CO Parks & Wildlife to require hunting or fishing license to access any State Wildlife Area

Sounds reasonable. If you want to watch birds get a license and contribute to the costs associated with administration of public land.<<<

I understand if fees must be paid, but the way in which they've gone about it seems off the mark.

It's kind of like a restaurant forcing someone to pay the full price of the buffet even though the customer just wanted a to purchase soft drink ... simply because they don't have a per item fee established for the soft drink.

BLM lands and National Forests are still free, even though you need to buy an annual "Northwest Forest Pass" or "Snow Park Pass" to park at certain popular trail heads.<<<

As much as I wouldn't like it, I'd actually understand if CO Parks & Wildlife came up with a similar sort of base level pass for purchase; however, it seems exclusionary (for those seeking general base level access) to mandate one needs to purchase a license for an applied purpose (hunting or fishing).

It states in the above statements that those lands were acquired with money from fishing and hunting licenses for use by those licensees, not general funds. Seems perfectly reasonable that you must have a fishing or hunting license to access those lands. <<<<

Someone on a local FB group is claiming "these lands are not funded or purchased with general state funds, and have been exclusively purchased and maintained via hunting and fishing fees for years".   Even if this is the case across all lands, clearly public use has evolved into a wider array of patterns.  If in the past, the agency has sought to compel everyone to pay their way according to either impact, administrative overhead, etc. via different fee scale for hunting vs. fishing, then would it not make sense that since a difference exists then somewhere in the mix the "line item" for simply being present is somehow embedded as sub total of either item?  Or, would it be the lesser (likely fishing) is the "price of entry"?

Do the rules state that people have to be actively hunting or fishing to access the designated wildlife areas or just have the permit?   I can't imagine an annual in-state angling license costs that much and would be the functional equivalent to an annual general purpose access pass regardless if you decide to fish or not<<<<

I don't believe the rules state that people have to be actively hunting or fishing, rather they just need to have the permit.    I believe it's $45 out the door (with a habitat stamp).

Looks like I was wrong, small game fee is cheapest at $30.11 (fishing $35 + $10) ... and if you're a senior $9.85.

Still say it'd be more equitable to establish a general access fee (that does not included hunting or fishing), but I suspect there's got to be a reason they're not doing it that way.   Here's a more detailed notice:

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/SWA/License-Requirements-SWA...

a common thread is that the funds collected via license fees can only be used for those purposes which are usually delineated to some degree in the actual statute. Things like habitat restoration, removing stream blockages, building of hunter/fishing access points; purchasing of land or acquiring rights of passage, etc. are some of those things. The funds collected are earmarked for those purposes<<<

I get that, but still in the dark as to how the general legal history you cite might prevent the agency from creating a third category for "general purpose use" and earmarking said revenue into a general fund?

>>>small game fee is cheapest at $30.11

Like rabbits, squirrels, and coyotes?<<<<

I am not sure, but imagine something along these lines.

I find it interesting how revenues dedicated to particular resource management might be artificially inflated (and consequently resources allocated) as a result of the cost being cheaper to an individual has no interest in using any of the permits for their originally intended purpose but simply as a matter of being the most cost effective alternative to be compliant in attaining access for some other recreational purpose not outlined.

ran into this sign in the desert in the middle of nowhere<<<

I actually parked at a trailhead at Woods Lake on Sunday to go on a hike that will now require the license.  At the time, I was unaware of pending regulation.  I actually stopped at the camground "kiosk" to briefly scan prices and what not, but didn't see any notifications .... although likely missed it.  Only learned about it online yesterday.

One thing I noticed in the second link I posted above:

"Do users of trail systems connecting to SWAs need to purchase a license? Yes. The intended use of SWAs is wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation. While recreational use of trails on these properties is not a primary intended use, a license purchase for recreational trail use, where allowed, can be used to help maintain connected trails."

^ I'm confused by this since there's a ton of trails that connect to the trailhead, campground, lake, and immediate area SWA ... yet is USFS property.  A popular hiking route is Woods Lake -> Navajo Lake (high alpine); however, this route can be done in reverse from a different trailhead that would not require one to enter through a SWA. 

For land already purchased using only hunting and fishing license funds, they can't because those funds were for the sole purpose of creating a better experience, whatever that may be, for those licensees. If Colorado creates a new category of purchase that does not use hunting/fishing license fees then they can earmark the new fees anyway they please<<<

If in the past one has been able to purchase either a hunting or fishing license, yet not actually be required to either hunt or fish while on agency lands (and likely many people would have fallen into this category at some point or another), then would not the activity of simply "being present" on agency lands be a historical use?

Look at the usage patterns of libraries in recent times vs. 20 years ago.    Our library has morphed into a quasi recreational center with events and all sort of various items and gadgets that can be checked out (now including bikes).   As much as I don't fully embrace their current "evolution", I never question their right to follow a wider scope of usage that might be perceived to be beyond the original founding mandate of the library district.  I did however post these flyers around town as a protest, which is a spoof of actual fliers.  

In the above case, after the land was purchased with license funds, not fishing or hunting but the holder of a license would be a historical use. Although I am rather busy these past days trying to make a buck, I did a little research and it seems that non-license holders have been attempting to stop license holders from fishing and/or hunting. By allowing that to happen the state is not protecting the rights of those whose monies paid for the land. Historical use can be an odd thing. Much of the west, including some cities, were historical sacred lands of various indigenous peoples. If that was a historical use, only for the tribes involved, would the proper thing to do be razing those cities and dislocate anyone who is not a member of that tribe? One of the thinigs that I loved to do when I lived in Colorado was mtn bike. One of the odd historical laws still on the books stated that if you were on the trail with any mechanical device and you came upon a person riding a horse on that trail, you were required to dismount, get out of, turn off that mechanical device and if you didn't your were breaking the law and could be fined/arrested/imprisoned for it. The horse rider could also shoot you with impunity if you didn't dismount. It only happened to me once and I dismounted my bike and walked it until they passed. :-) <<<


If it's the "holder of the a license" that is the historical use and does not rely upon compliance to the prescribed intent, then how does that prohibit the agency of carving up present day categories that may include general use?

I agree about historical use being an odd, if not a nebulous thing ... unless you're Adam or Eve and were first on the scene, otherwise there'll have always been historical 0use in any area that has been populated.

As much as hunting and fishing ought not be displaced if there's sufficient demand, why should these activities be entitled to first dibbs for exclusive use in perpetuity? I understand some public lands might not have been set aside and looked after, but should purposing for public land always be a "first come first serve" sort of proposition in light of highest and best use for the most amount of people over time?

Didn't realize about right of way re: horses, always had thought it's because they can spook.

>> As much as hunting and fishing ought not be displaced if there's sufficient demand, why should these activities be entitled to first dibbs for exclusive use in perpetuity? <<

Hunting, and the managed disbursement of licenses, is about managing herds more than it is dispensing licenses to kill/eat wild game. DOW has a huge role since predators have been reduced, if not eliminated in certain areas. <<<

I understand this and how it's correlated, what I don't understand is why not expand into another category that is more genral & non-extractive usage that has its own associated fee that pays for management and other aspects?

This may be a bit of a simplification but it is because those groups paid for the land with fund collected ONLY from them with the stated aim of providing opportunities for those groups.  If you as an individual bought a family homestead; shouldn't you have exclusive use in perpetuity (unless you sell)? Shouldn't a corporation's stock holders who paid for a piece of land that headquarters that corporation have exclusive use? 

p.s. Historically and by my own personal observations I find hunters and fishermen tremendously better stewards for the land than the general populace. <<<<

I'm not all that familiar with the nuances of homesteading, but wasn't the intention to transfer ownership or at least rights to the individual (or family) if an investment of energy to "work up the land" was made vs. a wildlife area that would still remain in the public domain as a "common area" (vs. private use)?

You might be right about hunters and those who fish as being better stewards than general population, but still not sure the difference is enough (bad apples in either group aside) that it qualifies them to have exclusive use in perpetuity.  If the general population is more abusive, then up their category fee to reflect the cost to mitigate. 

Back to my contention, why should the legal entanglements of the past compel a vegetarian or vegan to have "throw in" with an extractive use that relies upon the killing of another living being?

If you're saying the lands owned by Colorado Parks & Wildlife aren't public and are actually private, then I misunderstood.  If they are in fact public, isn't basic access a subset of any existing activity that a covenant might stipulate for a stated use?  IOW, you need to hike or observe in order to hunt, or do people need to hike "as if they were stalking an animal"?

Practically speaking, if the agency is tasked with administering the lands and incoming revenue is streaming in from the sale of licenses, how are they to effectively disambiguate who is actually using the license vs. those who are compelled to purchase a license in order to access the land for some other purpose such as hiking?  Do administrators of these fees simply run with the totals as true indicators as to whether the individuals were actually seeking to hunt or fish?  Why should the vegan or vegetarian be compelled to artificially inflate these numbers; effectively saying there's a higher demand for such activities when in fact there is not ... possibly amping up more resources for a multi-use component that is not deserving of total.

Seems to me I've heard the whole "plenty of other lands" line of reasoning before around here re: consolidation of ski areas into the hands of a few megacorps.  In the case of ski areas, they often impose their myopic interests upon the public - at the expense of the highest & best use - in a slightly different manner in so far as being a form of "price exclusion".   Likewise, there are a limited number of public lands with lift access.  Wildlife areas are also limited.   Why sanction monopolistic paradigms?  I also get the fact that some might not be wildlife areas if it were not for these agencies in the first place, but why the exclusive use in perpetuity if there's a compatible multi-use for the public at large that has evolved?  Again, if these lands are actually private, then I misunderstood.

skifuthur:

For the sake of argument, and I realize it's unlikely in the foreseeable future, let's say hunting and fishing were to be banned altogether. Let's also assume that any covenants currently in place restricting wildlife area usage to only license holders would likely not foresee hunting or fishing to go by the wayside, and in all probability, would never have codified such a contingency into the covenants. In such a case, would said lands suddenly become "orphaned in a netherworld"; whereby the public would be prohibited from any form of accepted use forever and ever? I suspect there's likely some general "reset mechanism". If this is the case, then why couldn't the underlying principle in such a mechanism also be applicable while existing restrictive covenants are currently in force to allow for compatible public use?

Might some people find it to be obtrusive of one's rights to be "questioned for one's papers" and in turn asked about the nature of their activity if they aren't in clear violation of any laws or regulations? I would have zero issue showing my general use permit if asked, but answering questions when there's no readily discernible transgression crosses the line IMO.

Regarding rounding error: from the perspective of the vegetarian or vegan, "one" might be too many if it contributes to the death or destruction of an animal from their perspective.

I was feeling nostolgic with you and ned, so couldn't help myself! I agree about the nature of a public-private partnership lease agreement with ski areas being entirely different. It was only the "there's plenty of other public lands" point that you were looking to make that holds a similarity.

At this stage of the game with what's happening in the world, it's not a battle I'm seeking to devote my energy to. I do find it interesting to learn the "why" of it all ... even though I happen to disagree.

The Colorado DOW doesn't own any land. They manage area's owned by either USFS, BLM, state owned land, etc.<<<

This part I was unsure of and couldn't quite figure out ... so DOW appears to be an "overlay" of sorts for publicly owned land by other entities.  Another aspect of this I don't quite understand is there is a stipulation about how this new regulation apparently applies to connecting trail systems.   I was curious just how far out a "system" goes?  .... since many trails connect & can go on for many miles beyond what appears to be the immediate DOW area.

Is your grievance that you have to buy a $40 hunting/fishing license for access even though you're a veggie/vegan? Is it just labels you have issue with, or the fee itself?<<<

It's not really the fee so much as being compelled to enlist as a hunter or fisherman.  I happen to be vegetarian (who cheats), but am not all that hardcore for that reason personally ... but can see how others might be.  

There's really only one area nearby that I'm personally affected by and it's wouldn't be that big of a deal to buy a license in light of how generally free and open it is in this part of the state compared to a lot of other locales that are getting overrun by high usage.

Better investment compared to car registration,  for which you get nothing<<<

Yeah, but imagine if you had to pay a car registration fee to ride your bicycle on the roads?

Within the link directly above this post, are a few other links that address many of the OP's original and subsequent questions. Thank you for posting it joy(blackrock)<<<

Yes, thank you for posting.  You beat me to the punch.   Here's one of the links and questions (still unresolved) I have about how far out a connected trail system is under the jurisdiction of these rules?

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/SWA/License-Requirements-SWA...

Do users of trail systems connecting to SWAs need to purchase a license?

Yes. The intended use of SWAs is wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation. While recreational use of trails on these properties is not a primary intended use, a license purchase for recreational trail use, where allowed, can be used to help maintain connected trails. 

>> It's not really the fee so much as being compelled to enlist as a hunter or fisherman. <<

Well, the same fee covers you for any Search & Rescue costs. How about "outdoorsman"?<<<<

I've always purchased hiker's insurance separately.

You know exactly what it's called vs. my colloquial usage.

https://dola.colorado.gov/sar/cardPurchase.jsf

https://www.9news.com/article/life/animals/animal-group-suing-cpw-over-h...

COLORADO, USA — A group is suing Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) over its requirement of a valid hunting or fishing license to access any State Wildlife Area or State Trust Land.

Friends of Animals (FoA) is a nonprofit international advocacy organization – with nearly 200,000 members and an office in Centennial – that advocates for the rights of animals and values compassionate conservationism, wildlife and habitat protection, court documents say. 

....

FoA in court documents says: 

The regulation fails to provide for a means to distinguish between consumptive and non-consumptive hunting or fishing licenses. 

Anyone who purchases a hunting or fishing license, whether to hunt, fish, or engage in a non-consumptive use like bird watching, nature viewing or hiking, could be counted as a hunter or fisher. This could result in fundamental over-reporting of Colorado hunting numbers to the federal government.

CPW asserts that the regulation is aimed at reducing illegal and/or improper use of SWAs and STAs. Such uses may be unauthorized camping or travel. However, CPW failed to provide a rational explanation as to how the requirement to have a hunting or fishing license will in any way reduce such illegal or improper uses.

The regulation does not require any additional enforcement, and the funds it will generate are not directed to reducing such uses.

There is simply no rational connection between a new licensing requirement and the reduction of illegal/improper use of these public lands. There is also no rational connection between the regulation and the administration, protection and maintenance of lands in the SWAs and STAs.

CPW failed to adequately consider alternatives to the regulation.

By compelling non-hunters to purchase a hunting or fishing license, CPW has restricted their freedom of expression and forced them to associate with and pledge support for an activity that they fundamentally disagree with.

....

click on link to read full article

https://coloradosun.com/2020/08/06/colorado-hunting-fishing-license-rule-public-lands-opposition/

---- begin quote from article above ---------

The recreation groups presented the commission with a list of recommendations that includes allowing through-traffic on trails and rivers, applying site-specific fees instead of a blanket license requirement, doing more public education before implementing, developing a plan for access for disadvantaged groups, adding a question on license applications about recreational activities and conducting an annual review of license sales to study shifting recreational uses on public lands. 

Commissioners declined to suspend the new regulation but plan to study the addition of a checkbox to hunting and fishing licenses that note a user purchased the license for conservation or non-consumptive use. 

CPW spokeswoman Rebecca Ferrell said the agency now has a mandatory question for buyers of small game hunting and/or fishing licenses that asks for a “reason for purchase.” 

“This will provide better data on each license purchaser’s intent, and allow us to more accurately account for those who are hunting and fishing and those who are not,” Ferrell said.

The commission also directed the agency’s staff to gather more information about users of State Wildlife Areas and will consider adjustments to the new regulation at its September meeting. 

The Friends of Animals lawsuit also suggests that CPW’s new rule could skew reports the state sends to the federal government. The number of hunting and fishing licenses sold in a state are one of the barometers used for the distribution of federal grants that help states manage wildlife habitat.  

“This suggests a willingness on CPW’s part to mislead federal wildlife aid programs by selling hunting and fishing licenses to non-hunters and non-fishers,” reads the lawsuit by Friends of Animals, a 63-year-old nonprofit that advocates for animal-friendly legislation. “Because the regulation could result in over-reporting, as well as potential fraud under the federal aid program, it should be set aside as arbitrary and capricious.”

-------- end quote -------