The state is unfairly forcing hikers to subsidize hunters, anglers
Idon’t think it makes sense to require a hiker who does not want to hunt or fish to buy a hunting or fishing license.
As of July 1, even if you are just out taking a walk enjoying nature in any of the more than 600 state wildlife areas and state trust lands in Colorado (most of the later which are not open for use as they are leased out to private individuals for agriculture and hunting), you must now purchase a hunting or a fishing license every year at a cost ranging from around $40 to $60 (which includes the mandatory $10 “stamp”).
Maybe you don’t have a hefty income, or maybe your normal income has decreased due to COVID-19, or maybe you are actually trying to spend more time outdoors because of the coronavirus, or maybe you are philosophically opposed to hunting. “Tough luck, find someplace else to go” is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department attitude.
I asked for an explanation in a letter to the Commission on Parks and Wildlife (which does not have a single wildlife professional voting member but does have four voting members who represent hunting and outfitting and another three who represent the agricultural industry). The answer I received was that there are too many non-hunters and non-fishers using these areas and this is “displacing wildlife and causing damage to habitat and resources.”
Really? Non-hunters cause more damage to wildlife than hunters who kill wildlife? Most wildlife are not bothered by hikers who stick to trails. They may be more bothered by people who shoot them.
Apparently, Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife Department (largely comprised of hunters itself) thinks otherwise, but I don’t think disturbing wildlife is even the real issue.
The name of Senate Bill 143, from 2018, tells the real story: “Parks and Wildlife Measures to Increase Revenue.” The fiscal note associated with the bill indicates the department expects their revenue to more than double with the new requirement that hikers and others who don’t intend to hunt or fish buy a hunting or fishing license.
Moreover, they have no expectation that the new requirement will decrease the number of people visiting the areas, one of their stated reasons for introducing the new requirement. The fiscal note assumes “fee increases will not reduce the number of licenses sold.”
You may imagine that the increased money will go toward safeguarding public lands or to helping wildlife. Think again. Your money is more likely going to subsidize hunting. The state says they have a shortfall of $30 million every year for wildlife (which, in their language, means huntable wildlife) and a shortfall of $11 million for parks.
Maybe they should consider improving their management, including increasing the hunting/fishing license fee for those who actually hunt or fish. It costs a mere $39 for a hunter to take the life of a bear ($15 if you are a 12-year-old kid). Maybe the commission should reverse its decision and instead increase hunting fees for hunters.
Asking hikers to subsidize hunters because the state won’t ask the powerful hunting lobby to pay more for a license to kill a bear, mountain lion, moose or any of the many other hunted species in Colorado is wrong. If the fee were an entrance fee and truly went to wildland and wildlife conservation, and if there was an exclusion for people who could not afford it, I might support it, but that’s not what this is really about.
The money will be used to fulfill 10 goals. Goal No. 1 is to “grow the number of hunters and anglers.” Another stated goal is to “engage all outdoor recreationists in funding” i.e., have all people pay for hunting or fishing whether they hunt or fish, or not.