General Provisions

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commission,

These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Basalt Town Council and are regarding the proposed draft regulations for the Basalt State Wildlife Area (SWA). The Basalt SWA, which shares a significant border with the historic downtown area of Basalt, is proposed to be cut off to residents from December 1 through July 15. The Basalt Shooting Range, however, is proposed to remain open year-round with no modification to its current hours of operation. The Council would have appreciated an opportunity to work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) during the rulemaking process to suggest management strategies that work well for all current users. The Town has repeatedly offered its partnership to CPW regarding the creation and maintenance of assets in the SWA, but without great success. It should be further noted that the Council supports the stated primary focus of the SWA being the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat but the proposed closure through much of the summer is excessive and unfounded. We would be more agreeable with a closure that is similar to other public land winter closures in the area.
In the draft regulations, there are other SWA's in different geographic regions of the state that propose similar closure timeframes which makes the proposed closure for the Basalt SWA appear like blanket rulemaking rather than rooted in specific scientific data. It is also troubling that the shooting range is not proposed for similar closures. It was stated by Matt Yamashita, the Area Wildlife Manager, that the animals become habituated to the noise, and this is less stressful than a chance encounter with a hiker. This begs the question as to whether a developed trail system close to the Town boundary would habituate the wildlife to seeing people and therefore have a similar result as the shooting range. Further, given the limited resources for enforcement, coupled with a lack of information of the actual impact on the fawning, calving and general habitat of the deer and elk herds, these rules may be perceived as arbitrary and not generally supported by the community.
The Council would appreciate an opportunity to talk about management strategies that we can help support and that would be legitimized through careful study of the habits of the deer and elk herds. Let us assist in identifying an area, close to the Town boundary, at the edge of the SWA that can be used by hikers and wildlife watchers. This could include a winter closure but would open sooner for this group of users. Please also consider an additional modification to the shooting range hours which would include a closure on one weekend day. Let’s open a dialogue regarding improvements to Lake Christine, which could be an amazing asset for the community. The Town is a willing partner and would appreciate acknowledgement of our shared interest in the SWA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Basalt Town Council

On a recent float with my wife from the Bob Terrell SWA to the Sam Caudill SWA, we were able to see some amazing wildlife. Though I did not fish that day as the water was running high and murky, I did see some fantastic bird life! Two osprey were seen scanning the river for fish, A rare Lewis' Woodpecker worked on a nest cavity in a cottonwood snag. Song sparrows and Yellow warblers sang their hearts out trying to attract a mate. Lower down a Bald Eagle soared and a Red Tail was mobbed by crows. The Heron rookery is still going strong with 10 + active nests with young.
Because of my appreciation of wildlife and habitat such as this, I have advocated for river protection and education for over 30 years. With the proposed "vessel" definition change, a wildlife watcher interested in the non-game species such as myself or my wife and family are no longer welcome to access the mellow class 2 river segment between these SWAs. (there really are no other access points as it is all private land). Furthermore, these SWAs provide little or no habitat themselves. They are boat launches to access public water. The plan to change the definition of a vessel to only include active hunters and fishers (no passengers allowed then!) is ill conceived and makes no sense for many of the SWAs in the state of Colorado.

I think restricting all use to any boating through wildlife areas is far too restrictive. The wildlife areas should be open to more than those who hunt and fish. As a compromise, allow usage to wildlife areas to those individuals who have Colorado Hunting and/or Fishing Licenses.

As a whitewater kayaker in Colorado I disagree with the proposed changes regarding "use of vessels on state wildlife area waters has been restricted to those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting." Wildlife viewing should be a recognized use of vessels and prohibiting boating simply because I don't carry a fishing rod is an odd decision when wildlife viewing is a recognized use of SWAs.

I hope you do not change the regulations for boat launching that would only allow vessels used for hunting or fishing.

I live along the Roaring Fork in the section that is being proposed for a shut down of avid recreational boaters. This is limiting the boats to a VERY SMALL number of people and although I like fishing, I don't always fish. I also use the Loma boat launch regularly and that boat launch already has permits required for almost everyone using it so this is a further constraint. Please DO NOT close any of the Roaring Fork Boat launches or the Loma Boat Launch. I am VERY opposed to this and I have had NO ISSUES with any of the recreational boaters over the last 30 years. EVERYONE who buys a fishing license should have access, not just people fishing.

I am opposed to #17, the changes to limit recreational boating in SWAs. Watercraft such as rafts, kayaks, and stand-up paddleboards should be allowed, even if they're not being used for fishing.

Removed by moderator.

I have lived near Beaver Lake since 1994 and I support the proposed prohibition of non-angling related vessel use. Although I have enjoyed paddle boarding on the lake in the past, the volume of paddle boarders has gotten out of control in recent years. The parking lot is not adequate to accommodate the crowds and the traffic often blocks the road. I believe CPW should honor the original purchase agreement of Beaver Lake for "fishing purposes only" and return the lake to the anglers and wildlife viewers who have been displaced as a result of overuse. Thank you CPW for considering changes that protect the integrity of our SWAs.

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commissioners:
Colorado Wildlife Federation (CWF) supports the draft regulations for Chapter W-9, Article I – General Provisions and Article II – Property Specific Provisions that will be at Step 3 during the June meeting of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. CWF includes members and supporters who are hunters and anglers, as well as those who enjoy broad outdoor recreation interests. On behalf of CWF, I have been pleased to participate in the external work group since its inception in 2020 to address how to determine allowable recreation on State Wildlife Areas (SWAs). While there is some room for tweaking, the overall foundation for the draft regulations is solid and will require courageous leadership to implement.
Most SWAs in Colorado were purchased or leased many years ago. They were acquired for this specific purpose: providing benefits for wildlife resources and hunters and anglers. It is crucial that the public understand this premise. Specialty areas are provided for various outdoor recreational activities in our state through county open space, state parks and special areas on federally-managed public lands. It also is appropriate that certain areas, our SWAs, emphasize hunting and fishing, and that some are to remain exclusively for the wildlife resource, hunting and fishing. We note that CPW has a fiduciary obligation pursuant to US Fish and Wildlife Service federal aid requirements to maintain control of its SWAs for compatible uses (or replace the lands with ones of equal value and benefit).
During the past several years the demands on SWAs have risen substantially as Colorado’s population continues to increase. In 1970 the population was barely more than 2 million. By 1990 it exceeded 3 million, then surpassed 4 million in 2000 and by 2022 approached 6 million. The accelerating demand for additional uses on many SWAs has resulted in daunting management challenges, especially for those adjacent to burgeoning urban areas. Extending their allowable uses to water-based activities beyond fishing also presents safety concerns because most SWAs have not been staffed and operated with a structure comparable to parks managed by CPW and counties. That is, many SWAs do not have an employee who is assigned full-time to the property. Instead, the management responsibilities of wildlife techs and district wildlife managers are spread among multiple properties.
We offer the following example of recreational pressure from water activity that competes with fishing demand and access in expanding high population settings. Boedecker SWA is located on the western edge of Loveland in Larimer County. Last year, Larimer County, in conjunction with Weld County, accounted for more than one-half of Colorado’s population growth. At Boedecker paddleboard and kayak use have become very popular. On weekends almost all parking spots are occupied by paddleboarders and kayakers. We have observed that frequently there is little opportunity for many anglers to find a place to park. Resulting user conflicts and degradation of wildlife habitat are unsurprising. An additional serious concern is human safety as this SWA, similar to other SWAs, is not staffed at a level similar to parks. (Two drownings have occurred at Boedecker in recent years). Under the Property Specific Regulations, the initial draft posted on the engagement website for Boedecker prohibited vessels except while fishing. The current version provides that “launching and use of all vessels is allowed,” although operating a vessel in a manner that creates a whitewater wake is prohibited. CWF questions the suitability of this proposed change. Although the fishing quality at this SWA is moderate, it is heavily used by anglers. Anglers face accelerating competitive access pressure from paddleboarders on summer weekends. As paddleboarders have nearby access to other water bodies managed by CPW and the county, it is unclear to us why it is necessary to accommodate this use at Boedecker. In contrast, at Lon Hagler SWA, also located in the western area of Loveland, the proposed regulations prohibit vessel use, except when used as an aid for fishing. If CPW believes it is necessary to allow paddleboarding at Boedecker, then options should be explored to alleviate weekend overcrowding that is impacting anglers as they compete with those arriving to engage in other water-based recreational uses.
We do wish to emphasize that it is wise for CPW to retain such SWAs in encroaching urban areas to address demand for fishing access.
We appreciate the opportunity to supply our written comment and believe the engagement website portal provides a good opportunity to garner and read public input.

Sincerely,

Suzanne O’Neill,
Executive Director, Colorado Wildlife Federation

I am against restricting access to only those actively fishing or hunting. It is not inclusive and doesn’t allow wildlife watchers to engage in the stewardship and conservation of our precious waterways. There are multiple ways to interact with our natural habitat and restricting access in the proposed way will do damage to our natural habitats. Please vote no to the proposed new changes.

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commission,
As a Colorado resident for 35 years, and a longtime purchaser of hunting and fishing licenses, I'm extremely upset by some of the proposed SWA general provisions.

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

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?

We have launched rafts, kayaks, and SUPS from the Loma SWA as well as the Sam Caudill SWA, and the Bob Terrell SWA for several decades. This is part of the reason we enjoy living in Colorado - enjoying the riparian habitat, observing wildlife, and appreciating the natural habitat without killing anything.

I see this as a prejudice against wildlife viewers and the concept of watchable non-game wildlife, despite the fact that protecting these species is part of your charter. Promoting the appreciation of wildlife and wild lands is crucial in this day and age of disconnect from nature. Does a license paying birdwatcher not have the right to launch a boat to access public navigable water? Keep in mind that the river launch SWAs are rarely important habitat in themselves, as most of the actual land area is parking lot and boat launch. Certainly, the human activity/impact is mostly confined to these areas by the recreational boating crowd. Only the fishers and hunters will be disturbing the actual wildlife habitat.

I urge you to reconsider the proposed change in definition of "vessel" to NOT exclude non-motorized watercraft such as rafts, kayaks, canoes, SUPS.

Maureen Poschman
Aspen, CO

As a local hunter and fly fisherman I appreciate the access the SWA's offer to people hunting and fishing. I also appreciate the access they give to people who are not carrying guns or rods. SWA's provide opportunities for people to enjoy viewing wildlife, accessing nature, and providing people connection to the land. I am NOT in favor of the new General Provisions especially limiting access to put-ins on local rivers.

I am writing to to oppose the changes to limit recreational boating in State Wildlife Areas.
Non-motorized watercraft such as rafts, kayaks, and stand-up paddleboards should be allowed, even if they're not being used for fishing.

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commission,
I am Colorado native and long time supporter of CPW through annual hunting and fishing licenses.
I am extremely upset with some of your proposed SWA General Provisions. While I understand the need for some of these changes, the amended definition of a water "vessel" to require that it be used specifically for hunting or fishing is preposterous. This sounds as if it is straight out of the Hook and Gun Club Manifesto, to restrict public lands use of others.
I appreciate that SWAs are purchased for the purpose of wildlife habitat, and secondarily for hunting, fishing AND wildlife watching. I pay my license fees, and my non -hunting friends and family pay for their SWA passes- is that not good enough? Now we will not be welcome to our local boat launch unless we are carrying a gun or rod?
I have launched my raft, kayak, SUP, and canoes from the Loma SWA, the Sam Caudill SWA, and the Bob Terrell SWA every year for over 40 years. Sometimes this was to fish, but mostly to enjoy the riparian habitat, see the wildlife, and appreciate the natural habitat without killing anything. I see this as a prejudice against wildlife viewers and the concept of watchable non-game wildlife, despite the fact that protecting these species is part of your charter. Promoting the appreciation of wildlife and wild lands is crucial in this day and age of disconnect from nature. Does a license paying birdwatcher not have the right to launch a boat to access public navigable water? Keep in mind that the river launch SWAs are rarely important habitat in themselves, as most of the actual land area is parking lot and boat launch. Certainly, the human activity/impact is mostly confined to these areas by the recreational boating crowd. Only the fishers and hunters will be disturbing the actual wildlife habitat.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed change in definition of "vessel" to NOT exclude non-motorized watercraft such as rafts, kayaks, canoes, SUPS.
Sincerely,
Andre Wille
Basalt, CO

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed change that would limit access for recreational boating in Colorado state wildlife areas.

Studies show that spending time in nature reduces stress, blood pressure, and is vital to mental well-being. Limiting access to any state or federal wildlife, public lands, etc to specific activities, gated by licenses and fees, is classist and disproportionately affects marginalized people of color.

The outdoors needs to become more accessible to all.

State Wildlife Areas are one of the rare few places that recreational boaters can go to relax and enjoy the wilderness. As stewards of this land you need to consider all user groups not just ones with a specific agenda aka to hunt or fish. Dividing and eliminating user groups seems to have a larger agenda to eventually limit All user groups which we have seen done in other areas. What is the ultimate agenda for eliminating recreational use?

On the subject of fixed anchors this will create dangerous situations where the need for rescue and emergency resources could have been avoided with responsible rappel anchors. As a climber and canyoneer I have used 1,000's of anchors placed by expert climbers and have rarely ever needed to place one myself. In many cases they are very difficult to locate and I am actively seeking them for retreat. I believe that your staff would be hard pressed to find fixed anchors if you went out searching for them since they are usually on top of 100'+ cliffs and deep in canyons in very specific locations, usually at the top of dead end cliffed out sections of rock. The loss of fixed anchors will make retreat next to impossible for all but the most expert climbers and the need for rescues will certainly increase.

Forrest Noble

Please Parks and Wildlife Commission, I am writing to express my frustration dn dismay that this is even being considered. By shutting down the colorado river access to recreational boating would be a travesty, and I could repeat exactly what Jackson said in the comment before mine, because i agree with everything he said, and others. But i would like to point out other arguments as well.
Beyond being unfair to isolating certain groups to enjoy the river, it would probably would set up a political and damaging fight in our community, unnecessarily pitting diverse groups against each other. Recreation is one of the most important sources of income for our community, and will be in perpetuity, if we continue to reguard and protect our environs. We need to embrace the recreational opportunities, not shut down everything except for the use of hunting and fishing. In addition, camping on public lands should be allowed, when suitable, and managed when necessary.
As a rock climber, I also am not iin favor to restricting the use of fixing hardware... Unless one knows what to look for, the hardware is extremely difficult to see. Climbing is one of the least impactful sports to the environment when outside of designated climbing areas. it is a safety thing in my mind, and i know when canyoneering, i got to the 50 foot repel, and someone had just clipped the bolts, it could have been a life and death situation. Colorado should be protected for the various groups, not just hunters and fisherman. We need to continue to manage the areas, but allow all access, and not shut out certain communities! Thank you for giving me the time to share my thoughts.
Sincerely
Sara, Loma, Colorado

I strongly oppose the proposed change that would limit access for recreational boating in Colorado state wildlife areas. As a person who enjoys utilizing these areas for recreational boating purposes I am concerned about the potential consequences of this change on individuals and rural communities. I believe there are other ways to minimize impacts from recreation while respecting access to natural areas by a variety of users.

Dear Parks and Wildlife Commission,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed change that would limit access for recreational boating in Colorado state wildlife areas. As an avid boater who enjoys utilizing these areas for non-hunting and non-fishing purposes, I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences of this change on individuals like myself, as well as the broader implications for public access to our state's natural resources.

State wildlife areas play a vital role in providing recreational opportunities and fostering a connection with nature. Restricting access to only those who are hunting or fishing overlooks the diverse range of recreational activities that individuals engage in within these areas, such as boating, wildlife observation, and nature appreciation. By limiting access exclusively to hunting and fishing activities, the proposed change effectively cuts off individuals like me from enjoying the state wildlife areas for non-consumptive purposes.

In the past, I have willingly purchased hunting or fishing licenses to gain access to these areas, even though my primary intent was recreational boating rather than hunting or fishing. I enjoy floating in these sections of the river with my binoculars to observe bird species that are hard to view in other ways. This approach demonstrated my commitment to supporting wildlife conservation efforts and respecting the existing regulations. However, the proposed change would sever this access entirely, disregarding the interests and contributions of non-hunting and non-fishing enthusiasts like myself.

It is important to note that recreational boating not only provides individuals with an enjoyable experience but also contributes to the local economy through tourism and outdoor recreational spending. By eliminating access for recreational boaters, the proposed change has the potential to undermine these economic benefits and adversely impact the surrounding communities that rely on tourism and recreational activities.

Furthermore, it is worth considering that some sections of the river can only be accessed through state wildlife areas. By limiting access exclusively to hunters and anglers, individuals like me who seek to float these river sections for recreational purposes will be left with no alternative access points. This restriction effectively denies recreational boaters the opportunity to explore and enjoy these unique stretches of the river, ultimately limiting the diversity of recreational experiences available to Colorado residents and visitors.

I urge you to carefully reconsider this proposed change and explore alternative solutions that can accommodate the interests of all individuals who wish to access state wildlife areas for recreational boating purposes. By adopting a more inclusive approach that recognizes the various recreational activities individuals engage in, we can strike a balance between conservation efforts, economic considerations, and the public's right to enjoy our state's natural resources.

I respectfully request that you actively engage with stakeholders, including recreational boaters, conservation organizations, and concerned citizens, to develop a more comprehensive and equitable solution that preserves access to state wildlife areas for all recreational enthusiasts. By promoting collaboration and open dialogue, we can find a way forward that upholds the values of conservation, public access, and sustainable recreational use.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jackson, Grand Junction

I oppose these changes as a kayaker/boater, I believe we should have equal access to SWA. We have been required to have SWA pass or fishing or hunting pass. license and pay taxes. There is no good reason to restrict boats--kayaks, canoes, pack rafts, etc. We are unmotorized and do little or no damage to the environment.