Posted on 07/03/2020 1:05:12 PM PDT by Ben Dover
DENVER (CPW Release) - The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission recently adopted a rule change, requiring all visitors 18 or older to possess a valid hunting or fishing license to access any State Wildlife Area or State Trust Land leased by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This new rule will be in effect beginning July 1, 2020.
Click here for more information on State Wildlife Areas.
“Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages over 350 State Wildlife Areas and holds leases on nearly 240 State Trust Lands in Colorado, which are funded through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses,” said Southeast Regional Manager Brett Ackerman. “The purpose of these properties is to conserve and improve wildlife habitat, and provide access to wildlife-related recreation like hunting and fishing that are a deep part of Colorado’s conservation legacy.”
Because these properties have always been open to the public, not just to the hunters and anglers that purchased them and pay for their maintenance, many people visit these properties and use them as they would any other public land. As Colorado’s population - and desire for outdoor recreation - has continued to grow, a significant increase in traffic to these SWAs and STLs has disrupted wildlife, the habitat the areas were acquired to protect, and the hunters and anglers whose contributions were critical to acquiring these properties.
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.
“This new rule change will help our agency begin to address some of the unintended uses we’re seeing at many of our State Wildlife Areas and State Trust Lands,” said CPW Director Dan Prenzlow. "We have seen so much more non-wildlife related use of these properties that we need to bring it back to the intended use - conservation and protection of wildlife and their habitat."
“We do anticipate some confusion based on how the properties are funded, and the high amount of unintended use over time in these areas. We plan to spend a good amount of time educating the public on this change,” said Ackerman. “But in its simplest form, it is just as any other user-funded access works. You cannot use a fishing license to enter a state park, because the park is not purchased and developed specifically for fishing. Similarly, you cannot use a park pass to enter lands that are intended for the sole purpose of wildlife conservation, because a park pass is designed to pay for parks.” State law requires that the agency keep these funding sources separated.
CPW is a user-funded agency and, unlike most government agencies, receives very little money from the general fund. The new rule requires all users to contribute to the source of funding that makes the acquisition and maintenance of these properties possible. But the activities that interfere with wildlife-related uses or that negatively impact wildlife habitat don't become acceptable just because an individual possesses a hunting or fishing license. Each SWA and STL is unique and only certain activities are compatible with each property.
Sounds good to me!
So much for a Free Republic...idiots.
Why are you so enslaved?
What they don’t have an adventure pass like bullshit California?
Well if they are State lands then aren’t they maintained by every taxpayer in Colorado, not just hunters and fisherman during those seasons?
I'm not sure what that has to do with this article. Certainly it's a free country, and there's no king. That said, wildlife management/maintenance at some level are needed if the government is going to protect respective rights of individuals and property owners. You can argue the degree of regulation, the wildlife management policies, etc., but let's take a look at what happens if the government makes no provisions for hunting on public lands, or maintaining them to one degree or another.
1. The only people who will be able to hunt will be:
a. People who own or can lease a large enough tract of land on which to hunt.
b. People who have a friend or family with enough land on which to hunt and will let them.
c. People who are willing and able to pay for access to a privately owned hunting area.
This precludes a lot of lower income folks, people who live in towns and cities, and younger adults. They will effectively be inhibited from hunting. It's really tantamount to saying that anybody who doesn't own their own lake shouldn't be able to enjoy boating.
2. We may not have "The King's Deer", but without some type of management at the state level, we would essentially be returned to something like feudal lordships in terms of wildlife management. Hypothetically, lets suppose a state abolished all game laws, bag limits, hunting seasons, etc. In theory, 2, 3 or 4 large property owners could, within a year or two, wipe out virtually all the deer in a county, harvesting pregnant does, fawns, unlimited bucks over the course of all 12 months. It might be an exquisitely grand expression of private property rights, but I would much rather have an elected legislature establish tag limits, seasons, etc. as the elimination of a species from those 2, 3 or 4 holdings would certainly impact the ecology beyond their individual properties.
I think, in as much as our states were set up to be 50 laboratories of republicanism, it is something that should be managed at the state level. I think the citizenry should be able to express through their legislatures the setting aside of public lands for hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation if they so choose. Once that's established, the legislators are really put into a position where they have to enact rules for the fair use of said lands. We can all debate what those rules should say,how they should be enforced, the penalties for violating them, etc. but IMHO, it's really a proper exercise of representative government.
Well that’s a crock of $hit. So in order to fish anywhere else in Colorado besides the parks, do you have to have a hiking permit?
Is this in reference to the mexican-American head of the USNPS? Saw something about him, and some whiny vagina, on Tucker Carlson the other night ... bemoaning the whiteness and racism of the outdoors.
Just lucky, I guess.
According to the article:
“Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages over 350 State Wildlife Areas and holds leases on nearly 240 State Trust Lands in Colorado, which are funded through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses,” said Southeast Regional Manager Brett Ackerman. “The purpose of these properties is to conserve and improve wildlife habitat, and provide access to wildlife-related recreation like hunting and fishing that are a deep part of Colorado’s conservation legacy.”
Because these properties have always been open to the public, not just to the hunters and anglers that purchased them and pay for their maintenance, many people visit these properties and use them as they would any other public land.
What kind of maintenance is required?
What’s next, a license for a pet fish?
In Florida, the ones I've been to, they have a little box at the parking area where you put your money in for your daily pass.
I guess CO is too fancy for that.
I agree with you 99% ... the other 1% of me doubts the state government will use the extra revenue to do anything constructive for those pristine areas.
As with many of these things it's a matter of principle vs. practice.
If a small town has a 4-way stop on a quiet, desolate intersection, and the local cop writes a ticket to every out of state car, regardless of whether it came to a complete stop or not, that does not invalidate the principle of having traffic controls at intersections.
Similarly, I think it's perfectly reasonable for hikers to pay for maintenance of lands they are using and which were previously subsidized exclusively by hunters and fisherman. Whether or not those collecting the fees use the money for its intended purpose doesn't void the principle that it's wrong for some people to have full free use of what others are, and have been paying to use.
This is nothing new. Daily fees for use has been around for decades. Colorado has long been proud of the fact is finances maintenance of these parks and finances all fishing areas, hatcheries and stocking, as well as game management without any taxes.
License fees. Users pay for what they use. Non-users don’t pay for what they don’t use. Boulder-Denver Marxists can’t scream that THEIR tax money supports hunting and fishing and they should have a say.
Yes, There is lots of federal and in Colorado. 1/3 of all the land in the state is public land. Rocky Mountain National Park is run by the National Park Service. It costs $30 per car to enter. There are many thousands of acres of BLM land with free access, I use it all the time. Federal taxes for for that.
There is no free anything. Taxes, fees or profits pays for everything in this world. I thought people here knew that.
Very good point ... I concede my remaining 1% ... !
I wonder what they would do if thousands of “protesters” showed up.
Surely that would be ok. Right COLORADO?
KC_Lion wrote: “Tyranny.”
Not really. These parks do require revenue to operate. In the past, only fishermen and hunters contributed. Now, the others also using the parks have to contribute as well.
Here in Alabama, Parks and Recreation builds, maintains, and operates firing ranges near state parks. A fishing/hunting license is required to use the facilities. It’s a fair system and it works well.
Colorado state parks already charged a fee to enter the park, and the federal parks charged for various passes. This is discriminatory, as many people don’t hunt or fish, they just want to take pictures—why should they subsidize what is abhorrent to them?
So , when I go out to CO. to visit my son, we want to go birding , we have to get a hunting license? Mine out -of - state?
Not bloody likely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.