26 replies to this topic

[dennis 221]

You’ll Now Need a Hunting or Fishing License to Access State Wildlife Areas
Starting July 1, Colorado Parks and Wildlife is requiring visitors to Colorado’s State Wildlife Areas to carry a valid hunting or fishing license—even if they're not hunters or anglers. We explain why.

[craig333]

All about income. I'm surprised they don't have something else though, like a "public lands conservation card" or some such.

[rando]

The reasoning is that these lands were purchased/leased with funds from hunting/fishing licenses (bit tax revenue) and are seeing heavy use which may degrade their suitability for their primary wildlife use. 

 

I am not sure I necessarily agree with this, but realize this is a small fraction of public land in the state about 600,000 acres out of 23,000,000 acres.   In some ways this is similar to the State Parks, you need a pass or pay a fee to enter these as well.   But I would have hoped that you could buy an add on to your state parks pass instead of needing a fishing/hunting license.

[Foy]

Montana has, as do many states, a modest baseline access fee which is required to be purchased by anybody who must otherwise purchase a hunting or fishing license.  I don't know if the baseline fee is due for only accessing state game lands,  but I think it is solely tied to actual licensure.  But I'm a fixin' to find out by purchasing two fishing licenses for an upcoming trip.

 

Foy

[windy]

My guess is we will see more of this in the near future as many state coffers are depleted as a result of Covid and the economic shutdown.

States will need to generate revenue wherever they can.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

I don’t see an issue with modest annual fees.  The funding generally goes towards things that we as outdoor people need or want.  Whether that’s habitat, trails, parking, leasing access, invasive species control or staffing, it’s important.  I don’t mind the expense.

[PaulT]

Perhaps, more folks will become aware that hunters & fishermen have been footing the bills through licensing fees and excise taxes on equipment for decades.

 

Paul

[rando]

I don’t see an issue with modest annual fees.  The funding generally goes towards things that we as outdoor people need or want.  Whether that’s habitat, trails, parking, leasing access, invasive species control or staffing, it’s important.  I don’t mind the expense.

 

I honestly don't mind the expense either, compared to my overall recreational budget it is a very small amount.  What is annoying though is having to have a different pass for each type of land - an interagency federal lands pass (thankfully only one of these) a state parks pass for each state you use, and now a fishing license.

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

I don't mind paying an entrance fee,but if I am an out of state visitor to one of these

wildlife areas that means I have to purchase at a great fee an out of state license.

Or can you just pay an entrance fee at the area?

Frank

[ntsqd]

I don't mind the expense either. What I don't like are the "upgrades" that the gov't seems to feel is needed. Those in turn require maint. and staffing and.....

Pretty soon I may as well go to Disneyland.