COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE

CPW Strategic Planning: Existing Conditions,

Trends, and Projections DRAFT REPORT

Colorado Parks & Wildlife

Policy and Planning Unit February 2015

Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2. State Demographics and Population Change ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 Population trends and projections ............................................................................................... 6

2.2 Aging of the population ................................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Diversification of the population ................................................................................................ 10

3. Trends in Outdoor Recreation ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Overall Participation Numbers .................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Activity by region ........................................................................................................................ 15

3.3 State Park visitation and public preferences .............................................................................. 16

3.4 Fishing Participation .................................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Hunting Participation .................................................................................................................. 21

3.6 Youth and Hispanic participation ................................................................................................ 23

4. Public Opinion and Preferences for Natural Resource and Recreation Priorities .............................. 24

5. Public satisfaction with CPW............................................................................................................... 26

2 | P a g e

Executive summary In an effort to inform the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2015 Strategic Plan, this report captures important information regarding Colorado’s demographics, trends in outdoor recreation, public priorities, and public satisfaction with CPW. The topics addressed in this report provide background information and, when combined with a summary of input collected from statewide engagement of stakeholders, general public, staff and the Parks and Wildlife Commission, will inform the development of the strategic plan. This information is also intended to help the Commission and the Leadership Team achieve the desired outcomes of the strategic planning process: a shared strategic direction for CPW, a foundation for long-term financial sustainability, the prioritized use of limited resources, and establishing values and standards of excellence. Conditions, trends and projections presented here are intended to provide an objective picture of the landscape that CPW works within. The information provided can be utilized to develop a future strategy that is built on a solid foundation. Some highlights from the report are found below. State Demographics and Population Change

• Colorado’s population is currently the 5th fastest growing in the country and will continue to grow by more than 40% between 2015 and 2040. Seventy-five percent of the growth is expected to occur on the Front Range. Because of growth focused on the Front Range, substantial increases are likely in the number of visitors originating from this area as well as more demand for Front Range parks and natural resources.

• Although Colorado’s population is younger than most other states, the proportion of those 55-and-older is increasing and projected to grow dramatically in coming years. The aging of the population will affect how and where people choose to recreate.

• Colorado is becoming more diverse. In 2000, only 25 % of the state’s population was non-white; in 2040, almost half of Coloradans will be non-white. Hispanics are the largest minority group in Colorado and are projected to make up one-third of the population by 2040. Hispanics have different recreation patterns that may affect CPW, including extended use of picnic sites by large groups, greater willingness to travel for outdoor recreation, and higher participation in outdoor recreation by Hispanic youth.

Trends in Outdoor Recreation • The top reasons Coloradans choose to live here are the state’s clean environment, access to

public lands and outdoor recreation opportunities, and residents’ ability to maintain a healthy, outdoor lifestyle. Considering population growth projections and the likelihood of new residents sharing these same outdoor-focused priorities, CPW will face trade-offs between promoting recreational opportunities while managing natural resources to maintain their integrity.

• Over 80% of Coloradans participate in trail-related activities, making them the most popular forms of outdoor recreation. Additionally, more than 57% of residents participated in some form of water-based recreation.

• Most Colorado residents stay within their region of residence to recreate, but there is increasing willingness of Coloradans to travel. The Denver and Colorado Springs-Pueblo areas generate more overnight visits within the state than any other urban area. As this geographic region grows substantially, so will the opportunity to increase outdoor recreation participation.

3 | P a g e

• Colorado State Parks visitation has generally been increasing over the last 10-15 years. More than 98% of Coloradans have at least one state park within 50 miles of where they live, and more than half of the state’s population (56%) lives within 50 miles of six or more state parks. Greater than two-thirds of all park visitors come from the Metro and North Central regions though, proportionally, park visitation from most regions of the state is high (42-48%).

• Fishing is the fourth most popular activity by proportion of Coloradans’ participation. Although the overall trend for participation in angling since 1985 shows a decline, numbers have generally been increasing after reaching a low in 2000. As compared to hunting, participation in angling is high among younger adults, particularly between ages 22 and 37. Fishing participation slowly declines after age 65 until most participants are no longer fishing by age 80.

• License holder numbers for hunting continue to display a general decline since a high in 1998, although a closer look at hunting applications and license sales suggests that the demand for big game hunting licenses exceeds supply and the number of licenses sold is largely driven by quota numbers. The largest cohort of big game hunters is between 47 and 57 years old. The size of this age group is decreasing as hunters stop hunting, without concomitant recruitment of younger age classes.

• Nationally, 63% of youth participated in outdoor recreation in 2012. Despite declining participation rates from 2006 to 2009 which have since stabilized, youth still greatly outnumber the relative proportion of adults involved in outdoor recreation. The share of adolescent girls in outdoor recreation fell while participation by boys has increased slightly.

Public Opinion and Preferences for Natural Resource and Recreation Priorities

• A general survey of Coloradans revealed preference for parks with fewer amenities compared to those that are more developed. Surveys of state park users indicate that they place a high level of importance on open lands and wilderness, but, along with scenery, many users highly value cleanliness, safety and facilities when they visit state parks.

• Wildlife viewing opportunities and dirt trails are high priorities for the general public, with about half of general public respondents to a CPW poll ranking these as high priority or essential investments.

• Land conservation and preserving natural areas regularly rank high in competing priorities for Coloradans. Maintenance of existing facilities was seen as important, not just addition of new infrastructure or public land. Maintaining public access is a high priority arising from Great Outdoors Colorado’s public surveys, surpassed only by protecting Colorado's land, water and wildlife.

Public Satisfaction with CPW

• Generally, satisfaction levels for CPW’s work are relatively high. Surveys conducted prior to the merger of Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (State Parks) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) indicated that public impressions of the agencies were favorable overall. Most Coloradans surveyed thought that State Parks was doing a good job of managing the state parks system, and that trust was high in DOW’s ability to manage fish and wildlife populations.

• Anglers are generally pleased with their fishing in Colorado, as 66% of residents and 80% of non-residents rate their experiences as very or somewhat satisfying. The most important factors to

4 | P a g e

anglers are the opportunity to fish in a variety of waters and having a large diversity of types of fish to catch. Also important is being able to eat the fish that they catch.

• Hunters are satisfied overall with their experience hunting in Colorado. The proportion of hunters rating their experience as very or somewhat satisfying outnumbered those rating somewhat or very unsatisfied by at least a 2:1 margin for elk, deer, mountain lion, and pronghorn. Resident hunters feel that the most important factors in the sport are being able to hunt every year and to harvest the animal for meat. Non-residents prefer hunting every 3-5 years to take a larger, more mature animal and are less interested in harvesting an animal for meat. Access to public lands is also a priority for hunters.

5 | P a g e

1. Introduction In an effort to inform the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2015 Strategic Plan, this report captures and summarizes important information regarding changes in Colorado’s demographics, trends in outdoor recreation, public priorities regarding recreation opportunities and natural resource management, and public satisfaction with CPW. The topics addressed in this report provide background information and, when combined with a summary of input collected from statewide engagement of stakeholders, general public, staff and the Parks and Wildlife Commission will inform the development of the strategic plan. This information is also intended to help the Commission and the Leadership Team achieve the desired outcomes of the strategic planning process: a shared strategic direction for CPW, a foundation for long-term financial sustainability, the prioritized use of limited resources, and establishing values and standards of excellence.

Conditions, trends, and projections presented are intended to provide an objective picture of the landscape that CPW does and will work within for the strategic planning process. The information provided can be utilized to develop a future strategy that is built on a solid foundation. The intention of this report is different than the ‘2013 Customer and Market Trends Report’,1 which provided interpretations and implications of various customer and market trends. However, some data from that 2013 report are updated in this report.

2. State Demographics and Population Change

2.1 Population trends and projections Colorado is a rapidly growing state. Over 725,000 people moved to the state between 2000 and 2010, growing from 4.3 million residents to over 5 million at a rate of nearly 17%.2 Between 2010 and 2013 alone, Colorado saw over 230,000 people move into the state and was the fifth fastest growing state in the country over that time period.3 Steady growth is predicted for Colorado, with the State Demography Office estimating over

7.75 million residents by 2040 (Figure 1).4 About 75% of upcoming growth during 2015-

1 Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 38 pp 2 Colorado State Demography Office. 2010 Population and Percent Change Colorado Counties - Total Population. 3 Colorado State Demography Office. United States and States Population Data. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593300013 (Accessed 01/26/15) 4 Colorado State Demography Office Dashboard. https://dola.colorado.gov/demog_webapps/dashboard.jsf (Accessed 01/26/15)

2 4 6 8

10

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Popu

latio

n (m

illio

ns)

Year

Colorado Population 1980 - 2040

Figure 1: Colorado population estimates and projections 1980-2040; estimates 1980-2013, projections 2014-2040 (Colorado State Demography Office 2015)

6 | P a g e

2020 is projected to be concentrated along the Front Range, which includes the I-25 corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo, where many of the state’s most populous counties also have high population growth. Those counties, in order of projected absolute increase in number of new residents, are Denver, Arapahoe, El Paso, Adams, Weld, Larimer, Douglas, Boulder, Jefferson and Pueblo (Table 1).5 Although not adding dramatically to the state’s overall population, many of the counties with the highest annual growth rates during 2015-2020 will be in the mountainous portions of the state: Park, Archuleta, Custer, San Miguel, and La Plata (Table 2). Elbert and Weld counties, located on the Front Range, will also likely experience high growth rates. These counties are predicted to continue experiencing high growth rates through 2040 (Figure 2).

5 Colorado State Demography Office. 2014. Population Forecasts – years 2000 to 2040. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593346867 (Accessed 01/26/15)

Figure 3: Colorado population growth 2010 to 2040 (Figure from Colorado State Demography Office, 2013) Figure 2: Colorado population growth 2010 to 2040 (Figure from Colorado State Demography Office, 2013)

7 | P a g e

Table 1: Top ten counties for projected absolute growth from 2015-2020. The total represents 75% of the state's growth in 2015-2020. (Colorado State Demography Office, 2014)

County Population increase Denver 53,882 Arapahoe 47,613 El Paso 54,571 Adams 44,611 Weld 45,977 Larimer 32,034 Douglas 35,002 Boulder 17,654 Jefferson 23,982 Pueblo 13,274 Total 368,600

Table 2: Ten counties for highest projected annual growth rate 2015-2020. (Colorado State Demography Office, 2014)

County Average annual growth rate (%)

Total projected growth

Elbert 6.6 9,839 Park 4.2 4,072 Archuleta 3.4 863 Custer 3.4 2,382 San Miguel 3.3 1,521 Weld 3.1 45,977 La Plata 3.0 9,277 Eagle 2.9 8,956 Garfield 2.9 9,558 Lake 2.8 1,192

Not all areas of the state are growing, however, as 17 counties lost population between 2000 and 2010. Most of the shrinking counties are located in the Eastern Plains and South Central regions of the state. The counties with rates of population decline more than 10% in the period 2000-2010 are Cheyenne (-17.7 %), Baca (-16.4%), Huerfano (-14.6%), Mineral (-14.3%), Kiowa (-13.8%), Sedgwick (-13.4%), Prowers (-13.3%), Jackson (-11.6%), and Lincoln (-10.2%).6 This is part of a continuation of the larger rural-to-urban migration trend, seen in counties across the United States between 1980 and 2000, as a result of shrinking rural economies and labor demand.7 Increases and decreases in growth rates are magnified in counties with small populations as small changes in the number of residents can result in disproportionately large changes in county growth rates.

With the increase in the state’s population comes more pressure for land development. Recent estimates indicate that 90,000 acres per year of rural and natural land is being lost to development and the number of acres of developed land in Colorado reached 2.5 million in 2000.8 The state lost more than 1.25 million acres of agricultural land between 1997 and 2002.9 Largely as a result of land development, Colorado’s unique ecosystems are decreasing in extent and biodiversity. The ecosystems most at risk are shortgrass prairie, sand sage, and greasewood. Almost 50 percent of Colorado’s shortgrass prairie has been lost, the largest proportion of loss to any of Colorado’s habitat, largely due to agricultural conversion.

6 Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2010 Population and Percent Change Colorado Counties - Total Population. 7 Wells, C. “The Great Plains Drain.” The Economist. January 17, 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/10534077 (Accessed 02/03/15) 8 Colorado Conservation Trust, 2007. Conservation at a Crossroads. 9 Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center. 2006. Losing Ground-Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape.

CPW has both opportunities and challenges that may present themselves from the rapidly increasing population. This is likely to be especially magnified in the Front Range, where population growth is going to be most significant.

2.2 Aging of the population Colorado is a young state compared to the rest of the country. The state’s median age is 36.110, in contrast to the nationwide median age of 37.2.11 Colorado has the fourth lowest proportion of its population aged 65-and-older despite a 32% increase among this demographic group from 2000 to 2010, making it the state with the fourth fastest growing population of 65 and over.12 The state’s fastest growing age group, those between 60-64 years old, increased by 86% (124,695 individuals) during that time, and the second fastest growing group was 55-59 at nearly 70%. The state’s overall population growth rate during that same period was 17%.13

The Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley have the largest share of their populations age 65 and older, though more than 45% of the state’s over-65 population lives along the Front Range in Jefferson, Denver, Arapahoe, and El Paso counties. From 2000 to 2010, the largest change in over-65 share of population was in resort-oriented mountain counties (e.g., Eagle, Summit and San Juan) and Douglas County (Figure 3). Many of these counties had low 65+ populations to begin with, but the trends show that a smaller base of older adults is rapidly growing as the populations of the counties age.

Although only 11% of the state’s population is currently over the age of 65, this portion is expected to increase by 150% between 2010 and 2030. This is almost exclusively due to the natural aging of the state’s 1.3 million Baby Boomers (age 46-64 in 2010) as opposed to in-migration of 65+ adults, which is relatively low. In 2010-2040, the fastest over-65 growth will be along Front Range counties and Western Slope resort-oriented counties.14 As the state’s population ages, individual households will see shifts in income, leisure time, and activity preferences which will all impact the outdoor recreation sector. By 2030, one million Coloradans are expected to age out of the workforce.15 A shift of this magnitude in the population could have dramatic impacts on outdoor recreation demand as individuals may change how they prioritize expenses on outdoor activities among competing household expenditures.

10Colorado State Demography Office. 2012. “Projected Median Age by County 1990-2040.” 11 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census Demographic Profiles for Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn139.html (Accessed 01/27/15) 12 Colorado State Demography Office. 2012. Aging in Colorado. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593240528 (Accessed 01/26/15) 13 For a detailed look at population trends by generation, see the Colorado State Demography Office’s Age Animation at http://dola.colorado.gov/cms-base/sites/dola.colorado.gov.gis-cms/files/projects/AdvancedAnimate/agebars.html 14 Colorado State Demography Office. 2012. Aging in Colorado. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593240528 (Accessed 01/26/15) 15 Garner, E. 2011. "The Age Wave in Colorado." Colorado State Demography Office. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593240528 (Accessed 02/13/15)

9 | P a g e

2.3 Diversification of the population Colorado is an increasingly diverse state. Almost 25% of residents were of non-white ethnicity in 2000 compared to 28.9% in 2010. Diversity is expected to increase in the coming decades, growing to 36.7% non-white population in 2025 and 44.8% in 2040.16 Hispanics are the largest minority group in Colorado, making up 20.6% of the population (1.04 million people) in 2010.17 They are also the fastest growing ethnic group in the state and the State Demography Office predicts the Hispanic group to reach over one-quarter of the total share of the state’s population (1.7 million people) before 2025 and nearly one-third (2.5 million people) by 2040 (Figure 4).

Although three-fourths (approximately

16 Colorado State Demography Office. 2014. Population of Colorado's Race and Ethnic Groups, 2000-2040. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251593300475 (Accessed 01/27/15) 17 Colorado State Demography Office. 2010. “Population by Race and Hispanic Origin.”

Figure 4: Colorado diversity projections 2000 to 2040 (Colorado State Demography Office 2014)

Figure 3: Change in 65+ population percent from 2000 to 2010 (Figure from Colorado State Demography Office, “Aging in Colorado”, 2012.)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

2000

20

05

2010

20

15

2020

20

25

2030

20

35

2040

Prop

ortio

n of

pop

ulat

ion

Year

Population Diversity in Colorado

Am. Indian, non-hispanic

Asian/PI, non-hispanic

Black, non-hispanic

10 | P a g e

771,000) of the state’s Hispanics live along the Front Range,18 counties with the largest proportion of Hispanic residents are located in the southern, southeastern, northern Front Range, and northwest regions of the state (Figure 5). The Hispanic population in Colorado is generally young, with a median age of 26 compared to the statewide median age of 36.1.19 Between 2000 and 2010, Hispanics were the only ethnic group where the growth rate was greater for the portion of the population under 18 (44% increase) than over 18 (39% increase).20

Figure 5: Hispanic proportion of population 2010 (Figure from Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel, 2013.)

Research on Hispanic preferences and expectations regarding outdoor recreation reveal interesting insights. Hispanics indicated that spending time with immediate and extended family is important and that spending leisure time together is key to maintaining and strengthening family ties. They also reported having only one day off per week, which would mean that outdoor trips are usually just for the day. Studies on group sizes at outdoor recreation sites showed an average of 8 to 15 people per group, with some groups having more than 100 people. Picnics for Hispanic families may last between 6 to 10 hours as meals are prepared from scratch, resulting in long occupancy at picnic sites.21 Similar to the

18 Colorado State Demography Office. 2010. “Population by Race and Hispanic Origin.” 19 Pew Research Center. 2011. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in Colorado. http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/co/ (Accessed 01/27/15) 20 Garner, E. 2011. Demographic Trends: Understanding the impact of a changing population on Colorado. 21 Chavez, D.J. 2012. “Latinos and Outdoor Recreation.” in Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures, pp 74–77.

11 | P a g e

trend of Hispanic youth spending more time outside, national research indicates Hispanics spend more time than non-Hispanics visiting beaches and historic sites, and cycling.22

Conservation and environmental protection are priorities in the Hispanic community, according to the 2015 Conservation in the West poll. Protecting natural areas for future generations and conserving wildlife habitat were the top two priorities among Hispanics for public lands, rated as very important by 91 percent and 84 percent of respondents, respectively.23 These came higher than ensuring public access for outdoor recreation, development for minerals or energy, and livestock grazing. Hispanics expressed greater concern for nearly all environmental issues than overall respondents.

3. Trends in Outdoor Recreation Coloradans rank a clean environment and outdoor recreation opportunities as the top reasons they live in the state. In the 2015 Conservation in the West poll, residents said having clean air, water and a healthy environment was the leading reason for why they choose to live here: 90% of those polled rated it as a significant factor as to why they chose to live in Colorado.24 More than one half of respondents said living near public lands and having the chance to enjoy them (55%), as well as an outdoor lifestyle (54%), had a strong impact on the choice to call Colorado home. A clean environment, proximity to public lands, and an outdoor lifestyle, rated higher than all other options, including economic opportunities, quality of public schools, and cost of living.

Colorado is known for its outdoor reputation, and Coloradans are an active group. The 2014 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) reports that 90% of state residents participated in some form of outdoor activity in the previous year and two thirds of residents recreated in the outdoors at least once a week on average.25 The report also states that 60% of Coloradans expect to greatly increase or somewhat increase their level of outdoor recreation participation in the next five years. This may have significant implications on CPW’s ability to provide the high level of service that it does currently.

3.1 Overall Participation Numbers Across the state, walking and hiking/backpacking are the most popular outdoor activities, determined by total statewide number of activity days as well as the percentage of the population participating (Table 3).26 An activity day is counted as any amount of time spent on an activity in a given day, whether for less than an hour or all day, and regardless of whether or not the activity was the primary reason for

22 Cordell, K., and Green, G. 2012. “National Association of Recreation Resource Planners.” U.S. Trends and Speculations about the Future. http://www.recpro.org/assets/Conference_Proceedings/2012_recent_trends_outdoor_rec_cordell-green.pdf. Accessed 01/23/15. 23 Colorado College. 2015. Conservation in the West Poll. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/ (Accessed 02/11/15) 24 Colorado College. 2015. Conservation in the West Poll. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/ (Accessed 02/11/15) 25 CPW. 2014. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 26 Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 38 pp.

12 | P a g e

recreating outdoors.27 More than 80% of all Coloradans participate in trail- or road-based recreation opportunities (e.g., walking, hiking, jogging, bicycling, off-highway vehicle use, etc.) and over 50% of Coloradans participate in water-based recreation such as fishing, boating, water skiing, and whitewater rafting.28 Great Outdoors Colorado found activity popularity rankings to be similar based on survey responses in 2014, with over 60% of respondents participating in trail recreation, picnicking, water recreation, and wildlife watching.29 Additionally, almost 1.5 million Colorado residents over the age of 15 participate in some form of wildlife-watching.30

Although the SCORP reports that day trips make up 80% of outdoor recreation trips, state residents are taking more overnight trips. Coloradans accounted for 36% of the state’s overnight visitors in 2013, down slightly from 40% in 201231 but still a large contributor compared to just over 20% in 1992.32 The Denver and Colorado Springs-Pueblo urban areas generated more overnight visits in the state than any other urban area in the country.33 Research for the SCORP report found that for overnight outdoor trips, tent camping is the most preferred (43%), followed by hotels and motels (32%) and RV camping (18%). These preferences may be relevant to CPW’s future strategies related to amenities in State Parks.

27 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE): 2000-2002. The Interagency National Survey Consortium, Coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, GA and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 28 CPW. 2014. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Page 36. 29 Great Outdoors Colorado. 2014. Great Outdoors Colorado Situation Analysis. Page 20. 30 U.S.Department of the Interior, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.Department of Commerce, U.S.Census Bureau.2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 31 Longwoods International. 2013. “Colorado Travel Year 2013.” http://www.colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/Colorado2013VisitorFinalReportOnline_final.pdf (Accessed 02/13/15) 32 Longwoods International. 2011. “Colorado Travel Year 2011.” http://industry.colorado.com/research/longwoods-international (Accessed 02/13/15) 33 Longwoods International. 2013. “Colorado Travel Year 2013.” http://www.colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/Colorado2013VisitorFinalReportOnline_final.pdf (Accessed 02/13/15)

13 | P a g e

Table 3: 2013 Participation in outdoor activities in Colorado by percent of population and activity days34

34 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report, Research, Planning and Policy Unit, June 2013.

14 | P a g e

3.2 Activity by region The Colorado Tourism Office (CTO) has developed a 7-region breakdown of Colorado counties based on regions where tourism and tourism spending are concentrated and visitation characteristics are similar (Figure 6). These regions provide a logical basis from which to compare CPW activity trends with trends in other types of tourism and spending.

The greatest number of activity days occurred in the North Central Region, with almost 140 million activity days, where appealing opportunities exist in Boulder and Larimer counties as well as Rocky Mountain National Park.35 The following information from the 2013 outdoor recreation survey provides greater detail on outdoor recreation activities by region:36

• Swimming outdoors and fishing are most popular in the North Central Region.

• Over 5 million days are spent swimming in the Metro Region, likely due to the number of reservoirs close to population centers.

• Fishing is also extremely popular in the South Central and Northwest Regions. • In the Northwest, skiing/snowboarding makes up 10 million activity days by Coloradans alone, which can be expected

as it is home to most of the resort towns along the I-70 corridor. • The majority of big game hunting activity takes place on the western slope and the South Central Region. A similar

trend is seen with wildlife viewing; however the North Central Region has the most number of activity days. • The Northeast Region is the primary location for upland bird and small game hunting. • Golf, picnicking, and playground activities are participated in the most in the Northwest and Central regions, which

tend to include some of Colorado’s more populous areas.

Most Colorado residents stay within their region of residence for outdoor recreation, especially in the Southwest region where only 9% of residents’ recreation days are in another region (Figure 7). In contrast, 41% of recreation days for Metro area residents are spent outside of their region. Colorado residents generally stay close to home for weekday outdoor recreation, with 44% of residents travelling no more than four miles; for weekend trips, 26% of residents go between 20 and 49 miles. Coloradans are increasingly willing to travel farther for weekday outdoor recreation activities, with 36% of respondents going more than 20 miles, compared to only 12% travelling this distance in 2007. Interestingly, twice as many Hispanic residents travel 50-99 miles for recreation opportunities when compared to non-Hispanic residents, and 80% of these were day trips.37 The willingness of Coloradans to travel for outdoor recreation may be a trend that CPW can take advantage of to encourage more use of those opportunities provided by the agency.

35 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey: Summary Report. 36 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey: Summary Report. 37 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey: Summary Report.

Figure 4: Map of Colorado Tourism Office regions (from Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel, 2013.) Figure 6: Map of Colorado Tourism Office regions (Figure from Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel, 2013.)

15 | P a g e

Figure 7: Travel by Colorado residents for outdoor recreation (Figure from CPW, 2013, SCORP.)

3.3 State Park visitation and public preferences Over 98% of Coloradans have at least one state park within 50 miles of where they live, and more than half of the state’s population (56%) lives within 50 miles of six or more state parks.38 Colorado State Parks visitation has generally been increasing over the last 15 years (Figure 8). While the number of visits had dipped slightly in fiscal year 12-13, visitation rose again in FY13-14 and the number of State Park visits annually has otherwise been hovering around 12 million since FY08-09. Tables 4 and 5 show Park visitation, hunting and fishing participation by Colorado Office of Tourism region and county. Table 4 shows that two-thirds of all park visitors come from the Metro and North Central regions though, proportionally, park visitation from all regions of the state is high (42 to 48%), except for the Southwest region where there are few parks and many competing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Overall, park visitation patterns seem to reflect the locations of high-amenity, large parks. Fifty percent of residents responding to the SCORP survey indicated that they prefer parks with basic amenities (e.g., toilets, shelters, running water, and picnic areas) to either more developed areas or areas with no services.39 The survey also found cleanliness and park facilities conditions were main factors in choosing an outdoor recreation area. Time and distance to reach an area, entrance price, and other fees like parking all influenced visitors’ decisions, but to a lesser extent. Overall impressions of Colorado State Parks were very favorable and most Coloradans surveyed think that CPW is doing a good job of

38 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Market Assessment Survey. Page 8. 39 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey: Summary Report.

16 | P a g e

protecting natural resources. The main reasons cited for not visiting State Parks were lack of time and lack of information about individual parks.40

Hiking, fishing, camping, boating and biking (all types) are the top recreational activities at state parks as reported by park visitors in 2008-2009.41 More than 26% of park visitors reported that hiking was one of their top activities when visiting a park. About 25% reported that fishing was their top reason for going to a state park, while camping was only slightly behind. A 2008 public survey conducted for Colorado State Parks found that relaxation and learning activities were important reasons that people visit Colorado State Parks, with a majority of respondents indicating that they had gone to a park to spend time with family or friends (86%), sightseeing (84%), or “just to relax” (79%). Respondents frequently combined types of activities, indicating the importance of both physical and relaxation activities when Coloradans interact with the outdoors.

Figure 8: State Park visitation, fiscal years 99-00 to 13-14

40 Corona Research, 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 41 Corona Research, 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor Intercept Survey.

17 | P a g e

Table 4: Hunting, fishing, and park visitation numbers in 2013 by Colorado Tourism Office region

Table 5: 2013 Hunting, fishing, and park visitation by county (organized by CPW Region).

Hunting Fishing Park Visitation

CPW Regions 2013

Population

Number of Unique

Hunters42 % of

Population

Number of Unique

Fishermen43 % of

Population

Unique Park

Visitors44 % of

Population Northeast

Region 3,665,821

(70%) 97,427 275,451 1,657,699 Adams 469,193 11,413 2% 36,770 8% 227,488 48%

Arapahoe 607,070 9,042 1% 33,977 6% 295,394 49% Boulder 310,048 5,867 2% 19,550 6% 145,749 47%

Broomfield 59,471 1,775 3% 5,350 9% 22,599 38% Clear Creek 9,031 368 4% 737 8% 2,007 22%

Denver 649,495 5,440 1% 29,505 5% 286,259 44% Douglas 305,963 9,133 3% 22,919 7% 122,985 40% Elbert 23,733 1,555 7% 2,197 9% 11,867 50% Gilpin 5,601 322 6% 561 10% 1,400 25%

Jefferson 551,798 19,093 3% 54,262 10% 250,148 45% Larimer 315,988 13,208 4% 31,011 10% 139,162 44% Logan 22,450 1,573 7% 2,559 11% 12,472 56%

Morgan 28,404 1,754 6% 3,280 12% 11,046 39% Park 16,121 1,481 9% 2,409 15% 7,816 48%

Phillips 4,356 447 10% 421 10% 653 15% Sedgwick 2,360 248 11% 318 13% 787 33%

Washington 4,803 493 10% 532 11% 640 13% Weld 269,785 13,257 5% 28,158 10% 117,380 44% Yuma 10,151 958 9% 935 9% 1,846 18%

42 Number of resident hunters with home address zip codes in the county (2013 license year). 43 Number of resident anglers with home address zip codes in the county (2013 license year). 44 Number of unique visitors to state parks who resided in county, as reported in 2008 Market Assessment Study (Corona Research, 2009). Updated to reflect 2013 population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

Hunting Fishing Park Visitation

2013 Population

Number of Unique Hunters

Percentage of Statewide Hunters

% of Population

Number of Unique Fishermen

Percentage of Statewide Fishermen

% of Population

Number of Unique Park Visitors

% of Population

Northeast 111,614 8,369 4% 7% 11,556 3% 10% 46,858 42%

North Central 1,986,716 53,477 27% 2% 150,764 33% 8% 928,580 47%

Northwest 362,421 32,133 16% 8% 53,939 12% 15% 172,671 48%

Southeast 229,525 12,672 6% 5% 27,735 6% 12% 97,599 43%

South Central 817,772 33,106 17% 4% 76,544 17% 9% 345,798 42%

Southwest 193,592 23,046 12% 11% 29,470 6% 15% 68,307 35%

Metro 1,566,727 35,441 18% 2% 112,036 24% 7% 681,991 44%

18 | P a g e

Northwest Region

362,421 (7%) 32,133 53,939 172,671

Eagle 52,460 2,980 6% 5,505 10% 25,647 49% Garfield 57,302 5,498 10% 8,731 15% 29,106 51% Grand 14,289 1,697 12% 2,653 19% 3,760 26%

Jackson 1,365 319 23% 330 24% 607 44% Mesa 147,554 13,456 9% 23,323 16% 75,169 51%

Moffat 13,103 2,312 18% 2,722 21% 5,824 44% Pitkin 17,379 565 3% 1,274 7% 4,965 29%

Rio Blanco 6,807 1,568 23% 1,497 22% 1,513 22% Routt 23,513 2,492 11% 4,311 18% 11,757 50%

Summit 28,649 1,246 4% 3,593 13% 14,325 50% Southeast

Region 999,753

(19%) 40,569 96,196 431,772 Baca 3,682 447 12% 551 15% 1,289 35% Bent 5,688 360 6% 572 10% 3,792 67%

Chaffee 18,510 2,067 11% 3,049 16% 8,638 47% Cheyenne 1,890 220 12% 244 13% 1,260 67% Crowley 5,322 208 4% 367 7% 1,774 33% Custer 4,285 581 14% 634 15% 1,428 33% El Paso 655,044 17,742 3% 52,538 8% 283,950 43%

Fremont 46,451 3,447 7% 6,171 13% 18,351 40% Huerfano 6,519 622 10% 813 12% 3,260 50%

Kiowa 1,423 201 14% 195 14% 498 35% Kit Carson 8,037 708 9% 585 7% 3,572 44%

Lake 7,306 680 9% 1,285 18% 2,435 33% Las Animas 14,446 1,295 9% 2,150 15% 9,631 67%

Lincoln 5,430 413 8% 485 9% 2,715 50% Otero 18,703 1,215 6% 2,187 12% 5,542 30%

Prowers 12,291 898 7% 1,447 12% 6,828 56% Pueblo 161,451 7,426 5% 19,453 12% 64,987 40% Teller 23,275 2,039 9% 3,470 15% 11,822 51%

Southeast Region

240,372 (5%) 28,115 36,458 79,664

Alamosa 16,253 1,164 7% 2,192 13% 5,910 36% Archuleta 12,194 1,711 14% 1,889 15% 4,878 40% Conejos 8,277 1,165 14% 1,270 15% 1,182 14% Costilla 3,518 391 11% 373 11% 422 12% Delta 30,483 4,603 15% 5,594 18% 10,696 35%

Dolores 2,029 489 24% 386 19% 254 13% Gunnison 15,507 2,021 13% 2,853 18% 6,203 40% Hinsdale 813 120 15% 169 21% 203 25% La Plata 53,284 4,304 8% 6,411 12% 13,321 25% Mineral 721 151 21% 212 29% 144 20%

Montezuma 25,642 3,469 14% 3,874 15% 5,698 22% Montrose 40,713 5,181 13% 6,690 16% 21,013 52%

Ouray 4,557 366 8% 495 11% 3,038 67% Rio Grande 11,803 1,850 16% 2,587 22% 2,146 18% Saguache 6,208 348 6% 354 6% 1,552 25% San Juan 692 61 9% 91 13% 125 18%

San Miguel 7,678 721 9% 1,018 13% 2,879 38% Statewide Totals 5,268,367 198,244 462,044 2,341,806

19 | P a g e

Focus group research on residents’ attitudes regarding Colorado’s state parks showed that visitors see the state parks’ primary purpose as preservation and recreation. They also saw state parks as offering valuable education opportunities regarding wildlife and green space.45 Wildlife observation and hiking were seen as top activity priorities for park visitors, as well as recreation, time with family and friends, and appreciating the scenery.46

A survey recently conducted by CPW gives some insight into services provided by a variety of entities including state, federal and local governments on public lands. 47 This survey revealed that half of Coloradans preferred public lands with basic services to either more developed areas or areas without any services. Respondents mentioned services like toilets, shelters, running water, and picnic areas. Interestingly, open lands and wilderness ranked highest in importance among land types with 70% of Coloradans rating them as extremely or very important. Forests with fishing and dispersed camping ranked second (64%), followed by developed parks, playgrounds, and recreational ball fields (40%), and areas with extensive trails and camping (33%).

Regarding priorities for a pleasant experience at Colorado State Parks, visitors ranked cleanliness, scenery and surroundings, safety, and facilities as the most important factors.48 Visitors and non-visitors placed high importance on facilities for camping. Specifically, non-visitors highlighted clean bathrooms, showers, picnic areas and tables, and paved parking lots and roads. Park visitors mentioned fire pits, developed and primitive camp sites, and RV dumpsites, in addition to clean bathrooms and showers.49

3.4 Fishing Participation When compared to other outdoor activities in the SCORP Public Survey, fishing ranked fourth in popularity for outdoor activities in Colorado. The majority of anglers live in the Metro region and along the Front Range corridor, though rural counties often have a higher proportion of residents that purchase licenses (Tables 4 and 5).50 Several rural counties in the state (Rio Blanco, Dolores, Jackson, Mineral and Hinsdale) had the highest proportion of residents who purchased fishing licenses, but more urban counties (Jefferson, El Paso, Adams and Larimer) contained a larger total number of anglers. Although the overall trend for participation in angling since 1985 shows a decline (Figure 9), numbers have generally been increasing after reaching a low in 2000 of 630,000 fishing license holders. There were 664,051 individuals who purchased fishing licenses in Colorado in 2012.

The cohort of residents anglers that are between 48 and 58 years old make up the largest group of fishing license purchasers over the last 15 years. As compared to hunting, participation in angling is high among young adults, particularly between ages 22 and 37. Fishing participation slowly declines after age 65 until most participants are no longer fishing by age 80. Interestingly, older adults (age 62 to 65)

45 Corona 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 46 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 47 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 48 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor Intercept Survey. 49 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 50 CPW. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report.

20 | P a g e

make up the majority of non-resident fishing license purchasers and the group is increasing in size, likely due to increased leisure time while still being young enough to participate actively.51

Figure 9: Number of individual fishing license holders 1985-2012.

3.5 Hunting Participation License holder numbers for hunting continue to display a general decline since a high in 1998 (Figure 10). Over the period from 2000-2013, the number of big game licenses sold in Colorado has decreased from 395,000 to 345,122, closely tracking the pattern in license quotas set by the Parks and Wildlife Commission (Figure 11). Over that same time period, the number of applications to hunt big game has increased from a low of 423,000 to the current high of 492,532. This indicates that the demand for big game hunting licenses exceeds supply and the number of licenses sold is largely driven by quota numbers.52

51 Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 38 pp. 52 Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 38 pp.

21 | P a g e

Figure 10: Number of individual hunting license holders 1985-2012.

The largest cohort of big game hunters is between 47 and 57 years old. The size of this age group is decreasing as hunters stop hunting, without concomitant recruitment of younger age classes.53 Longitudinal tracking shows the primary cohort of small game hunters is also aging, though it is losing participants more quickly than big game hunters. Participation in most hunting activities drops nearly to zero around age 73-75, with an exception for small game hunting where participation continues past age 80 for some residents.

According to the 2014 Big Game Attitude Survey, big game hunters feel that the sport is a very important part of their recreation-based opportunities.54 Of big game hunters, 38% said that it was their most important recreation activity, an additional 44% feel it is one of their most important recreation activities, and hunters chose the chance to hunt every year as their top priority among a variety of options regarding the quality of hunting opportunities.55 Duck hunting is important to duck hunters, though not to the same degree as big game hunters. Only 12% of duck hunters said it was their most important recreation activity, although 59% said it was one of the most important recreation activities for them.56

53 Lischka, S., T. King, S. Babcock, and B. Kurzel. 2013. Customer and Market Trends Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 38 pp. 54 Lischka, S.A., and L. Mengak. 2014. 2014 Big Game Hunter Attitude Survey Technical Report. 55 Lischka, S.A., and L. Mengak. 2014. 2014 Big Game Hunter Attitude Survey Technical Report. 56 Lischka, S.A. 2013. Colorado Duck Hunter Survey Report 2011-2012 Season.

22 | P a g e

Figure 115: Big game applications, quotas, and license sales (Figure from Lloyd, M. 2014. Big Game License Demand and Sales Comparison (2000-2010), Amendment 2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Report.)

3.6 Youth and Hispanic participation After a period of decline, youth participation in outdoor activities is staying at about the same level nationally, as 63% of youth participated in outdoor recreation in 2012.57 Despite declining participation rates between 2006 and 2009, youth still greatly outnumber the relative proportion of adults involved in outdoor recreation. Also, more adults with children in the household are active outdoors (53% participation rate) as opposed to those without children (43%). Although participation has increased for teenage boys, up from 66 to 69% over 2010-2012, the share of adolescent girls in outdoor recreation fell to just over 50% in 2012. Nearly two-thirds of youth ages 6 to 19 spend two hours or more outside on an average weekday and less than 5% spend no time outdoors. 58 The proportion of kids engaging in outdoor activities declines as household income increases. Nationally, the most popular outdoor activities for youth are bicycling (27% participation rate), running/jogging (24%), camping (20%) and

57 Outdoor Foundation. “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report.” Outdoor Foundation. 2013. http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchParticipation2013.pdf (Accessed 02/13/14) 58 Cordell, H.K., C. J. Betz, and G.T. Green. 2009. National Kids Survey. Athens Forest Service Research Group. http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec9rpt.pdf

23 | P a g e

fishing (20%).59 The most activity days per year for youth are spent running (82 outings per runner), cycling (71 outings per cyclist), and skateboarding (58 outings per year).

Focus group research performed as part of the 2014 SCORP sought to understand more about how youth participated in outdoor recreation and what influences their recreation choices. The most popular activities that youth identified included team sports (e.g., basketball and soccer), cycling, skateboarding, and running; more traditional outdoor activities like hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing were not mentioned frequently. This work revealed the importance of education and word of mouth in getting youth outdoors. Awareness of recreation opportunities, costs, safety, and accessibility is important to make getting outdoors easier for youth.60 Similarly, Great Outdoors Colorado focus group research with youth revealed common barriers to youth outdoor recreation participation include limitations on time and money, limited access to nearby natural areas, lack of information regarding activities, and the perception that getting outdoors is difficult.61 Being with family and friends is a top motivator for engaging in outdoor activities for youth ages 6-12; this factor becomes less important in adolescence and young adulthood when the motivation becomes more focused on exercise and being physically fit.62

Participation of Hispanic youth in outdoor recreation is higher compared to white and black youth, with a higher percentage from this group spending four or more hours outside. Barriers to overall Hispanic participation are largely similar to those identified by GOCO’s youth focus groups with the addition that feeling unwelcome can limit willingness to participate in outdoor activities.63

While often not considered ‘youth’ in the typical sense, Colorado’s young adults have a strong affinity for the outdoors. Eighty-four percent of voters age 18-32 in the 2015 Conservation in the West poll rated clean air, water, and environment as a reason why they live in the West.64 Almost as important were a healthy, outdoor lifestyle and cost of living. Though nearly all (98%) reported visiting public lands in the last year, they have concerns that future generations may not follow suit. Nearly eight out of ten (79%) said children not spending enough time outside was a problem.

4. Public Opinion and Preferences for Natural Resource and Recreation Priorities

Land conservation and preserving natural areas regularly rank high in competing priorities for Coloradans. Residents gave highest priority to protecting wilderness/open lands in a 2013 survey,

59 Outdoor Foundation. 2013. “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report.” Outdoor Foundation. http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchParticipation2013.pdf (Accessed 02/13/14) 60 CPW. 2014. SCORP. 61 Great Outdoors Colorado. 2015. Strategic Plan. 62 Outdoor Foundation. 2013. “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report.” Outdoor Foundation. http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchParticipation2013.pdf (Accessed 02/13/14) 63 Great Outdoors Colorado. 2015. Strategic Plan. 64 Colorado College. 2015. Conservation in the West Poll. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/ (Accessed 02/11/15)

24 | P a g e

where 72% of respondents deemed it high priority or essential.65 When Great Outdoors Colorado polled the public, stakeholders, and the Parks & Wildlife Commission about their funding priorities, all three groups gave top tier ranking to “protecting land along lakes, rivers and streams”, “preserving open space and parks”, and “protecting habitat for watchable wildlife or threatened species”.66 During GOCO’s public listening tour, the highest priority for citizens was protecting land, water and wildlife through “conservation of large landscapes”, “investment in healthy river corridors and wildlife habitat”, and “balancing outdoor recreation with wildlife vitality”.67 A majority of respondents to a 2008 public survey believed that there should be more publicly-owned land in Colorado,68 and 72% of respondents to a survey at state parks would be most pleased with future additions of new park lands.69 Coloradans continue to express a preference for parks with fewer amenities compared to those that are more developed. Nearly half of park visitors in a 2009 survey stated that an increase in primitive, isolated campsites would be appreciated;70 41% of surveyed visitors in 2008 wanted backcountry experiences and one third said that they would visit state parks more often if there were additional primitive areas.71 CPW’s 2013 survey found that dispersed camping in public lands ranked higher (62%) in land type priorities than large, developed outdoor recreation lands (33%).72

Trails have been a stated priority for Colorado State Parks users and non-users alike. In 2008, the visitor intercept survey found that 32% of respondents thought more non-motorized trails would increase visitation to state parks.73 In a public survey in the same year, 70% of respondents said that the addition of trails would influence them to visit state parks more frequently.74 Fifty-five percent of active state park users said a top priority should be maintenance of existing trails.75 Seventy-two percent of respondents to a survey conducted at state parks said trails would be top priority for future park changes,76 and in 2013, almost half of respondents to a CPW outdoor recreation survey indicated that dirt trails are essential.77

Wildlife viewing areas and opportunities were ranked as high priority or essential investment priority for public lands by nearly half of general public respondents in 2013.78 This similar theme is reflected in the 2009 survey of state park visitors where two-thirds said they would be happy with additional wildlife viewing areas and more than half would increase their park visitation with more wildlife viewing opportunities.79

65 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 66 Great Outdoors Colorado. 2014. Great Outdoors Colorado Situation Analysis. 67 Great Outdoors Colorado. 2014. Great Outdoors Colorado Situation Analysis. 68 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 69 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions. 70 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions. 71 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor Intercept Survey. 72 CPW. 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 73 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor Intercept Survey. 74 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 75 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 76 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions. 77 CPW 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 78 CPW 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 79 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions.

25 | P a g e

In Great Outdoors Colorado’s 2014 listening meetings, almost 20% of participants said that “outdoor access for all” was their first priority in outdoor recreation, surpassed only by protecting “Colorado’s land, water, and wildlife”. While these two goals are admirable, they are not necessarily always compatible. Trade-offs may be necessary when balancing management of land for suitable habitat with the competing end of increased access and visitation. There was particular emphasis placed on outdoor opportunities for youth, low-income families, and Hispanic populations.80 In regard to fees for accessing state parks, most visitors (66%) believed that it was appropriate to charge additional fees for specific activities to ensure that park entrance fees could be kept at low as possible.81 For example, respondents supported a fee structure where campers would pay a higher rate for nicer, more developed campsites or premium facilities. These findings support an activity-based fee structure, where users are charged based on the type of use. This same group of visitors indicated that they would prefer an increase in park fees if that translated directly into upgraded facilities and better management of natural resources.82 As with competing priorities of protecting habitat and increased access, upgrading facilities and improving natural resource management may be at odds with each other. Similarly, in a more recent survey, Colorado residents said that maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities was more important than developing new facilities or investing in new educational programs and visitor services on public lands.83

In regards to public opinion about wildlife conservation, respondents to a statewide public survey said that their top priorities were “protecting fish and wildlife that are at risk of becoming endangered, protecting high priority habitats to support many different types of fish and wildlife, and researching and eliminating diseases in wildlife.”84 There is also more public support for prioritizing native species over non-native species, and game species were deemed more important than non-game species. Almost two-thirds of respondents felt that endangered species were highest priority among other non-game fish and wildlife. Urban residents tend to have different values toward wildlife, tending to see them as on more equal footing with humans, as compared to residents in less urban areas.85 Given the likely increase in urban Coloradans, this tendency is notable.

5. Public satisfaction with CPW The majority of data regarding public satisfaction comes from surveys conducted for the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (State Parks) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), before those two agencies merged in 2011 to form Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

80 Great Outdoors Colorado 2014. Great Outdoors Colorado Situation Analysis. 81 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions. 82 Corona Research. 2009. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Future Directions. 83 CPW 2013. Outdoor Recreation Participation Public Survey Summary Report. 84 Teel, T.L., Dayer, A.A., and Bright, A.D. 2006. “Wildlife Values in the West.” 85 Teel, T.L., and Manfredo, M.J. 2009. “Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation.” Conservation Biology 24 (1): 1128-139.

26 | P a g e

Overall, Coloradans see the state park system as a benefit. For state parks, 97% of general public survey respondents felt state parks are “a good thing” for Colorado.86 Sixty-one percent of respondents’ impressions of the agency were very favorable in a 2008 public survey and another 28% had a somewhat favorable impression; in contrast, somewhat and very unfavorable opinions only accounted for 2%.87 In the same study, 80% of respondents believed that Colorado State Parks was doing either a good or very good job of managing park natural resources. Visitors generally enjoy their experiences at State Parks, indicated by excellent or good ratings from 92% of visitors, and the level of service provided by park rangers was also recognized where 81% of visitors who came into contact with park staff had an excellent or good interaction. Among park features, visitors gave the highest ratings to scenery, customer service, and safety.88

Focus groups revealed that the majority of both users and non-users alike see Colorado state parks as crowded, and visitors feel that crowds are larger than in the past. There is also the perception that state parks are safe, both among park users and non-users. Across the state, visitors feel safe in the parks and people appreciate the visible presence of rangers.89 Both park users and non-user overwhelmingly feel that state parks are an asset for residents and offer valuable outdoor recreation opportunities as well as bringing economic benefits through attracting tourists.90

Awareness about Colorado State Parks is an area of improvement where the agency could make significant inroads to creating new users and enhancing name and brand recognition. Although 83% of public poll respondents said they visited a state park in the previous two years, 43% of those who answered affirmatively could not name the park they visited or mistook another outdoor area as a state park.91 Similarly, when asked about the total number of state parks, those identified as park visitors estimated there to be between 20 and 150 parks and non-visitors estimated between 6 and 200.92. Interestingly, both users and non-users have the perception that Colorado’s state parks are located near larger populations and metropolitan areas,93 again indicating unfamiliarity with the State Parks system.

Seventy percent of the public said that they trusted DOW to properly manage fish and wildlife populations according to a 2006 survey conducted for Colorado Division of Wildlife. 94 This indication of trust is significant given that less than 50% of respondents trusted state or federal governments to “do what is right” at the state and national levels, respectively. Similar to the public’s high level of satisfaction with Colorado State Parks, 80% of respondents thought DOW’s overall performance good or excellent. However, the study also revealed less than half of respondents trusted the agency to make wildlife management decisions without public input and, similarly, less than half believed that DOW did

86 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks 2008/2009 Marketing Assessment: Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations. 87 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 88 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor Intercept Survey. 89 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 90 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 91 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Public Survey. 92 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 93 Corona Research. 2008. Colorado State Parks Marketing Assessment: Visitor and Non-Visitor Perceptions. 94 Teel, T.L., Dayer, A.A., and Bright, A.D. 2006. “Wildlife Values in the West.”

27 | P a g e

a good job seeking their input or that their opinions would be taken into account in the agency’s decision making process. Smaller proportions of respondents felt that DOW adequately accounted for their interests (33%) and that their opinions were heard (25%).

Big game hunters were largely satisfied with their hunting experiences, based on a 2014 survey. 95 The proportion of hunters rating their experience as very or somewhat satisfying outnumbered those rating somewhat or very unsatisfied by at least a 2:1 margin for elk, deer, mountain lion, and pronghorn; the satisfied-unsatisfied margin was closer for only for black bear though the difference was only slightly less at 1.8:1. Resident hunters feel that the most important factors in the sport are being able to hunt every year and to harvest the animal for meat. Non-residents prefer hunting every 3-5 years to take a larger, more mature animal and are less interested in harvesting an animal for meat. Access to public lands is also a priority for hunters.

Anglers are similarly satisfied with fishing in Colorado: 66% of residents and 80% of non-residents reported to be very or somewhat satisfied with their experiences.96 The most important factors to anglers are the opportunity to fish in a variety of waters and having a large diversity of types of fish to catch. Also important is being able to eat the fish that they catch.

95 Lischka, S.A., and L. Mengak. 2014. 2014 Big Game Hunter Attitude Survey Technical Report. 96 Lischka, S.A. 2013. 2012 Colorado Angler Survey Report.

28 | P a g e