My condolences Colorado.

https://amp.coloradoan.com/amp/5349078002

If thats not horrible I don't know what is.

that's worse than coonman's truck.

Sounds good to me.I hunt fish and trap.

I think states are trying to find ways to get money from other outdoor people. Sounds reasonable to charge those who never get charged (Birders, hikers, etc.)

It looks like if you already have a hunting licence your good.it seems to be aimed at making the hikers,birdwatchers and other tree hugger types buy a hunting licence also.
I would back that up here.Seems like everyone besides hunters and fishermen get a free ride and benefit from wildlife management paid for by hunters,trappers and fishermen(consumptive users)
I say its about time the others chipped in too.

Colorado has gone to pot!

I would recon the alternative is something akin to a Wisconsin Parks sticker 25 dollars and you have to have it on each vehicle you bring into the park. your 2nd and 3rd vehicles are 12 dollars. state trails require a trail pass or atv , utv , or sowmobile registration.

it costs something to upkeep these parks , no one wants it on the general tax bill , so a use fee of some sort makes sense.

this actually makes a lot more sense than a simple use fee , parks sticker or trail pass. because in most states in order to hold a hunting or fishing license you can't be delinquent on child support.

if you don't do something to limit use and pay for enforcement every park turns into a defacto dog park , with all the hipsters and such in CO more than 3/4 of the people using those parks were likely doing so without paying anything into the parks maintenance.

as a hunter or fisherman I would be upset I was the only one footing the bill for a park and had to contend with a hundred ski boats buzzing my boat while fishing . I would venture that people used the free lake access to avoid city or county launches that charge a fee to launch.

I am all for this wish more states would do this type of thing,

Our Pennsylvania Game Commission has been trying to do the same thing for the last five or six years; to get non-hunters/trappers to pay a fee to access our 1.5 million acres of State Game Lands. So far as I know they have not yet been able to get that rule through the state legislature. They did limit access for horseback riders and bikers. They are not permitted on SGL's (except on Sundays or on roads open to public travel) from the last Saturday in September thru the third Saturday in January, and before 1 p.m. from the second Saturday in April thru the last Saturday in May.

Why is that horrible again? I think it should have always been required to have a state hunting or fishing license, to use the state lands purchased and managed with hunting or fishing license money, since there is usually no general tax money used for it. I think that should also apply in my own state.

I think that’s great. I can’t imagine any hunter or fisherman being against that. If the noncomsumptive users want to do their thing, then they can help pay for it just like we do.

Same way I feel about it.

Those lands are most likely leased and maintained by revenue from hunting licenses

Didn't you already pay for this land through your taxes?

I think the rub comes as these free users begin to feel like it's their park since they will now be paying for the land management and so will begin to demand changes in the consumptive use rules. If they have no skin in the game they can't be bothered to petition for changes. Once its "theirs" they may change their minds and become more vocal.

My first thought is it's good for anyone using state land to have to pay but we're talking about. COLORADO

Don't sound bad to me.

in 1803 at a cost of about 4 cents an acre 15 million dollars

it makes tree huggers and anti's buy a hunting or fishing license

that drives up the number of hunting licenses making it look like the whole state hunts that makes hunting look more popular than it is making the anti movement look bad.

It's Colorados way of raiding the federal Pittman/Robinson and the Dingell/ Johnson funds, which are partly determined buy how many hunting and fishing licenses are sold within each state.

that also some double edge

If you read through the article it's actually a good thing. It's not state parks they're talking about, it's wildlife areas. Those state wildlife areas were set aside for hunting and fishing but are being used by all other recreational type of people without them having to support those lands. They need revenue to keep those places up and with more people using them it means more up keep.

But, it will be used ONLY by "hunters and fishermen", because only licensed hunters and fishermen will be using it. And when it also uses the federal aid from PR and DJ Acts in the purchase or management, then the state wildlife agency HAS to abide by those PR and DJ federal aid rules, which are for use only in hunting and fishing management and habitat (and shooting ranges). This really limits what the state fish and hunt license money and federal aid money can be spent on. These federal rules really benefit the hunting/fishing use, and can't be used for horse trails, hiking trails, etc.

I think it will help keep the management directed toward fishing and hunting, and not other uses.

Whether we like it or not..

Colorado has the best elk population in the states, which brings in YUGE money from nonresidents. Wait til Colo gets guns outlawed.

What is the downside?

None I can see.

Well I can agree with the opinion that all who use it need to chip in. I don't think this is the answer. No point buying a hunting license you may never use. Or a fishing license or trapping license. My other reservation and you may correct me if you wish. But I don't believe much of the revenue generated from the law will actually be used to enforce or better the area. I will gladly eat my words. In all honesty my answer to any and all complaints about the area care or the safety of my pets would be thus( " sir do you actively take part in state managed activities?) If answer is yes and you produce evidence of such (license or permit) then you have a vote. If not then your opinion is meaningless. You have to register to vote on any other form of policy in this country. Other wise you may just exist and enjoy the view. You know what an out of state hunting license costs in Colorado?

More than I can currently afford.( I don't visit the state to see Denver. )Puplic land is meant to traveled and Cared for. Too bad we have so many idiots that this was apparently justified to do.

Lots of ticket revenue I bet

CO dept of Wildlife doesn't need more money. An out of state elk tag was 750 bucks last I knew. Its time to change the name to New California.

Great bout time the other people that use lands we pay via hunting fishing lic pay up also.... example jet ski, pleasure craft tearing up waterways without any $$$ to waters.

Yep, that worries me too.

In NE we are required to have a Habitat Stamp along with hunting permit and a State Park permit if you enter a campground. Also an Aquatic habitat stamp along with a fishing permit. It's pretty well covered.

I use to hunt geese just south of berthoud when i was in high school. If you havent seen the goose migration along the front range your missing a real natural wonder. Anyway there is a section of state land just south of the town of berthoud. back then that was all farms and grain not houses. I didnt even use a blind. No idea if that section still exists or if you can hunt it.

I see what you did there...

X2

The point I was trying to make, is everybody in the country that buys guns, ammo, hunting equipment, boats and fishing gear are paying to maintain Colorados wildlife lands. They are inflating their hunters and fishermen. The states get money from the feds according to how many licenses they sell. Hence less money to states that don't cook their books. This is not a small chunk of money ether well over 1 billion dollars.

Yes but with all the people using the land it's impossible to hunt safely. Now there will be just as many people. The state will have their money but the hunter/fisherman will loose out.

The sad part about Colorado is now well over 80% of the outdoor use in Colorado is non-hunting and fishing. I'm glad those aholes need to pay, now. The antis have been enjoying sportsman paid for outdoors services long enough.

All well and good until time to set seasons and bag limits. Guess who is now a paid stake holder?

I would not have a problem with that. Here in NYS hunters, fisherman, trappers and snowmobilers foot the bills. Parks & Recreation taxes pay for the hikers. Hikers get parking lots and up keep. Also hikers go off trail,get lost or hurt and DEC and helicopters go in to assist. Its about time hikers and day users start paying their share of the bill.

At least out west they already have a say and if they don't like the answer they demand it gets voted on by people that have no clue what wild life conservation means

Why is this horrible?
Dont you have to buy a hunting, fishing, trapping license b4 you go onto public land to do these things? You think other recreational users should access these areas for free? On your dime?

The main reason Colorodo is doing this is to capture the license sales so the state will get more Federal monies back thru Pittman-Roberson and Dingell-Johnson programs.

Georgia did this a few years back. To access our wildlife management areas you have to have a hunting license, fishing license, or what we call a lands pass.

Aint no free rides on the back of sportsmen.

That's what I was thinking

These over reaching agencies are always looking for ways to steal from the tax payer.
It's never enough

How many of you guys would be ok with needing to pay to enter every single store, gas station, restaurant, etc before even entering. You know, this way it will prevent theft, dine and dash, browsing and taking up space without any intent to buy anything.

Anyone stop at a gas station to use the washroom and that’s it? Let’s pay for that too. We all believe in fairness and equality right?...right?

Then let us hunt for free too then.Either everybody gets a free pass or nobody gets a free pass.

Be careful what you wish for.

My state (CT) has been charging $20 on every vehicle registration for ' state park fees ' even if you never access them. If you have another vehicle $20 for each additional vehicle. Own a car , plus a truck and maybe another beater car , $60. This is on top of 'clean air fees' that are added to the cost of owning a vehicle. I rarely access state parks here because there are few , crowded and on the smaller side.

Plus , like most great ideas the politicians come up with under the guise of improving things , it is pushed through with the story that those funds will go into a lockbox to be only used for that purpose. Then a few years later , it is reallocated to the general fund and squandered at will for some unknown pet pork project. Our state lottery was pushed through for education funding. " For the children "..... now that money goes directly into the general fund.

No one pays for the things in your examples. If some have to pay then everyone should have to pay. Why should some not using public land it for it's intended use get a free ride while others have to pay for the privilege of using it as intended?

like have a membership card or frequent shopper type card that I scan at the door to get in

and I can have lower prices and stop paying for constant theft

sounds good

I don't shop , I buy , only reason I am leaving your store without buying what I came for is you didn't have it , wasn't the right size or the price was ridiculous.

have I ever stopped at a gas station to just use the restroom , I did once but it was a kwick trip and I spend thousands there a year , have the store card so that one time I just needed the bathroom no problem.

So then you guys agree with the carbon tax?

Pa. has a good system imo.

State game lands are bought with hunting/trapping license sales money for the purpose of wildlife conservation as first priority and other recreational uses as secondary. That's the reason bikers, hikers and horseback riders are excluded during open hunting seasons.

It also wouldn't bother me if they had to chip into the kitty for maintenance and acquisition of more land.

Agreed hippie.

I think you are spot on, all we can do is see how it plays out

Its about time that the non hunters pay their share to.

Rule does not apply to federal lands or state parks. Already need a parks pass for state parks. Rule applies to state wildlife areas and state recreation areas. For my local area biggest impact would be at a couple reservoirs with lots of day use and is stupid covid rules relax camping. My guess, most people won't purchase and will play dumb if asked for a license.

I think it is great decisions politically and the way things work is all based on the almighty dollar plan and simple. When the bunny huggers want to close hunting the state is going to look harder at the dollars they will loose.

Ditto.

Either make using the parks free for everyone or make them cost money to use for everybody. Glad to see Colorado made it fair.