Colorado Filming Permit Denied

[WT_in_MT]

I'm not sure about that scenario but I'll ask the right person. I'm curious though if it would be similar to the BMA guidelines where a State parcel inside a BMA boundary can not be accessed from adjacent BLM ground unless permission to hunt the BMA has been obtained.

BMA rules would apply to legally accessible state lands only if this ARM was followed.

36.25.164 BLOCK MANAGEMENT AREAS: PROCEDURES FOR INCLUSION OF STATE LAND

(1) The department shall commence review of a proposal to include state land within a block management agreement when the department receives from the department of fish, wildlife and parks a proposal that includes:

(a) a complete legal description of the state land affected by the proposal, with a description of the legal access status of each tract of land;

(b) a listing of all terms, conditions, and restrictions of the proposal; and

(c) a map that clearly identifies the boundaries of the proposed block management area, locations of state lands, adjoining public land, and public roads.

(2) The provisions of (3) apply to the review of a block management agreement that:

(a) would impose restrictions on recreational use that are more stringent than those contained in ARM 36.25.149; and

(b) contain state land that is:

(i) contiguous at some point to land that is not within the proposed block management area;

(ii) accessible by dedicated public road, public right-of-way, or easement;

(iii) accessible by public waters; or

(iv) accessible from contiguous federal, state, county, or municipal land that is open for public use.

(3) Before land that meets the criteria in (2) may be included in a block management agreement, the department of fish, wildlife and parks and the department must have:

(a) given public notice of the proposal in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed block management area;

(b) provided a 21-day period for written public comment following the public notice; and

(c) if, during the public comment period, a request for public hearing was received that in the department's opinion raises a significant question as to whether the proposal is in the best interests of the public or the trust, held a public hearing in the area.

(4) After close of the public comment period, the department shall review and prepare written responses to all substantive comments. The department shall send copies of those responses to each person who submitted a substantive comment.

(5) No public review is required for proposals that do not meet the criteria contained in (2) .

(6) The department shall notify the department of fish, wildlife and parks whether it will enter into the agreement. No block management agreement is effective as to state land until it is executed by the department. The department may not enter an agreement that does not meet the criteria contained in ARM 36.25.165.

36.25.165 BLOCK MANAGEMENT AREAS: CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF STATE LAND

(1) The department may include state land in a block management area only if it finds that:

(a) inclusion is in the best interests of the public and the trust;

(b) the block management agreement does not conflict with rights of holders of leases, licenses, and easements;

(c) inclusion would not result in damage to the land;

(d) the block management area contains private land; and

(e) the state land is contiguous to federal or private land that is within the block management area.

 

[WT_in_MT]

Here is DNRC's definition of legally accessible state land, as found in their ARMs.

(15) "Legally accessible state lands" means state lands that can be accessed by dedicated public road, public right-of-way, or public easement; by public waters such as lakes, rivers, and streams that are recreationally navigable under 23-2-302, MCA; by adjacent federal, state, county, or municipal land if the land is open to public use; or by adjacent private land if permission to cross the land has been secured from the landowner. Accessibility by aircraft does not render lands legally accessible under this definition. The granting of permission by a private landowner to cross private property in a particular instance does not subject the state land that is accessed to general recreational use by members of the public other than those granted permission.

So the big question is does accessibility by aircraft refer to landing on a piece of state land or does it mean that if you flew into adjacent land that the state land is not legally accessible? I would tend to think it's the former because in other instances you can legally access state land from adjacent land that you are permissively on.

 

[BRI]

Thanks for posting the actual wording of the ARM's WT. I read that the same way you and BigFin do If you are allowed to fly into BLM lands, then that adjacent state land should be accessible.

 

[Moe]

While your doing some investigating in Colorado, I'd take a real close look at Kessler Canyons operation and see if they too are involved in this scheme..???

I know the jerk who used to run it when it first openned and he was a notoriuos crook (has since been fired). They advertise 26,000 acres, but I'd bet some of it is somehow including our state lands. Or at the every least they have access to thousands more thru this program or others; considering the number and trophy of elk killed each year by pay-clients.

Moe

 

[Moe]

EDIT- Double post?


Moe

 

[Moe]

Right after posting my suspicions above, I just googled Kessler Canyon Resorts and in the second paragraph read this..

___

All big game hunts include one-on-one guiding for free range, unfenced animals pursued in accordance with the principles of ethical fair chase. Because Kessler Canyon participates in Colorado’s Ranching for Wildlife program, guests are guaranteed their licenses and big game tags at the time their hunt is booked, bypassing the “luck of the draw” tag allocation process. Upland bird hunters travel in late model customized and climate controlled Jeep Wrangler “bird rigs” with no more than three hunters per guide. Bird hunts feature no-limit harvest of birds, teams of stylish pointers and a steady Lab to perform flushing and retrieving duties.
____
My suspicions now confirmed. Notorious crook known coast to coast, I knew he had to be involved?!

There's plenty of evidence of just how big the elk they take, and frequecncy of hunters success, on the pages of Outdoor Life thruout the 2007/2008/2009 seasons. Nice to know the writers from that mag are the ones actually taking advantage of this program too; in exchange for advertising Kessler Canyon relentlessly (just one ex: October 2009 issue; titled "Going Long for Elk and Muledeer").

Moe

 

[elk_hunter]

My brother is an avid hunter and happens to live in CO; he is seriously one of the best damn heli pilots in the country. I know he'd be more than happy to drop you someplace fun...

 

[HillbillyInNevada]

The sad thing is that it will cost some poor guy his hunting privileges or thousands of dollars in legal defense fees to find out the answer to many of these legal questions regarding access to public lands.

 

[dszymo]

Anyone know of other sites where a lot of CO hunters hang out? Thinking I would like to let more CO hunters know about this screwed up mess.

No wonder some privatization groups see the CO RFW model as such a good thing - you get the hunting rights associated with land, without having to pay for it. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

I would post this on the bowsite, monstermulies, and archerytalk. I have spent alot of time on these sites and have never heard of this.

 

[Khunter]

I would post this on the bowsite, monstermulies, and archerytalk. I have spent alot of time on these sites and have never heard of this.

Looks like you posted it on bowsite.

 

[JoseCuervo]

What a joke. This goes down as one of the biggest public land give away welfare programs I have come across in all my years of hunting.

B-Fin,

Can you honestly say that given that you know how Welfare Ranching works with a bunch of in-bred Welfare Ranchers paying $1.35 per month to run a cow/calf on MY PUBLIC LANDS destroying habitat for hunting and fishing?

Enabling a bunch of Welfare Ranchers to spend generations "controlling" Public Lands, "leasing" public lands, and "selling" ranches containing Public Lands has created the biggest Welfare Program in the West.

If you really want to end this abuse, you need to start naming names of the ranches, start exposing the commercial value of their use of My Public Lands, and then start allowing sunshine to expose the rot in the system.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

If you really want to end this abuse, you need to start naming names of the ranches, start exposing the commercial value of their use of My Public Lands, and then start allowing sunshine to expose the rot in the system.

I'm going to have a nap and see if it passes, but I actually agree with something Cuervo has posted.

Better would be from someone else as BF has a status (that he'd probably like to keep) among the folks at Outdoor Channel. Knowledge is indeed power, and in this case it seems the only folks that know the letter of the law are the folks leveraging it for all it's worth, at the public's expense of course. Time to inform the masses and tilt the balance of power in our favor.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm going to have a nap and see if it passes, but I actually agree with something Cuervo has posted.

Now that is funny.

Better would be from someone else as BF has a status (that he'd probably like to keep) among the folks at Outdoor Channel.

If I have a status at the network, I wish I knew what that status was/is. Janitor? Waiter? Pain in the bottom?

Seriously, anyone who knows me knows I am not worried about ramifications from stating "who" or "where." So here is the "who" and the "where."

In this case, the "who" is the CO DOW Commission for passing such a stupid regulation. And the BLM for accepting the requests for enrollment.

As much as it chaps me that this can done by the RFW operators, they are doing something within the law, to increase their bottom line. It is hard to blame anyone for that.

The "where" is pretty obvious - any RFW properties in CO that have landlocked BLM that the BLM has agreed to have enrolled.

If you want to know which ranch surrounds the property I was looking into, it was the Three Forks Ranch in Unit 5. But, it could just as well have been any of the RFW ranches in Colorado that have enrolled BLM ground.

When the rules are set up that way, I expect people to take advantage of those rules. And I expect that people might want to know that such rules exist, so that is my purpose for posting here.

For me, it is not as much the fact that Three Forks has taken advantage of the rules, as much as it is the Commissioners who passed the stupid rule. And the fact that the Commissioners were swayed by an argument by a small group to inure benefit to that small group in handing them quasi ownership of a public resource.

Same applies for the BLM. They could deny those applications from landowners, but they chose not to. They even went to the effort of having some Big Auger guy send me a certified letter informing me of what the situation would be for this year. I suspect I represented the path of least resistance.

Wildlife in the US is no longer "The Kings Deer." Hasn't been since 1776. Wildlife in this country is held in trust for the citizens of the state, a principle know as the "Public Trust Doctrine." I wonder if the Commissioners of CO DOW know their duties as trustees of the public trust? Given their decision in this case, I would argue they do not.

I really wonder if this was done behind closed doors. My home state has some pretty serious Open Meeting laws, so anything like this would require public notice and public hearing. Maybe the same holds true in CO, and maybe such meetings and public comment were held.

At a minimum, you think CO DOW would put a notice in the regs that states public draw tags are not valid on public lands enrolled in the RFW program. That would prevent guys like me from burning points on a tag, only to find out that my tag is not valid for the public lands I want to hunt.

Yeah, I can get my refund, but don't get a point for the next year.

Hopefully threads like this make people more aware of how their public land and their public resources are used as a form of currency for payment to those most organized and making the biggest stink, and how public resources are used as a way to keep some appointees in political favor by giving away assets they don't own and have little regard for.

I wish I could say this is the first instance I have encountered where such sweet deals are made with our lands/habitat/wildlife being the "cash on the barrel head." I am sure many others have encountered the same, and probably worse.

The best thing we can do is let others know that this kind of stuff happens. Time to roll back the covers on some of these deals and help people realize what has been going on under those covers.

 

[1_pointer]

And the BLM for accepting the requests for enrollment.

Same applies for the BLM. They could deny those applications from landowners, but they chose not to.

Could you expand on this point a bit? In UT, there is nothing the federal agency can do or has to do to enroll lands into a CWMU. State owns the wildlife, therefore they get to draw the unit boundaries anywhere they please.

PS- The BLM better have pretty good backing in the CFR and/or LUP if denying an application.

 

[JoseCuervo]

In this case, the "who" is the CO DOW Commission for passing such a stupid regulation. And the BLM for accepting the requests for enrollment.

.

The "who" is NOT the CO-DOW, but, more than likely the "who" is the Welfare Ranchers who control the CO-DOW either by selection/influence of the Board or via legislators who appoint the Board.

Far too much of the West is allocated to the Welfare Ranchers, from water, forage, wildlife, etc. I was down on a ranch in Nevada this week that they were going out to cut out any of the young colts they wanted from the wild horses before the BLM rounds them up. If there is a resource on BLM grounds in the west, it is there for the exclusive benefit of the local Welfare Ranchers.

 

[Big Fin]

Could you expand on this point a bit? In UT, there is nothing the federal agency can do or has to do to enroll lands into a CWMU. State owns the wildlife, therefore they get to draw the unit boundaries anywhere they please.

PS- The BLM better have pretty good backing in the CFR and/or LUP if denying an application.

Per the BLM office in Craig, CO, the RFW operator must submit to the BLM for enrollment of BLM lands into the program. Happens in January of each year, due to the timing of how DOW does their RFW process. BLM is required to make an analysis of whether or not they will allow the permit to enroll said lands. I will PM or email you tomorrow with the contact people, as they can probable explain the details more precisely.

They made it very clear that they respond to any RFW enrollment request, and will accept or deny based on the criteria they have. Access being one of those criteria.

This happens via a special use permit application. per my understanding. If BLM approves the permit, the DOW then can allow the BLM lands to be part of the RFW operating base, and upon that process being completed, our public draw tags are no longer valid for those public lands.

It is possible I am missing some of the technicalities or proper terminology, but it is my understanding that both BLM and DOW are involved in the process by which public lands become enrolled in RFW operations and then become off limits for our public draw tags.

 

[mdhunter]

You are right on with this one Randy! Absolutely ridiculous...enough said.

 

[shoots-straight]

In Montana, there are many rules and regulations on lands. I wonder if those lands that are taken out of public hunting, then have to be replaced with that of equal or better, in the amount of acreage, and has to be made accessible elsewhere? Anyone know how Colorado stands on this? This should be easy to get the ball rolling on publicly.

 

[Big Fin]

I wonder if those lands that are taken out of public hunting, then have to be replaced with that of equal or better, in the amount of acreage, and has to be made accessible elsewhere? Anyone know how Colorado stands on this?

If that is the case in Colorado, such is not the way it was explained to me. There is no "Offset" requirement.

 

[Moe]

I second the idea to shoot a piece NOW on this issue!! And not wait till next year.

Just a freeform short-message in the woods/camo-clad on (hunter to hunter dialogue); just like your regular broadcasts; and with all the important info that folks need to hear. You have good delivery and on-screen presence Randy, plus your recognized as a trustworthy authority on hunting and sportsmen's issues.

I think just a short film on this subject would much more powerful and harder to dispute than simple posts on forums (with trolls around) and once produced and attached to your website; it would be easier for folks to be 'linked to this information' and possibly broadcast elsewhere on local news stations in Colorado/MT/ and elsewhere.

...Cant imagine it would take more than an afternoon to produce, and another to edit?

We need a strong voice to fight this and I think your the man to do it!!!

Moe