Posted on 07/03/2020 1:05:12 PM PDT by Ben Dover
DENVER (CPW Release) - The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission recently adopted a rule change, requiring all visitors 18 or older to possess a valid hunting or fishing license to access any State Wildlife Area or State Trust Land leased by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This new rule will be in effect beginning July 1, 2020.
Click here for more information on State Wildlife Areas.
“Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages over 350 State Wildlife Areas and holds leases on nearly 240 State Trust Lands in Colorado, which are funded through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses,” said Southeast Regional Manager Brett Ackerman. “The purpose of these properties is to conserve and improve wildlife habitat, and provide access to wildlife-related recreation like hunting and fishing that are a deep part of Colorado’s conservation legacy.”
Because these properties have always been open to the public, not just to the hunters and anglers that purchased them and pay for their maintenance, many people visit these properties and use them as they would any other public land. As Colorado’s population - and desire for outdoor recreation - has continued to grow, a significant increase in traffic to these SWAs and STLs has disrupted wildlife, the habitat the areas were acquired to protect, and the hunters and anglers whose contributions were critical to acquiring these properties.
Because funding for these properties is specifically generated by hunting and fishing license sales and the resulting federal match, requested options such as “hiking licenses” or “conservation permits” would not allow for the maintenance and management needed. Any funding from one of these conceptual licenses or permits would reduce the federal grant dollar for dollar and thus fail to increase CPW’s ability to protect and manage the properties.
“This new rule change will help our agency begin to address some of the unintended uses we’re seeing at many of our State Wildlife Areas and State Trust Lands,” said CPW Director Dan Prenzlow. "We have seen so much more non-wildlife related use of these properties that we need to bring it back to the intended use - conservation and protection of wildlife and their habitat."
“We do anticipate some confusion based on how the properties are funded, and the high amount of unintended use over time in these areas. We plan to spend a good amount of time educating the public on this change,” said Ackerman. “But in its simplest form, it is just as any other user-funded access works. You cannot use a fishing license to enter a state park, because the park is not purchased and developed specifically for fishing. Similarly, you cannot use a park pass to enter lands that are intended for the sole purpose of wildlife conservation, because a park pass is designed to pay for parks.” State law requires that the agency keep these funding sources separated.
CPW is a user-funded agency and, unlike most government agencies, receives very little money from the general fund. The new rule requires all users to contribute to the source of funding that makes the acquisition and maintenance of these properties possible. But the activities that interfere with wildlife-related uses or that negatively impact wildlife habitat don't become acceptable just because an individual possesses a hunting or fishing license. Each SWA and STL is unique and only certain activities are compatible with each property.
I hope the tree huggers will be tested for CoVid-19 before entering the area, at least until they determine if the virus can be transmitted from people to trees.
Unless I'm mistaken, this does not pertain to general public parks which any resident/non-resident can access. This is strictly for State designated wildlife areas and wildlife leases.
Here's my acid test: Any time a new law or tax is created I ask myself how did we ever survive without it in the past? The answer is nearly 99.99% of the time is we survived without it in the past and we can survive without now or in the future. Every tax and law expands government. It's about time that stops and things head in the other direction. Fewer laws, fewer regulations and fewer taxes. I want the day to come when I am crying for the need of more government just so I can live my life. I know that day will not happen. Right now I cry about government not allowing me to live my life.
A fee charged to exercise a right is null and void.
Public land.
It does seem that a reasonable daily use fee for parking and hiking privileges for individuals or families would make more sense than requiring a hunting/fishing license.
LOL!
It is technically a “use tax.”
I believe only drivers on toll roads should pay for the toll roads and not elderly people or young people who cannot drive, don’t you?
Apparently, they don’t get a federal government matching of funds for those options.
” F’n government workers need to experience what it like to fend for themselves instead of being leaches on people that actually make this country great.”
My wife works for the local government. I sometimes tell her they’re parasites. And then the fight started.
I finally get it now. Wildlife Areas and State Trust Lands, which is what the article is about, are maintained through revenue raised by the licenses. They aren’t manned by park staff to take fees for recreational (non-hunting/fishing) use, which normally happens in the state parks. Hikers are going through these areas more and more often. The state wants to capture the revenue they could be providing, so they cite the disturbance to the wild areas, caused by the increasing traffic of hikers, as the prompt to require that hikers get hunting/fishing licenses, too, to enjoy the lands.
"Any time a new law or tax is created I ask myself how did we ever survive without it in the past?"
It appears at some point in time, the CO legislature provided for the designation of State Wildlife areas (presumably the state owns these) and State Wildlife Leases (presumably the state leases these). This makes sense. Not every person who wants to hunt owns enough property to hunt on, or knows somebody with enough property to hunt on. A good percentage of hunters need public land on which to hunt.
I have no problem with the state designating or maintaining such areas. I have no problem with the state using licensing fees to maintain these areas.
These are not state parks, which presumably the citizens of Colorado already have access to, which, according to the article are funded by sources other than hunting and fishing licenses. These are areas specifically designated for and financially supported by hunters and anglers.
This "new tax" as you call it is new only in the sense that people who heretofore have been using the land but not paying anything into its upkeep (i.e. "hikers") will now have to share that burden with the citizens who already have been paying for it (i.e."hunters" and "anglers").
Is this not a free country?
There is no king to own all the deer.
Maintenance of the forests happen real well in California where they don’t remove debris and wildfires kill people. Where did all the fees go?
Still missing an opportunity IMO. The matching only kicks in if I'm willing to pay for a nonresident hunting or fishing license which I not. (At least not at the $16.94 fee per person for a one-day hunting or fishing license that I'm seeing in the fee schedule.) I'd be fine paying a reasonable fee (say $10 for a one-day family pass) to hike on the wildlife areas. The $10 they'd get is better than the $0 matching.
There are no staff on State Trust Lands nor in Wildlife Areas to collect such fees. Only State Parks have the staff do that. The hunting and fishing licenses captures what would be those fees for those areas, as I understand.
State heads revenue. One way to collect.
Tell you what Joe, how about I remove ten times my weight in forest debris and we can call it even?
Might cut down on people that go into remote areas and hunt or fish without benefit of a license, also. Could also be a way to cut down on such traffic. Sometimes gubment will screw up and admit that increased fees or taxes reduce an activity.
*****This “new tax” as you call it is new only in the sense that people who heretofore have been using the land but not paying anything into its upkeep (i.e. “hikers”) will now have to share that burden with the citizens who already have been paying for it (i.e.”hunters” and “anglers”).*****
When are you going to get your head out of your ass and realize this is not about making things better, but just more enslavement? We the people are not allowed into our own country?
Privatize EVERYTHING!
With this law, you obtain plausible deniability.
True but how many forest service campgrounds, parks, trail heads, and other fee areas are on the honor system? How hard would it be to set up a system at the website of these agencies to assess the fee, collect it via credit card or other on-line payment means, and allow a pass to be printed out? Enforcement would be the same. If encountered by an agency official in those areas, a person would be expected to produce a hunting/fishing license or that printed permit. Failure to produce one would result in the same penalty as now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.