Colorado state trust land access

[theat]

signed and shared

 

[7mm08mo]

Done and signed it even if I don't make it to colorado for a few years. Kinda like the guns in my safe I don't always use every one but I need to know they are there for use.

 

[Jorgy]

I saw this the other day and started doing my own research as to how much money the state takes in from SLT and what kinds of properties we are talking about. I was initially looking for the number that Oak gave ($750k that comes from license fees for the small percentage sportsman can use) and could never find it. I also can't find any information on what the lease holders pay for the properties, just that they are 10 year leases and most are bid on

So, does anyone have any kind of guess at what the negative affect of this would be financially to the commission? Obviously it would be a guess, but I think should be discussed.

Not trying at all to throw a wrench into anything, just trying to be better informed. My first thought is that a decent percentage of "sportsman" are complete jackwagons and that their feet/wheels/beer bottles on those properties is going to drive down the price that the commission does get for the leases. I don't know if we are talking about a million dollars we will need to replace somehow, or 100 million?

Any thoughts?

 

[recon6036]

Signed & shared

 

[Mudranger1]

I saw this the other day and started doing my own research as to how much money the state takes in from SLT and what kinds of properties we are talking about. I was initially looking for the number that Oak gave ($750k that comes from license fees for the small percentage sportsman can use) and could never find it. I also can't find any information on what the lease holders pay for the properties, just that they are 10 year leases and most are bid on

So, does anyone have any kind of guess at what the negative affect of this would be financially to the commission? Obviously it would be a guess, but I think should be discussed.

Not trying at all to throw a wrench into anything, just trying to be better informed. My first thought is that a decent percentage of "sportsman" are complete jackwagons and that their feet/wheels/beer bottles on those properties is going to drive down the price that the commission does get for the leases. I don't know if we are talking about a million dollars we will need to replace somehow, or 100 million?

Any thoughts?

I am curious about the money as well but either way if the wildlife is a public resource it shouldn't be controlled by a person that is leasing public land IMO

 

[Big Fin]

In Montana, we fund the access program by a Hunting Access Fee that allows you to hunt all state lands. I just buy the entire bundle of everything, but I think the Access fee is like $6 for residents and $10 for non-residents. Multiply that by the 100K+ hunters you have in CO, probably more than that given how many NRs you host, and that's enough dough to make the State Land Board pay attention. After all, the State Land Board is charged with maximizing revenue from these lands. If they can get the access revenue higher via a program through CPW, seems they would be Constitutionally mandated to do so.

Seems, CPW should be able to negotiate a better deal collectively on behalf of all hunters. Hopefully CPW isn't folding the tent when negotiating for the current access they do pay for. I know other states pay the State Land Board for access and they get a lot more bang for the buck than what CPW is getting CO hunters for the $750K they are currently paying.

 

[Oak]

I saw this the other day and started doing my own research as to how much money the state takes in from SLT and what kinds of properties we are talking about. I was initially looking for the number that Oak gave ($750k that comes from license fees for the small percentage sportsman can use) and could never find it. I also can't find any information on what the lease holders pay for the properties, just that they are 10 year leases and most are bid on

So, does anyone have any kind of guess at what the negative affect of this would be financially to the commission? Obviously it would be a guess, but I think should be discussed.

Not trying at all to throw a wrench into anything, just trying to be better informed. My first thought is that a decent percentage of "sportsman" are complete jackwagons and that their feet/wheels/beer bottles on those properties is going to drive down the price that the commission does get for the leases. I don't know if we are talking about a million dollars we will need to replace somehow, or 100 million?

Any thoughts?

All of the information you seek is available, but you will have to ask the SLB for it.

The data I have is from 2013, so it is a little dated. Likely not much different now, however.

Recreational leases are available on nearly all STL. These are non-exclusive leases, and the SLB can and does issue leases for other uses such as grazing and crop production. In 2013 approximately 5% of all STL had recreational leases to private parties. These are issued through competitive bidding, and ranged from $2.00/acre (the minimum lease rate) to $27.00/acre in 2013. The average lease rate back then was $3.17/acre.

The CPW leasing of STL is known as the Public Access Program. It started in 1993 and initially was handled through an MOU between the SLB and CDOW. It was converted to a formal lease agreement in 2003. The SLB offers lands to CPW at a reduced rate, which was $1.64/acre for the 2013-2014 leases. This is adjusted annually with the CPI.

To your question of how much the SLB stands to lose...I don't have those numbers, but we can do a quick calculated guess with the numbers above. There are 3,998,227 acres of STL in the state. If they lease 5% for recreation at an average of $3.17/acre, that would amount to a little more than $632,000 a year.

 

[Mudranger1]

All of the information you seek is available, but you will have to ask the SLB for it.

The data I have is from 2013, so it is a little dated. Likely not much different now, however.

Recreational leases are available on nearly all STL. These are non-exclusive leases, and the SLB can and does issue leases for other uses such as grazing and crop production. In 2013 approximately 5% of all STL had recreational leases to private parties. These are issued through competitive bidding, and ranged from $2.00/acre (the minimum lease rate) to $27.00/acre in 2013. The average lease rate back then was $3.17/acre.

The CPW leasing of STL is known as the Public Access Program. It started in 1993 and initially was handled through an MOU between the SLB and CDOW. It was converted to a formal lease agreement in 2003. The SLB offers lands to CPW at a reduced rate, which was $1.64/acre for the 2013-2014 leases. This is adjusted annually with the CPI.

To your question of how much the SLB stands to lose...I don't have those numbers, but we can do a quick calculated guess with the numbers above. There are 3,998,227 acres of STL in the state. If they lease 5% for recreation at an average of $3.17/acre, that would amount to a little more than $632,000 a year.

what is going on with the other 95%

 

[Oak]

what is going on with the other 95%

There is nearly 80% remaining when you subtract what the CPW leases. It is likely leased for other purposes (ag), but does not have recreational leases. I seriously doubt that there is no hunting occurring on those lands with no recreational leases. The ag lessees likely treat it like private property.

 

[Mudranger1]

I know land ownership maps show a ton of state land just east of Colorado Springs that is all posted as private property and not available to hunt per CPW

 

[vanish]

There is nearly 80% remaining when you subtract what the CPW leases. It is likely leased for other purposes (ag), but does not have recreational leases. I seriously doubt that there is no hunting occurring on those lands with no recreational leases. The ag lessees likely treat it like private property.

This is exactly the case. I know because I researched these lands a bunch before pronghorn season this year. There are several kinds of leases, some of which grant recreational rights along with others, but most of the newer ( > 2009 ) leases are very specific (I had talked to a very helpful person at the SLB on the phone). All the leases are listed right on the SLB website. However, a lot of the parties leasing this land have no real idea about what their rights are ... how do I know? I called many of the people leasing property, trying to find a place to access for hunting. Some of them did NOT have the rights for certain parcels, but still told me they already had people hunting the land that year.

In the end I found a very nice person who granted me access to their lease (that DID have the actual rights), along with a couple other people, but it was 32,000 acres ... Amazingly, we tagged out on open public land before we even set foot on the property.

 

[Jfelkins]

Signed and shared!

 

[Oak]

Access to state trust land sought

Surveys indicate that lack of public access is the top reason hunters cite for abandoning sporting traditions.

This information has fueled an attempt by a group called Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) to open state trust lands in Colorado to sportsmen.

BHA is working to craft a bipartisan-supported bill to be introduced in Colorado’s coming legislative session. Specifics are still being ironed out, but the hope is that hunters and anglers would gain access to state trust lands free of charge for at least a portion of the year.

 

[James Riley]

Signed.

"Surveys indicate that lack of public access is the top reason hunters cite for abandoning sporting traditions."

I think, ancillary to that point, is the growing population. Colorado has over 5 million people. The Governor opined that it will have over 10 million by 2050. If a proportional ratio of those people hunt, forget it. I quit. I see too many (one is too many) other hunters as it is.

We need more public access to more public lands just to dilute the human herd.

 

[BeardedBoar]

As a sportsman who is loves hunting around the west I have signed and shared. Cheers