CO republicans look to hamstring land protection

[Oak]

Bill threatens to limit DOW

By Phillip Yates
Post Independent Staff
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
January 24, 2008

The Colorado Division of Wildlife is voicing opposition to a bill now in the state legislature that could limit the agency’s ability to buy or receive land or water interests in the future.

House Bill 1137 would require that when the DOW acquires land or water — or an interest in either — the agency would have to sell other property of equal or greater value within one year so its total property assets would not grow above the DOW’s current property portfolio as of Jan. 1.

Tyler Baskfield, communications manager for the DOW, said the bill could hamstring agency efforts to acquire future land or water interests for conservation efforts. He said the DOW is opposed to the proposed measure.

“While it is difficult for public agencies to weigh in on this stuff, when there is a bill that threatens the way we can accomplish our mission or work toward our mission, we are going to have to come out and oppose it,” Baskfield said.

The bill would also require the DOW to pay local governments a payment in “lieu of taxes” equal to the amount of tax the government would receive annually if the property were owned by a private person or corporation. It would also require that every land or water interest purchase be approved by the legislature either before or after the DOW solicits bid proposals about possible purchases.

Sponsors of the bill include Reps. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on Jan. 15 and was assigned to the Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources committee.

Brophy, whose Senate district encompasses several counties in northeast Colorado, called the bill an attempt to keep “government from grabbing more and more lands of the state.”

“So if they buy something new, if they buy the real estate fee title outright, they have to sell something of corresponding value somewhere else,” Brophy said.

However, the bill doesn’t preclude the DOW from pursuing conservation easements, he said.

Brophy said he is behind the bill because he in philosophical agreement with Sonnenberg that the state needs to limit “how much real estate the state of Colorado is snapping up and owning, and taking off the tax rolls.”

Dave Petersen, the Durango-based state field director for Trout Unlimited’s Public Lands Initiative, said the proposed effort just “doesn’t make sense.”

“(Some) of the reasons people come to live here, industry moves here, people come to vacation here, are open space, public lands, wildlife and fishing,” Petersen said. “The DOW is trying to save lands and provide access, so to do something that would diminish one of Colorado’s greatest strengths, aesthetically as well as economically … is counterintuitive.”

 

[BigHornRam]

Oak,

Any ideas on how to address the loss of property tax revenue when converting private land into public? That's a source for opposition in Montana as well.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

How about a sales tax in Montana. Frickin' hammer the free-loading tourists.

Property tax revenue's on lands the DOW would be interested in likely wouldnt be tough to find alternative $$$ to off-set.

I'd like to take a look at the actual taxes paid on undeveloped rangeland. Me thinks its pretty minimal compared to a lot in any city.

 

[Oak]

Not any good ideas. Perhaps require PILT payments on all NEWLY acquired property. Taxes on grazing land are relatively cheap. I can't imagine that the relatively small purchases made by the DOW would have a big impact on tax revenue, but I suppose that it's possible in very rural counties.

What do you think is the justification for limiting acquisition of water rights?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

Any ideas on how to address the loss of property tax revenue when converting private land into public? That's a source for opposition in Montana as well.

You worry more about property taxes than habitat for wildlife?

 

[Nemont]

What do you think is the justification for limiting acquisition of water rights?

This is the west, where wiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.

There are lots of ways to offset the taxes: User fees, state land permits, asking for donations, etc etc.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

The trout guy wants the DOW to buy access. Waterfront property would bring in a lot more in tax revenue than range land. User fees could offset the loss in tax revenue in cases like that.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The trout guy wants the DOW to buy access. Waterfront property would bring in a lot more in tax revenue than range land. User fees could offset the loss in tax revenue in cases like that.

BigWhore,

Do you understand Colorado's laws regarding property lines and navigable waterways?

 

[Oak]

What about this recent purchase? It is mostly sagebrush, with perhaps a few pockets of aspen (rangeland). This purchase would not have been possible under the proposed law. Not much opportunity to charge user fees on this parcel.

Nothing to grouse about
Recent purchases by DOW will help protect habitat for grouse species

By DAVE BUCHANAN
The Daily Sentinel

Sunday, November 11, 2007

A major land purchase in Gunnison County that preserves critical wildlife habitat and eventually will offer public access to hunters is the most recent of several acquisitions the Colorado Division of Wildlife is making with funds from the state’s wildlife habitat stamp.

The Division recently acquired the Miller Ranch, a century-old family holding of 1,600 acres about 10 miles north of Gunnison that provides vital winter habitat for deer, elk and breeding grounds for Gunnison sage grouse, a chicken-sized bird tiptoeing the line of the Endangered Species Act.

“This ranch is possibly the most important purchase the DOW will ever make to maintain Gunnison sage grouse habitat,” said Tom Spezze, southwest regional manager for the DOW. “The Ohio Creek Valley is the heart of the core population for the bird. This is a very important area for the DOW to continue its work on Gunnison sage grouse conservation.”

Similarly, the Division’s Northwest Region recently announced purchasing a conservation easement on more than 2,000 acres of private land north of Meeker, a region under the gun for energy development.

The Lunney Ranch will remain in private hands but now is protected with a perpetual easement on land that stretches from 6,800 feet to 8,500 feet, a span that includes habitat for wildlife big and small, including Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

“This is the kind of exceptional habitat that sportsmen want to protect for the future of Colorado’s wildlife resource,” explained Ron Velarde, DOW regional manager for northwest Colorado. “While this easement specifically protects valuable sharp-tailed grouse habitat, the easement also protects habitat for lots of other wildlife.”

DOW biologists report that along with the grouse, more than 500 elk and 100 mule deer winter on the Lunney property and thousands more use the ranch as a key migration route.

Both purchases were funded in part by lottery proceeds from Great Outdoors Colorado. The Yampa Valley Land Trust played a major in role in the Lunney easement.

Sportsmen have been paying into the habitat stamp account for several years and now the Division has enough money accrued to make a difference. That, plus a recent push by the Colorado Wildlife Commission to become more active has spurred these and other soon-to-be-announced acquisitions, Velarde said.

“We were directed by the wildlife commission to get more active because we wanted to make sure our sportsmen know that the habitat stamp money was going to big-game winter range or protecting migration routes,” Velarde said. “But it’s not a simple task. Those transactions can take anywhere from 18 to 26 months to accomplish, so we have to be patient.”

Both the Miller Ranch and the Lunney Ranch are key acquisitions in the DOW’s race to stay ahead of development. Gunnison County is going through a building spurt thanks in part to the increased interest in Crested Butte Ski Area.

The Miller Ranch is adjacent to a high-end development of 35-acre, $1-million lots sprinkled with starter castles, and the Millers said they already had been approached by speculators trying to buy the ranch.

“We didn’t want to see it sold to developers,” said Carl Miller, who still lives on the family ranch that was homesteaded in 1902. “This is what we grew up with, this is what we love and this is what we want it to continue to be. This ranch has been in our family for seven generations. We know the DOW will sustain the beauty of the land for generations to come.”

Because the ranch offers critical habitat for the Gunnison sage grouse, said Spezze, and while access is important, the wildlife comes first.

“Access is going to be a key component as we work on the management plan for the property,” Spezze said Thursday. “But first we’ll want to make sure the wildlife components that are the reason we bought the ranch won’t be compromised.”

The purchase adds to the 5,310 acres of Ohio Creek Valley land already protected in a conservation program, according to Chris Dickey of the Gunnison Country Times.

In 2003, the state purchased a conservation easement on the 4,733-acre Ochs Ranch near the confluence of Ohio Creek and the Gunnison River.

The $6.5-million Miller purchase was split equally between the Division and GOCO. According to the DOW, Great Outdoors Colorado has invested heavily in preserving agricultural properties in Gunnison County because of the wildlife habitat and scenic viewsheds they provide.

To date, GOCO has awarded grants totaling $15 million for land preservation in the Gunnison area.

Since June 2006, the DOW has spent about $14 million on securing wildlife habitat throughout Colorado, Spezze said.

“The DOW promised sportsmen and the people of Colorado that we would secure important parcels for wildlife with the habitat stamp money,” he said. “Now we’re starting to deliver on that promise.”

 

[BigHornRam]

Good read Oak. Why "not much opportunity to charge user fees" on this property? Does Colorado have programs similar to Block Management?

"A major land purchase in Gunnison County that preserves critical wildlife habitat and eventually will offer public access to hunters "

 

[Oak]

Colorado has a walk-in program for small game/bird hunters in the eastern portion of the state. They lease the hunting from landowners and charge for access through a required $20 stamp. A pilot big game walk-in program is being tested in the SE part of the state, primarily with antelope hunters.

The property listed above will likely require the purchase of a habitat stamp to access, once it is open to the public (read about the habitat stamp in the story). The funds raised by the habitat stamp are to be used to preserve wildlife habitat through conservation easements and title purchase, not to pay property tax.

How much would you pay to hunt deer or elk on 1600 acres of sagebrush? How about if everyone could pay the same amount and access it? That's why I said that there isn't much opportunity to charge access fees (above the cost of the habitat stamp).

 

[1_pointer]

This is the west, where wiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.

I've found that's a very true statement.

I doubt the taxes lost would have very little impact in even sparsely populated counties. But turning them into or the potential to turn them in to McMansions/Cabins would have a larger impact. I'd guess that is what the law is hoping to do.

 

[BigHornRam]

How's this for a solution, Oak? At 1K per acre that land purchase would cost $1.6 million. You guys say that property taxes on sagebrush is low.....let's estimate it at $2000 per year. Why not put an additional $40,000 (a fraction of the lands purchase price) into a 5% interest bearing account to pay for the annual property tax. Problem solved and Jerry, Cory, and Greg have one less thing to whine about.

 

[Oak]

I have since found out that CDOW does indeed ALREADY make PILT payments on their properties. So the counties are not losing tax revenue. The sponsors' arguments for the bill are baseless. The only purpose this serves is to support "growth" by the developers.

 

[1_pointer]

The only purpose this serves is to support "growth" by the developers.

That's the only use I can the law having...

 

[Oak]

This bill lost on an 8-5 committee vote. Read about Jack Taylor's incredibly idiotic bill in the second half of the article. Thank god this guy is term-limited and will be done this year. He's been an opponent of the DOW and hunters since he's taken office.

Sonnenberg loses cause against DOW in 5-8 vote


By K.C. Mason
Journal-Advocate Capitol correspondent
Friday, February 8, 2008 1:34 PM MST

DENVER - District 65 Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and several of his Sterling-area constituents were unable to convince a Colorado House committee this week that the Division of Wildlife is out of control with a land grab and needs more legislative oversight.

The House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee voted 5-8 against Sonnenberg’s House Bill 1137, which would have required legislative approval before the DOW could buy any more land out of private ownership. Had it passed the House, the Senate sponsor would have been District 1 Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray.

“We need some accountability so we know what’s going on with this agency,” Sonnenberg argued, noting he had been unable to find out how much the DOW has spent in obtaining fee title to acreage that is then preserved for wildlife habitat.

Supporters of Sonnenberg’s bill, however, were outnumbered by several state Wildlife Commissioners and representatives of numerous sportsmen’s groups, who said buying land is sometimes the only option to preserving critical habitat for species conservation, hunting, fishing and observing wildlife.

Commission vice chair Claire O’Neal of Holyoke said the state already has a “comprehensive accountability process in place” for both conservation easements and outright purchases of land.

She counted seven layers of review before land purchases finally are approved by the Legislature’s Capitol Development Committee.

“Easements are the preference of both the GOCO (Greater Outdoors Colorado) and species conservation program, but we don’t want to take any tools out of the toolbox,” O’Neal said. “Please don’t tie our hands with this bill.”

The best Sonnenberg got at the end of Wednesday’s 2-hour hearing was a promise from O’Neal and new DOW Director Tom Remington to set up a meeting with Sonnenberg’s disgruntled constituents.

Among them is Joel McCracken of Sterling, who reprised his ultimately successful battle against the DOW’s effort to keep him from building a home on his property that also contained a 1967 conservation easement.

“Five times the courts said they were wrong and they refused to go away,” McCracken said. “What they do is good but their self-righteous attitude is wrong. This is what happens when government has no accountability.”

Sterling area farmers Richard Walker, Shane Miller and Stanley Fry also told their stories of land battles with the DOW.

Walker said he was “intimidated and threatened with eminent domain if I didn’t play ball” in a boundary dispute with the agency. Fry and Miller recounted long-running battles with the DOW over fence lines and lack of responsiveness to their complaints.

Among the testifying opponents was Chaffee County Commissioner Jerry Mallet, who said the state needs to be preserving more land, not less.

“This bill looks like an anti-hunting bill,” Mallet said. “It’s crunch time for the DOW and we are going to lose our big game herds if we don’t have some consideration for habitat protection.”

Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, on Thursday gave Sen. Jack Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, another week to attempt a compromise with the DOW over his bill that would dramatically change the crime of illegal hunting in the state.

John Smeltzer of the Colorado Wildlife Association said when he first saw Taylor’s Senate Bill 69, “I thought it was the Poaching Protection Act of 2008.”

Taylor wants to prohibit someone from being charged with illegal hunting or destruction of wildlife if they have a lawful license and are in compliance with the license’s restrictions as to the time, place and manner of the hunt.

“In too many instances, they have used the heavy hand of law enforcement on hunters and ranchers that is overzealous or lacking common sense,” Taylor said.

He then introduced Evergreen resident Jim Gordon, who waited nine years to collect enough preference points to get a license to hunt a mountain goat.

Gordon said he shot his goat late on a Friday afternoon in September 2003, but because it was growing dark, he was out of drinking water and was at the 12,500 foot level of Mt. Princeton in Chaffee County, he did not complete dressing out the animal and removing the carcass. Nor did he remove the carcass the next day because the meat smelled bad and he did not believe it was any longer edible.

Gordon reported the incident the following Monday to a district wildlife office in Hot Sulphur Springs, but was shocked when he was charged with four violations, including the felony of willful destruction of wildlife that carries an automatic $10,000 fine.

He said he rejected three separate offers of a plea bargain that would have negated any felony charges because he wasn’t guilty. A Chaffee County jury disagreed and convicted him on all for counts during a February 2005 trial.

At his sentencing hearing, Gordon said, the wildlife officers involved in his case recommended a $135,000 fine and a year in jail.

“Context and intent were not taken into account,” he said. “I’ve been a law-abiding, God-fearing man all my life. What happened to me is wrong and I wouldn’t want it to happen to anyone else.”

Among the bill’s opponents who testified Thursday was Rob Firth, the DOW’s chief law enforcement officer. He said statements from wildlife officers and court records differed from Gordon’s account of the events leading up to the charges.

“This bill goes far beyond its intent,” Firth said. “The working would prevent any changes from being filed in serious cases of poaching.”

Kent Ingram of the Sportsman’s Advisory Group said poaching would increase if Taylor’s bill passed.

“Liberalizing the law makes it easier to have a violation and not be held accountable for it,” Ingram said. “It is the responsibility of the hunter to know what the law is. (Gordon) made serious errors in judgment that resulted in serious violations. He had years to study up while waiting for the tag.”

Isgar agreed the DOW needs more flexibility in determining what charges to file on some hunting violations, but said Taylor’s bill goes too far.

“Out in the woods things can happen,” Isgar said. “Mistakes occur and I don’t want to get to a point where people are afraid to report it when mistakes are made.”

He asked Taylor to work with DOW officials on amendments before scheduling the bill for a vote next week.

“There needs to be some way to address this issue without going so far,” Isgar said. “We need to separate the poacher from a person who makes a mistake.”

Taylor’s other DOW-related bill, which extends the lives of two game management programs for elk in northwest Colorado and for antelope in eastern Colorado, easily passed the Senate Monday and is headed to the House for consideration.