Bill hiking wildlife fees may affect more users
More than hunters, anglers would need to pay more
If state lawmakers allow the Colorado Wildlife Commission to raise resident hunting and fishing fees, a new funding model could spread the cost of conservation, access and habitat protection beyond sportsmen into the realm of hikers, boaters, bikers and other outdoor users.
Legislation giving the commission a broader ability to raise permit fees is expected to hit the House floor this week after rolling through three committees. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is promising a broad public outreach campaign as it explores new funding mechanisms that may lessen the financial burden long carried by the hook-and-bullet crowd.
“If the authority is granted, we are going to really slow-roll this engagement on what license fees should look like. I think most of the rest of 2017 would be engaging the public in this discussion,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife director Bob Broscheid said. “For me, this is about getting that authority to go look and then institute some real ground breaking things here in Colorado and really break out of the old model.”
The Colorado Division of Wildlife spent most of last year touring the state, warning sportsmen of a looming $22 million shortfall in funding by 2023 that would limit access and permits and slash services such as inspections to prevent invasive aquatic species in Colorado waters. The last time the agency raised residential permit fees was 2005, and the pending budget shortfall comes after deep cuts and growing costs.
House Bill 1321 would give the commission room to increase resident permit fees by as much as 50 percent and allows price hikes based on the Consumer Price Index.
“It’s very important that the revenue that comes in is keeping up with the increase in expenditures going out,” Broscheid said.
HB 1321 — which the Colorado Legislative Council estimates could increase revenues up to $8.3 million in 2017-18 and up to $12.4 million in 2018-19 — has moved through three House committees with few changes. One change removed the agency’s ability to acquire land with new revenue from pricier permits. Opponents of the bill argue its late introduction, on April 5, has not given legislators or the public enough time to scrutinize the proposed fee increases or the impacts.
Kelly Maher, the executive director of Compass Colorado, said the fee increases might not trouble someone who hunts for sport, but families that rely on hunting for food could be impacted.
“I’m not saying the agency doesn’t have budget problems. They do, and maybe we need to look at that,” she said. “But coming in at the last minute with something so big and sweeping that affects so many people needs real deliberation.”
Rep. James Wilson, the Salida Republican who co-sponsored the bill, said if legislators had tied the 2005 residential fee increase to the CPI, his $45 elk tag this year would have cost about $62.50, a mere $5 less than the maximum price proposed in his bill.
Wilson said the bill would require a slow implementation of any increases, with only 25 percent spikes allowed the first
year. The agency would need to report back regularly to show how the new revenues are being deployed, he said.
“The three major points I made were sustainability, accountability and transparency,” Wilson said, noting the bill also instructs the wildlife commission to explore how “nonconsumptive” outdoor users — those other than hunters and anglers — can help sportsmen shoulder the fiscal burden of access, protection and conservation. “All the things we enjoy outdoors, the CPW is involved in that with a huge amount of dollars. All of us who use the outdoors ought to help provide.”
If approved, the legislation will mark a new era for funding recreation, said Luis Benitez, the state’s outdoor recreation boss who isn’t afraid to mutter the words that not long ago were considered taboo: “Pay to play.” Any new funding model should include consideration of outdoor users beyond sportsmen carrying their share of the conservation and access burden, he said.
“There has always been this expectation that certain things should be taken care of by certain people. But now that we are a multibillion dollar industry, we have the capacity to take care of our own backyard and frankly we should be doing it,” he said. “We are in a different era in a different place fiscally and playing by an old rule book. It’s time to have a new conversation with a new rule book.”