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.
I agree, hunters and fisherman cover the expense of maintaining the outdoors while others enjoy at our expense. In Colorado we have to pay an additional fee for their hunting licenses just so the DOW can place ads telling the public who pays. If others want to use the SWAs then they should pay the same fee hunters/fisherman pay.
If you are from out of state do you need an out of state license which costs more?
This is nonsense but then that is what happens when Colorado became Californicated.
Just another way to divide people by pitting those with hunting and fishing licences against those who like to be outdoors and don’t hunt or fish.
Non fish/game outdoor people must pay a toll to access public land?
Castlewood Canyon State Park.
Specifically.
Thanks for the corrections.
In Minnesota you need to purchase a weekend or seasonal pass to enter a state park.
Is this much different?
You honestly think it’s possible that the area is funded 100% by licenses and no tax dollars?
I have a slightly different take on it. If these areas are dedicated game lands for hunting and fishing, and have been historically maintained through hunting and fishing license fees, why should others be able to enjoy them on the backs of the hunters and fisherman who are paying for their maintenance?
These are like the spandex bike riders wanting wider and wider bike lanes built on our roads and maintained by our gasoline taxes and them paying nothing.
Anybody noticing their freedoms eroding at an ever increasing rate these days? Huh?
If that's the way it's structured and it's not happening that way, it's up to the good folks of Colorado to hold feet to the fire.
There is something positive about this; makes it harder for homeless people to set up camp. “Free” often means crapped on.
Excellent point.
My state charges the small fee as well, mostly for upkeep, research, probably for the New Years party too, as far as I know.
But it seems worthwhile to give the state lands a shot in the arm.
******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.******
This is pure communist dogma and you don’t even know it.
Privatization takes care of access because people will have to fund management by letting people use the land. Letting the state run things gives guns to the state to run people off the lands with NO oversite. If you can’t see the difference, you ar willfully ignorant.
******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.*****
The fundamental problem with your thinking is that you forget that there is no oversite of the state, who can run guns on people with impunity.
PRIVATIZE and have the state oversee is how this country was FOUNDED!
One more thing to illustrate my point.
FDR put the last Buffalo hunter in jail for trying to kill the last Buffalo in a state park. This was an inevitability once the state took over.
The state does not see that it can manage resources, it only wants to control them. In private hands, there would have been an abundance of Buffalo because the value would have been cared for.
Joe 6-pack; dartuser; grcuster; Labyrinthos
One more thing to illustrate my point.
FDR put the last Buffalo hunter in jail for trying to kill the last Buffalo in a state park. This was an inevitability once the state took over.
The state does not see that it can manage resources, it only wants to control them. In private hands, there would have been an abundance of Buffalo because the value would have been cared for.
I’m including you here as well Labyrinthos, because you also don’t seem to get the proper state/private divide.
Using the land is different than allowing hunting on it. This seems like a great notion until wealthy PETA supporters start buying prime hunting areas and maintaining them by charging fees or leases for other activities apart from hunting and fishing which they detest. As an advocate of private property, I would concur that is their choice, but it ultimately shrinks and eventually limits huntable areas. Hunters make up about 5% of the population and that number is shrinking. At present there is a solid % of the population that doesn't hunt, but supports hunting, but that number is shrinking as well.
"PRIVATIZE and have the state oversee is how this country was FOUNDED!"
Our founders would have, I think, found the notion of private ownership of wildlife abhorrent based on their outright rejection of the notion feudalism. Who "owns" a deer? Does a deer standing on your property remain your property until such time as it crosses into your neighbor's property and become his?
Suppose a neighbor sets out a salt lick on his property, near where it abuts your property. If that deer, drawn by the salt lick wanders onto your property, does it become yours to do with as you see fit? If not, what or whom governs what may be done with that deer?
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.