Colorado, Good On Ya!

[chuckchili]

It’s seems this type of thing took longer to happen than some people thought. A quick fix would be for CPW to just have a “Usage Permit” in leu of making these vegans buy a piece of paper that says hunting or fishing on it.

 

[smw110136]

Could CPW just come up with a blanket "Access Permit" to cover State Wildlife Areas and State Trust Land? Would be an easy sell to the non hunting and angling groups.

 

[Oak]

Could CPW just come up with a blanket "Access Permit" to cover State Wildlife Areas and State Trust Land? Would be an easy sell to the non hunting and angling groups.

They could, but they went the "easy" way and the way that gains them more in federal dollars. Also, I see zero need to allow access to STL for non-hunters/anglers. The only reason they are open to anyone is because CPW leases the lands for hunting/fishing access.

 

[LuketheDog]

"Several recreation groups — including Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Mountain Bike Association, American Whitewater, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Boulder Climbing Community — are urging the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to consider the new rule’s impact on recreation. In a letter to the commission, those groups noted how many State Wildlife Areas are popular for uses beyond hunting and fishing."

Weird, seems like they have zero actual understanding of what the intended purpose of those lands are, and very strange that the folks filing the lawsuit do not mention any of the other state lands that are not open to any type of public recreation. At face value it appears like they're just in this to protect the little guy, too bad that's not the truth...

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

"Several recreation groups — including Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Mountain Bike Association, American Whitewater, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Boulder Climbing Community — are urging the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to consider the new rule’s impact on recreation. In a letter to the commission, those groups noted how many State Wildlife Areas are popular for uses beyond hunting and fishing."

Weird, seems like they have zero actual understanding of what the intended purpose of those lands are, and very strange that the folks filing the lawsuit do not mention any of the other state lands that are not open to any type of public recreation. At face value it appears like they're just in this to protect the little guy, too bad that's not the truth...

This gonna sound crazy, but I'd love CPW to just drop Ralston , Bergen, and Mt Evans SWAs.

Just stop paying for them. Probably be a huge wakeup call to various non-consumptive user groups about how STL work.

 

[LuketheDog]

This gonna sound crazy, but I'd love CPW to just drop Ralston , Bergen, and Mt Evans SWAs.

Just stop paying for them. Probably be a huge wakeup call to various non-consumptive user groups about how STL work.

Not a bad idea at all...would bring some more depth to the message for the "Hug a Hunter" campaign...

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Not a bad idea at all...would bring some more depth to the message for the "Hug a Hunter" campaign...

Alternatively.... STL allow for multiple use leasing, I believe CPW just leases for Wildlife and hunting and not explicitly for hiking and biking.

So a bunch of HTer's could lease the SWA for hiking and biking and shut down public access for those actives to all but forum members.

 

[smw110136]

They could, but they went the "easy" way and the way that gains them more in federal dollars. Also, I see zero need to allow access to STL for non-hunters/anglers. The only reason they are open to anyone is because CPW leases the lands for hunting/fishing access.

I also have a tough time with the term "non-consumptive." I understand hunters and anglers are MORE consumptive users of these areas considering wildlife is the public resource, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. There's consumption of the resources used to maintain these places and the relationships with the lessors. Everyone who accesses these areas should help pay for that

 

[Sytes]

Not really my fight though hold hope for MT if CO is able to navigate Donner Pass, such as a simple name, i.e. "general use conservation stamp" or whatever.

One part I dont fully understand... usage is significantly outside the seasonal hunting compared to backpacking, general hiking, bird/wildlife watching... no?

 

[Zach]

They could, but they went the "easy" way and the way that gains them more in federal dollars. Also, I see zero need to allow access to STL for non-hunters/anglers. The only reason they are open to anyone is because CPW leases the lands for hunting/fishing access.

I saw this in one of the comments pertaining to the federal dollars.

"There is no other choice than hunting/fishing licenses due to federal grant rules. From the CPW press release: "Because funding for these properties is specifically generated by hunting and fishing license sales and the resulting federal match, requested options such as “hiking licenses” or “conservation permits” would not allow for the maintenance and management needed. Any funding from one of these conceptual licenses or permits would reduce the federal grant dollar for dollar and thus fail to increase CPW’s ability to protect and manage the properties." "

 

[Oak]

I saw this in one of the comments pertaining to the federal dollars.

"There is no other choice than hunting/fishing licenses due to federal grant rules. From the CPW press release: "Because funding for these properties is specifically generated by hunting and fishing license sales and the resulting federal match, requested options such as “hiking licenses” or “conservation permits” would not allow for the maintenance and management needed. Any funding from one of these conceptual licenses or permits would reduce the federal grant dollar for dollar and thus fail to increase CPW’s ability to protect and manage the properties." "

Interesting. I'd like to see that press release. I wonder how CPW allowing a SWA to be grazed by domestic sheep free of charge fits into the puzzle?

 

[colo_junk]

Interesting. I'd like to see that press release. I wonder how CPW allowing a SWA to be grazed by domestic sheep free of charge fits into the puzzle?

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

 

[Zach]

Interesting. I'd like to see that press release. I wonder how CPW allowing a SWA to be grazed by domestic sheep free of charge fits into the puzzle?

Good question for Prenzlow...LOL

Thanks at @colo_junk for the link, I'd let this one get away from my memory.

 

[Xbolt]

More backlash over the new requirement. https://www.denverpost.com/2020/07/...rcing-hikers-to-subsidize-hunters-an-fishers/
I can’t believe the author is employed as a wildlife biologist

actually shes a state ecologist not a biologist

 

[Oak]

actually shes a state ecologist not a biologist

She's not employed by the state. She's an independent consultant.

 

[BirdManMike]

Good, for sure.

However, charging non-hunters fees opens up bringing non-hunters to the table when it comes to regulation. As mentioned, hunters have traditionally largely subsidized conservation and have traditionally had a larger say than many other outdoor groups in regards to public lands. When other groups start contributing, they suddenly have a leg to stand on where they didnt previously...