General Provisions

I understand the concept of protecting these areas, but I disagree with restricting some river recreational uses and not others. The idea that you can use these areas to catch a fish from a boat, but not to just enjoy boating itself, seems a little off. Especially for communities where the river rafting community is blossoming, I'm thinking of South Fork/Del Norte that would be negatively impacted by this change. There is already a huge lack of public access to water to float/raft the Rio Grande, and this change would make that number even smaller. Let's not snuff out the emerging river communities by making it even harder to access the river.

I second the following statement “I oppose the addition to prohibition 17, related to the launch of watercraft on state wildlife areas. More specifically, I oppose this as a blanket prohibition. While some state wildlife areas, such as those on the Front Range, may benefit from a prohibition like this, others, such as those in Southwestern Colorado, may be able to handle the pleasure paddlers who aren't out to hook a trout. Why apply a rule that's needed near Denver to other areas of the state? Also, consider the *downstream* impacts to other launch sites. Will forcing non-anglers and non-hunters to use alternatives steer them into choppier waters than they can handle or strain other public ramps by the increase in use?

+1 specifically for not doing this at Coller SWA and others on that stretch of the Rio Grande. At those uncrowded areas, prohibition 17 is completely unnecessary. Instead of alleviating overuse, it will further hamstring a tenuous local economy and perhaps put paddlers in greater danger.”

This change will be a major detriment to locals and visitors who want to experience the beautiful outdoors of Colorado without being a hunter or fisher.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I support the proposed changes for Colorado State Wildlife Areas (SWAs). State Wildlife Areas were purchase with funds obtained from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and federal excise taxes on the sale of hunting and angling equipment. The primary purpose of SWAs should be wildlife habitat and, secondarily, for hunting and angling. Many SWAs have seen large increases in general recreation such as dog walking, paddle boarding, kayaking, trail running, mountain biking and connector trails to other public lands that have negatively impacted wildlife during critical breeding and winter survival times. On several SWAs, the shift to general recreation may well be in violation of allowable use of federal excise taxes that were used to purchase the properties. These general outdoor recreation activities have also impacted the ability to successfully hunt and fish on many SWAs.

I whole heartedly agree with the importance of outdoor recreation to human health and well-being. Fortunately in Colorado, if you want to hike, mountain bike, dog walk, kayak, etc., general outdoor recreation is allowed on 42 State Parks, 18 million acres of Forest Service land, 8.3 million acres of BLM land, and thousands of acres of municipal and county parks and open space. Let’s prioritized Colorado SWAs for their intended purposes of wildlife habitat protection and for hunting, angling and purposeful wildlife viewing.

I oppose the addition to prohibition 17, related to the launch of watercraft on state wildlife areas. More specifically, I oppose this as a blanket prohibition. While some state wildlife areas, such as those on the Front Range, may benefit from a prohibition like this, others, such as those in Southwestern Colorado, may be able to handle the pleasure paddlers who aren't out to hook a trout. Why apply a rule that's needed near Denver to other areas of the state? Also, consider the *downstream* impacts to other launch sites. Will forcing non-anglers and non-hunters to use alternatives steer them into choppier waters than they can handle or strain other public ramps by the increase in use?

+1 specifically for not doing this at Coller SWA and others on that stretch of the Rio Grande. At those uncrowded areas, prohibition 17 is completely unnecessary. Instead of alleviating overuse, it will further hamstring a tenuous local economy and perhaps put paddlers in greater danger.

I agree that Colorado's public lands and waterways are seeing more use than ever before. I disagree with this proposed regulation as written because I think increasing the collection of recreation area monitoring data to make better informed, site specific management decisions is a better strategy, at this point. We need more public land stewards on the landscape and limiting access to specific user groups excludes many who may engage with outdoor spaces in their own way. The more people who care about habitat and want to learn more about what they can do to help protect wildlife, the better. Putting limitations without a more engaged public process on the rationale for this seems extremely short sighted. In general, I think we need to give habitats and wildlife more credit for their ability to adapt and regenerate on their own and use that in making more effective management and habitat restoration strategies.

As a Coloradan that is a hunter, fisherman, recreational boater, and I also have two dogs; I recognize that at times there can be both perceived conflict and real conflict in our SWA's. I do not believe that one rule fits all scenario works in this situation. Different parts of the state have different amounts of people and use, and while some areas may have significant overuse many of our more rural areas do not. The Coller SWA provides multiple boat launches that are critical to our rural communities economy for outdoor recreation that includes hunting, fishing and recreational boating. For this area, I believe you are making an issue out of an issue that just doesn't exist. Furthermore, wouldn't a fishing license and a fly rod then make any boat a fishing boat. This rule does not advance the protection of our resources, but instead is divisive for our communities of outdoor recreation users.

I live in a small rural community with 4 SWAs involved in these changes, Creede, Coller, Beaver, and Rio Grande. There is not a problem with overpopulation or recreationalists overrunning our rivers or wildlife areas. These changes are being forced upon our community by people outside of our community for the benefit of people outside of our community. Locals use these rivers for a variety of reasons and these changes will actively hurt locals and the local economy.

Fishing and hunting is a hobby some people enjoy, and most people don't. Public lands are meant for all people to enjoy and if there are too many people there for wildlife to thrive, a reduction in ALL users may be appropriate. The SWAs in our community are some of the most beautiful public lands we have available to us they should not be restricted based on someone's chosen hobby of choice.

I am opposed to all of the proposed changes.

As an avid river runner and rafter, I am against this provision. We pay for our fishing licenses and use of the Loma SWA Boat ramp, and limiting it to hunting and fishing only, ignores a massive amount of use by the whitewater community. Part 17 would heavily strain the James M Robb State Park launch ramp, most likely requiring an additional ramp to be built to make up for the loss of the Loma SWA put in, increased staffing, and other logistics that are unnecessary. This shouldn't be approved or needs to be revised to allow for Part 17 to include whitewater rafting as use, otherwise this is severely limiting access.

I am strongly opposed to the changing of the regulations regarding boating through the Coller SWA section of the Rio Grande. This reach is a vital area for many types of water activities and is squarely centered in the middle of a critical recreational area for thousands each summer.

I am an avid hunter, boater, and fisherman and use that reach of the river many times a year and have enjoyed it for over 40 years with many friends and family. Coller SWA was created for winter range for big game and is not affected in any way by using the river as it has been historically. It is the safest reach of the Rio Grande and has several put ins and take outs that have been historically used by many. Because if it’s location, the proposed policy restrictions would eliminate many people from using the river at all as most other reaches are all thru private lands and contain many technical elements that many will not be able nor experienced enough to be able to handle. It will totally eliminate the area for locals, tourists and businesses that use it routinely during the summer months. There is effectively no use of the river for 6-7 months of the year by anyone. The elk have it to themselves all winter long which it why it was established.

CPW purchased the land containing a major takeout just above the Hwy 149 bridge at South Fork just a few short years ago to end a conflict with the previous owners who shut off a long used launch site. This is below the Coller area but apparently is subjected to the same restrictions without being part of Coller.

This new proposal is ill-conceived, inappropriate, not well researched and changes a longstanding and historical use of this reach of the Rio Grande and will greatly negatively effect thousands of folks recreational opportunities in the South Fork area. Please DO NOT approve this suggested change in regulations for this critical area. Thank you fir the opportunity to comment.

I strongly support the changes clarifying the language around the use of SWA's. Especially the limiting of watercraft vessels to us sportsman that fish or hunt in these areas. These areas were never intended to be open for general recreation purposes and I am glad CPW is making the effort to limit that use.

General Provisions Prohibited Activities #17 "To launch, or take out vessels, except those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting." This should not be adopted as a general provision. Only in rare instances where the current use is overwhelming dominated by fishing/hunting or for particular conservation objectives should such a prohibition stand. There are too many SWAs that have boat ramps used by the public for access to a river or lake for non consumptive activities for such a sweeping change.

A "park" is a natural place designated and set aside for enjoyment and recreation. These SWAs are parks. Parks are meant to be inclusive of all people. That was the vision of Fredrick Law Olmstead over 150 years ago and that vision led to Yosemite, Yellowstone, the NPS and state parks. I believe that vision and purpose is inherent today in these SWAs or "parks." As a rule, they should not be so regulated that you limit the use to an exclusive minority.

Please consider the value and importance of the Parks component of Parks and Wildlife.

Thank you for allowing this input. As a river runner, I launch at the Loma Boat Launch SWA in Colorado on my way downriver to the take-out at Westwater in Utah. I buy my out-of-state non-fishing permits to do so. It appears that the March 3, 2023
proposed SWA General Provisions Regulation changes for chapter W-9, C C. Prohibited Activities, Part 17, will no longer allow me (and a LOT of other river runners) to launch at this location. Is this what you are really intending to do here? Decrease your revenue stream? Maybe Part 17 regulation should be re-written to state "To launch, or take out vessels, except those being actively used for fishing and/or
hunting and/or whitewater rafting." Please let me know what you decide, and thank you for your service. Cordially yours, Tommartin@rrfw.org

As a Colorado native, Beaver Lake offers a tranquil retreat from the daily grind of city life. It’s quiet, breathtaking surroundings allow me the opportunity to unwind and escape to nature. I am against this provision.

ARTICLE 1- GENERAL PROVISIONS #900
C. Prohibited Activities
Item #17 (found on page 9). To launch, or take out vessels, except those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting. To leave vessels beached, at anchor, moored or docked unattended overnight, except in areas designated for that purpose.

This means that unless you are fishing and/or hunting it would be illegal to launch a boat on any SWA. It would make rafting, kayaking, SUPing, tubing, etc. illegal to launch on SWA’s.

Local river SWA’s are: Depp Creek/Hatchery, Coller and 149 bridge in South Fork. Many local lakes are also SWA’s and would be impacted as well.

I’m on the river often. I am against this provision.

My family has owned property in Marble since 1986. I have been a current resident for the last 9 years. I oppose limiting the use of Beaver Lake to just hunting and fishing.

For many people including locals, that would mean enjoying the lake simply for wildlife viewing would not be permissible. This seems extreme. Family photos by the lake, sketching, journaling, or simply walking or skiing around the lake would now be against the law?

Banning the enjoyment of the lake is not the answer. I am fully aware that on summer weekends the lake is overcrowded and there are issues that need to be addressed: parking, enforcement of fishing permits, the number of visitors, environmental education, etc. Addressing these issues WILL protect the wildlife which is the intention of the CPW.

The town of Marble has come together to fix other issues before and is fully capable of working with CPW to fix this problem as well. There is a middle ground where hunters and anglers can enjoy the lake alongside families.

Many locals would support a permit system for the lake. This would reduce the noise and parking issues around the lake. We would all love to see CPW enforce the current requirement to have a fishing license to be on the lake. Since, this is rarely being enforced as is, it seems implausible that CPW can handle limiting Beaver Lake to people actively hunting and fishing without a much larger presence at the lake.

One issue that seems to come up a lot is the use of SUP’s on the lake. I fully support my local SUP business here in Marble as I support all my local businesses. I would be sad to see them go out of business because we couldn't come to a compromise with the CPW. Many of us enjoy the use of Beaver Lake on SUP’s when it is quieter during the weekdays in the summer.

Having access to our lakes, rivers, trails, forests, etc. is one of the main reasons why my family lives here. Please do not restrict our access. Work with our community to come to a solution.

Hi regarding the proposed change in opening of the Basalt SWA to July 15. This hiking trail is an awesome place. The only dog free one in the area. I've been hiking it for 20 years appreciating its beauty and the wildlife I see.

I hope you will consider not changing the use dates.

The proximity to the town, shooting rage, and highway would, in my mind, be much more impactful to wildlife than hikers.

Hiking trails here go a long way toward inspiring environmentalism and conservation. 4.5 months of use combined with the $50 permit would mean very few get to experience this area.

I really appreciate all the work you do to manage this park I hope we can find a way for others to appreciate and get to see it in a responsible manner.

Hi CPW team, I am 100% in agreement with your mission to conserve wildlife and wildlife
habitat needs and providing areas for wildlife-related recreation (hunting, fishing, and
wildlife watching). Rules and regulations are necessary to protect these valuable areas as people are not easily self-regulating.
A few rules stood out to me that I have concerns about.
"To launch, or take out vessels, except those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting"
I understand the primary use of SWAs is hunting and fishing, but I have seen many gas powered boats on lakes that even though used for fishing are terrible polluters of the water and I can't imagine this is in the best interest or beneficial to any wildlife. Smaller boats can easily be powered by an electric motor or even be human powered. In addition, if gas powered boats are allowed, I can see how people who are using human powered vessels for recreation rather than fishing/hunting, feel unfairly targeted as they are not polluting the water like the gas powered boats but yet are banned from enjoying the land/water.
In addition, I wanted to mention a specific section of the Rio Grande that runs through Coller SWA. There are 3 boat launches on that stretch of the Rio Grande within Coller SWA and it is being used by many outdoor enthusiast who don't fish or hunt. These new rules will take away this beautiful stretch of the Rio Grande from many locals and tourists. Vessels could be launched further upriver to access this stretch of the Rio, but it is a more advanced section with big rapids that make it a lot more difficult and also dangerous for novices and people unfamiliar with this stretch of water!
Furthermore, while I understand that loose, out of control dogs can create a big issue with wildlife and/or other hunters and fishermen, banning all dogs except for when hunting or training for hunting, will actually exclude many of the fishermen of bringing their companions along. You could consider adopting a rule to allow dogs on leash and / or under voice control?
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely for regulations to protect our lands, but also making it fair should be a big consideration.
Thanks for all you do!

I am not ok with the dog restrictions. SWA is one of the few quiet places I can exercise him. Busy places with other dogs, cars and bikes etc are not an option. He also fishes with me! As a disabled person, to say I can no longer fish with my dog wont work for me. So I guess he's "hunting" for fish. Or I can start carrying a gun so I satisfy the new rule. My outdoors activities would end completely and I had to give up my dog. For reasons not quite clear to me.

I am a home and property owner in Marble. I use Supmarble to sup on Beaver lake with my dog. CPW wants to take away my right to enjoy my back yard. I am opposed to these new regulations!

I am not ok with the dog restrictions. SWA is one of the few quiet places I can exercise him. He also fishes with me! As a disabled person, to say I can no longer fish with my dog wont work for me. So I guess he's "hunting" for fish.