- Banned
- #1
Non Consumptive User Revenue
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...Consumptive_User-Revenue-March2016-PWCMtg.pdf
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...Consumptive_User-Revenue-March2016-PWCMtg.pdf
According to recent data, about 4% of Coloradans hunt
This whole idea of how states fund wildlife conservation and management is unsustainable, so it's certainly something that needs some innovative ideas and fast.
The following article came out today and the bill is news to me... using public land energy and mineral revenues to fund wildlife conservation. What do ya'll think about this approach?
Interesting to note that there are a lot of the hook and bullet crowd on the panel (list at the end of the article), with only 2 or 3 "non consumptive" users. I like that sportsmen are well represented, but it's time the other folks who enjoy wildlife start paying as well.
Also, the article didn't mention that the 1. current recipients of these funds wouldn't willingly give up their cash, 2. the elephant in the middle of the room is the current fad in DC is to radically reduce development on public land, which just delays the inevitable.
http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/BlueRibbonPanel_ShortReport.pdf
I like the idea of new funding sources, I don't like the idea of the feds being more involved in state business. Remember, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules"
As for the non consumptive users, part of me doesn't want them to pay because they'll argue they want more input (code for less hunting), but I'd argue they already have a disproportionate influence when they aren't paying anything. (Take the Brainerd Lake moose incident in CO last year for example.)
As for the non consumptive users, part of me doesn't want them to pay because they'll argue they want more input (code for less hunting), but I'd argue they already have a disproportionate influence when they aren't paying anything. (Take the Brainerd Lake moose incident in CO last year for example.)