks don't get worked up about public land issues. Pretty obvious.

Yet, part of the expected birthright of some western hunters is to have hugely subsidized fees. Some western states, such as NV have relatively high fees for both R and NR. But, hunters in most western states are happy to keep getting the subsidy. Sooner or later, that non-resident cow is going to walk away. Who is going to subsidize the vocal residents opposed to a resident fee increase, then?

My state of Montana has written the book on hammering non-residents. Most of the Hunt Talk crowd from MT would gladly pay more for resident fees. Yet, the average Joe down at the bar bitches to no end. And then when they don't fill their elk tag, they blame it on one or more of three common causes; non-residents, wolves, and when all else fails, Obamacare.

I wish it was different, but given how the laws are written and the common human condition of whining about any fee increase, even when we have it better than the rest of the world, I don't see it changing. And continuing down this path of heavy subsidy is going to come back to bite western hunters. Our state agencies are running out of money, and not because they are frivolous. Rather, resident fees do not keep up with inflation and continued increases to NRs results in lower total revenues as NRs find a different place/activity for their money.

I'm in the same position of you in the eight western states where I applied as a NR this year, as are many other Hunt Talkers. We are all a NR in more states than we are a resident.

 

[hank4elk]

I pay less than $200 for Lic, Bull & Buck tag in NM while NR fees have gone up since I used to hunt here as a NR.
And the residents still whine about the cost here.
I do think the outfitter pool is BS,but that and talk of LO tags will get me in trouble....

 

[Whiptail]

Well stated Randy!
I appreciate you looking at the issue from different points of view and the long term implications.

 

[8andcounting]

I can't say for sure why OH is not charging NRs $600. I suspect because either the market would not bear that price when whitetail hunting is so abundant in that part of the country. I suspect the Farm Bureau and the auto insurance industry would lobby against any efforts that would reduce deer harvest and would make the case that increasing NR fees to $600 would reduce deer harvest.

Even though I did that piece that gives the history of how we got here, I have been a loud advocate that residents of western states need to start paying more and be less dependent upon non-residents. Westerners wonder why it is so hard to get non-residents interested in public land issues out west. Well, let's see.... We charge them 10X-30X what we pay. We limit them to a small percentage of the tags. And then, we as westerners seem confused when non-resident folks don't get worked up about public land issues. Pretty obvious.

Yet, part of the expected birthright of some western hunters is to have hugely subsidized fees. Some western states, such as NV have relatively high fees for both R and NR. But, hunters in most western states are happy to keep getting the subsidy. Sooner or later, that non-resident cow is going to walk away. Who is going to subsidize the vocal residents opposed to a resident fee increase, then?

My state of Montana has written the book on hammering non-residents. Most of the Hunt Talk crowd from MT would gladly pay more for resident fees. Yet, the average Joe down at the bar bitches to no end. And then when they don't fill their elk tag, they blame it on one or more of three common causes; non-residents, wolves, and when all else fails, Obamacare.

I wish it was different, but given how the laws are written and the common human condition of whining about any fee increase, even when we have it better than the rest of the world, I don't see it changing. And continuing down this path of heavy subsidy is going to come back to bite western hunters. Our state agencies are running out of money, and not because they are frivolous. Rather, resident fees do not keep up with inflation and continued increases to NRs results in lower total revenues as NRs find a different place/activity for their money.

I'm in the same position of you in the eight western states where I applied as a NR this year, as are many other Hunt Talkers. We are all a NR in more states than we are a resident.

Spot on randy . I've been hunting Montana since 2000 for elk deer and antelope and I hope to keep doing it for another 30 years . The tags as a NR are spendy . But so is sitting at the bar, going out to eat , gambling , all things I can pretty easily stay away from to come up with the cash for tags . If I want to drink 8 beers on a Friday night I buy off sale and drink them at home while I sit on my deck glassinh whitetails

 

[HighDesertSage]

Spot on randy . I've been hunting Montana since 2000 for elk deer and antelope and I hope to keep doing it for another 30 years . The tags as a NR are spendy . But so is sitting at the bar, going out to eat , gambling , all things I can pretty easily stay away from to come up with the cash for tags . If I want to drink 8 beers on a Friday night I buy off sale and drink them at home while I sit on my deck glassinh whitetails

Exactly, I know guys who complain about a tag fees, but at the same time have no problem dropping $60 bucks taking the family out to dinner, or spending $50 at the bar, etc. That adds up to thousands every year.

I have said it before in previous posts, but the people who want to hunt elk every year will continue to do so regardless of fee increases.