60% Resident increase?

[jlmatthew]

Asking for way too much me thinks! Already have the largest budget of any western state and with the worst STL access, lowest resident draw percentages, and short & crowded seasons. The least bang for the $$$$$ already and now they want it to be even more so.

http://www.koaa.com/story/34619090/co-parks-and-wildlife-wants-to-raise-fees

 

[NoWiser]

I don't think you'll find any sympathy from the nonresidents. Look at it this way, you'll still be paying $550.00 less than us.

 

[marksjeep]

Here's a link to related materials at CPW discussing the various proposals and laying out the numbers, FYI.

http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/FinancialSustainability.aspx

 

[jlmatthew]

But how much do you pay for a deer tag? I'm sure its nowhere near $50 and you probably don't know what its like to have to draw a tag? or not receive one at all?

Try looking at it from a resident view, not as a nonresident. You coming to Colorado is a bonus hunt in addition to your MN hunts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Honestly I don't mind paying more for my license, I generally think our fees go towards good things. That being said given that Colorado is by far the most generous state in the country with non-resident tag allocation (can someone confirm, I don't know of another state that is more than 10% to non-residents) I would like to see non-resident tags get the same percentage increase. There should be a fixed cost ratio between the two types of tags, and the cost of each should be tied to inflation.

 

[Deleted member 22670]

$46 x 1.6= $74 for Elk
$34 x 1.6= $54 for Deer

Non of these seem out of line for me at all.

 

[rideold]

Last year they were going to double the fee for resident tags but couldn't get the support. Looks like this time they are going for an across the board increase. I don't like it but I can't deny the need for it. Still reasonable rates all things considered.

 

[NoWiser]

We're looking at paying $34.00 for a deer tag soon. $50.00 would still be a good deal. Right now we pay $30.00. Nonresidents currently pay 5.5X resident fees for a deer license here, compared to Colorado where an elk tag costs nonresidents 13X that of a resident.

I can sympathize with your frustration, it's just hard to see someone complaining about an $80.00 elk tag when that exact same tag will cost me $650.00.

Good luck in the draws! I'll likely be putting in for points only in Colorado this year. Regardless of tag fees, I can't wait to visit your state.

 

[BuzzH]

We pay 38 for a deer tag plus 12.50 for a conservation stamp here in Wyoming.

Time for resident sportsmen to start paying more. I applaud CO for going after increase to the Resident fees.

 

[jlmatthew]

$46 x 1.6= $74 for Elk
$34 x 1.6= $54 for Deer

Non of these seem out of line for me at all.

I wouldn't have a problem with them either if the money was going to hunting and not the fishing program. Again, compare us to surrounding states. Nobody on this forum from Montana or Wyoming would trade the Colorado way for what they have, not one single person I bet. Yet Montana can offer so much more using only half the amount of money of the current Colorado budget.

 

[Point Creep]

Any hunter whimpering about a $50 deer license needs a swift kick in the nads.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We're looking at paying $34.00 for a deer tag soon. $50.00 would still be a good deal. Right now we pay $30.00. Nonresidents currently pay 5.5X resident fees for a deer license here, compared to Colorado where an elk tag costs nonresidents 13X that of a resident.

I can sympathize with your frustration, it's just hard to see someone complaining about an $80.00 elk tag when that exact same tag will cost me $650.00.

Good luck in the draws! I'll likely be putting in for points only in Colorado this year. Regardless of tag fees, I can't wait to visit your state.

You do see the hypocrisy of complaining about the cost of a elk license for res versus non-res in CO when your state doesn't allow non-residents to apply for that tag, right?

Not trying to prove a point with this in any way, shape, or form...I was just curious and I thought others might be as well about res v. non-res in various states.

 

[buckbull]

I can't even take my family of 4 to the movies if I allow the kids to get snack packs for $74. $74 would not cover a nice dinner out with the family either. $74 for an Elk tag that provides great enjoyment and a possibility of hundreds of pounds of meat seems like a bargain from where I sit.

 

[JohnCushman]

If they are going to raise the fee so much, then they should restructure the season format to something like Montana or Wyoming to where you don't have to pick a specific week to hunt 7 months in advance. This year it was in the 60's and 70's during 3rd rifle season and I pretty much wasted my elk tag fee. Now, the more expensive tag fee would be a little tough to take. Everyone wants to say we have it so good, but to only have 1 week for each rifle season is a bit rediculous if they want to charge that much. I think we should pay equal to the opportunity we get. I'm not saying I'm against an increase, but this proposal is a bit silly. Sure, Montana is more expensive, but they get how long to fill their tags....? Also, you guys from back East that say we shouldn't complain...when you get a $30 deer tag, how many of them can you get and how long are your seasons, and how many doe tags are you allowed to get?

 

[publichunter1]

This thread is hilarious! The NR tags we get goes up by almost that much every year. This is the one year of my life that i will be able to get CO resident license and I am trying to by a deer, elk, bear, turkey, mountain lion, and antelope tag because all of those tags don't even add up to half of a NR bull elk tag.

 

[mplane72]

Honestly I don't mind paying more for my license, I generally think our fees go towards good things. That being said given that Colorado is by far the most generous state in the country with non-resident tag allocation (can someone confirm, I don't know of another state that is more than 10% to non-residents) I would like to see non-resident tags get the same percentage increase. There should be a fixed cost ratio between the two types of tags, and the cost of each should be tied to inflation.

Given that I'm from Iowa and we are hard on NR's for whitetail I don't complain much about what other states charge NR's.

CO's NR tag price is almost always climbing as it's attached to the Consumer Price Index. While I appreciate the availability of tags for NR's in Co you have to look at what your getting for what you're paying. No way I'd pay a 60% increase for my usual CO OTC experience. I'm sure some residents would like to see a decrease in NR's but then their fee's would have to go up more.

 

[noharleyyet]

Raise it 60% and put R's on the CPI ride...pass the popcorn

...am I hearing you right jl...more accountability for revenue dispensation?.....crazy talk ; )

 

[Gr8bawana]

$46 x 1.6= $74 for Elk
$34 x 1.6= $54 for Deer

Non of these seem out of line for me at all.

Oh my god! This is highway robbery! If I lived there and had to pay that much it would make me stop hunting and take up knitting.

 

[jlmatthew]

Raise it 60% and put R's on the CPI ride...pass the popcorn

...am I hearing you right jl...more accountability for revenue dispensation?.....crazy talk ; )

Bingo! Everyone wants to give CPW a blank check with no accountability. CPW ran a surplus last fiscal year, but needs more

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Given that I'm from Iowa and we are hard on NR's for whitetail I don't complain much about what other states charge NR's.

CO's NR tag price is almost always climbing as it's attached to the Consumer Price Index. While I appreciate the availability of tags for NR's in Co you have to look at what your getting for what you're paying. No way I'd pay a 60% increase for my usual CO OTC experience. I'm sure some residents would like to see a decrease in NR's but then their fee's would have to go up more.

I absolutely don't think we should give non-res a 60% increase, but rather that the state should decide on a fixed cost ratio and then raise both proportionately. This should go both ways... the state shouldn't be able to just jack up the price of non-res either.

If so you could probably generate the same amount of revenue with a smaller increase... 10% for each group.


For instance if you use elk limited entry tags to give you some numbers to work with (did some rounding to make things easy)

Non-res = 25095 ($49)
Res = 64173 ($644)

Total rev= $19,305,657

With res only increase = $21,192,343.2

Difference = $1,886,686.2

To raise the same amount of money you could raise both res and nonres by around 10%

Res $49 +$4.9
Non-res $644 + $64.4

Total Rev =$21,236,223