I don't really do anything other than make private snarky comments that gets Oak fired up
Ali needed Angelo Dundee. Frazier needed Yank Durham........... Oak needs Dinkshooter.
Private land bighorn sheep access program proposal
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Ali needed Angelo Dundee. Frazier needed Yank Durham........... Oak needs Dinkshooter.
So Oak, inquiring minds want more information. I understand the new access program was passed, but that I heard it might be in jeopardy due to legal concerns related to existing statute.
You have any updates or clarification about this?
You have any updates or clarification about this?
Big Fin, you heard correctly. As many of you may have surmised by the lack of posts to this thread or by my comments in the private lands transplant thread, landowners won the day on this issue and the Commission passed the new Bighorn Sheep Access Program (BSAP) in September.
As is standard practice, the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) reviewed the rule-making to ensure that the newly approved program did not conflict with existing statute. The OLLS concluded that the new BSAP created landowner preference for bighorn sheep (meaning that landowners could receive licenses without participating in the regular draw).
In reviewing the existing statutes regarding landowner preference, they found that the statute governing the Landowner Preference (voucher) Program (CRS 33-4-103) specifically excludes moose, Rocky Mountain goat, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and desert bighorn sheep. Further, the statute states that landowners enrolled in the landowner preference program shall not be denied game damage claims based on their participation in the landowner preference program. The newly created BSAP excludes participating landowners from making game damage claims for bighorn sheep.
The OLLS staff concluded that the new program creates landowner preference for bighorn sheep licenses and excluded landowners from filing game damage claims, in conflict with the existing LPP statute, so they recommended to the Committee on Legal Services (CLS) that they not extend the new rules. Also, they issued their opinion that the moose and bighorn sheep portions of the existing Ranching For Wildlife program did the same thing, so they recommended that the RFW rules pertaining to those two species also not be extended.
The CLS held a public hearing on Tuesday to consider the issue and take testimony. There happened to be a snowstorm on Tuesday (which actually delayed the hearing 1 hour), so I was not able to make the 4 hour one way trip to attend. I’m not sure how the testimony proceeded. I understand that several CPW staff testified, as well as a ranch manager from one of the newly enrolled ranches. I believe that CPW argued that the Commission is given the authority to create the access program under CRS 33-1-105, which gives the Commission the authority to enter into cooperative agreements with landowners, including those for public hunting and fishing areas. Specifically:
(g) Enter into agreements with landowners for public hunting and fishing
areas. Such agreements shall be negotiated by the commission or its authorized
agent and shall provide that, if the landowner opens the land under his control
to public hunting and fishing, the commission shall compensate him in
an amount to be determined by the parties to the agreement. Under the agreement,
the commission shall control public access to the land to prevent undue
damage and to properly manage attendant wildlife populations. In no event
shall the commission be liable for damages caused by the public other than
those specified in the agreement.
areas. Such agreements shall be negotiated by the commission or its authorized
agent and shall provide that, if the landowner opens the land under his control
to public hunting and fishing, the commission shall compensate him in
an amount to be determined by the parties to the agreement. Under the agreement,
the commission shall control public access to the land to prevent undue
damage and to properly manage attendant wildlife populations. In no event
shall the commission be liable for damages caused by the public other than
those specified in the agreement.
The OLLS staff had concluded that the natural interpretation of “shall compensate him in the amount to be determined” is monetary compensation, not license preference which is specifically excluded in the Landowner Preference Program statute. As I understand it, however, the CLS ruled at the hearing that the PWC did have the authority to create the BSAP under the statute allowing for cooperative agreements, and so chose to extend the BSAP and RFW rules. It seems to be a curious decision given that ALL other license preferences in the state (youth, LPP, disabled veterans, RFW, persons with life-threatening illnesses) have required legislative approval. At any rate, that was the decision that was made, so the BSAP lives on.
If you would like to read about the initial opinion of the OLLS staff, you may do so beginning on page 29 of the hearing agenda at this link.
I hope some day a book is written about how the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was slowly whittled away while sportsmen looked on.
Hmmm. "Curious" seems to be too soft of a word for that decision.
I do thank you for all you do in Colorado. Your effort, time, and financial sacrifices do make a differences, even if it seems like the odds are heavily stacked to the point of futility.
I do thank you for all you do in Colorado. Your effort, time, and financial sacrifices do make a differences, even if it seems like the odds are heavily stacked to the point of futility.
It's only going to get worse
I am new on this forum. I know several of you very well. My name is Brandon Wynn and I am from Albuquerque. The privatization of wildlife and hunting has been an issue that has been important to me and concerned me for quite a few years. I have really pissed off the NM State Game Commission and the politicians at the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish through my posts on social media, public comment at game commission meetings, and public comments at the state legislature about landowner permits, outfitter permits, and nonresident preferences. After many years of tracking and helping expose and trying to slow and reverse the expansion of private land permits in NM I have learned three things. First, as a group resident draw hunters don't do much to protect or reverse critical loss of our access of hunting lands and hunting permits. We just watch our permits get whittled away and about the best you can get out of most hunters is a few bitcings about not drawing. I need both hands and probably some toes to count the number of times I have gone to game commission meetings and been the only "just a (resident) hunter" in attendance and speaking up against critical matters that have huge and negative impacts to our ability to even go hunting. If you can't hunt you aren't going to be a hunter very much longer. Second, the privatization of hunting permits is expanding in my state and other states at an alarming rate. The New Mexici Wildlife Federation (NMWF) has probably done the best job of any organization in the country of documenting this expansion and also making public comment about it at game commission meetings and the legislature. Why every draw hunter in NM doesn't send them money and otherwise support them is incredible to me. We don't speak up for ourselves and have exactly one organization that speaks up for us and we don't support them. The NMWF is the original recipient of the false "green decoy" label. Third, Gane Commissions, Legislatures, and game and fish department political leaders are becoming more and more deaf to their resident hunters and more and more beholden to the moneyed interests of landowners and the outfitting industry. These three entities that control our very ability to hunt have reached the point were they are completely shameless when it comes to ignoring their public trust duties. It's no wonder that they have. We hunters have largely just stood by and let them do what they want. They have figured out that there are no consequences to their public hunter adverse actions. I have learned that complaining to the department, commission, and legislature is very ineffective. At least when so few of us are doing it. So this summer I spent thousands of my hard earned dollars to pay an attorney to do some research and give me an opinion as to the constitutionality of landowner permits in NM. His answer is that private land permits are probably unconstitutional in NM (and by extension many other western states). We have lost in the executive branch and the legislative branch. That leaves the judicial branch. I am very good at figuring out, quantifying, and articulating the loss of our hunting rights (permits). I am (so far) not good at organizing hunters to do something about it. In my opinion the privatization of our hunting rights will continue to expand and the only way we will stop it is through the courts. My good friends at the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society got a good taste of this this summer with the private sheep permits. I drove up to their commission meeting this summer and watched as their commission and department pretty much ignored them. It was very obvious that the decisions were made before the meeting. Public comment is largely a ruse. To the RMBS I say, welcome to my NM world. I have been telling you it's coming to Colorado for many years. It seems that it has fully arrived. It's going to get worse. A lot worse. Sorry.
We figure it will cost several hundred thousand dollars to bring a legal challenge to landowner permits in NM. If we pull it off it could be a tipping point for getting rid of landowner permits in other western states as well. In my opinion after years of involvement in the issue a legal challenge to the constitutionality of landowner permits in NM may be the best last hope for stemming the tide of privatization of hunting in all western states. Honestly, I do not know how to raise the money for the challenge but I'm working on it. As dramatic as it sounds, I think it's our only hope.
Brandon Wynn
Albuquerque
The opinions expressed herein are my own and they are correct and I proudly attach my name to them.
I am new on this forum. I know several of you very well. My name is Brandon Wynn and I am from Albuquerque. The privatization of wildlife and hunting has been an issue that has been important to me and concerned me for quite a few years. I have really pissed off the NM State Game Commission and the politicians at the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish through my posts on social media, public comment at game commission meetings, and public comments at the state legislature about landowner permits, outfitter permits, and nonresident preferences. After many years of tracking and helping expose and trying to slow and reverse the expansion of private land permits in NM I have learned three things. First, as a group resident draw hunters don't do much to protect or reverse critical loss of our access of hunting lands and hunting permits. We just watch our permits get whittled away and about the best you can get out of most hunters is a few bitcings about not drawing. I need both hands and probably some toes to count the number of times I have gone to game commission meetings and been the only "just a (resident) hunter" in attendance and speaking up against critical matters that have huge and negative impacts to our ability to even go hunting. If you can't hunt you aren't going to be a hunter very much longer. Second, the privatization of hunting permits is expanding in my state and other states at an alarming rate. The New Mexici Wildlife Federation (NMWF) has probably done the best job of any organization in the country of documenting this expansion and also making public comment about it at game commission meetings and the legislature. Why every draw hunter in NM doesn't send them money and otherwise support them is incredible to me. We don't speak up for ourselves and have exactly one organization that speaks up for us and we don't support them. The NMWF is the original recipient of the false "green decoy" label. Third, Gane Commissions, Legislatures, and game and fish department political leaders are becoming more and more deaf to their resident hunters and more and more beholden to the moneyed interests of landowners and the outfitting industry. These three entities that control our very ability to hunt have reached the point were they are completely shameless when it comes to ignoring their public trust duties. It's no wonder that they have. We hunters have largely just stood by and let them do what they want. They have figured out that there are no consequences to their public hunter adverse actions. I have learned that complaining to the department, commission, and legislature is very ineffective. At least when so few of us are doing it. So this summer I spent thousands of my hard earned dollars to pay an attorney to do some research and give me an opinion as to the constitutionality of landowner permits in NM. His answer is that private land permits are probably unconstitutional in NM (and by extension many other western states). We have lost in the executive branch and the legislative branch. That leaves the judicial branch. I am very good at figuring out, quantifying, and articulating the loss of our hunting rights (permits). I am (so far) not good at organizing hunters to do something about it. In my opinion the privatization of our hunting rights will continue to expand and the only way we will stop it is through the courts. My good friends at the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society got a good taste of this this summer with the private sheep permits. I drove up to their commission meeting this summer and watched as their commission and department pretty much ignored them. It was very obvious that the decisions were made before the meeting. Public comment is largely a ruse. To the RMBS I say, welcome to my NM world. I have been telling you it's coming to Colorado for many years. It seems that it has fully arrived. It's going to get worse. A lot worse. Sorry.
We figure it will cost several hundred thousand dollars to bring a legal challenge to landowner permits in NM. If we pull it off it could be a tipping point for getting rid of landowner permits in other western states as well. In my opinion after years of involvement in the issue a legal challenge to the constitutionality of landowner permits in NM may be the best last hope for stemming the tide of privatization of hunting in all western states. Honestly, I do not know how to raise the money for the challenge but I'm working on it. As dramatic as it sounds, I think it's our only hope.
Brandon Wynn
Albuquerque
The opinions expressed herein are my own and they are correct and I proudly attach my name to them.
I heard from a credible source today that "several" states have called to inquire about the new bighorn sheep access program here in hopes of doing something similar in their state. I'm not sure what states might have access issue for sheep...MT, WY, NM and OR perhaps. I will try to learn more.
Sometimes it is easier to just change the rules after you have broken them.
Case in point, the newly introduced SB-119.
Who do I yell at about this?
The bill sponsors are Sen. Mike Johnson and Rep. Tim Dore. I would start with them.
The bill has been assigned to the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy Committee. Members of that committee would be next on my list.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
NR get to apply for zero of these "new" sheep tags, correct?
Correct. NR can purchase the private licenses from the landowners: $40,000-$50,000.
