Colorado’s wildlife agency needs $20 million to fix 10 “high-hazard” dams, part of a shortfall that will grow unless the state legislature acts. But the proposed solution, raising hunting and fishing license fees for state residents 100 percent over the next five years, would burden a small segment of Colorado’s population, even as other residents benefit. The conundrum offers an opportunity for Colorado to rethink how it pays for wildlife programs.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife does not get general tax revenue and, while many Coloradans enjoy seeing wild animals, most don’t pay to maintain habitat, fund research or deal with crises such as the chronic wasting disease bedeviling deer and elk. Financially, the parks division (which has a separate budget) has hovered near break-even and benefited from an uptick in camping fees.
But with Colorado’s population expected to hit 7.8 million by 2040, the state needs to do more to protect habitat and wild animal populations — something the agency’s current budget can’t handle. While prices for out-of-state fishing and hunting licenses rose in recent years, the costs of such licenses for Colorado residents haven’t increased since 2005.
Hunting and fishing licenses fund about 66 percent of all state wildlife programs, yet up to half the wildlife agency’s budget goes to efforts that don’t directly relate to either sport. Meanwhile, costs are rising for everything from fish food at state hatcheries to water rights for in-stream flows. Three years ago, the wildlife agency dipped $1.5 million into the red, and barely has stayed above water since, while donations via a state income tax check-off dropped from $288,329 in 2005 to $110,171 last year.
Existing funding mechanisms seem to leave Colorado Parks and Wildlife little choice except to raise resident hunting and fishing fees. Whether the agency needs the 100 percent increase it wants the legislature to approve, however, is something it must further explain.
Time and demographics are not on the agency’s side. The number of resident fishing licenses sold (and therefore the revenue) grew a respectable 36 percent from 2014 to 2015. But growth in hunting lags, increasing just 2.5 percent for resident elk and 6.6 percent for deer, while declining for pronghorn (antelope) and bighorn sheep. Although many Hispanics in Colorado hunt, most people who participate are white, rural and aging — in a state that is increasingly diverse, urban and young. Yet the agency’s strategic plan assumes the number of hunting licenses will grow.
Existing options are limited (although the agency should better publicize its official wildlife foundation, which accepts public donations). The state auditor’s office also might find additional efficiencies beyond the $40 million and 50 staff positions the wildlife unit already cut.
Hunting and fishing are time-honored traditions in Colorado, and for many families help put food on their tables. But given the slow growth in hunting and the rapid rise in wildlife needs, state lawmakers should seek other ways to fund Colorado’s many — and very popular — wildlife programs.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
