General Provisions

As a member of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, I was more then surprised to learn (just) late yesterday afternoon about the proposed regulation changes for State Wildlife Area (SWA) General Provisions! I do not know when CPW proposed these regulation changes, when this information was made available to the public or when the public comment period began. I know that the public comment period closed yesterday and despite the fact that I have not yet read the entirety of the 85 page document outlining the proposed regulation changes I feel it is of great importance for me to submit my brief, albeit late, Public Comment.
My comment being a request for CPW to extend the public comment period for at least 30 if not 45 days. My request not only being supported but also justified by the need for a much broader, more expansive and inclusive public notification of these proposed regulation changes. In other words, if I as a County Commissioner was not aware of this until yesterday, then how many members of the general public are not aware of this and they need to and should be made aware of this and given the opportunity to provide public comment.
Your serious consideration and approval of my requests as above would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you and sincerely,
Patti Clapper
Pitkin County Commissioner

Hello. Regarding the proposed changes, I respect the effort to "protect" or "manage" wildlife so it thrives. And I understand that wildlife is a monetized commodity to a certain extent, generating revenue for CPW through sale of hunting and fishing licenses. My reaction to your rule changes however are that CPW, with some sites, is that you are proposing punitive and reactive measures aimed directly at the recreational boating community, singling out that use in particular at these sites. I object specifically to the loss of simple recreational boat launching and take out at the two Roaring Fork River SWA's - Sam Caudill in Glenwood and Bob Terrell in Carbondale. You will be effectively cutting off a cherished and important lifestyle activity that many have enjoyed for DECADES in one fell swoop. Could this have been a conversation with City of Glenwood or Town of Carbondale, a set of public hearings, some active problem solving? You may not realize this is discriminatory towards families and others out for a weekend float. Most of the fishing guide groups we float by don't seem perturbed. What is fueling this - parking problems? This doesn't seem to be a wildlife preservation issue at all, but related to other management issues. Ask the local public to help with the problem solving (and not just Garfield County Commissioners). Please a do a better job with preserving these VERY popular and RARE river access sites for ALL. Those two sites are so small in size and the rest of the river is not SWA and is still very alive and vital and never a float goes by where we don't see herons, other fish, ungulates or water mammals like a fisher or beaver. Land in the Roaring Fork Valley is priced for millionaires, and we regular people just want to go for a float now and then. But in the meantime, I guess I'll get my old fishing poles out of the garage, get a license instead of a habitat stamp (which I have for boating) and tie that rod in so I can be an eligible watercraft?
Thank you for please stepping back for a second on this and try harder for a fix and not just accommodate $$$ fishing guides and clients. You are impacting a wide swath of people here from families to old school paddlers. Thanks for your thoughtful and slowed-down consideration.

Removed by moderator.

This will have detrimental effects on culture, livelihoods, and overall quality of life for so many people. Not fair.

Well now...this should go over like a fart in church

You should allow non-motirized boaters to use these areas for access to recreational boating. Using these areas for out-ins and take-outs does not interfere with fishing or hunting. You should not exclude user groups in this way. I have held a fishing license and various hunting licenses in Colorado for the past 12 years.

May 24, 2023

Via Engage CPW Website (https://engagecpw.org/hub-page/state-wildlife-areas)

Heather Dugan
Acting Director
Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission
6060 Broadway
Denver, CO 80216

Re: Proposed Regulation Changes to Chapter W-9, State Wildlife Areas

INTRODUCTION

Dear Acting Director Dugan,
Friends of Animals submits the comments on the proposed changes to Chapter W-9 of Colorado State Regulations. Friends of Animals is concerned that the proposed regulations prohibit several wildlife related recreational activities but make exceptions for hunting or fishing that allow these activities to occur.

Prohibitions on dogs entering SWAs, on vessels entering the water, and even on overall public access to SWAs all have exceptions for hunting and fishing. None of these exceptions have been justified by the regulations or policy statements introduced alongside the regulations.

CPW should protect the wildlife and their habitat that exist on SWAs. Instead, CPW may actually be harming wildlife and their habitat by arbitrarily favoring the activities of hunters and fishers who kill and remove wildlife from SWAs. These unjustified exceptions to the proposed regulations may also violate multiple state laws.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Colorado Revised Statutes declare that wildlife “are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people” of Colorado. The statutes mention hunting, trapping, and fishing only as “the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.”
Colorado Revised Statues define an SWA as being “for the benefit of wildlife populations or for wildlife-related recreation.” Similarly, CPW itself admits that SWAs are “managed under state law by Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees for the benefit of wildlife.” While the statutes do not define “recreation,” surely the definition of a “benefit” to wildlife cannot include the killing wildlife.

Yet, the proposed regulation is focused largely on increasing access for hunting and fishing to the detriment of wildlife and other wildlife related recreation. The proposed regulation also seem to largely ignore the other statutory definition of SWAs, which is that they should benefit wildlife populations. Importantly, while CPW is directed by state statute to manage hunting programs, “[s]uch objectives shall employ a multiple-use concept of management.”
SWAs offer “wildlife-related recreation,” which CPW almost always uses as a euphemism for hunting and fishing. However, this phrase should also include wildlife-watching and other non-consumptive forms of recreation related to wildlife as acceptable activities. CPW should not treat SWAs as public game preserves which increasingly prioritize killing over non-consumptive forms of wildlife recreation. The proposed regulations conflict with the directive given to CPW under state statutes as well as CPW’s own policies. These areas must include acceptable uses of wildlife-related recreation that do not solely mean hunting, fishing, or trapping.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS

CPW states that, over the past 7-8 years, “negative impacts” to wildlife have increased in SWAs, and that the primary reason CPW purchases SWAs is the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habits. Under the guise of addressing these impacts, CPW has proposed a number of updates to general provisions in Chapter W-9 of Colorado regulations. However, the letter supporting the proposed changes does not discuss the alleged impacts themselves or how the proposed regulations address those impacts.

The proposed regulations allow dogs “while actively hunting, training for hunting or during Division licensed field trials.” These hunting dogs can remain off leash. However, the proposed changes prohibit the presence of all other dogs on SWAs who are not engaged in the act of hunting, even if they are leashed. This represents a drastic change from the currently allowed presence of leashed dogs.

The proposed regulations also prohibit the use of any vessel out on the water, except when those vessels are being used for hunting or fishing. Even low-impact vessels like kayaks and paddleboards would be prohibited under the proposed regulations. The regulations contain no explanation why vessels are allowed for hunting or fishing but are not allowed for other forms of wildlife-related recreation.
Additionally, the property-specific proposed regulations create a great number of prohibitions that have exceptions for hunting or fishing. These exceptions prevent people from engaging in certain activities, or even accessing SWAs at all, unless they are engaged in the recreational killing of wildlife.

CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

1. By continuing to prioritize the desires of hunters and fishers over the needs of wildlife or other, non-consumptive wildlife-related recreationalists, the proposed regulations have violated C.R.S. § 33-1-104.

Most of the activities CPW authorizes on SWAs favor people who kill wildlife, either with a gun, a bow, a fishing line, or a trap. However, this excludes another important use of wildlife: peaceful observation of wildlife in their natural state.

This narrow focus conflicts with Colorado Revised Statutes, which require a “multiple-use” concept of management. By focusing only on hunting, CPW neglects the experience of wildlife-watching. Even worse, allowing additional killing of animals prevents wildlife-watchers from engaging in this activity. Wildlife watchers do not go out into SWAs to “watch” wildlife get shot, or suffocate, or trapped in a snare. Even if these non-consumptive users do not witness these activities directly, allowing more hunting, fishing, and trapping removes the possibility for wildlife watchers to witness wildlife at all.

Furthermore, wildlife-related recreation encompasses many other activities that people engage in while viewing wildlife. People camp to get up early and view wildlife, paddle-boarders enjoy seeing fish in their natural habitat, and hikers enjoy encountering a variety of wildlife even when staying on designated trails. The proposed regulations imply that these activities negatively impact wildlife. Yet, the regulations make exceptions for these exact activities when it comes to hunting and fishing.

For example, the proposed general regulations prohibit non-motorized bicycles, but makes an exception for game carts laden with hunted wildlife. The proposed regulations prohibit the launching of vessels—even human-powered craft such as kayaks or paddle-boards—except when those vessels are being used for fishing or hunting. The property-specific regulations contain numerous examples of prohibiting activities while making exceptions for hunting or fishing, such as:

• the use of firearms (Adams SWA, Banner Lakes SWA, Bergen Peak SWA, Big Thompson Ponds SWA, Bill Patterson SWA, Bodo SWA, Boedecker Reservoir SWA, Bosque del Oso SWA, Brower SWA, Brownlee SWA, Brush Prairie Ponds SWA, Centennial Valley SWA, Christina SWA, Chubb Park Ranch SWA, Cline Ranch SWA, Coalbed Canyon SWA, Collins Mountain Ranch SWA, Colorado River Island SWA, Colorow Mountain SWA, Cowdrey Lake SWA, Crooked Wash SWA, Cross Canyon SWA, Delaney Butte Lakes SWA, Devil Creek SWA, Diamond J SWA, Echo Canyon SWA, Flanders Ranch SWA, Frank SWA, Franklin Island SWA, Garfield Creek SWA, Grieve Ranch Conservation Easement, Gunnison River SWA, Haviland SWA, Hot Sulphur Springs SWA, Indian Run SWA, Jackson Lake SWA, Jensen SWA, Joe Moore Reservoir SWA, Jumbo [Julesberg] SWA, Knudson SWA, Lake John SWA, Lake Pueblo SWA, Louisiana Purchase SWA, Mitanti-Tokuyasu SWA, Mogensen Pond SWA, Nakagawa SWA, Perins Peak SWA, Plateau Creek SWA, Pot Creek SWA, Pothook Ranch SWA, Poudre River SWA, Ralston Creek SWA, Ramah SWA, Sandstage SWA, Sarvis Creek SWA, Seymour Lake SWA, West Rifle Creek SWA, Williams Creek Reservoir SWA, Yampa River SWA, Yarmony Ranch SWA),

• camping (Apishapa SWA, Basalt SWA, Billy Creek SWA, Bosque del Oso SWA, Dowdy Lake SWA, Dry Creek Basin SWA, Fish Creek SWA, Flagler Reservoir SWA, Garfield Creek SWA, Gunnison, Hot Creek SWA, Huerfano SWA, Hugo SWA, James M. John SWA, James Mark Jones SWA, Jim Olterman/Lone Cone SWA, Karval Reservoir SWA, Kinney Lake SWA, La Jara Reservoir SWA, La Jara SWA, Little Snake SWA, Mount Evans SWA, Perins Peak SWA, Plateau Creek SWA, Playa Blanca SWA, Rio Grande SWA, Russel Lakes SWA, Sanchez Reservoir SWA, San Luis Hills SWA, Sarvis Creek SWA, Sego Springs SWA, Shriver-Wright SWA, Stalker Lake SWA, West Rifle Creek SWA),
• recreational activities other than hunting/fishing (Atwood SWA, Bravo SWA, Cottonwood SWA, Dune Ridge SWA, Elliot SWA, Jean K. Tool SWA, Messex SWA, Overland Trail SWA, Pony Express SWA, Sedgwick Bar SWA, Tamarack Ranch SWA),

• water vessels (Atwood SWA, Banner Lakes SWA, Big Thompson Ponds SWA, Deweese Reservoir SWA, Jerry Creek Reservoirs SWA, John Martin Reservoir SWA, Parachute Ponds SWA, Parvin Lake SWA, Red Lion SWA, Rosemont Reservoir SWA, Runyon/Fountain Lake SWA, Turk’s Pond SWA),
• horse use (Cherokee SWA, Dome Rock SWA, Eagle Rock SWA, Knudson SWA, Wellington SWA),

• bicycle use (San Luis Lakes SWA),

• snowmobile use (Deweese Reservoir SWA, Groundhog Reservoir SWA, Williams Creek Reservoir SWA), and

• public access (Banner Lakes SWA, Basalt SWA, Beaver Creek SWA, Big Thompson Ponds SWA, Billy Creek SWA, Bodo SWA, Boedecker Reservoir SWA, Brower SWA, Brush SWA, Centennial Valley SWA, Cerro Summit SWA, Chuck Lewis SWA, Coal Creek SWA, Cochetopa SWA, Cross Canyon SWA, Dawn Pond SWA, Diamond J SWA, Douglas Reservoir SWA, Emeral Mountain SWA, Escalante SWA, Garfield Creek SWA, Granada SWA, Gunnison SWA, Gypsum Ponds SWA, Heckendorf SWA, Home Lake SWA, Horse Creek Reservoir SWA, Horsethief Canyon SWA, Jackson Lake SWA, Knudson SWA, Lake Dorothey SWA, Letha Jean Stassen SWA, Lon Hagler SWA, Mount Evans SWA, North Fork SWA, Oak Ridge SWA, Paddock SWA, Perins Peak SWA, Roeber SWA, Runyon/Fountain Lakes SWA, Simpson Ponds SWA, Thurston Reservoir SWA, Tomichi Creek SWA, Webster SWA, Whitehorse SWA, Wind in the Willows SWA).

These numerous exceptions for hunting and fishing to otherwise prohibited activities is arbitrary and capricious and conflicts with the “multiple-use” concept of management required by C.R.S. § 33-1-104.

2. Free-roaming dogs can be destructive to non-target wildlife, an act prohibited by current regulations, so CPW should not allow their use when hunting.

Hunting with dogs can disturb and displace non-target species. Studies have demonstrated that hunting with dogs can cause animals to alter their behavior, even when hunters do not hunt those species. Other studies have shown that hunting with dogs caused the decline of wildlife populations.

Free-roaming dogs can also hunt and kill small animals who are not the target of hunting. Yet, the proposed regulation allows the full use of dogs while hunting in SWAs. Allowing more dogs to hunt while off-leash would increase the risk that these dogs attack and/or kill non-target wildlife. While dogs can directly kill small animals like squirrels and birds, even just chasing or injuring the animals can be a detriment to wildlife. Moreover, using dogs to hunt certain species, such as black bears, is prohibited. Allowing dogs to hunt in so many SWAs increases the risk that dogs will be used to hunt prohibited species and that dogs will harm or kill protected wildlife.

Dogs also negatively impact bird populations because the birds see dogs as potential predators. Off-leash dogs disturb nesting sites and alter the behavior of birds. This can affect birds more than other species because birds often rely on specific habitats for nesting or breeding. A single unleashed dog that actively disturbs a colony can cause the whole group to abandon their nest. Dogs who are unrestrained typically move in more unpredictable ways. Because their direction and speed vary frequently, dogs cause surrounding wildlife to view their presence as more threatening.

Even the habitat that SWAs are designed to protect can be negatively affected by off-leash dogs. First, dogs can trample vegetation that sustains habitat for wildlife. Dogs naturally dig and scratch, and allowing these behaviors unabated can remove vegetation that wildlife rely on.

Second, dog feces from unleashed hunting dogs also negatively impact wild areas that SWAs should protect. Their impact largely stems from their diet, which includes foods rich in nutrients. Excess nutrients are deposited into the surrounding ecosystem when dogs’ waste does not get picked up. Nutrients find their way into rivers, lakes, and streams, causing algal blooms and fostering invasive weeds. Even the bacteria present in dog feces can find its way into the environment. In fact, a study of air samples in Cleveland and Detroit found that 10-50% of the bacteria in the air came from dog feces. Dogs who are off-leash have a much lower chance of their guardians cleaning up after them, meaning that their presence impacts the environment much more than leashed dogs.

CPW should focus on the SWA’s primary purpose: protecting wildlife and habitat. The use of hunting dogs is detrimental to wildlife and surrounding habitat. CPW should match its actions with its stated policy that providing hunting and fishing areas is only a “secondary benefit.” Instead, the proposed regulation treats these SWAs as areas that primarily exist for humans to kill wildlife. Allowing the use of dogs in hunting can only affect wildlife in negative ways that impact wildlife far more negatively than leashed dogs. Thus, by allowing hunters to use dogs in SWAs, the proposed regulation makes it more likely that people will harm wildlife and negatively impact the habitat within SWAs. The proposed regulations do not explain why allowing dogs to remain off-leash while hunting is acceptable given these risks.

3. Keeping dogs on leashes minimizes the risk that dogs can pose to wildlife, and CPW has acted arbitrarily and capriciously by straying from previous regulations, which required all dogs be leashed on SWAs.

CPW allows many activities that have a possibility to negatively impact SWAs. These activities include allowing ATVs or snowmobiles (Adams SWA. Groundhog Reservoir SWA, Holly State SWA, John Martin Reservoir SWA), target practice (Arikaree SWA, Sand Draw SWA), shooting ranges (Basalt SWA), and night hunting with artificial light (Karney Ranch SWA). These activities combine with the negative impacts associated with the use of dogs in hunting mentioned above.

However, the negative impacts from dogs stem from dogs who run loose and unsupervised. This includes dogs used in hunting, who are almost always off-leash. Responsible dog-walking includes both staying on marked paths and keeping dogs on a leash. These prevent the harmful impacts caused by allowing dogs in sensitive wildlife areas.

The proposed regulations do not explain why negative impacts from leashed dogs exist in SWAs. Nor do they explain why the known negative effects of off-leash dogs do not present an issue when dogs are used during recreational hunting. Yet, the proposed regulations restrict dog access of any kind, except for hunting, on almost all SWAs. The proposed regulations also authorize dog training and field trials in dozens of SWAs. So, we end up with a paradoxical situation in which CPW claims that even leashed dogs produce negative impacts, while allowing off-leash dogs to aid in hunting. The latter produces many known negative impacts on wildlife.

CPW has not explained these discrepancies and thus promulgating the proposed regulations would be an arbitrary and capricious decision. The decision to prohibit leashed dogs, while at the same time allowing off-leash dogs, is unsupported by any competent evidence.

4. CPW should look at additional alternatives that could address the alleged negative impacts without favoring hunting and fishing.

CPW should analyze alternatives to the heavy-handed approach of barring presence of dogs, whole classes of activities, or even human presence when not hunting or fishing. As an initial manner, CPW should actually identify and disclose what “negative impacts” are alleged to exist on SWAs in an effort to address those impacts.

For example, whole areas could and should be closed if human impacts are taking a toll on SWAs. The SWAs were designed to protect habitat and wildlife, and not just provide wildlife-related recreation. This contrasts with the general attitude of the proposed regulations, which seem to favor and allow hunting and fishing at the expense of both wildlife themselves and other forms of wildlife-related recreation. It should go without saying that those who are engaging in killing wildlife present more negative impacts than those who peacefully enjoy wildlife.

Additionally, CPW should make efforts to enforce the rules as they currently exist. More signs and law enforcement presence should occur to ensure that people are following the law. This will get rid of the need for additional and unfair regulations. Requiring SWA access pass or the proper hunting/fishing license should take priority over completing barring individuals from these lands. Littering can impact wildlife in negative ways, so CPW should pursue the idea of installing more trash bins and creating methods to fine people who do litter. While much of this ire is directed towards non-consumptive users, hunters and fishers leave plenty of trash in the form of shotgun shells, fishing lines, and lures, all of which negatively impact SWAs.

CONCLUSION

Friends of Animals urges CPW to ensure that its actions abide with the statutes of Colorado as well as the regulations CPW itself has promulgated. As they currently stand, the proposed regulations likely violate at least multiple statutes, including both wildlife-specific statutes and the Colorado State Administrative Procedure Act.
CPW has a responsibility to care for the wildlife of Colorado, and all of its citizens, but its current actions favor only a small minority of citizens over the needs of everyone else. The proposed regulations do not attempt to justify the rampant exceptions handed out to hunters and fishers. Other possible regulations and efforts can replace the heavy-handed approach shown to non-hunters and non-fishers, as well as the arbitrary favoritism demonstrated toward hunters and fishers.


Sincerely,
Adam Kreger
Staff Attorney
Friends of Animals
Wildlife Law Program
Western Region Office
7500 E. Arapahoe Rd., Suite 385
Centennial, CO 80112
adam.kreger@friendsofanimals.org

CPW introduced its 2023 proposed regulatory updates with its long-held (2007) policy statement on use of State Wildlife Areas (SWAs):
[1] “SWAs are purchased for a number of reasons, the primary one being to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat needs.
[2] A secondary benefit is providing areas for wildlife-related recreation (hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching).
[3] When not in conflict with the prior purposes, SWAs also provide opportunities for other forms of recreation.”

In formulating its proposed changes to its general provisions/prohibitions and property-specific permits and prohibitions, CPW notes that “The [SWA working] group focused on updating prohibitions that will positively influence wildlife and wildlife needs, and support wildlife-related recreation.”

Given these stated purposes of SWAs and the intention for the regulatory changes, I believe the proposed regulations unfairly prioritize use of SWAs by hunters and fishers while disenfranchising non-consumptive uses of the areas (recognized in part 3 of the policy statement), especially wildlife-related non-consumptive uses (recognized as secondary uses of the areas along with hunting and fishing in part 2). It is absurd to imply that a bird watcher canoeing on a SWA lake damages wildlife or wildlife habitat if boaters flogging for fish or blasting waterfowl out of the sky are acceptable uses that “conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat needs.”

The default on SWA management should be to permit the activity, e.g., use of a vessel, unless the specific needs of the SWA require limiting that use. If location or timing restrictions are needed to protect special habitat values, such as nesting areas, or during critical periods of the year, then the access of all users should be limited in those places or at those critical times to protect these values. A raft launching at Coller SWA and floating the RioGrande poses no more threat to wildlife or its habitat than the fisherman launching at and floating that same river section. That said, not all non-consumptive activities have the same impact on wildlife and its habitat. If motorized vessels or vehicles, off-leash dogs, camping, or other activities are incompatible with conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat (part 1 of the policy statement), they should be prohibited – for hunters, fishers, wildlife watchers and other recreationists alike.

In summary, having established the SWA Access Pass in 2020-21, CPW cannot justify favoring the hunting/fishing license holder over the wildlife watcher or other non-consumptive recreationist with their respective pass. If there is a need to limit the number of users to protect the resources, limit all users rather than discriminating against the non-consumptive users.

While hunting and fishing licenses and equipment excise taxes have – to date – paid the lion’s share for purchase and maintenance of SWAs, it is time to recognize that non-consumptive users have stepped up to contribute and deserve to be treated fairly – not as second-class citizens on any of our state owned/managed lands.

K Mutz

Dear Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,

The undersigned organizations appreciate this opportunity to engage in proposed changes to the general and site specific provisions regulating use on our State Wildlife Areas.

About American Whitewater
American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)(3) river conservation organization founded in 1954 with approximately 80,000 supporters, 7,000 dues-paying members, and 80 local-based affiliate clubs, representing whitewater enthusiasts across the nation. American Whitewater’s mission is to protect and restore America’s whitewater rivers and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. The organization is the primary advocate for the preservation and protection of whitewater rivers throughout the United States, and connects the interests of human-powered recreational river users with ecological and science-based data to achieve the goals within its mission. Our vision is that our nation’s remaining wild and free-flowing rivers stay that way, our developed rivers are restored to function and flourish, that the public has access to rivers for recreation, and that river enthusiasts are active and effective river advocates. Our conservation ethic is fostered through accessibility to rivers and the opportunity to connect to the flora and fauna river systems support.

American Whitewater provided comments on the proposed SWA pass in March of 2021 and engaged with partners in the human-powered recreation community to advocate for a collaborative process that would allow recreational access for as many Coloradans as possible. In those comments, we asked that a handful of state wildlife properties be looked at more closely for realistic compatibility for all forms of recreation. We are thankful that some of the river access sites identified in that letter have been recognized for their utility in providing boat launches for non-consumptive recreational users.

About the International Mountain Biking Association

IMBA is a national, 501c3 non-profit organization dedicated to keeping trails open for mountain bicycling and expanding mountain bicycling opportunities through a network of 229 IMBA Local partner organizations across the country representing 40,000 mountain biking members. IMBA teaches and encourages low-impact riding, grassroots advocacy, sustainable trail design, innovative land management practices and cooperation among trail user groups. IMBA’s mission is to create, enhance and protect great places to ride mountain bikes. To accomplish this, IMBA is focused on creating more trails close to home (wherever home may be) to grow the quantity and quality of mountain bike trail communities across the U.S., so everyone has access to close-to-home rides and iconic backcountry experiences.

About Colorado Mountain Club

The Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) was founded in 1912 as a recreation, education, and conservation organization with a goal to facilitate and advocate for safe and sustainable human-powered recreation. CMC represents hikers, climbers, mountaineers, backcountry skiers, as well as wildlife enthusiasts and public land supporters. CMC has a long history of working closely with Colorado Parks & Wildlife and federal and local land managers on access issues, trail stewardship, habitat conservation, and more. CMC also works closely with a variety of outdoor recreation, stewardship, and conservation partners across the state. Through advocacy and stewardship, CMC works to preserve and enhance human-powered recreation in balance with natural resource conservation on Colorado's public lands by promoting sustainable recreation, protecting wild lands, creating, and maintaining access to Colorado’s best places for recreation, and engaging in stewardship in the places that hold so much meaning for our members.

CMC previously participated in the SWA work group process and submitted comments on the SWA pass in January and March of 2021. In our prior comments, CMC requested that CPW consider other ways to balance recreation and conservation values at state wildlife areas. Additionally, CMC stated our concerns about the impact the pass requirement could have on access to important and valuable recreation opportunities on state wildlife properties, access to adjacent public land, and on local communities.


General Comments on Process

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our feedback on the proposed CPW regulation changes for chapter W-9. The human powered recreation community has great interest in this issue and have been engaged either directly or through partners in the process of establishing new regulations and passes to access state wildlife areas. It has been unclear whether the working group convened and eventually proposed a new SWA pass was reconvened to develop these proposed regulation changes. The implementation of this pass seemed a reasonable path forward to cost sharing for management of sites used by a diverse group of users. The proposed changes specifically exclude users who were at the table in helping to conceive of the SWA pass.

We request the CPW take an interim step before enacting these regulation changes that would allow for a focus on the types of use different properties can support, with a focus on conserving all kinds of casual recreation in addition to hunting and fishing. Below there are SWA sites listed that provide important and existing access to boaters, hikers, and bikers participating in low impact activities.

Comments on Article I - General Provisions #900 - Regulations Applicable to all Wildlife Properties, except State Trust Lands

We have concerns about some of the proposed changes to the general provisions. There seems to be a lack of coordination with affected users groups with proposed regulation changes impacting resource uses that are not active hunting or fishing.

The proposal that would prohibit the use of vessels “except those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting” draws boundaries on activities that are unclear and difficult to enforce. For example, does an angler need to have their line in the water as they are pushing off from the boat ramp at the Creede SWA to avoid a ticket? This regulation requires that managers must distinguish between the rafter that brought along a fishing rod to avoid a fine and someone preparing to fish downstream, resulting in potentially harmful and impactful judgment calls. Distinguishing between these two users, with the same impact, is arbitrary.

These wildlife properties are to prioritize wildlife related activities like hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching and allow for other activities as long as they don’t interfere. As the regulation states, “special uses may only be allowed if: a. such use will not adversely impact wildlife resources or habitat; b. such use will not interfere with wildlife-related recreational uses of the state wildlife area by members of the general public.” This proposal goes beyond reducing interference and elevates the importance of consumptive recreation activities above other uses, even above those still wildlife related, that these sites could support. Experiencing rivers and their wildlife from a boat is compatible with the uses of these sites, and these proposed regulations unnecessarily restrict this type of wildlife related recreational use.

The restriction of bicycle use on rights of way designated for motor vehicles or camping and parking areas similarly restricts and inappropriately categorizes that recreational use as impactful as motorized vehicles. The restricting of bicycles (mechanized use) to roads will have an unnecessary deleterious effect on the 20 miles of trails that are currently open to bikes across the nine SWAs as listed below.

Further, the new proposed prohibition on fixed climbing anchors arbitrarily restricts an important recreational use in some state wildlife properties. Most importantly, fixed anchors keep climbers safe while ascending and descending technical routes. However, they can actually reduce impacts on the land by encouraging climbers to stay on route and reducing the use of trees and other natural anchors. Fixed anchors can be implemented in a way that balances conservation values with the needs of climbers. A general prohibition on fixed anchors could effectively keep climbing out of some areas where it has been a valued recreational use, and this restriction is not consistent with the impacts of climbing. Instead of a general prohibition on fixed anchors, we request that CPW consider how and whether fixed anchors will be allowed on a site-specific basis and engage stakeholders in this process.

Comments on Article II - Property-Specific Provisions #901 - Property-Specific Regulations

During the development of the SWA pass, American Whitewater asked for a site specific look at properties to better determine what sort of restriction on use was appropriate. We are pleased to report that was done and this process also includes a proposal of site specific provisions. The following list includes SWAs with river access to reaches identified in our National Whitewater Inventory that do not include a site specific exclusion of the new general provision restricting boat access:
Coller SWA – Upper, Middle and Lower Coller SWA boat ramps provide access to the Rio Grande as a take-out for the Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork section or put-in South Fork to Del Norte.
Creede SWA – Boat ramp at the Creede SWA provides access to the Rio Grande as a take-out for Box Canyon to Creede and a put-in for Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap.
Billy Creek SWA – This site provides access for a scenic run used by the public and commercial operations as a put-in for Billy Creek to Trout Rd. on the Uncompahgre.
Granite SWA - Access to run Pine Creek rapid on the Granite to Numbers Access section of the Arkansas River is within this SWA. The proposed revision for this property specifically restricts vessel access at a property that has seen increased use since the completion of a boat passage project and an old dam in Granite has made this put-in site more common with both public and commercial river users. This project was partly funded by state dollars through the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Hot Sulphur Springs SWA – The take-out facilities for Byers Canyon (Hot Sulphur Springs to Hwy 40).
Cherokee SWA – Cherokee Park Rd (near Trails End) to Halligan Res. (upper) and put-in Livermore Bridge to Main Stem (lower) on the North Fork of the Cache La Poudre.

The property specific regulations do not define any exceptions to restrictions on bike or climbing use. There are SWA sites that have mountain biking trails with a combined total of 20 miles. While SWAs are not a major draw for mountain biking, it can be an appropriate secondary activity for families or individuals who are visiting the SWA or other adjacent lands to offer a complete way to enjoy our state lands and waters. None of these properties have site-specific regulations that would still allow for these existing uses. The following SWA sites contain biking trails that should at the very least have a provision that allowed for continued use of these trail for the light casual use they provide:

Bergen Peak - Jefferson
Cherokee SWA - Larimer
Escalante SWA - Delta
Frank SWA - Weld
Granite SWA - Chaffee
Gunnison River SWA - Gunnison
Mount Evans SWA - Clear Creek
Perins Peak SWA - Durango
Runyon Fountain Lakes SWA- Pueblo


Thank you for considering these comments and we look forward to being involved in this process going forward.

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commissioners, Emma Hay, Jonathan Boydston, and Mark Lamb,

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) respectfully offers the comments below on proposed Colorado State Wildlife Area (SWA) regulation changes. We recognize and appreciate that SWAs provide high value habitat and security areas for fish and wildlife; opportunities for smart investments in restoration by CPW and partners, since future uses of those lands can be relatively certain compared to other areas; and access tailored to hunting and fishing.

Because SWAs are paid for by sportspersons and are intended to provide functional, reliable wildlife habitat and opportunities for hunting and fishing, the TRCP fully supports the intent of these regulation updates. We also offer our sincere thanks to the many CPW staff, stakeholders, and volunteers who spent many, many hours developing and updating these general and property-specific provisions, through the working group and otherwise.

About TRCP:

The TRCP is a national non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish. At its highest level, the TRCP works with 62 official, diverse partner organizations and businesses, and represents over 120,000 individual members nationally. At the state level, the TRCP works with a wide variety of Colorado-focused partners, stakeholders, agency staff, and elected officials, and has over 6,000 members in Colorado. Our members are committed to and invested in ensuring that our state can continue to support healthy, stable wildlife populations in order to provide all sportspersons with quality places to hunt and fish.

Regarding General Provisions:

We appreciate CPW and other partners’ and community members’ efforts to continue to educate and remind the public that SWAs are a special and important type of “public” land, specifically purchased or leased for the benefit of wildlife, hunters, and anglers. In contrast, there are other types of public land geared towards other types of recreation where hunting and angling may or may not be allowed, and this is a good opportunity to remind fellow recreationists and the general public of that. The SWA model may even inspire other user groups to lease or acquire strategic properties to facilitate responsible recreation in suitable places.

Regarding dogs on SWAs, there are two changes I ask you to consider. The first, is potentially allowing dogs who are not actively hunting, training for hunting, or competing in field trials to remain in SWA parking lots if contained within a locked and secured vehicle or crate, or under control on a physical leash by a handler, as National Parks often allow. This would enable those of us who often travel with our dogs to potentially enjoy a little time in an SWA while our dogs remain in a safe locked car in the parking lot. Second, I think it is worth clarifying under General Provisions that training dogs is prohibited on some SWAs. Training dogs on relatively sensitive habitat during times of year when wildlife are nesting, breeding, wintering, spawning, rearing or resting can of course be problematic. In summary, I’d ask that you consider something like the following, under C. Prohibited Activities proposed item number 15: “To allow dogs, cats, or other domestic pets on any area outside of a designated parking lot, except dogs lawfully used while actively hunting, or while training dogs for hunting, or during Division licensed field trials, where such activities are authorized.”

While we very much appreciate and support the general prohibition on unmanned aerial vehicle use on SWAs, I ask that CPW and the Commission consider an exception for obtaining aerial footage for documentary or outreach purposes if written permission from the Area Wildlife Manager is obtained in advance, and if the flight does not disturb any hunters or anglers currently using the SWA. I can imagine wanting to capture aerial footage and photos of certain SWAs to tell conservation, hunting, fishing, or wildlife-based stories, or even to collect useful wildlife or habitat data potentially.

Lastly, it seems appropriate and reasonable to address camping and water contact activities in property-specific regulations, so we support that.

Regarding Property-Specific Provisions:

Quality, accessible fishing and hunting opportunities close to urban and residential areas are really important to sustaining or increasing hunter and angler participation. Commonly cited as reasons for the decline in the proportion of Americans who hunt and fish are the migration of citizens to cities, and a lack of access to suitable land for hunting and fishing. According to the USFWS’s 2011 survey, 89% of all anglers reside within cities containing at least 50,000 residents, and between the years 2000 and 2010, the average age of anglers increased and the percentage of non-white anglers increased (from 7% to 14%). A 2019 study by Valdez et al. suggested that increasing developed fishing sites closer to cities would likely encourage both aging and minority populations to participate in recreational fishing and would better accommodate their preferences.

For the reasons above, we support the decision to generally limit SWA water access to vessels being actively used for fishing and/or hunting. This provides important opportunities for sportspersons across the state and may be especially valuable to hunters and anglers who are younger, older, have less time or money to spend on hunting and fishing, and those who live in more developed urban and suburban areas where other bodies of water get especially crowded by a wide variety of recreationists.

The SWAs proposed to allow launching and use of all vessels (not just for fishing and/or hunting) are: Adobe Creek Reservoir (Bent and Kiowa), Alberta Park Reservoir (Mineral), Big Meadows (Mineral), Dan Noble (San Miguel), Echo Canyon (Archuleta), Holbrook Reservoir (Otero), Lake Pueblo (Pueblo), Mountain Home Reservoir (Costilla), Queens (Kiowa), Rio Blanco Lake (Rio Blanco), Trujillo Meadows (Conejos), Two Buttes Reservoir (Baca and Prowers), and Williams Creek Reservoir (Hinsdale). We ask that CPW and the Commission verify that all residents will have quality access to fishing on local and regional SWAs without having to consistently compete for parking, space, and time on the water with non-fishing, non-hunting recreationists on SWAs.

Under the Lake Pueblo SWA (proposed item #155, pg 48 in this doc), the language used to allow for all vessels is different than what was used elsewhere so I’m flagging it just in case it was simply an editing oversight. It says “b. All vessels are allowed” whereas other property-specific regulations say “Launching and use of all vessels is allowed.”

Lastly, in some parts of the state where there may not be a lot of public land or other areas to camp, it can be especially helpful to be able to camp on an SWA overnight as part of a hunting or fishing trip. I suspect there will be some discussion of this based on property-specific feedback from hunters and anglers, so we support case-by-case consideration of the availability of camp sites nearby and the capacity and sensitivity of certain SWAs.

Thank you so much for considering our comments and for allowing the public to review and provide feedback on these important regulatory updates. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Best regards,

Liz Rose, Colorado Field Representative for the TRCP

Removed by moderator.

Hi There,
I live in Carbondale and feel that it is unfair to only allow fishing/hunting on the Roaring for rivers. The stretch of the Roaring Fork River from Aspen to Glenwood Spring should be allowed to all, not just hunters and fishermen. I understand the pressure being put on the River but at least make it equitable by permitting - I never thought I'd say that - or at least allow fishing and recreation during certain times. There has to be another way to do this as opposed to closing it to some water users. Please consider this perspective. Thanks, Allan Porter

I am writing to oppose the modification of the definition of "vessel." Restricting vessel use to hunters and anglers is narrow-minded and would severely limit accessibility of the SWA's to those that are avid conservationists that enjoy recreation, which includes wildlife observation!

Dear Sirs, I strongly oppose the proposed regulations that would exclude everyone except hunters and fisherman from many of our public sections of rivers. We purchase fishing licenses to be legal on these put ins and take outs. Now you’re saying that is not enough? As a person who has been a river runner in many different kinds of boats, telling me that my boat is not a “vessel” is insulting. We leave no tracks or other wise demean the environment. I do not understand the effort to exclude most people from participating in an activity that has been available to all for as long as this old guy has been alive.
Sincerely, Dan Roman

Removed by moderator.

I am writing to oppose regulation 17. This proposed regulation seems to be very short sighted and very much "under the radar". I could go on about how our families have used these access points to enjoy our quality of life, etc, etc, etc. My question is where has this information been made public knowledge previously? Being that public comment ends today, May 24 why is this alarming and critical information not on the front page of the CPW website or anywhere within the site. As an avid river enthusiast and Roaring Fork resident I am more than shocked that NONE, zero, zip, not one of my river friends or family was aware of this preposterous proposal. Was there any previous public announcement. I respectfully ask this to be reconsidered.

Please continue to allow recreational access at all CPW locations in the state of Colorado. Do not limit access only to water craft used for fishing and hunting at the time of use.

Removed by moderator.

Dear Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,

The proposed change that would limit access to recreational boating in Colorado state wildlife areas is frankly sexist. The proposed definition of a “vessel” is being defined as a boat actively used for fishing and/or hunting. It is short-sighted. The gender data available varies slightly, but in general about 22% of the people who buy hunting licenses are women and about 30% of the people who buy fishing licenses are women. Even though there are a number of women who enjoy hunting and fishing, the data shows that the gender gap is huge. Will river access be restricted to mostly men?
It makes me wonder… Do I need to attach a fishing line to the back of my kayak? Do I need to have a concealed weapon in my boat?

And let's consider the Ruby/Horsethief Launch site. Currently, there is a paid permit system in place that regulates access to the river. The state-owned put-in, land that was donated by my friend (a woman), is primarily a parking lot. It is not itself important wildlife habitat. The area is an access point to a highly regulated BLM river segment. Instead of making additional rules and regulations, why not work with the ones that are already in place?

I suggest that you revisit your mission before you make any ill-conceived decisions regarding restricted access to navigable public waterways.

"Our Mission
CPW's mission is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado's natural resources."

I recognize that the heavy use in these areas needs to be addressed. Please consider a policy that encourages equal access to all users including wildlife watchers, not just those people who hunt and fish.

Thank you for your consideration,
Julie Wille
Women for Wild Lands

I am writing to express my frustration and dismay that this is even being considered. By shutting down the colorado river access to recreational boating would be a travesty.

Public lands and rivers should not restrict rafts/kayaks/SUPS because people are not hunting and fishing. There are many Coloradans who use these waters to enjoy the beauty and want to see and preserve wildlife (not kill and torture them).

SWAs are purchased for the purpose of wildlife habitat, and secondarily for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching.

We pay for their SWA passes- is that not good enough? We should be welcome to our local boat launch WITHOUT a gun or rod?I urge you to reconsider the proposed change in definition of "vessel" to NOT exclude non-motorized watercraft such as rafts, kayaks, canoes, SUPS.