Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Jul. 16, 11:26:14 AM Points: 3772
You know, reading through this article, something came to mind. I think part of Colorado's reasoning for this is to increase federal funds. For every license sold, Colorado receives money from the federal government. This was part of why they included a fishing license as part of an out of state hunting license. In this case they get double. If someone really wants to use a SWA they will buy the license, and then Colorado gets federal funds on top of it. And since the only downside is less people using the SWA, it is a win/win for the state.
I do think that's it's silly for non hunter/angler to buy a license. Would make more sense for anyone without a license, to pay a daily fee. There are plenty of SWA's that have nice trails, which have nothing to do with hunting or fishing.
My real issue (off topic) is to charge bikers that come into the State Parks, for free.
Once upon a time in the state of Colorado there was one state agency that was self sustaining AKA division of wildlife, and did not have to have funds from the general fund. It was supported by sportsmen , aka hunters and fishermen. Then due to the parks department going broke, there was a governor, that I believe was Bill Ritter, that decided that it would be a bright idea to couple the DOW and the parks department in to one agency. to help fund the parks department.
The result was the parks sucked both agencies into being underfunded. Then result of changing demographics and culture of Colorado Into having more people using the outdoors as recreation and not just for hunting and fishing meant more use and abuse of the resources of the state that did not support funding the maintenance of those resources
If anyone that takes the pleasure of using those resources, should they not be responsible in the up keep of those said resources?
Reply by: Wreckstar Posted: Jul. 17, 9:23:05 AM Points: 1129
The problem here isn't that people are finally having to pitch in that didn't in the past. I think we can all agree that's a necessary step. It's an issue of semantics. People that hike, do not think they should have to pay for a "hunting/fishing" license. They only read Hunting or Fishing and say I don't do that why should I have to pay? What they should have done was take that hunting/fishing license and make one more version called a Trail access license or something like that. If not, you're always going to get a bunch of Karen's out there that complain because me and my little Jimmy don't fish when we take our 10 dogs and 8 kids out for a hike to ruin the trails.
Reply by: SirGreg88 Posted: Jul. 17, 9:43:18 AM Points: 68
Everything will be peachy when we turn our entire lives over to the Govt. Strengthen the State by any means necessary. The ends justify the means. Any noise to the contrary is IRRELEVANT. I can see both sides. Usage is usage but proceed with caution. My 2 cents.
Coyute, Unfortunately, with Hedge Funds buying then raping media companies, the number of journalists has declined A LOT. Without journalism, the politicians can foul up lots of things without accountability, because nobody is reporting on the proceedings.
The Denver Post was bought up a few years ago, then slashed budgets for reporting. Ergo, there is hardly any more in-depth reporting on the machinations of our politicians. We need MORE impartial reporting, not less. I know you don’t want politicians spending our tax dollars in secret, and I know we aren’t likely to attend their open meetings to see what’s going on, that’s what the media is supposed to be doing.
What would happen if they de-funded all outdoor activities while nobody was looking? You and I would not be thrilled. What if they defunded schools while nobody was looking? You and I may not agree with everything we read about and watch on the nightly news, but being UN-INFORMED isn’t a good idea, ignorant people are rarely correct about anything!
"... being UN-INFORMED isn’t a good idea, ignorant people are rarely correct about anything!" Couldn't agree more. We see the results of that on the news out of D.C. every night. Still, it's hard to defend the Post as many times as they've hosed me on subscription charges.
BTW - It was Hick who combined Parks and DOW, not Ritter. (One of the few decisions he made and then stuck to). But way back when I moved to Colo (1969) it was a combined agency then, the Colorado Game, Fish, and Parks Dept. I forget when they split, but Parks was made an Enterprise Agency, in TABOR terms, while DOW was not. So Parks raised money by raising fees at will, while DOW had to get Legislative OK for any license increase. And they had a lot of agricultural enemies in the Legislature keeping them paupers.
Reply by: Santiago84 Posted: Aug. 5, 10:56:50 AM Points: 4188
Well here is the other shoe dropping from that op-ed. [log in for link]
I wrote to Denver Post to rebut what the original opinion writer said when this came out, but they did not respond to me. My basic problem with this is that as fisherman, and those of us who also hunt, we are footing the bill for everyone else to come use the SWA's and STL's, often in ways that are disruptive to their stated purpose. I am all for everybody being allowed in public places, but why are fisherman and hunters the only ones who have to pay to play? The group who filed this lawsuit are against the consumptive use of wildlife, including fish. To me this betrays a lack of understanding about why we have the wildlife in this state that we do.Without funding there will be no fish, there will be no enforcement of regulations, there will be no wild places. I am annoyed that the Denver Post is not giving voice to the other side of this debate. I hope the CPW wins this lawsuit. I'll be cooking up a fish dinner to celebrate when that happens.
Reply by: ScottyK Posted: Aug. 5, 11:25:29 AM Points: 139
I read about the recent lawsuit and think there needs to be a habitat stamp program that non fishers or hunters can pay for and not be labeled as a hunter or fisher...I was taken aback when I read the lawsuit states that first amendment rights are being sited, some people are so sensitive that they dont want to be labled a fisher or hunter to use the property...I am a catch and eat fisherman, so I choose to hit reservoirs that are stocked for my purposes. Regulation is required to maintain and improve all of our outdoor activities, so bums dont run unchecked...some people argue against regulations in general, however what would that world look like? Some things need rules and regulations to ensure quality life for all..
Reply by: SirGreg88 Posted: Aug. 5, 11:31:32 AM Points: 68
A caveat since I have not dug into the entire case but my gut is probably pretty accurate-given the track record of the "Post". Against the consumptive use of wildlife? Hmmmm. …..? Lets see. Close restaurants and bars. Ban hunting and fishing for harvest. Maybe the only allowable place to get your food is from Walmart/Kroger--and your meds---and banking and and and...…………..Just sayin.
Reply by: pike&cats Posted: Aug. 5, 4:28:12 PM Points: 27
To me there should be no access to leased stl’s or swa’s unless you are actively hunting or fishing. These are not state parks. They do not have the infrastructure or maintenance to support hoards of people doing other forms of recreation. As a hunter i am denied access to tens of thousands of “public land” called open space. If the CPW loses this suit we should sue for access to the open space.
I contacted the Denver Post directly and they denied me space to write a rebuttal. Keep in mind I used to write for them so they know me. Oh well...and they wonder why papers are viewed as very biased these days...CL
Reply by: SirGreg88 Posted: Aug. 6, 8:42:02 PM Points: 68
I use it to towel down all my crevices after my heavy bag workout in the steaming garage. The I blow my nose and clear my throat on it. Once it dries I use it as toilet paper and put it in the dog poop bucket before using it to start the fires we have out back. I curse it as it burns....Best 2 bucks I ever spent.......on the thing...........
Reply by: Street Chub Posted: Aug. 8, 3:38:48 AM Points: 600
I know there's a lot of guys on here, (myself included), who are pretty much catch and release these days. Because of that, I think we've forgotten the single indisputable edge that The Denver Post, (with it's larger folded pages), always held over The Rocky Mountain News:
Nothing beats newspaper for wrapping up fish guts.
I hope to obtain a copy of the edition containing Virginia Ravndal's article so I can set it aside to use for that very purpose!