1) I do like raising fees to $40 on people who are just applying for points, but I think it should be resident and non-resident. I didn't see how many residents do only apply for points, but I would think most resident do apply for a second choice like I do so they can still build points. This would give non-res a small bit of things are fair between res&non-res. I know I pay more $40 in wyoming for building points.
Approximately 85% of hunters who must pay the preference point fee each year are non-residents. Increasing their fee to $40 will generate about $996,000 in additional income. I agree that the additional $175,000 from residents would help the situation. I think that it goes back to the desire to not raise fees on residents before an election. The group that analyzed the proposal found that the average preference point only cost in western states is over $86. The maximum for a non-statutory fee is $40 without legislative approval, hence the proposed increase to $40.
2) License refunds - drop it entirely. I have eaten tags for years and always look at it as doing my part to fund DOW (I'm just that nice). One alternative I do see is anyone who needs a refund can go the dow website, list the license. Once the license is bought the DOW takes a fee for process and handling and the license gets turned over to the new person, everyone is happy. If the license isn't bought, plan better next year. Also, you lose your pref points when you turn over a licence.
I forgot to mention that they will be looking at changing the refund policy for licenses. IMO, the preference point issue should have also been discussed during the refund and preferenc point fee discussions (they are all related). But since there is an urgency to the budget issue and the PP refund policy does not affect that discussion, it was not included.
3) Increase fee on non-res cow elk - HATE that idea. I talk a lot of my out of state buddies into elk hunting in Colorado just because they can get a cow license cheaper. In the long term, I would guess by the seat of my pants that this helps get returned hunters to our state which increases revenue.
Cow elk prices used to be the same as bull. When we needed to reduce the population in many places throughout the state, CDOW chose to lower the non-resident cow tag fees to increase participation. Some in CDOW were concerned that it gave the appearance of de-valuing cow elk, the most important segment of the population. It was agreed at the time that the fee reduction would only be temporary, until elk populations were in check. Now most herds are at or near objectives, and there is a budget shortfall, so.........
4) Adding a fishing license onto non-resident big game. I like this idea, but think that it should be a year fishing license for the cost of a 5 day. Maybe it will get some hunters to come earlier to scout and fish and get some more return just to fish outside of hunting season. That doesn't really make the DOW money though, but it's good for the state.
The fishing license will be added at no additional cost. I believe the creation of a higher priced combination license would require legislative approval. CPW gets approximately $10 from DJ-PR funds for every fishing and hunting license sold in the state, so making every big game license a combo license nearly doubles the DJ-PR revenue from the big game side. Currently only about 5% of non-residents who purchase a big game license also purchase a fishing license.
Now here are some of my ideas on how to save money for the DOW
1) Stop printing free copies of big game, fishing, and the SWA properties brochures. Most homes in America have a printer and the internet. We can use them. Hard copies should be sold at cost plus $5 profit
I agree that they shouldn't be losing money on paper brochures.
2) You cannot apply for a tag using paper and an envelope. You can only apply online. If you don't like it, maybe we can add $5 to the fee of your paper copy to cover some costs of processing and handling. I've never seen what it looks like when the DOW goes through applications, but it's got to be a mess. With it being online, minimal cost in doing drawings and they could be done in a day, not over a month.
Online only applications was discussed, but was not moved forward. There is still the feeling that the population segment which does not use the internet is still large enough that there would be a negative backlash.
3) Stop taking 4-6 years to investigate some of the big poaching cases. OMG, really, seems like everytime I read one of those stories my frugalness gets the best of me and while I am happy some dirt-bag game thief gets busted, I hate how much money it costs US to prosecute. Maybe we could just increase the fines so the DOW doesn't feel it necessary to infiltrate a group and gather data for 5 years so they can make a bigger bust.
I won't pretend that I know how to do their job better than they do, without knowing all of the facts. I'd prefer to see a high rate of convictions rather than having big cases thrown out due to poor or incomplete investigative work.
4) stop with the advertising - hug a hunter; hug a fisherman, really. Yes, the general public who doesn't hunt and fish needs to start paying their own way for the wildlife of this state. I have been in a few discussions over the years with people who hate hunters but love to go birdwatching, go see the elk bugling in Estes etc. I always tell them they should at least go buy a fishing license so they can pay for the things they like. I don't believe any of them ever have though. But do you think these commercials are generating money for DOW?
Those commercials are paid for with PEAC funds, which come from the $0.75 fee attached to every hunting and fishing license in the state. They don't cost CPW anything, and eliminating them would not impact the budget.
5) As much as I would love to live in the fairytale land where I can have everything and nothing cost me anything, every line item of the DOWs budget needs to be looked at like a for profit business. If a line item can't show a profit (in a week through 10 years), then it needs to be cut.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a fairytale land where management of non-game species will pay for itself, and CPW must manage all species, not just the game species. Coming up with an alternative source of funding for management of non-game species will require legislative action, which may happen in 2-3 years, but not next year.
Does anyone know how to get ahold of the complete DOW budget? Common Sense tells me it would be the "Across The Board Alternative", but that can't be how they break their budget out?
I'm actually working on that.
