Hickenlooper Planning To Plunder DOW Funds?

According to the Denver Post, the new Governor plans to merge the state parks unit with the department of wildlife, this will allow hunting and fishing license fees to be used to support the parks division which isn't self-supporting.

I am actually starting to miss Ritter. Bill was so overwhelmed by the job he couldn't think of tricky manuevers like Hick has.

I thought the LOTTERY funds were supposed to support the Parks??

MamaRama wrote: I thought the LOTTERY funds were supposed to support the Parks??

The legislature played a game with the lottery money. Once the lottery money started funding the Parks, the politicians stopped providing funding for Parks from the general fund.

He will need the consent of the legislature for the reorganization, and even though he has the chairs of the Agricultural committees in both houses of the legislature sponsoring the attempt, I don't know that he will be able to convince them that it should be done. Might be an instance where he finds bipartisan opposition instead of bipartisan support for his proposal. We shall have to wait and see.

That is exactly what Hickenlooper has in mind - plunder the DOW by merging it with a "tax-sucking" parks department.

The DOW is the only department in our state that does not use tax money to operate. It is fully funded by fees paid by hunting and fishing licenses. Merging it with the parks department is the worst idea I have ever heard. This will destroy the intent and purpose od the DOW and dilute it's ability to manage wildlife.

The governor must know of the massive divide between the interests of "conservation" and "preservation". We need to fight back to stop this from happining. Before you know it - the lefties will plunder the DOW of it's dollars used to manage Colorado wildlife.

Discusting - Hickenlooper - you SUCK!!

And closing several State Parks as well. What a guy.

BearMtnHIB wrote: The DOW is the only department in our state that does not use tax money to operate. It is fully funded by fees paid by hunting and fishing licenses. Merging it with the parks department is the worst idea I have ever heard. This will destroy the intent and purpose od the DOW and dilute it's ability to manage wildlife.

Which is why I think he might find bipartisan opposition to the idea instead of bipartisan support for it when the idea is debated in the legislature. It depends, I guess, upon how the merger is structured. If structured along the lines of continuing the autonomy with which the DOW currently operates, there might be some benefit realized. If structured to end the successful autonomy of the DOW and bring it into the failed bureaucracy of the State Parks, then I would agree that it is a bad idea.

I need a little more information before falling on one side or the other. I'll have to see how the proposal is written, what language it contains, before making a determination.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: And closing several State Parks as well. What a guy.

Yes, he should close more schools and fire more teachers instead....

Hey Print - I hear what your saying but there is no money to be saved here, only plundered. On the surface you might think that there are overlapping functions.

There are not. The two departments have completely seperate functions, purpose and intent. The parks are focused on preservation, while the DOW is in the business of conservation. These interests to not overlap - and on many issues - they are in direct conflict with each other.

The only reason Hick would propose this would be to plunder the self-supporting and well managed DOW of funds, and possibly destroy the intent of the department by replacing conservation advocates with preservation advocates, using our money (hunters and fishermen) to fund new regulations and restrictions against us.

I took the Colorado hunters safety class a few years back - and the instructors warned us about these kinds of efforts, and talked about the reasons to oppose them.

I hope you consider this while forming your opinion.

P.S. All of us who have an interest in Wildlife and in Hunting and Fishing need to get the word out that this is a horrible idea being proposed. The public needs to be educated and aware of the issues at risk here.

I can see the point you are trying to make Bear, and I agree with some of it, but I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive, though they certainly can be. In order to have herds of big game to be managed, their habitat must be preserved to a certain degree or the herds will not find suitable habitat in which to live. That is why I qualified it as I did. If the management is structured such that the DOW mission is that which governs the operations, there could be some benefit realized by having the public campgrounds and parks overseen by an entity whose primary outlook is the responsible management of the fisheries and habitat contained within the park. If you have one state park employee patrolling multiple parks looking to make sure that everyone has a camping sticker and separate DOW employee patrolling multiple reservoirs located within the state parks looking to make sure the fishing laws are being followed, we might be better off with a single employee at Spinney and another one at Eleven Mile that are looking for both at the same time than we are with two who can only spend part of their time in both locations.