Rise in hunting and fishing license

Home Forums The Drift Rise in hunting and fishing license

This topic contains 19 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Creek 8 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5428

    Scotty MacFly
    Participant

    I heard rumors of it, and just thought I heard wrong. But today it was explained to me that the D.O.W. in Colo. wants to hike the price up 100%. They will be taking a vote on it I hear, so it’s only a proposal for now.

    I now pay;

    $25 for just the annual license.
    $10 for habitat stamp
    $ 0.25 for search & rescue
    $ 0.75 for wildlife education fund surcharge.

    Total: $36.00.

    I have no issues with that. And the way it was explained to me is the annual license itself will go up another $25. So it will come to $61.00.

    I don’t know how this will effect out of state fishermen and hunters, but If out of state fees go up, this may hurt this states economy. I’m even thinking that it may be cheaper for me to buy a one day fishing license when I go fishing, depending on how often I get to go.
    I know the town of Meeker thrives on hunters coming to town every year, and if they don’t come next fall, it could hurt the town some.

    For such a hike in price, I would like to see slot limits in more places. I believe in slot limits, they help bring quantity and quality fish. I know, we practice C&R, and that helps. But there are those who don’t practice it, and keep whatever.

    I see more Game Wardens out running around during hunting season than I do all year. Poudre Canyon is filled with them driving up and down the canyon, but they leave the fishermen alone for the most part.

    I don’t know if this is happening in your state, but if someone here knows more than I, please fill me in more, in case I missed something.

    #5431

    Creek
    Participant

    Yes, the hunting licenses are doubling too. It has to get voted in and i’m not sure it will.

    I don’t worry about the fishing license. Mine is free, but the hunting tags can get expensive.

    #5432

    Grsdlnr
    Participant

    License fees can add up, especially if you fish in multiple states. No matter the cost, it’s a bargain compared to what anglers in Europe or the UK have to pay.

    FWIW, AZ lowered the cost of a non-resident fishing license a couple of years ago -it used to be over $120 for the annual license plus trout stamp, now it’s $55 and no more trout stamp. Residents pay $37, ten bucks or so more than pre-2014. Fish and game departments probably have someone doing market research and crunching numbers to see just how far they can go before pushing license fees so high people stop buying them altogether.

    For me the limiting factor for fishing trips is the cost of lodging not out of state licenses.

    #5434

    Creek
    Participant

    What i’ve never understood is Colorado gives seniors a free fishing license, but give us no break on hunting licenses. Most seniors are not well off and trying to survive on an SS check. Like me. I’ve paid my dues on hunting licenses. I’ve hunted Colorado every year since 1954. Give me a break now. Instead, the prices are going up.

    #5437

    Scotty MacFly
    Participant

    You’re right Creek, I believe a senior citizen should get a break on hunting as well. Maybe it’s because an elk is more of a loss to the environment than a rainbow trout. I know hunters here are more likely to have run ins with game wardens, there’s more involved I guess and safety is a big aspect of it I guess. I also assume some hunters take game illegally, or hunt on private land, or in the wrong areas, so to me in my ignorance of it all can understand why seniors still pay for a hunting tag. And please don’t think I believe all fishermen are angels, because they aint.

    Maybe seniors should pay half? JMHO.

    And as for fees in G.B and Europe, I believe we’re not so far from that.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by  Scotty MacFly.
    #5439

    Grsdlnr
    Participant

    And as for fees in G.B and Europe, I believe we’re not so far from that.

    A German pays 200 euros for an annual fishing license – after 40 hours of private instruction (which costs several hundred euros more) and passing a written test. Then he pays for each day of fishing on a section of privately-owned river (25 to 35 euros is about average) Brits have it a bit better – a general English license is 27 pounds (separate licenses required for Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland, and some rivers require their own unique license) and the day tickets run about the same as Germany for the nicer rivers (not the fabled chalkstreams – big money for those) IIRC, stillwater fishing for trout on UK reservoirs is much less expensive.

    We are blessed here in the US and Canada with so much public land and water. If only we can keep it.

    #5441

    wheezeburnt
    Participant

    Great topic! I turn 65 next year, and where I live in NB, Canada, the most expensive fishing license (all species including atlantic salmon) I can buy then will be $20. Younger folk pay $36. Deer and small game, I’ll pay $19, vs $34. Moose: $37 vs $72, and on and on, like that. I’m ok with that I guess, but as a retired guy, I get to fish (and hunt) WAY more than when I was a working stiff, so now I get MORE bang for less buck. I have the good fortune to have worked for the Provincial government (DNR) for about 30 years (mandatory pension plan – half their money, half mine). Add that to our other Federal pension plan to which I contributed, and I’m comfortable – not rich by any means, but comfortable. Same with most of the other guys I hunt and fish with. Here’s my point: Why should I get a discount on my licenses when I can afford to pay full fare, and get to use them more? If we must offer discounts on our licenses, I would rather see them based upon a ‘means test’. We still have folks around here who rely upon game to augment their food supply, and they could really benefit from a lower license fee, especially while their families are young.
    Yeah, I know: just another lunatic Canadian spouting socialist wingnuttery. Just my opinion.

    RE: the situation in Europe: clearly, hunting and fishing are regarded as the pastimes of the rich. I expect that is the result of their political history and the impact they’ve had on their wild landscape and game species.
    brent

    #5442

    Scotty MacFly
    Participant

    You make a good point Wheeze. Why should a retired person get a discount if they can hunt and fish more now than when they were working. With my work schedule now, paying full price compared to a single day license may not be the way to go for me anymore because I can’t get out to fish every weekend anymore.

    I don’t know about how it is in Canada with their senior citizens, but here, ( and this is just my observation, and I know not every retired person is set the same in funds ) I know a few retired folks who have to pinch their pennies due to bad circumstances, or bad planning.

    It’s not easy these days for the elderly. My grandparents didn’t plan on taking care of me when I was young, so for elderly people trying to feed a teenager who keeps growing out of his shoes every month, it’s expensive. My grandmother had a very thin winter coat for years, sacrificing herself for me. I felt guilty. Summer came, and I was old enough to get a summer job and come winter I bought her a better coat. This is just how it was for my grandparents. I have my mother-in-law living with us because with her medical bills, she can’t make it on her own being a divorcee.

    Not all are blessed with a comfortable retirement in this country, and like I said, it’s because of bad planning, or you can do everything right, and get nothing but bad breaks.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad when a person can retire without any fear or regrets. I don’t like to see elderly people having to work past retirement age to survive.

    Like I said, I don’t know about Canada, but the USA isn’t what it once was. Not to get too political, but I’d like to put up bill boards all along the highways that say ” Give America back to the People”, or ” Give me my country back!”

    I’m done.

    #5443

    wheezeburnt
    Participant

    Scotty:
    The situations you describe are exactly the situations where people would benefit from a decent break. And of course, those circumstances can occur at ANY point in one’s life cycle. That’s exactly why I believe that it is more effective to give those breaks to people who need them regardless of their age, and to withhold them from people who do not require them. By withholding them from people who are in my situation, more resources are then available to benefit those in real need. You are of course correct: many people who are no longer able to work due to age are in financial duress. And I don’t much care whether it is due to bad luck or bad planning; that’s why I have not used the word ‘deserve’.
    I don’t think I ‘deserve’ any special treatment just because I managed to hold down a job for 35 years and my family was not stricken by devastating disease or injury. I want to see people like the ones you describe, getting a break, a discount, some sort of accommodation on fees and services provided by governments and supported by my tax dollars. I don’t like to see those breaks being allocated to folks who don’t need them just by virtue of them being older. In fact, perhaps by denying those breaks to folks who clearly DON’T need them, we’d be in a better position to increase the breaks to people who do.
    I don’t think our countries are that different in that regard. In my travels in the US, I certainly see plenty of retired folks staying in golf communities, driving big cars and eating in nice restaurants. I meet folks on streams with high end angling gear, having arrived in luxury SUVs. They’re all fine, generous people. I’m just not sure they really need a discount on their fishing license.
    I think we’re on the same page here.
    brent

    #5444

    Scotty MacFly
    Participant

    Brent, we are on the same page. There are plenty of fortunate and well giving people in both our countries, I mean no disrespect to them, and I appreciate them. But what is funny in this state that was mentioned before, seniors get a great deal on a fishing license, but not hunting. And the only thing I can think of is why it is, it’s because fish will reproduce more fry than an elk, deer, or bear will reproduce. So the money is used in part to help the animal population thrive in a well managed program.

    But, still, there are those who will be affected in a negative way if this is voted in. So their lifestyle of something they have done for many years will possibly change.

    Look at hunting outfitters, especially from out of state who come to Colo. to hunt. This possible price hike may stop them entirely, because they ( and correct me if I’m wrong ) will have to pay more, much more to come here. So they’ll have to hike up their prices to their clients. Some will pay, yes, but some clients may have to give it up. In Meeker, they rely on hunters coming from out of state, because it keeps the town going through the winter. Many towns love the hunters, no, let me refrain that, many love the money that the out of state hunters bring. My brother in-law said I should start a welding shop in Meeker. With all the ranchers and out of state hunters with their broken trailers, and not caring how much it costs to fix them so they can hunt, I’d live like a king he said.

    But without the out of state hunters, that leaves more animals for locals. Maybe everyone now who lives and hunts here will get their tag filled. That would be nice.

    There are pros and cons to this. I will be affected by it. I will have to sacrifice something to buy a fishing license for myself and my son. But I’m willing to work extra hrs. if allowed to do it.

    I’m sure I’m looking in the wrong areas, but I can’t seem to find a real legit reason for this possible hike. That’s what’s getting under my skin.

    But the fortunate folks, no, maybe they don’t need a discount, but some would be blessed by it.

    That’s all I’m saying. So, we are on the same page my friend.

    #5445

    wheezeburnt
    Participant

    Scotty:
    How about writing either to your DNR or to your legislator and asking for the rationale behind the difference in treatment of fish vs. game? There may very well be a sound biological reason for the difference, although modern resource management is more often politically (vs. biologically) motivated. In any case, it would be interesting to hear their take on it.
    brent

    #5446

    Creek
    Participant

    Brent,

    You live in an area that’s hunter friendly. You didn’t mention non-residents. They get it pretty bad here. I know, because i’ve hunted colorado for over 60 years and only 10 of those years are as a resident. It breaks down like this.

    ……….Resident…………..Youth………..non-Resident

    Deer……..$34……………..$13.75…………$379
    Elk……….$49…………….$13.75…………$629
    Bear……..$44………………………………$429
    Moose…….$254…………………………….$2084

    As for myself. I never would have been well off when retired. Maybe average. I made a pretty average living as a truck driver and saved my money. Unfortunately, I had an industrial accident at work. I was in the hospital for quite awhile. The bad parts were my boss never had worksman comp on me and it took all my savings for the medical bills. I also couldn’t do my job anymore for a few reasons. One of them was I was blind in one eye. Plus, other physical reasons. I was 56 at the time. Nobody wanted to hire me at my age and no experience in anything but auto mechanic and truck driver, Neither of which I could do anymore. So, Ss disability was my only option or I would have been on the street.
    I still wanted to hunt and fish. Not like I could when I was one piece, but in a limited way. I hadn’t lost my desire. So, I knew if I was going to continue I had to move to Colorado. I couldn’t afford non-resident fees anymore. The free fishing license was a nice surprise I didn’t know about. I picked a town that is in the center of good fishing and hunting, because I knew I couldn’t afford to travel much. It’s worked out ok so far, except it’s hard to get deer/elk tags in my unit. Too many hunters and not enough tags. I live in a government sponsored building. Otherwise, I couldn’t afford to do anything.
    I talk about a lot of different fly rods. Most were owned when I was working. Now if I want to get a different rod I have to sell the one I have. My only rod now is the Fisher I just got. Nice rod, but a bit long for creeks. Cabelas has the CGR glass rods on sale right now for $65. I’m trying to scrape up enough for one. They make great creek rods.

    Anyway, that’s my story of why hunting tag prices going up will mean less hunting for me.

    #5447

    wheezeburnt
    Participant

    Non resident deer and small game is $183; moose is $548; bear is $163. The rationale here is that residents pay for a large part of wildlife management through their taxes, whereas non-residents don’t. But truthfully, non-resident hunting is not a significant part of our economy. Our adjacent provinces have at least as good hunting opportunities as we do, and most Americans don’t want to be bothered with our restrictive gun laws. Besides, Maine and New Hampshire have plenty of deer, moose and bear.

    I’ve noticed that a good angler with inexpensive gear can ALWAYS outfish a mediocre angler with top of the line stuff. I’m starting to think the fish don’t really give a rodent’s rump.

    #5448

    Scotty MacFly
    Participant

    Creek,

    Would you like my CGR rod? It’s your’s if you want it, at no cost. My gift to you. It’s the 7′ 4/5wt.

    #5451

    Creek
    Participant

    Thanks for the offer Scotty. I really appreciate it. I scraped up enough to get one yesterday. I might have to eat peanut butter for the rest of the month, but I like peanut butter. 😀

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.