That's very interesting. Wonder if it's dealt with on a case by case basis at the field office level.
Colorado Filming Permit Denied
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
1_pointer- no offense to you or miller but in my dealings with BLM in MT the BLM cannot just "do" something because it seems compelling. The doing must be authorized in some sort of plan or regulation. That's what I'm asking the CO BLM for- that which gives a field office manager the authority to enroll federal lands in a state-operated program. Shouldn't be too hard to produce, should it?
sweetnectar
New member
Well Big Fin that one is a hard one. I'm not sure how much a chopper ride in and out costs but when you are competing against a program that actually increases the public access to land locked public lands and you have the OYO--do it yourself philosophy, then seems the wise thing to do is choose to have more public get to do the OYOA and not take a chopper ride in to try and turn a few dollars on a hunting show.
However, is there any chance you can film a humble public hunter that drew the tag and does it himself with out a chopper? He won't be a Randy but, you still make another great show...we get to watch from our comfortable homes...you make lots of money from big sponsors, we dream of how we love to hunt and what we would do in the hunting situations. (I figure there is a lot more involved than this...just an idea) As for the Chopper rides, there are lots of good places to land in MT.
Carnivory - good on you to post - great respect given and appreciate your insight.
In my opinion, the system is FLAWED to begin. ABSOLUTELY NO public land - OUR LAND - should be land locked, removed from US. If land is unaccessible - heh, if I was in office, easement rights would be granted to the public to access OUR land.
Look at it as it is presented... Ranchers for Wildlife shares / govern's / dictates OUR land for us? - the public? There is something completely wrong with that picture.
I think it is disguised in it's presentation - and correct me if I am wrong though when I read...
Is this really FREE OF CHARGE - no cost to me with my ability to hunt my FEDERAL land? If you can tell me I am wrong... that I CAN HUNT my land without a PENNY going to anyone other than the state for "drawing a tag" - then I would apologize on the spot! Please clarify - because this is the position you present me with.
Ranchers supporting our wildlife? Sure, I'll buy that - FOR THEIR PROFIT.... For them to lease OUR LAND to outfitters becuase they hold captive OUR LAND?
This is where I completely do not follow your position that this assists our public to access our land...
Considering this as it stands - If an AMERICAN can access OUR land w/o trespassing - via helo - more power to them... As it stands... Though I revert back to the inital aspect of this... If officals had a backbone - they would require easement access to OUR land... I would suggest a typical 10' wide route to the public land. along some border point or as found accessible.
Again, from your perspective seems an attempt to plug 1 hole of many in an already sinking ship.. for US, the AMERICANS - I suppose good on you for that.
In my opinion, the system is FLAWED to begin. ABSOLUTELY NO public land - OUR LAND - should be land locked, removed from US. If land is unaccessible - heh, if I was in office, easement rights would be granted to the public to access OUR land.
Look at it as it is presented... Ranchers for Wildlife shares / govern's / dictates OUR land for us? - the public? There is something completely wrong with that picture.
I think it is disguised in it's presentation - and correct me if I am wrong though when I read...
With this in mind... If I understand - If I have a license to hunt MY land - There is no charge to access MY hunting land... However, this is NOT the case. A private party becomes involved in REGULATING my hunting on AMERICA's PUBLIC property.
Is this really FREE OF CHARGE - no cost to me with my ability to hunt my FEDERAL land? If you can tell me I am wrong... that I CAN HUNT my land without a PENNY going to anyone other than the state for "drawing a tag" - then I would apologize on the spot! Please clarify - because this is the position you present me with.
Ranchers supporting our wildlife? Sure, I'll buy that - FOR THEIR PROFIT.... For them to lease OUR LAND to outfitters becuase they hold captive OUR LAND?
This is where I completely do not follow your position that this assists our public to access our land...
Considering this as it stands - If an AMERICAN can access OUR land w/o trespassing - via helo - more power to them... As it stands... Though I revert back to the inital aspect of this... If officals had a backbone - they would require easement access to OUR land... I would suggest a typical 10' wide route to the public land. along some border point or as found accessible.
Again, from your perspective seems an attempt to plug 1 hole of many in an already sinking ship.. for US, the AMERICANS - I suppose good on you for that.
Last edited:
Thanks to all for welcoming me in the discussion. Am in NW Colo doing our RFW contract compliance audits as is required at the mid-point of the contracts with ranches involved.
The issue of whether public land should be landlocked is a quandry, but the reality is a lot of public land just is. That all goes back to the way homestead acts allowed federal properties to be settled and converted to private ownership long ago. And then how private owners bought and consolidated those lands into large block landholdings we have today. We can't change the reality that exists now.
I suppose it would be possible for Congress to pass a law essentially condemning private land by forcing eminent domain in an easement form. But this would certainly be unpopular and at least would require compensation to private landowners for the lost property value due to a government taking of private land. I don't see that happening.
So the reality remains that these tracts would not be accessible without some kind of program which incents private landowners to allow access. RFW does that. Albeit, I'm the first to admit, imperfectly. But considering how, when, and why it came about - better than most other systems. It doesn't cost public hunters anything other than the license fee and the time and effort to apply via our limited license draw system. That it takes an average of 8 preference points to draw a public buck or bull license on RFW attests to the interest and competition for these public hunts.
Anyways, sorry - sounds like I'm promo-ing RFW. RFW works for some not for others. But it is one system that helps get public access to large blocks of private land - otherwise closed to public. Below is a list of the 2010 public/private RFW distribution.
2010 RFW License Distribution Totals
Public Private Youth, Donated, Disabled Hunts
Number Percent Number Percent TOTAL
Elk
Either Sex 187 12% 1347 88% 40 1574
Antlered 0 0 0
Antlerless 1367 86% 215 14% 43 1625
Deer
Either Sex 58 15% 320 85% 34 412
Antlered 34 9% 327 91% 361
Antlerless 305 100% 0 0% 26 331
Pronghorn
Either Sex 5 21% 19 79% 30 54
Buck 43 15% 244 85% 287
Doe 255 100% 0 0% 12 267
Moose
Either Sex 1 33% 2 67% 3
Antlerless 2 100% 0 0% 1 3
Bighorn Sheep
Ram 1 33% 2 67% 3
Bear
Either Sex 3 43% 4 57% 7
Turkey
Spring 50 55% 41 45% 4 95
Fall 2 40% 3 60% 5
TOTAL 2313 48% 2524 52% 190 5027
Big Fin - makes an valid point. Why can't someone choppering into these tracts have access and they also remain in RFW? I guess the answer isn't perfectly clear. Perhaps, nobody really thought of it that way. And perhaps I need to consider a way to define the access and validity of RFW licenses (when and where they are valid) in a different light. We just tried to define where an RFW license (public or private would be valid) and it can be valid only within and on the prescribed lands of a certain RFW ranch. That is that way so an RFW hunter can't just go hunting anywhere in the GMU. Since these tracts were always isolated we never considered that someone might really have the resources to chopper in and call that real public access.
The issue of whether public land should be landlocked is a quandry, but the reality is a lot of public land just is. That all goes back to the way homestead acts allowed federal properties to be settled and converted to private ownership long ago. And then how private owners bought and consolidated those lands into large block landholdings we have today. We can't change the reality that exists now.
I suppose it would be possible for Congress to pass a law essentially condemning private land by forcing eminent domain in an easement form. But this would certainly be unpopular and at least would require compensation to private landowners for the lost property value due to a government taking of private land. I don't see that happening.
So the reality remains that these tracts would not be accessible without some kind of program which incents private landowners to allow access. RFW does that. Albeit, I'm the first to admit, imperfectly. But considering how, when, and why it came about - better than most other systems. It doesn't cost public hunters anything other than the license fee and the time and effort to apply via our limited license draw system. That it takes an average of 8 preference points to draw a public buck or bull license on RFW attests to the interest and competition for these public hunts.
Anyways, sorry - sounds like I'm promo-ing RFW. RFW works for some not for others. But it is one system that helps get public access to large blocks of private land - otherwise closed to public. Below is a list of the 2010 public/private RFW distribution.
2010 RFW License Distribution Totals
Public Private Youth, Donated, Disabled Hunts
Number Percent Number Percent TOTAL
Elk
Either Sex 187 12% 1347 88% 40 1574
Antlered 0 0 0
Antlerless 1367 86% 215 14% 43 1625
Deer
Either Sex 58 15% 320 85% 34 412
Antlered 34 9% 327 91% 361
Antlerless 305 100% 0 0% 26 331
Pronghorn
Either Sex 5 21% 19 79% 30 54
Buck 43 15% 244 85% 287
Doe 255 100% 0 0% 12 267
Moose
Either Sex 1 33% 2 67% 3
Antlerless 2 100% 0 0% 1 3
Bighorn Sheep
Ram 1 33% 2 67% 3
Bear
Either Sex 3 43% 4 57% 7
Turkey
Spring 50 55% 41 45% 4 95
Fall 2 40% 3 60% 5
TOTAL 2313 48% 2524 52% 190 5027
Big Fin - makes an valid point. Why can't someone choppering into these tracts have access and they also remain in RFW? I guess the answer isn't perfectly clear. Perhaps, nobody really thought of it that way. And perhaps I need to consider a way to define the access and validity of RFW licenses (when and where they are valid) in a different light. We just tried to define where an RFW license (public or private would be valid) and it can be valid only within and on the prescribed lands of a certain RFW ranch. That is that way so an RFW hunter can't just go hunting anywhere in the GMU. Since these tracts were always isolated we never considered that someone might really have the resources to chopper in and call that real public access.
elk_hunter
Active member
Thanks for the info, Carnivory.
As for choppering in...it's been done in CO.
It's not too expensive depending on where your based out of and the distance to the drop zone. In reality, it's similar to a drop camp, but more importantly OYO/DIY (the hunt, not necessarily getting to your spot).
I think there needs to be a definite change in the definition and access to these blocks. It's quite obvious there's a hole in the system, being exploited by some ranchers. For the guys that draw the public tags, they should be able to hunt public land.
As for choppering in...it's been done in CO.
It's not too expensive depending on where your based out of and the distance to the drop zone. In reality, it's similar to a drop camp, but more importantly OYO/DIY (the hunt, not necessarily getting to your spot).I think there needs to be a definite change in the definition and access to these blocks. It's quite obvious there's a hole in the system, being exploited by some ranchers. For the guys that draw the public tags, they should be able to hunt public land.
No offense taken. That's my take as well, which makes the response to you about the MOU with CO DOW all the more interesting. IMO, they should (have) be able to produce a document or citation that allows the authorization for the action to allow the SRPs that allow the enrollment of the lands into the RFW program.
One thing I don't understand is how the BLM could restrict/authorize the lands being enrolled into the program. I'm unaware of anything in the CFRs that deal with that, but I'm only relatively versed on a specific section of the Regs. In UT no notice is called for as the state determines the boundaries, no questions asked or permission given. But, in UT the the CWMU is its own hunt unit and all the lands are excluded from the public hunt units. The lack of this with the RFW program may be what's causing some of the issue.
FWIW, there is another way to get your opinion heard on the enrollment of BLM lands into the RFW program. Any SRP has to have some level of NEPA conducted. Any permit allocated must have a decision issued which is protestable and appealable...
Last edited:
It is great to have Carnivory speak his piece - whether one agrees or not. I assume Moe's comment re: the recent porn crap posts here with relation to Carnivory was a joke...
It is one thing to sit at a convention of biggots and another to have a forum to get a grasp from those speaking their piece - from all sides.
Questioning whether I will regret posting this - kinda like attempting to put an oil fire out with water... Well, live and learn.
It is one thing to sit at a convention of biggots and another to have a forum to get a grasp from those speaking their piece - from all sides.
Questioning whether I will regret posting this - kinda like attempting to put an oil fire out with water... Well, live and learn.
wgiles
Member
I just registered here and saw my first TV show yesterday. I live east of the Mississippi, but am concerned about the loss of access to public land. Are there any organizations dedicated to the preservation of public land for hunting and fishing? If not, there should be. It's a daunting task, but not to do anything will mean more loss of freedom.
Mudshack
New member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10
This is a crock! Aren't their senators or representatives taht can change this?
Brandenbowhunter
Well-known member
I am late on this, but we had better be careful and pay attention here in our own state!
69chevey
New member
Hey, I just recently got back from hunting and just learned that we can't hunt BLM land in parts of california now!! Its put aside for hiking and mountain biking!! Whata joke!!
Got a link?
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Even in So Cal, the BLM areas where off-road vehicles, etc. are allowed - you can still hunt, but shotgun only.
gbfan
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2010
- Messages
- 107
"Anyone know of other sites where a lot of CO hunters hang out?"
Here's one:
http://www.costatefishing.com/
Here's one:
http://www.costatefishing.com/
This really sucks I just started looking into a hunt for next year and considered blm, got to there site found lots of land now I don't know if I can even hunt this land with the tag I would draw. This gives me one more reason to end my trips to CO and start applying for WY or MT they are even closer.
Similar threads
