Colorado Parks And Wildlife Financial Sustainability Bill HB17-1321

[cedahm]

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere - Introduced 4/5

Link: http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1321

Text: http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017A_1321_01.pdf

I'm not the best at reading these, but it looks like recommendations are:

- 50% increase to resident licenses across the board, inclusive of Big Game
- 30%-80% increases in NR fishing/small game costs (80% for annual fishing. no increase to NR big game)
- Application fee 'not to exceed $20' (instead of $3)

That's as far as I've gotten so far. I've been, and continue to be generally on board with the Resident license increase. Surprised at some of the specifics.

 

[cedahm]

Also (if I'm reading correctly):

- IF licenses are set at the maximums, CPI-based increases would apply to Residents (already applied to NR)
- Aquatic Nuisance Species sticker required for all watercraft over 10' long ($15 non-motorized, $25 resident motor/sail boat, $50 NR motor/sail boat)

 

[vanish]

Sounds about what we expected

 

[Matt R]

Section 4 is interesting and concerning as no revenue generated by the fee increase bill can be used for land and water purposes; when considering that the habitat stamp funds are apparently not going to be utilized for any land purchase purposes for at least this year as well, alternative mechanisms are going to be needed if any new land acquisitions or land access programs are going to be implemented for 2017.

The report due in 2019 with respect to non-consumptive users will be interesting to track and I'm glad to see this in the bill. The price increases for sheep, goat and moose (50%) were larger than I expected.

 

[jlmatthew]

The price increases for sheep, goat and moose (50%) were larger than I expected.

Think that's by design, thins out the applicant pool. Sheep is a gentlemans animal, not meant to be hunted by the commoners

 

[colo_junk]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/07/colorado-hunting-fishing-licence-cost-bill/

The Post's two cents.

I guess one of my main concerns besides giving more money to a government agency is that it appears that the majority of the money is earmarked for repairs on dams that CPW owns. Seems like a permanent jump in tag costs for shorter term projects.

 

[Zach]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/07/colorado-hunting-fishing-licence-cost-bill/

The Post's two cents.

I guess one of my main concerns besides giving more money to a government agency is that it appears that the majority of the money is earmarked for repairs on dams that CPW owns. Seems like a permanent jump in tag costs for shorter term projects.

Some of the dams are decades old, so I heard a CPW Director say. It would be much more expensive to build new ones said the same Director.

 

[rideold]

This bill is on the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources agenda today at 1:30 (http://leg.colorado.gov/content/house-agriculture-livestock-natural-resources-0). I've sent my comments to my reps/senators already but only heard back from the ones not sponsoring the bill. I had hoped to hear back from Fenberg but alas, he probably does not agree with my comments and thus did not reply to my email.

 

[Zach]

I wasn't able to listen to the hearing/testimony in it's entirety so I'm waiting for the recording to go up.

 

[cedahm]

I wasn't able to listen to the hearing/testimony in it's entirety so I'm waiting for the recording to go up.

The motion was passed to Finance.

I'm pretty raw on the mechanics/procedures of this stuff, but the Fiscal Note (http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/fn/2017A_HB1321_00.pdf)
accompanying the bill seems to indicate that while the bill allows the commission to raise/set fees up to the new maximums (at +50% over current fees), the example increases are significantly smaller (the examples used are a 4% and 15% increase to license fees).

The Aquatic nuisance stickers make up nearly (or over) half of the projected revenue increase (up to $5MM depending on the mix of Res/NonRes and Vessel type).

Parks revenue increases are split out, as well, which I like.

Let us know if you find the audio. Would make a good listen in the car.

 

[Flatrock]

Looks like they reduced the fees for the big 3 for non-residents from about $2,150 to $1,500? Am I reading that right? Would be rather shocked if they reduced those tag fees. Also, I'm glad I bit the bullet this year and bought a lifetime conservation stamp.

 

[cedahm]

Looks like they reduced the fees for the big 3 for non-residents from about $2,150 to $1,500? Am I reading that right? Would be rather shocked if they reduced those tag fees. Also, I'm glad I bit the bullet this year and bought a lifetime conservation stamp.

There is a section at the bottom in the Fiscal Note that reads:

"Technical Note
In the introduced bill, the maximum fees allowable for nonresident hunting licenses are
below those currently charged and as such will result in a reduction in revenue. The fiscal note
assumes the bill will be amended to correct this technical issue. "

 

[Zach]

http://coloradoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=11035

Recording.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Anybody have an update on this? I was just curious where it had ended up. I guess I can go look on google.

 

[HighDesertSage]

There you have it:

http://coloradowildlife.org/news/cpw-financial-sustainability-bill-hb17-1321.html

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1321

 

[cedahm]

Yep - defeated (well - 'postponed indefinitely')

Too bad, IMO. Wasted opportunity.

There was also a commission meeting today - where outfitters were present and lobbying for increased NR/R splits (35/65).

Not that I'm an "Oak Stalker" - but he iterated my thoughts very well in a different forum: "The reality check will be when residents lose licenses to nonresidents because there are unwilling to pay more."

 

[Oak]

Not that I'm an "Oak Stalker" - but he iterated my thoughts very well in a different forum: "The reality check will be when residents lose licenses to nonresidents because there are unwilling to pay more."

How prophetic those words. The Colorado Outfitters Association, Big Game Forever, and Commissioner Robert Bray made a hard push for that this afternoon at the CPW Commission meeting.

The issue at hand is a "hard cap" on NR hunters in the regular draw, or a "soft cap." The difference is that under a hard cap, NR hunters would be guaranteed the percentage of limited licenses allocated to them (35% or 20%), vs a soft cap where residents can draw more than their 65% or 80% of licenses when resident demand is higher (a higher number of residents with high preference points). Two members of the COA and a state representative for BGF testified that in these trying financial times the CPW should look at a source of revenue they are currently letting slip away under the soft cap.

They used very misleading calculations of "potential" revenue, by including licenses for cow elk and doe deer, which are currently largely drawn by resident hunters (low NR interest), to make the case for a guaranteed NR allocation. It baffles me what skin BGF has in the game of resident vs. non-resident allocation, but they were pushing hard for the NR.

You can listen to the entire discussion, which begins with a presentation by Cory Chick from the licensing division on how the draw works, at this link. The presentation begins at about the 1:46 mark (which should be linked).

 

[HighDesertSage]

Thank you for the link Oak.

 

[jlmatthew]

It would really be nice if the state outdoors writers would get the public informed of Brays shenanigans. He or any other member of the commission should not be able to vote on an issue like this where they stand to gain financially.

And when Director Broscheid was asked basically how other states handle license allocation he could have shut Bray up by telling the truth that most western states are 90/10. The way it's set up now we really only get 52% of the quota after 20% of tags are skimmed off the top for landowners at a pathetic $3 cost

 

[BuzzH]

It would really be nice if the state outdoors writers would get the public informed of Brays shenanigans. He or any other member of the commission should not be able to vote on an issue like this where they stand to gain financially.

And when Director Broscheid was asked basically how other states handle license allocation he could have shut Bray up by telling the truth that most western states are 90/10. The way it's set up now we really only get 52% of the quota after 20% of tags are skimmed off the top for landowners at a pathetic $3 cost

Any idea how much of the skimmed 20% of landowner tags go to R vs. NR landowners?

Reason for asking is that in WY, the NR landowner tags are taken from the NR quota....resident landowner from the R quota.

I suspect Colorado just skims the landowner quota off the top then holds a drawing with no regard to whether the LO is a Resident or Nonresident.