CPW Commission updating 80/20 allocation

[Bullshot]

Yet CO has more elk than any other state or province.

No one else has said it, so I'll be that guy: If you reduce NR tags, you have to either decrease CPW's budget or increase Res prices. If the former, what do you want to cut? If the latter, how much you're willing to pay.

I think this is the next likely shoe to drop. The pressure to provide more tags for residents (everywhere) is becoming too great while maintaining their new pickup and high-end facilities budgets. At what point do the agencies just say screw it, rip the bandaid on resident pricing structure and increase it painfully and dramatically simultaneously with upping R allocation. It will cause gnashing of many teeth, although more affluent residents will likely applaud. from the agencies’ perspective, probably gets them once and for all out of the leghold trap / vice of allocation-vs- funding if they adjust that delta between NR and R pricing. I’m surprised they have not really done this already.

 

[Bullshot]

Umm try reading. The wildlife side of CPW had a $52,000,000 surplus last year. You can cut a lot of NR tags and still
Have. A balanced budget.

There is absolutely no truth to the absurd claim that cutting NR tags has to result in an increase in resident prices given the current budget etc.

Ye of little faith… if they want that surplus to dissapear, it will. No budget managers like to see egregious surpluses persist like that unless there is some incentivized metric that benefits THEM personally. Otherwise, budgets will be spent, ever heard “use it or lose it”? Not saying I agree with it but there’s a reason most people have never seen their property taxes go down…. and thats the thing with rainy day funds even… eventually it rains. Hell, one good lawsuit could wipe out most of it.

 

[Oak]

No one else has said it, so I'll be that guy: If you reduce NR tags, you have to either decrease CPW's budget or increase Res prices.

I don't think that's the case. I've posted this before, but according to the CPW website the wildlife side of the agency ran a $52 million surplus in FY 20-21.



The CPW staff recommendation to the Commission at the September meeting was for them to change allocation to 80/20 or 75/25 across the board. Their fiscal analysis determined that if they changed the deer and elk limited license allocation to 80/20 and added an 80/20 allocation to pronghorn and bear (which have no set R/NR allocation at this time) it would result in a $2.31 million loss of revenue.



Even if the Commission decided that they needed to make a revenue neutral decision, they could increase application fees on those four species by $4 and generate $2.34 million.

It’s clear, the agency told the Commission they could handle the revenue loss. They recommended it! Yet the Commission is not willing to make the decision.

 

[Bullshot]

Is there a good explanation why the agency is collecting so much more than it seems they need? Atypical for a govt agency to run that way, and IMO a good way to lead to future waste and scandal. Was this a “surprise” development, one-off, or do they intend to build a war chest for reasons unknown?

 

[Oak]

Is there a good explanation why the agency is collecting so much more than it seems they need? Atypical for a govt agency to run that way, and IMO a good way to lead to future waste and scandal. Was this a “surprise” development, one-off, or do they intend to build a war chest for reasons unknown?

I suspect a bunch of it is going to go to dam maintenance and repair, as well as other capital projects. I heard they are building a new office facility in the NE region.

A lot of their facilities are really aging, like fish hatcheries and area offices.

 

[Bullshot]

I suspect a bunch of it is going to go to dam maintenance and repair, as well as other capital projects. I heard they are building a new office facility in the NE region.

A lot of their facilities are really aging, like fish hatcheries and area offices.

wouldnt the state usually have to gain approval first, maybe issue bonds to pay for such work, then work the anticipated payments into their budgets and raise funding accordingly? I don’t like government having a pile of unallocated money just burning a hole in their pocket. Hopefully it eventually does good for citizens and wildlife of Colorado but I guess time will tell. Stakeholders should probably start asking some pointed questions once the happiness over their just having a surplus subsides. This money should go to benefit the resources mostly.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Yet CO has more elk than any other state or province.

No one else has said it, so I'll be that guy: If you reduce NR tags, you have to either decrease CPW's budget or increase Res prices. If the former, what do you want to cut? If the latter, how much you're willing to pay.

I believe I’ve read in several places that throughout surveys the vast majority of residents are in favor of increased prices if the allocation matrix between R / NR changes.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I don't think that's the case. I've posted this before, but according to the CPW website the wildlife side of the agency ran a $52 million surplus in FY 20-21.

View attachment 245683

The CPW staff recommendation to the Commission at the September meeting was for them to change allocation to 80/20 or 75/25 across the board. Their fiscal analysis determined that if they changed the deer and elk limited license allocation to 80/20 and added an 80/20 allocation to pronghorn and bear (which have no set R/NR allocation at this time) it would result in a $2.31 million loss of revenue.

View attachment 245686

Even if the Commission decided that they needed to make a revenue neutral decision, they could increase application fees on those four species by $4 and generate $2.34 million.

It’s clear, the agency told the Commission they could handle the revenue loss. They recommended it! Yet the Commission is not willing to make the decision.

It’s maddening how simple and minute of a change that is… and we still can’t make the change to 80/20

 

[Buffs35]

Yet CO has more elk than any other state or province.

No one else has said it, so I'll be that guy: If you reduce NR tags, you have to either decrease CPW's budget or increase Res prices. If the former, what do you want to cut? If the latter, how much you're willing to pay.

I'd gladly quadruple resident license costs for better odds.

 

[Mudranger1]

I'd gladly quadruple resident license costs for better odds.

Better odds of drawing or better odds of success? I would quadruple for less people in the woods

 

[TOGIE]

wouldnt the state usually have to gain approval first, maybe issue bonds to pay for such work, then work the anticipated payments into their budgets and raise funding accordingly? I don’t like government having a pile of unallocated money just burning a hole in their pocket. Hopefully it eventually does good for citizens and wildlife of Colorado but I guess time will tell. Stakeholders should probably start asking some pointed questions once the happiness over their just having a surplus subsides. This money should go to benefit the resources mostly.

legally cpw operates more like a business. they essentially receive zero tax dollars. so all that you're talking about get's muddy with them.

i'd be more curious how this works with CPW. when it comes to the state general fund though, they're not even allowed to have a surplus. our tax laws dictate the state shall refund surplus to the citizens even if you had a tax refund from tax season. we all got 750 dollar checks this summer. but that doesn't really apply to CPW funds because they didn't receive their funds via tax.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

legally cpw operates more like a business. they essentially receive zero tax dollars. so all that you're talking about get's muddy with them.

i'd be more curious how this works with CPW. when it comes to the state general fund though, they're not even allowed to have a surplus. our tax laws dictate the state shall refund surplus to the citizens even if you had a tax refund from tax season. we all got 750 dollar checks this summer. but that doesn't really apply to CPW funds because they didn't receive their funds via tax.

It’s because they are a “business enterprise”, if they take more than 10% of their funds from the general fund then tabor applies to them and they can’t have a surplus.

 

[Oak]

Lots of information in the DNR budget request from this last legislative session.

 

[grasshopper]

I've been knocking on doors for senator Rob Woodward. If reelected, he will run a bill in 2023 to set things right. Sportsmen would need to support it.

The commission process is a failure

 

[COEngineer]

I've been knocking on doors for senator Rob Woodward. If reelected, he will run a bill in 2023 to set things right. Sportsmen would need to support it.

The commission process is a failure

If you don't like the Commission's process, you really think you're going to like the political process at the state level? Talk about unintended consequences.

 

[WYelker]

If you don't like the Commission's process, you really think you're going to like the political process at the state level? Talk about unintended consequences.

Elected board would be superior to the Governor appointed board. Considering as mentioned the majority of theCommision would likely fail a simple species identification quiz…

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you don't like the Commission's process, you really think you're going to like the political process at the state level? Talk about unintended consequences.

"You get 80/20, but no hunting on Sundays"

It is opening a can of worms.

Elected board would be superior to the Governor appointed board. Considering as mentioned the majority of theCommision would likely fail a simple species identification quiz…

Colorado... an elected board in Colorado? It would be 10x worse.

 

[TOGIE]

the highest likelihood of unintended consequences is the outfitters getting something in return for 80/20 that none of us would want to see happen.

i'm still pro legislative fix tho

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@TOGIE @grasshopper

Playing with fire guys...

Colorado Amendment 10, Limitations on Black Bear Hunting Initiative (1992)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Colorado Amendment 14, Prohibition of Certain Hunting Methods Initiative (1996)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[TOGIE]

@TOGIE @grasshopper

Playing with fire guys...

Colorado Amendment 10, Limitations on Black Bear Hunting Initiative (1992)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Colorado Amendment 14, Prohibition of Certain Hunting Methods Initiative (1996)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

yeah but those are all initiatives right?

ballot initiatives gaining momentum and capturing the imagination and emotions of the public is beyond our control. a state senator introducing a bill to be debated and voted on in the legislature is totally different.