Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,590 Posts
I think if it improves hunting and fishing in Colorado I am all for it...a license with a second rod stamp costs less than $25 a year...for most of us who might fish a 100 days a year...that amounts to a cost of 25 cents a trip...clearly the cheapest part of going...you cant even buy a newspaper for a quarter these days...if you went to a movie in a movie theater a 100 times a year (by yourself) the cost would be $800 annually where you only get a couple hours of entertainment...if you go to a nice dinner with drinks a 100 times a year the annual cost would probably be in excess of $2500...and fishing if you have kids you can take them for free at least until they are 16...the current price it is one of the best bargains going...even a $10 increase isnt going to change that...provided it goes to the improvement of the sport...my two cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
I think a rate hike is okay. The population is really swelling in the metro area and down to CO Springs.

DOW is a difficult job, from the standpoint that your hands can be tied, for political reasons, from taking prudent and responsible management actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
i think they need to raise non resident license before they raise the resident license
but thats just what im thinking
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
My thought is I don't mind paying for something if I get a good value in return. I would love to see additional fishing license fees go to developing better and more diverse fisheries in the state. I would love it it more waters were designated with regs that made fishing the primary recreational activity and less a shared/secondary activity.

By the same token, since we have to share so many of our waters with other activites maybe the state could surcharge or have an additional annual registration fee for pesonal water craft and boats towing skiers and tubers.

After all we do share many of the same water resources and everyone who uses a a water resource should be responsible for maintaining the overall quality of the resource.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,266 Posts
Dan....YOU ARE THE MAN, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I too wouldn't mind paying more a year if I knew it was going towards fishing and not to build a new club house at cherry creek or something unrelated to what I bought the licence in the first place for. If it goes into stocking programs or to add better structure to promote better fish habitat I'd pay $50.00 a year. But till they can show that our funds will go strictly back into our sport I cant say I support it.

IMO

-Jay
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I'm interested in what else you guys would like to see the money go to, the better structure idea is good. But more stocking? This year they are stocking 70 million fish, that seems pretty good to me to much more I'd think you are going to start hurting the fish that are already there. The only structure improvements I ever notice I guess are trout habitat in rivers which is good for me since I fly fish but I also like variety and would like to see some other stuff being done.
I dont know if Colorado has it but both Nebraska and North Carolina had a Christmas tree program where they would submerge christmas trees in lakes for structure and mulch the rest of them up for trails and whatever else they needed them for.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Actually they only stock about 3.2 million trout but they are catchable at 10 inches or more they stock around 54 mil warm water fish but they are stocked as fry not catchable fish of 10 inches.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
Other than quality water the one thing most fish need is structure, otherwise known as habitat. Submerged x-mas trees are part of that solution.

I also like what they did at Quincy a few years ago. The water was down about 15 feet or so and they went around and placed boxes of old pallets nailed together on the dry bottom. Lots of structure built with basically waste material.

Unfortunately they placing of new structure is limited in existing bodies of water. But when the water is low it would be a great time to create structure using whatever material is available, rockpiles, xmas trees, concrete slab piles from demolished building roads etc. The sources are infinite.

An overnight quality improvement would not be seen, it would take a few seasons to see things really improve, but I could wait.

Dan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The only problem with some building materials is chemicals they have on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
I favor the increase in license fees but the "stamp" thing is what I find a bit misleading. Most folks think it is just a a single fee increase (5 bucks), when in reality they want to raise the fee and then charge another 10 bucks for the wildlife stamp. (fishing and hunting)

Maybe I have it wrong. Here are some links from the DOW on the subject.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LicenseFeeProposal/fee_increase.asp

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LicenseFeeProposal/habitat_stamp.asp

and then tack on another 75 cents for a wildlife management surcharge. So total, it could be 36 bucks for a resident fishing license. Not saying that is fair or unfair but it is a huge jump in price.

Ultimately it will remove some of the less passionate anglers which will be good for the water but evens out in revenue (in my opinion).

How about using a little bit more of that Lottery money for wildlife habitat and raise the license 5 bucks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
i really dont want them to raise the price on my license i just wish they could make the money some where else like all the people using the lake to walk around and bike on are license fees pay for it and then they get mad at me for walking with my fishing stuff on the path in there way

make them pay something please so they would enjoy it more
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I don't agree with them raising fees. There is too much red tape and b/s going on now Maybe they should start charging other people in stead of the sportsman all the time. My biggest pet peeve is you can ride a bicycle in the parks where and when ever you want. Yet we spend millions of dollars every year building trails or maintaining the existing trails. But where do they want to ride right in the middle of the road 3 abreast. They should have to have a park pass just like every one else. We spend all of this money for trails and they are not used. Plus the >25 cents that they add every year for search and rescue. Look at all the fools that they get off of cliffs or rescue from climbing trails but they never pay a dime. Plus look at all the boats that are on the lakes with out or with expired licences.Sorry for sounding so one sided but I do get tired of everyone blaming every thing on sprortsman and thinking oh well we will just raise their fees to pay for anything. My 2 cents worth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Well it depends on the park but most the trail maintance and that kind of stuff is paid for by the lotto money. They are not depleting a resource riding or running on a trail around a metro lake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
I really dont mind the State raising fishing and hunting license every so often. I do not like there idea of charging for a wildlife stamp to use State Wildlife Areas. The idea behind it is to collect revenue from people who use those areas for picknicking and wildlife viewing. While it may sound good it only sticks the sportman with a double burden of paying a license fee increase then again paying for a stamp to access State Wildlife Areas. I believe he D.O.W. should raise license fees or charge for using wildlife areas but NOT BOTH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I know the lotto pays for most of the trails, Then use the trails, If you are going to use the park roads then pay like every one else does. why should some of us pay and others don't have to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
thats all im saying why should us as fishermen and women keep paying and paying

dont they know i have to buy bait more poles, lures , string
i have to pay for all the stuff im going to use on the water

they need a bike fee or a shoe fee at the parks
you know i have to use a second rod stamp so should
those runners a second shoe stamp

im keeping it funny
you know we will pay what ever it takes to do what we love
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I agree it just earks me that we have to pay for every one else. Its bad enough trying to get the wife to let you spend the house payment on bait and lures let alone if they raise it. It is just taht if they are spend all this lotto money on bike paths and no one uses them then spend that money on wildlife instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I don't have a problem w/DOW raising the fishing/hunting license fees-it's been 13 years or so since last time. What gripes me is the $10 fee for entrance to wildlife areas, just to get some of people who basically despise fishermen & hunters to help pay for things. We have to pay for everything we're interested in doing, which we accept, but we're also forced to pay for sports venues and performing arts facilities which we're too busy hunting & fishing to partake in. I trhink it's time for the"goody goodies" to start paying their own way, without hitting us up for more.IMHO!!
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top