Access to State Wildlife Areas (Denver: sales, how much, to buy)

[Briargate]

It used to be a Habitat Stamp was all that was required to access a State Wildlife Area if you were not going to do any fishing and/or hunting (i.e., you were going to birdwatch, hike, rockhound, etc.). That requirement was repealed (meaning access was free), and that lasted several years.

As of 01 JUL 2020, you now need a fishing and/or hunting license to access a State Wildlife Area (and you must buy a Habitat Stamp first in order to buy a fishing and/or hunting license).

Here is a good article on the subject:

https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2020...fe-area-rules/

This article give the current license and stamp fees:

https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Page...ameLicenseFees

[interloper1138]

Makes sense to me. The intended users of those areas already have to pay to use them. It shouldn't be any different for unintended users like myself that just want to explore or take a nature walk there out of hunting season. I already buy a fishing license every year even though I don't do much fishing these days, it's well worth the price of admission to these areas in my opinion.

[bluescreen73]

Originally Posted by interloper1138

Makes sense to me. The intended users of those areas already have to pay to use them. It shouldn't be any different for unintended users like myself that just want to explore or take a nature walk there out of hunting season. I already buy a fishing license every year even though I don't do much fishing these days, it's well worth the price of admission to these areas in my opinion.

Agreed. Some folks are up in arms about this, but the original purpose of the SWAs was to provide habitat for sportsmen. There is a very vocal minority of anti-hunting/anti-fishing types who're aghast about having to buy a hunting or fishing license to day hike in/across an SWA. A compromise may be to go back to the old process Briargate mentioned or create a permit that costs the same as either the small game or fishing license, but doesn't allow for hunting or fishing.

[pikabike]

The new requirement is a blatant attempt to shore up funding for declining hunting revenues. CPW also wants to amp up revenue by allowing even more out-of-state hunters to hunt game.

Meanwhile, they blame lower numbers of elk available to kill on excess mountain lions. Oh, really? NOT on repeated exceptional drought seasons, habitat destruction, and (yes) more than enough hunters already? Let’s not forget the plethora of poachers! What a handy way to campaign for allowing more hunting licenses to be sold to kill BOTH the natural predators and the natural prey. Some “wildlife population management” scheme!

Wildlife areas intended orginally to benefit hunters and fishers are being used by all kinds of nonconsumptive recreators. There IS an impact from them (includes myself), and charging a fee for access and maintenance of parking lots and bathrooms is fair. However, forcing us to buy hunting or fishing licenses is bogus to the max. Nonhunters and nonfishers should be in a separate recreation category, not lumped in to artificially boost the numbers of alleged hunters and fishers! Also, the fees should reflect the lower-impact costs of the other uses. The cheapest pass now is a $38 fishing license, or pay $14 for a day pass which goes down to $8 after the first $14 is spent.

I refuse to be counted as a hunter or fisher unless that is what I really am doing. This policy should be studied as to how it got thrown out there with less than a month’s notice to the public, too. It reeks of dirty maneuvers.

[COcheesehead]

Happy to pay in order to have access.

[jim9251]

Good! Anything to help protect our wildlife areas. Anyway, this isn't for the National Forests or BLM land, just applies to the few state wildlife areas. Ya outta have a fishing license anyway, I mean seriously.

[KSinmyrearviewmirror]

The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money generated by the tax is instead given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the states.The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.

The Pittman–Robertson Act was so successful that in the 1950s, a similar act was written for the protection of fish species.This act was titled the Federal Aid in Sports Fish Restoration Act. As with its wildlife counterpart, the name of this act is generally shortened by reducing it to the names of those who sponsored it, and so it is generally referred to as the Dingell–Johnson Act, or DJ.

As a Park Mgmt major, I took Wildlife Conservation @ KSU ~ 1977. So, I've been aware of the positives & negatives resulting from these sources of funding. Kansas has been caught diverting funds from approved usage to other KDWP&T needs.

A Conservation "license," AFAIK, would not meet the legislative requirements in these 2 laws, & therefore not be counted in the distribution of tax $$.

FYI: Linda Lanterman, director of the Parks Division for the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT), has a degree in accounting from WSU. She was hired in the Business Office of KDWPT, & has never actually worked outside of the HQ in Pratt. IMHO, she was successful in $$$ mgmt & keeping secrets. KDWPT had a new director hired from Idaho. He decided his pay wasn't enough, so he manipulated the system to give himself a raise, & later caught & discharged. Last year, a seasonal gatekeeper @ Clinton State Park noticed the nightly cash deposits did not match the records of occupied campsites. These transactions were made out of a "tackle box," AFAIK. The gatekeeper blew the whistle, & was fired for his honesty; 2 permanent employees were suspects. No further info to date.

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/state-...o-investigate/

As a CoE Park Tech 1975-81, I collected camping fees ($1- 3/night), had a locked deposit bag & stubs in my "ticket book" to match. NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

[jim9251]

Not sure what Kansas has to do with Colorado.

[KSinmyrearviewmirror]

Originally Posted by jim9251

Not sure what Kansas has to do with Colorado.

Both are states, last I checked. These Federal excise taxes are NOT collected @ the point of purchase. The USF&WS distributes the taxes, based in part, on the # of licenses sold in each state.

Mississippi's explanation: https://www.mdwfp.com/conservation/w...rtson-act.aspx

How does the Pittman-Robertson Act work?

The excise tax is set by law at 11% of the wholesale price for long guns and ammunition and 10% for handguns. It is paid by manufacturers, producers, and importers and applies to all commercial sales and imports, whether their purpose is hunting, sport shooting, or personal defense. This tax is handled by the Department of the Treasury, which turns the funds over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for apportionments to states.

How are Pittman-Robertson Funds distributed to states?

USFWS deposits P-R revenue into a special account called the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. These funds are made available to states the year following their collection. Funds are then distributed through the following process:
1) $8 million is dedicated to Enhanced Hunter Education programs, including the construction or maintenance of public target ranges.
2) $3 million is set aside for projects that require cooperation among the states.
3) One-half of the excise tax collected on handguns is set aside for Basic Hunter Education programs.

The remainder of the trust fund is then divided in half with 50 percent apportioned to states based on the land area of the state in proportion to the total land area of the country. The remaining 50 percent is apportioned based on the number of individual paid hunting license holders in the state in proportion to the national total.

This program is funded by federal excise taxes that are collected from the sale of fishing tackle, electric trolling motors, imported boats, and marine fuel and then divided among the 50 state fisheries agencies. Each state's share is based on the size of its public water bodies and number of licensed anglers.

Colorado, like many other states, is seeing the # of hunting & fishing license sales decline. Colorado has decided to increase those #s by requiring license purchase to enter state wildlife areas.

I gave KS examples of misuse of Federal excise taxes, well because I'm a Kansan. We're 50th in per capita public lands (KS 98% private property). KDWPT has had several cases of "criminal" conduct by employees (up to & including the director). KS charges entrance fees to State Parks, but fishing lakes & public hunting areas do not require a fee in KS.

The USFWS keeps an eye re: misuse of these taxes by states. State wildlife agencies are often funded by those license fees + Fed excise taxes. As the # of hunters & fishers drop, these agencies receive less funding.

At the establishment of Kansas territory in 1854 the summit of the Rockies was the designated farthermost western boundary. Thus Denver, founded in 1858 and named for Kansas Gov. James W. Denver, was within the boundaries of Kansas.