General Provisions

I think all recreational users should have equal access. The logic to only hunt and fish excludes so many, including the children and people with disabilities I have been taking to these places for over ten years. The rafting industry and fly fishing industry seem to be able to share the rivers why can't you! This might become an American with Disabilities Act law suit if you are not careful. One group blaming the other for over use is not valid. I have picked up so much fishing line and pulled hooks out of my kids feet from irresponsible fishers as well. Inclusion is the key, these are our lands and resources to share!

I fully support all of the proposed changes! SWA's and other recreational locations throughout the State are being overrun by a lot people that could care less about rules and regulations. Giving our SWAs a chance to return to recover is extremely vital to the ecology and support of natural wildlife. Thank you so much!

Removed by moderator.

“They are intended to benefit wildlife populations or provide opportunities for wildlife-related recreation, the agency said.” Ha! That’s a joke. Ask the fish and animals being hunted if they’d agree about these ‘benefits’. I don’t see how SUPping has any negative impacts on this wildlife you profess to be taking care of. I say NO to this provision.

I fully support limiting SWA use to hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find private land on which to pursue those activities without paying a premium. I know some SWA's are used by bicycle riders, dog walkers, general hikers and campers. Especially those close to towns and especially on weekends. Most state parks have facilities to pursue those and other activities and should be used for that purpose.

I support all the changes listed except limiting use of dogs to only hunting and training, or field trial activities. Maybe dogs should be leashed unless being used for hunting, training or field trial activities.

I would like to see the lower portion of the Basalt Wildlife Area open on April 15th, as it has in the past. I live in the town of Basalt, and it is nice to be able to go on a quick hike without getting in the car to drive to a trailhead. I have never seen Elk on the lower trail which is so close to town. Please consider keeping the lower portion open on April 15th. Thank you, Kim Taets

I fully support these changes. I've purchased fishing and hunting licenses in Colorado for over 45 years. In a state growing more crowded daily, access to state public property specifically for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing needs to be preserved and managed for these specific activities. There aren't that many places to pursue these activities in comparison to other recreational pursuits. Please consider those of us who fund the management of SWAs with license purchases for those specific activities.

Thank you

I support in general the current rules that restrict use primarily to hunting and fishing and wildlife viewing, as opposed to other recreational activities such as paddle boarding , rock climbing, etc. Also no dogs.

The general provisions proposed represent important steps to keep SWAs from over use by general recreation, which has in recent years has become a major risk and stressor to wildlife. Colorado has millions of acres of federal and state lands where general recreation (paddling/rafting/dog walking/rock climbing etc) are permitted.
SWA properties were purchased from license sales and excise tax funds from hunters and anglers, and it is critical that these uses and wildlife populations be prioritized on these SWAs. I applaud CPW for making this distinction clear and seeking to maintain and protect access to hunting and angling on these SWA properties.

Let's be honest, the primary focus of the "wildlife" side of CPW is not actually "wildlife management", but rather it is management for hunting and fishing - which is not exactly the same as "wildlife management". There is some overlap, for sure. But there are MANY more non-game species of wildlife than game-species. And, if they are really primarily a wildlife management agency, why do they incorporate shooting ranges and target practice areas into state wildlife areas? These activities in and of themselves have nothing to do with preserving wildlife habitat or directly benefit wildlife.

There are so many broad/blanket changes being proposed in these rule changes that will ultimately backfire on CPW. Many of the proposed changes are a direct result of the agency being forced a few years ago to come up a with a mechanism for non-consumptive users (e.g. bird watchers, wildlife watchers, etc.) to be allowed purchase a permit to utilize SWAs - something that the "division of wildlife" side of CPW did not appreciate.

Given the restrictions being placed on non-consumptive use (e.g. "the use of vessels on state wildlife area waters has been restricted to those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting" ... why are kayaks that serve as a quiet and minimally invasive platform for bird watching not allowed,?) I fully expect there will be a ballot initiative in the next 5-10 years that will restrict CPWs ability to regulate non-consumptive use. And, much as they did with the spring bear hunt ballot initiative, and the wolf management ballot initiative, CPW will cry loudly about how wildlife management decisions should not be made at the ballot box, but rather should be left to the professionals.

Let's see a set of proposed rules that actually put the science and the management of wildlife populations front and center. Most of what is being proposed at the moment is a thinly veiled effort to reduce non-consumptive use.

Good luck, CPW. I am amazed at the lack of long-range planning.

I think most of this is a really good idea. The past few years I've seen more and more anglers. I've also seen more trash, illegal camping, etc.
I find the SWAs as such wonderful opportunities for fishing, and often being less crowded. They are meant for hunting and fishing, not for other activities that you note in the document.
The document probably needs a bit more proofing - some things seem a bit confusing. For example - Mt Evans SWA. It says,
"Public access Use of the property is restricted to only fishing and hunting
activities from the day after Labor Day through the end of the 4thth regular rifle
season.
Vehicles are prohibited from the day after Labor Day through June 14, except
during regular rifle deer and elk seasons."
So per this, how do people access after Labor Day til end of 4th season if they are fishing?

Also, I understand the 'no dogs' unless hunting, etc. However, my favorite companion when fishing for many years was my Lab. He was well trained and stayed by me when I wade or shore fished. As a woman fishing alone, I found the dog a great companion and felt secure with him by my side. I know many others (men and women) must feel the same. I have had a few a few odd encounters with 'strange' men while out fishing. I think the dog really offered a defense.
Thanks, Karen Christopherson

As a hunter, fisherman, and general outdoorsman, I urge you to please reconsider the proposed limitations of dogs on SWA lands. As a frequenter of SWA lands, I can understand how the most efficient solution would appear to be sweeping rule such as ‘training and hunting dogs only’. A large part of my summer months are spent fishing, with my well-trained dog sleeping in the sun on the nearest shoreline. This new proposition would force me to leave my best fishing companion at home, or worse yet, eliminate a large swath of fishing access from my maps.

Without concrete evidence, my best educated guess is that this rule change stems from complaints/issues of untrained dogs on these lands. Please don’t allow the actions of some impact the enjoyment of those places for all others. Is there not a middle ground of a leash law or something of that nature?


Thank you for your time,

Noel Worden

I am particularly concerned about the impact these proposed changes would have on Basalt SWA. While there are many specific proposed increased restrictions that should be abandoned in this provision, the one that pushes the current winter closure date of April 15 back to July 15 for simple trail use is particularly egregious. CPW would better serve the public by abandoning this entire provision and replacing it with one that greater opens these lands for public use. Last year, in addition to implementing the requirement of a fishing license to walk on the base hill of a mountain, you also boarded up an entrance to the trail that accesses these lands and made it no longer possible to transport a stroller through it like in years past when I taught my kids to hike on that trail. My comment on this last October went completely unanswered. I hope for a better outcome this time. My proposed compromise for Basalt is to move up the winter closure date until March 15. This would open up the land from the basalt/roaring fork corridor up basalt mountain until the power lines and forest service roads that service the utilities and lands there. Perhaps, June 1, the rest can be opened up. I was saddened not to see Matt at the local town meet tonight. This "provision" has gotten far too far down the process without mechanism for not just public involvement, but the local towns as well. Furthermore, the only proposed need I have gathered from these restrictions from CPW is to further habitat conservation and restore deer and elk herd. I know countless hunters, fishers, boaters, picnickers, and trail users. I can count on zero hands how many of them agree with these supposed needs.

We are strongly opposed to the changes as relates to Beaver Lake: The definition of a vessel was modified and the use of vessels on state wildlife area waters has been restricted to those being actively used for fishing and/or hunting.

Those using the lake for non-fishing or hunting purposes can and do use it responsibly. Additionally, please consider making it a no-swimming lake (similar to Evergreen Reservoir) if the changes are due to swimming being potentially harmful to the environment. Additionally, this feels highly discriminatory to disabled individuals who cannot fish but are most definitely enjoying being on the water in kayaks and on stable SUPs. We ask you to please reevaluate this so that all responsible individuals can use and enjoy the lake.

It saddens me to see people proposing to ban paddle boarding on the lake to decrease traffic/congestion in town. I would say that just because you ban paddle boarding it will not change the traffic in town. People will still be flooding the streets. Banning paddle boarding without any sort of research or evidence that this will decrease the amount of "traffic" to town is needed before going forward. Not everyone comes to the lake to paddle board so this all seems a bit extreme. People will still come even if you say they can't paddle board. I hope this becomes more of a conversation about ways to accommodate people.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed regulations for Beaver Lake. I believe if CPW enforced and upheld its current rules and regs we would not be in an over crowding situation. CPW has continued to neglect the parking lot, licenses and its responsibilities as the governing body for Beaver Lake.

I believe it would be a huge mistake to not allow other forms of recreation on the lake. There are so many people and families who have been enjoying the lake for years. It would be extremally brash and tactless action if the proposed regulations went into effect.

From what I understand Cobb Lake SWA was donated to the state for the purpose of training hunting dogs. There are already so few places to train dogs properly in CO and now CPW also wants to remove a long-standing effective tool from dog trainers. I’m hoping that the verbiage for the proposed change to the use of hand-propelled vessels being limited to those “actively fishing and/or hunting” be edited to include “and/or those training/testing dogs for hunting.” The use a kayak to train/test dogs in extensive duck searches for game reduces the number of game birds being lost during hunting seasons. It will also keep the number released ducks being left on the SWA to a minimum. I fear w/o the use of kayaks we will see a rise in the number of released ducks abandoned on the SWA.

Sunscreen alone is poisoning Beaver Lake and surrounding waters. The algae in Beaver is of orange color, which indicates a high P.h. Many, many mountain lakes are not accessible as readily as Beaver. The sheer amount of people swimming in it, without proper biodegradable sunscreen, is negatively harming the environment. This lake should be fishing only.

Removed by moderator.