Colorado Filming Permit Denied

[Moe]

...In fact, while I'm throwing this out, I'll further suggest 'an entire online-series of videos on these subjects we keep hearing about impacting Montana' and other western states might be in order; ...if your were so inclined to do it..??

I'm so sick of hearing about these things happening after-the-fact and hunters being taken advantage of by our own wildlife resource managers and politcians.

We need a VOICE an ON-AIR spokesman who we can realte to and bring these things to light BEFORE they're passed. Only then can sportsmen really be informed and remain active.

Your show already does this, my suggestions are to simply expand on it.

Another reason being that most forums have strict guidlines preventing members from linking it's members to other forums, but links to a video-series on important subjects is allowed. In fact it could be linked from any of a number of other websites, blogs, and other media sources as well.

We need you Randy.

Moe

 

[1_pointer]

Per the BLM office in Craig, CO, the RFW operator must submit to the BLM for enrollment of BLM lands into the program. Happens in January of each year, due to the timing of how DOW does their RFW process. BLM is required to make an analysis of whether or not they will allow the permit to enroll said lands. I will PM or email you tomorrow with the contact people, as they can probable explain the details more precisely.

They made it very clear that they respond to any RFW enrollment request, and will accept or deny based on the criteria they have. Access being one of those criteria.

This happens via a special use permit application. per my understanding. If BLM approves the permit, the DOW then can allow the BLM lands to be part of the RFW operating base, and upon that process being completed, our public draw tags are no longer valid for those public lands.

It is possible I am missing some of the technicalities or proper terminology, but it is my understanding that both BLM and DOW are involved in the process by which public lands become enrolled in RFW operations and then become off limits for our public draw tags.

Fin, thanks! That actually does answer a lot of questions, but raises some...

 

[Oak]

My take:

1. Even if Big Fin wanted to do an on-air piece on this subject, it wouldn't fly with the Outdoor Channel

2. One big-shot TV star () who wants access to fly is helo in to shoot a production is going to have much less chance of getting the rule changed than 200 sportsmen would have if they took 10 minutes to write an email to the Wildlife Commissioners.

3. Approximately 98% of outraged internet sportsmen will in fact not take 10 minutes to write an email to the Wildlife Commission.

For those who might want to write a letter, here are the email addresses. Remember, short, concise letters are best. An adequate letter could probably be written with 4-5 sentences. Rambling, accusatory, angry letters have no effect, other than to fill up the Trash folder.

Ex-Officio/non-voting members:

Natural Resources Director, Mike King: [email protected]
CDOW Director, Tom Remington: [email protected]
Department of Agriculture, John Stulp: [email protected]

Wildlife Commission:

Tim Glenn: [email protected]
Robert Streeter: [email protected]
Mark Smith: [email protected]
David Brougham: [email protected]
Dennis Buechler: [email protected]
Dorthea Farris: [email protected]
Allan Jones: [email protected]
John Singletary: [email protected]
Dean Wingfield: [email protected]

 

[Moosie]

...

We need you Randy.

Moe

And I'm sure he needs money. It takes a lot of time and resources to tackle something like this. It's not just a "Add this to your TV time".

I know we looked into getting cropped off with choppers in national forest, which we found out was illegal for a chopper to land there. So, we found a Pilot to "hover" for us and never "land" to jump out of. We never did it but my point is there is always a way around the rules, you just need to know them. Although it sounds liek the boyz with money and land kind of sealed this deal up

 

[van franke]

Im with Oak on this one. I encourage you all to send a letter, I just got done emailing everyone on Oaks list and it took about 15 minutes. Hopefully they will take a look at this issue and get back to me if not I will resend them in a few days.

 

[Big Fin]

VF and Oak - Those emails and letters will make a bigger difference than a non-resident TV guy making a stink about it. Thanks for doing it.

I suspect you will get some of the same answers that I got, as I worked my up the food chains. The most common answer was that enrolling properties created more hunting opportunity. Not sure why it takes enrollment for that to happen.

Seems like those BLM lands be open to both public tags and RFW tags and allow even MORE hunting opportunity. When I brought that up as a possibility, there wasn't much reply.

Or couldn't the RFW tag numbers stay the same and allow the public tags to be good on these BLM lands, therefore INCREASING hunting opportunity and protecting the public's interest in public wildlife.

Both of those options would increase hunting opportunity. I know this sounds skeptical, but I have to question whether this Commission rule is in place to increase hunting opportunity, or for other reasons.

It doesn't seem to me that BLM property has to be enrolled to provide hunting opportunity on those lands. But, maybe I am looking at it wrong. Will be interesting to hear what type of reply you get.

I will send my comments, also.

Thanks for doing this. Hope others follow your lead.

 

[1_pointer]

It doesn't seem to me that BLM property has to be enrolled to provide hunting opportunity on those lands. But, maybe I am looking at it wrong. Will be interesting to hear what type of reply you get.

In most cases, it probably doesn't. I imagine it's a conflict mitigation deal. You'll get more enrollees into the program by lessening the conflict with tresspassers. I imagine that's part of it.

IMO, one thing this issue brings up is the difficulty of a system where the wildlife is owned by a state and much, most in some areas, of the land is in federal ownership. Two different sets of rules/regs and often two different mission statements.

 

[Moe]

....
So a bunch of nonresidents from MT sending emails is gonna make a difference off an obscure single thread on OYOA that is 'maybe' being viewed by 100 guys over and over..?

Right. Sorry, if that was working and a few hundred email campaigns was either; why is that we have nothing but bitch sessions on here 'after the fact' instead??

By the way, for the 'reading-impaired' (Oak/Moosie) ...I didn't say broadcast anything on OYOA television show or Outdoor Channel; I was talking strictly "online web series" (which is why I wrote 'online web series' (duh?)

I mean wasn't that the point I read in the intial post was to show folks what was going on in Colorado with flying in on this parcel and hunting it ...? Or are you xchanging your tune now for some reason?? Weren't you in fact going to spend money (as you said) to do exactly what I'm suggesting anyway..? Your reposnse makes no sense about "a non resident TV guy making a stink about this or that..?"

Isn't taht EXCATLY what you said in the intial post was your idea for filming the fly-in hunt to begin with ...??
.......

But whatever, you guys go ahead and drop your emails that goes to some Gov't. dudes Spam folder, or his sectretary answers with a 'form response'.?

Your wasting your time, they obviously dont read that shit; or even listen to us at meeting for 'public opinion' anyway.
Meanwhile Randy has 20K worth of video cameras in his house (or easy access to them) and could film himself in his backyard (MT) in 30 seconds and explain more clearlly 'what I'm not quite sure I even follow all here..?'
...And have the potential to reach thousands of hunters and motivate more to "voice their concerns in-person" at FWP offices/visits to Governors enmass, or wherever or howeever they see fit.

But nah, lets continue to even bitch: "nobody but me, writes congressman and emails folks like they should?!"

Moe

 

[Oak]

Moe, nothing I wrote was directed at you. Not sure where that tirade came from...

 

[Moe]

My take:

1. Even if Big Fin wanted to do an on-air piece on this subject, it wouldn't fly with the Outdoor Channel

2. One big-shot TV star () who wants access to fly is helo in to shoot a production is going to have much less chance of getting the rule changed than 200 sportsmen would have if they took 10 minutes to write an email to the Wildlife Commissioners.

3. Approximately 98% of outraged internet sportsmen will in fact not take 10 minutes to write an email to the Wildlife Commission.

My bad, as far as you Oak, I thought your first few items were in response; since I was the one who'd just posted about an online series devoted to this topic and couldn't see the harm in it?

And you seemed to debunk the idea off the bat (along with Randy's show, which would've motivated thousands instead of just 200); but instead you think emails make a big difference when its clear they dont mean shit!? There's entirely too much "hoping" going on when you send them, "hoping they're read at all by the recipient, instead of a nonhunting secretary" and "hoping someone looks into this or that..?"

My (tirade) questions are really in fact, directed back at Randy in a way; as he's seems to be speaking double-talk on his original intentions; and now says something about: "a nonresident TV guy making a stink about it..."?

I mean that WAS what I read isnt that 'he was going to specifically fly into this Colorado zone for a hunt; to show sportsmen what's up with this program locking us out..?'

If emails and letters was all it would have taken by a couple hundred guys to change this rule, why even plan a show on the topic and go thru all the headaches you did; ...if you could have just posted this here thread initially and linked us all to the 15 email-addresses Oak did..?
...............

As far as your email statistics Oak..(speaking of being on medication).."How do you write 98% of sportsmen 'do or dont do this or that'??

What a bunch of bullshit!! You dont know how many emails are sent or arent each year by hunters across America ?? Your just posting bogus statistics that make no sense, in an attempt to motivate some to do it now. Quit tooting your own horn that your doing this and we're not.

There are millions of us out here doing our part. You're not the VOICE we need obviously cause your just open to the same old email tactics that've been tried and ignored by Gov't/FWP (and now wise sportsmen) since internet came out.
..........

However, the internet has been proven as a mechanizm for informing sportsmen and having them vote accordingly at the polls on issues of importance. We need a VOICE of someone whose known to take charge out west!!

I''m in for $200.00 bucks toward production costs (can send a check this week); 10 more guys want-in and I think we can get something going...?


Moe
.

 

[Big Fin]

....
I mean wasn't that the point I read in the intial post was to show folks what was going on in Colorado with flying in on this parcel and hunting it ...? Or are you xchanging your tune now for some reason?? Weren't you in fact going to spend money (as you said) to do exactly what I'm suggesting anyway..? Your reposnse makes no sense about "a non resident TV guy making a stink about this or that..?"

Isn't taht EXCATLY what you said in the intial post was your idea for filming the fly-in hunt to begin with ...??

Moe

Hey Moe, I suspect that quote above is pointed at me.

That was part of the purpose in my original plan to film this episodes, Yes. But not the only reason.

In addition to raising awareness of this issue, it was going to help me meet a lot of other requirements in the process, such as obtain a great episode for the show, further our image as guys who are not bought and paid for, gather some aerial footage that is very hard to come by (at no marginal cost), and a host of other things.

I don't think you were implying that you expect me to invest the normal $25K to produce an episode, just to get the word out as you indicated. But, it is not as easy and cheap as it may appear on the surface to do what you have suggested.

It takes a lot more than thirty seconds. Figure an hour of tape for each minute of clip. And, even though some may say, "Do a rough edit and through it up on the site." it is not that easy. Wish it was.

It requires a lot more than that - editing, graphics, coordination with the web guys, making sure it doesn't conflict with the network restrictions on web video activities, and a host of other complications I have to consider before I do something like that. And right now I am up to my eyeballs with show things - edits for network delivery, sponsorship meetings, planning Season Three........... And, I have a day job and a family. I just don't have time to drop everything and do what you are suggesting, nor do I have budget to incur the cost to do so.

For some reason you seem to be pretty worked up about me saying that lots of calls and emails will have more effect on commissioners than some non-resident TV guy. That is the truth, plain and simple.

The CO DOW Commissioners need to hear from many people, and most importantly those in their state. To some extent, those in a position that would lean toward continuing this policy would just thumb their nose at a person in my situation.

The biggest value I think I can add is to bring awareness. You have an idea of how to bring awareness, which I suspect would help. Just not something I have time or resources to do at this time. It would be a mistake to take that as an indication that I am rolling over or changing my tune.

I am doing on the web all that I can to bring about awareness of these kind of issues. It might not be done as well, or in the manner, that you would like, but it is a lot more than any other TV group or website is willing to do.

There are a lot of TV shows and websites based in CO. Some of them are not going to bring this issue up, as they use these RFW for their shows and sites. Seems kind of funny that some wingnut from MT is the one who is the guy trying to raise awareness, wouldn't you agree.

So, no changing my tune on anything.

Whether it seems logical or not, one hundred letters and emails from CO citizens is going to do more than I, as a TV guy, can accomplish. That is a fact.

It seems that this thread would do the same as a video clip, with far less cost and energy required of me. I understand that some sites don't allow such links. I do know that someone posted a link on Bowsite (thank you) and I have over 100 referrals from that Bowsite link. So, it is getting around to a lot more people than you might think.

 

[Moe]

BigFin,

I respect your response and understand most of what I've read, though I really have little grasp, after the trolls and the back-and-forth confusion of others; as to how this RFW program works entirely (or screws us)?

Which is why I suggested a short-video to clarify it for us too primitive-to-follow (which is why we're continually taken advantage of by the wording and political ramifications of such issues).

[Ex: The out of control wolf situation/livestock/TB/elk-harboring issues in the west.]
..............

You have answered my questions; even though I wasnt suggesting editting this out of a complete hunting episode ; I just thought you could piece together, .... 'a mere 30 second' clip like news-broadcasters do thats all.

...................

And as far as this 'not being a Montana residents' issue of concern'...?

My posts weren't so much for Colorado hunters and their' limited access-issues, (and you devoting some time to adressing this); as much as some other locals' posts suggesting: "we here in MT may be facing this issue in the near future..?"


Oh well, was just a thought; my .02

My aplogize.

Moe
.

 

[WT_in_MT]

I submitted this question to the CO BLM via their website: "Could you please e-mail me the BLM document that authorizes BLM lands to be enrolled in CO DOW's Ranching for Wildlife program? Thank you."

I got the following response: "Sir,

I received the following information from the State Wildlife Biologist regarding the document you requested.

I have reviewed the Master Memorandum of Agreement between the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management and found nothing in it that would authorize BLM lands to be enrolled in CO DOW's Ranching for Wildlife program. I am unaware of any other document that would authorize this on the public lands.

If I can be of further assistance please contact me at (303)239-3600

L*** S****
Contact Representative
BLM Colorado State Office
303-239-3838"

Interesting........The right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing?

 

[justdada]

Yeah, 98% won't say a thing even though they are mad, ill buy that...
Thanks for being a tool moe, you've just inspired me to be a part of the 2%.

 

[Carnivory]

Although it appears most commentators have already formed your opinions here are some facts. I know a little bit about this issue because I am the RFW program coordinator.

RFW operating guidelines do allow ranches to enroll federal lands under certain circumstances. I’ve cut and pasted the pertinent RFW guidelines below. The real point is that these are completely isolated federal lands which would not receive any public access were it not for the RFW program. Being completely surrounded by the ranch, if the ranch were not in RFW only the ranch and those that could afford to pay a trespass fee could access these lands. So by being enrolled in RFW and with federal agency permission to include them the public benefits by being able to hunt them. Were these tracts not enrolled it could negatively influence hunter success for either cows, bulls, bucks, or does by providing unhunted safe harbor areas within RFW operations – thereby defeating our harvest objectives and cause the challenge to public hunters in knowing precisely where they were at to avoid hunting without a valid license since their RFW license would not then be valid on these parcels without the federal permission to include them.

The outfitter in this instance was seeking to chopper hunters into these isolated tracts – of course, charging them for the service and the outfitted hunts. The BLM had previously authorized the ranch to enroll these parcels primarily for the benefit of the public RFW hunters that could draw licenses for this ranch. I was not involved in any of the back and forth between the outfitter and the BLM. But I’ve been told by the local DOW officer that the BLM ultimately decided that these parcels would receive greater public recreational use by remaining in the RFW program than by being withdrawn and only available to the few hunters that could afford to be choppered into the parcels.

Here are the pertinent RFW guidelines: "Federal and State Lands - Ranches may include Federal land in-holdings if they are completely surrounded by the enrolled ranch lands and there is no public access to these lands by legal road or trail. Ranches may also include contiguous or in-holding State Land Board lands, not exceeding 10% of the private deeded contiguous land base of the ranch lands enrolled in RFW. Federal or State Land Board land included in the program will not be counted toward the 10,000 acre minimum. Ranches including Federal or State Land Board land must submit a letter from the Federal land manager with the application for enrollment stating that this land may be included in the RFW contract, or a copy of their SLB Recreation Lease authorizing the use of the land for RFW."

 

[sweetnectar]

#@&#!
Also, I was wondering if you were set up as a non profit if you have to mess with the filming permits in any state? I know it doesn't help in this case in CO but perhaps may in others.

One more thing: Why don't you just take a chopper ride anyway and film some wildlife... not "hunt" Because you are "not hunting" they can put that in their books.

 

[justdada]

And since these ranches are excluding public hunters from their public resource, are they volunteering more access to public hunters through private lands? Without trespass fees of course..

 

[sweetnectar]

Wow my last post went before I read canivory...Interesting perspective and hard to argue with.

 

[van franke]

Welcome Carnivory glad to see you joined and really respect you coming on and putting a different percpective on the sitiuation. Its a shame the amount of blm and national forrest that is landlocked limiting access to a select few.

 

[Big Fin]

Carnivory - All good stuff. Thanks for coming here and posting.

A couple points I am interested in discussing, if you are able to do so, in your position as a public employee.

1. Wouldn't it be possible to allow public tags to be valid on public lands enrolled in RFW properties? It doesn't seem that it has to be an "either/or" situation.

Seems like there would be more opportunity if the RFW tags were good on the public lands enrolled, and if the public draw tags were good on those same public lands.

This was the point of one of my earlier posts and continues to be the crux of the problem. Do we have to exclude the public tag holder from these properties in order to allow RFW tag holders the opportunity to hunt them? Seems like we could all share.


2. Also, the sanctuary idea you mention is somewhat ironic. Last year when I applied for the permit, there was a couple thousand acres that were not enrolled by this ranch. Seemed like they were not at all concerned about the sanctuary effect this parcel would create by not being enrolled. I was told that they chose not to enroll it, as they did not want hunting in that certain section. Maybe I was told incorrectly.

I withdrew my application last year, not wanting to hunt directly on the mountain a mile or two above their headquarters. I did inform the BLM and DOW that I intended to apply again this year, and if the only unenrolled parcel was this couple thousand acre sanctuary, that I would hunt that, even if it was just over the mountain from their headquarters.

I find it interesting that now they have decided to enroll that parcel for this upcoming season. Were they suddenly informed of this sanctuary effect, and realized the sanctuary problems they were creating? Doubtful.

Irony of the sanctuary theory is that the behavior and fact patterns of the operator in this case does not support much concern for the sanctuary issue, until they realized some public hunter might be hunting a parcel they purposefully did not enroll. It is hard to convince me that they are/were too worried about the sanctuary effect of that piece.

Additionally, it seems that allowing public hunters to use tags on those enrolled BLM properties would help with this supposed sanctuary problem, by dispersing the elk off these public lands that might act as sanctuary.

As it relates to this ranch in question, it doesn't appear that very many resident hunters get to hunt BULL elk and BUCK deer. I would be curious to see what the number of Bull and Buck tags were that were issued to resident hunters in the last three seasons. I searched the website, and cannot find those numbers.

We know that none were issued to non-resident hunters, as they cannot apply for these tags, making the ability to hunt these public lands completely impossible for a non-resident, unless they pay the RFW fees.

Your comments are very helpful and I appreciate you sharing them on this site. As you can tell by my questions, I am curious why it is required to make these public lands off limits for public tag holders, when it seems that allowing public tag holders would increase opportunity even more, and assist with solving the sanctuary effect..

Seems to me that most public tag holders, myself included, are willing to share the hunting on those public lands with the RFW tag holders, but not the other way around. Or, maybe they are willing to share the hunting on these public lands, but CO rule does not allow such.

Thanks again. Look forward to more information you might be able to provide. Your perspective is valuable and much appreciated.

Sorry for the delay in my responses, but I just drove 1,000 miles today and am now looking forward to a pillow and a soft bed.

Oh, and BTW, the person applying for the permit, was not an outfitter who was going to charge a fee to hunters. It was for a hunting trip with four hunting buddies that was going to be filmed.