And guess which party voted no? 
Partisan politics derails key wildlife-funding bill
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoor Editor
The defeat of a Division of Wildlife fee bill Thursday by the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee may not have signaled the end of the world for Colorado's wildlife finances. The agency will continue to do the best it can with what it has and, at least for the short haul, the state's resources shouldn't suffer terribly without the $5 million or so the increase in license fees might have produced.
What the 4-3 vote along party lines more vividly illustrates is the sorry way politics rears its ugly head in wildlife affairs, particularly as it relates to legislative oversight. Supposedly a progressive state, Colorado surely scrapes the bottom of the barrel when the General Assembly sticks its collective nose into wildlife matters.
The continuing problem here is the bill - the first hike in resident hunting and fishing license fees in a dozen years - was at the mercy of the respective agriculture committees. The same holds true for every other piece of wildlife-related legislation, whether it involves anti-poaching laws or stream protection or native species protection.
The fact that agricultural interests sometimes are at odds with sportsmen and wildlife isn't beside the point. Rather it is the point. Not so terribly long ago, a separate Game and Fish Committee existed to govern wildlife affairs. The agriculture lobby persuaded a Republican-dominated legislature to dissolve this body while directing every wildlife-related bill through a panel always dominated by agricultural interests.
Subsequent history of pro-wildlife legislation often reads like something out of a horror story, none more so than HB 1208, the ill-fated fee bill. The measure, which sailed through the House of Representatives, had virtually universal support from sportsmen's groups, who knew the wisdom of a reasonable increase to fund an agency whose operating expenses have grown substantially.
No one ever is eager for a fee increase, but proponents made a compelling argument that rang particularly true this time around: high cost of purging whirling disease from the hatchery system, accelerated big game research related to chronic wasting disease and deer dynamics, greater expenditure for threatened species management, the fact that nonresident big game costs had been hiked dramatically three years earlier.
DOW, which receives no money from the state general fund and is exempt from TABOR expenditure restrictions, historically maintained a healthy surplus. But recently it has been nibbling away at that nest egg at a steady $5 million a year.
Most outdoor enthusiasts realized a modest hike for resident hunting and fishing, along with nonresident fishing and small game, represented a wise investment in wildlife management.
"All of us were in shock. We'd been told the votes were counted," said Denny Behrens, head of the Colorado Mule Deer Association and a spokesman for the sportsmen's coalition pushing the bill.
But the committee's four Republicans - Lew Entz, Jack Taylor, Ken Chlouber and Mark Hillman - voted in a block to shelve the bill indefinitely. Three Democrats - Dan Grossman, Jim Isgar and Abel Tapia - voted to keep the bill alive.
According to Behrens, Entz and Taylor said they couldn't approve more money for wildlife at a time when other state agencies are being slashed, thus ignoring the bedrock reasoning behind the TABOR exemption. These dinosaurs apparently don't grasp the basic premise that most sportsmen want DOW to spend more to provide greater opportunity and are willing to pay for it.
Nor are they wise enough to know that an investment in hunting and fishing - at absolutely no cost to the general fund or any citizen who doesn't choose to buy a license - provides a large measure of relief for the very revenue woes the four blind mice used to justify their decision.
"They should realize that hunting and fishing is the biggest industry in the state, bar none," Behrens railed. "There's a great opportunity for the state to make some real money in the long run on secondary expenditures. There needs to be some vision here."
Ultimately, perhaps when either term limits or the rest home kicks in, DOW will get the fee schedule it deserves. The immediate concern is that all of the state's wildlife affairs continue to be decided by these wrong-headed men so out of touch with the spirit of the outdoors.
Perhaps the only thing worse is that Colorado sportsmen, who never seem to pay attention until it's too late, keep voting them into office in the first place.
Link
Oak
Partisan politics derails key wildlife-funding bill
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoor Editor
The defeat of a Division of Wildlife fee bill Thursday by the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee may not have signaled the end of the world for Colorado's wildlife finances. The agency will continue to do the best it can with what it has and, at least for the short haul, the state's resources shouldn't suffer terribly without the $5 million or so the increase in license fees might have produced.
What the 4-3 vote along party lines more vividly illustrates is the sorry way politics rears its ugly head in wildlife affairs, particularly as it relates to legislative oversight. Supposedly a progressive state, Colorado surely scrapes the bottom of the barrel when the General Assembly sticks its collective nose into wildlife matters.
The continuing problem here is the bill - the first hike in resident hunting and fishing license fees in a dozen years - was at the mercy of the respective agriculture committees. The same holds true for every other piece of wildlife-related legislation, whether it involves anti-poaching laws or stream protection or native species protection.
The fact that agricultural interests sometimes are at odds with sportsmen and wildlife isn't beside the point. Rather it is the point. Not so terribly long ago, a separate Game and Fish Committee existed to govern wildlife affairs. The agriculture lobby persuaded a Republican-dominated legislature to dissolve this body while directing every wildlife-related bill through a panel always dominated by agricultural interests.
Subsequent history of pro-wildlife legislation often reads like something out of a horror story, none more so than HB 1208, the ill-fated fee bill. The measure, which sailed through the House of Representatives, had virtually universal support from sportsmen's groups, who knew the wisdom of a reasonable increase to fund an agency whose operating expenses have grown substantially.
No one ever is eager for a fee increase, but proponents made a compelling argument that rang particularly true this time around: high cost of purging whirling disease from the hatchery system, accelerated big game research related to chronic wasting disease and deer dynamics, greater expenditure for threatened species management, the fact that nonresident big game costs had been hiked dramatically three years earlier.
DOW, which receives no money from the state general fund and is exempt from TABOR expenditure restrictions, historically maintained a healthy surplus. But recently it has been nibbling away at that nest egg at a steady $5 million a year.
Most outdoor enthusiasts realized a modest hike for resident hunting and fishing, along with nonresident fishing and small game, represented a wise investment in wildlife management.
"All of us were in shock. We'd been told the votes were counted," said Denny Behrens, head of the Colorado Mule Deer Association and a spokesman for the sportsmen's coalition pushing the bill.
But the committee's four Republicans - Lew Entz, Jack Taylor, Ken Chlouber and Mark Hillman - voted in a block to shelve the bill indefinitely. Three Democrats - Dan Grossman, Jim Isgar and Abel Tapia - voted to keep the bill alive.
According to Behrens, Entz and Taylor said they couldn't approve more money for wildlife at a time when other state agencies are being slashed, thus ignoring the bedrock reasoning behind the TABOR exemption. These dinosaurs apparently don't grasp the basic premise that most sportsmen want DOW to spend more to provide greater opportunity and are willing to pay for it.
Nor are they wise enough to know that an investment in hunting and fishing - at absolutely no cost to the general fund or any citizen who doesn't choose to buy a license - provides a large measure of relief for the very revenue woes the four blind mice used to justify their decision.
"They should realize that hunting and fishing is the biggest industry in the state, bar none," Behrens railed. "There's a great opportunity for the state to make some real money in the long run on secondary expenditures. There needs to be some vision here."
Ultimately, perhaps when either term limits or the rest home kicks in, DOW will get the fee schedule it deserves. The immediate concern is that all of the state's wildlife affairs continue to be decided by these wrong-headed men so out of touch with the spirit of the outdoors.
Perhaps the only thing worse is that Colorado sportsmen, who never seem to pay attention until it's too late, keep voting them into office in the first place.
Link
Oak
