Replies

True, it is voluntary and that form of tax is a better kind - we can have a debate of best forms of taxation at another time. However, I have a problem with new taxes of any kind. A tax by any other name creates larger government. Larger government does not effectively serve citizens. Government has lost its way. Why is has it taken the entire history of CO to this date to require xyz (hikers) to pay a fee (tax)? (You can replace xyz and tax with anything you want - see acid test below.) It's because government wants to use the existing revenue for other things - specifically controlling peoples lives.

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.

You're not going to get any disagreement with anything you say about taxes, large government, etc, but here's your acid test as applied to this particular situation as I understand it:

"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").