CPW proposed private land bighorn sheep access program

[ColoradoOak]

The Parks and Wildlife Commission was mailed a CPW issue paper last week which proposes a new private land access program for bighorn sheep, to replace the existing Ranching for Wildlife bighorn sheep access program. The issue paper will be formally introduced at the PWC meeting next Tuesday, and can be read at http://www.bighornsheep.org/11_Bighorn_Sheep_Private_Land_Access_Issue_FINAL.pdf

Some important differences between the existing RFW program and the proposed program include:

?A reduction in deeded acreage required to qualify, from 12,000 to 5,000

?A change in ram license allocation from the current 1:1 public/private split to a 2:1 or 3:1 allocation favoring the landowners, depending on the option chosen by the landowner

?A minimum of 60% of the bighorn sheep in the DAU must reside on private land or State Trust Land not currently accessible by the public for a ranch to be eligible

?No requirement for the participating ranches to conduct habitat management actions

Other notable aspects of the proposed program include:

?The two ranches currently enrolled in the RFW program at the 1:1 allocation will transition to the new program when their existing contracts have been fulfilled

?Public license hunters may be restricted from spike camping on ranches unless that benefit is offered to the private license hunters

?Successful public license hunters will be subject to the 5 year wait before reapplying in the state draw for a bighorn ram license or preference point, while successful private license hunters will not have the same restriction

The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society Board is concerned with many aspects of the proposed program. Our greatest concern is with loss of the public resource to private interests. The proposed program reduces the public allocation of licenses on participating ranches and does nothing to benefit wild sheep. This proposal continues the trend of privatizing our wildlife in the state, at the cost of lost opportunity for the hunters that cannot afford to pay $35K-$60k for a private land sheep license.

The existing bighorn sheep RFW program likely does need some changes made to accommodate the ranches that do not wish to participate in the deer and elk portion of the program (currently a requirement to participate with bighorn sheep). However, the threefold increase in private ram licenses under the proposed program is a slap in the face to Colorado hunters who fund the vast majority of wildlife management in the state.

The RMBS will be testifying in opposition to the proposed program at the PWC meeting next week in Grand Junction. I encourage those of you who cannot attend the meeting in person to please email the Commission with your thoughts on the proposal. You may email them at: [email protected]​

If you wish to send comments directly to the Commissioners so that they receive them prior to the meeting, please use the following addresses:

Robert Bray, Chairman: [email protected]
Chris Castilian: [email protected]
Jeanne Horne: [email protected]
John Howard: [email protected]
Bill Kane: [email protected]
Dale Pizel: [email protected]
James Pribyl: [email protected]
Jim Vigil: [email protected]
Dean Wingfield: [email protected]
Michelle Zimmerman: [email protected]
Alexander Zipp: [email protected]

Mike King, Executive Director DNR, Ex-Officio PWC member: [email protected]
Don Brown, Commissioner of Agriculture, Ex-Officio PWC member: [email protected]
Bob Broscheid, Director CPW, Ex-Officio PWC member: [email protected]

 

[ColoradoOak]

http://www.denverpost.com/willoughb...by-sheep-hunters-butt-heads-over-private-land

 

[Elkduds]

CO, thanks for the heads-up. This is important, even if you don't aspire to hunt bighorns on RFW. Get informed, make your opinion known to Wildlife Commission members. You can be sure the $$ has made their desires plain to the Commissioners.

 

[elks96]

Thanks for getting this out. I am greatly concerned with the continual trend of decreasing public tags and shifting them further into private hands. We already know the RFW program is broken and not working as it was intended and this seems to take the program one steep further in the wrong direction.

The 2 sticking points for me, would be a 1:1 ratio for the public vs. Private tags and the other would be requiring the establishment of allowable spike camping areas near the hunting area.

I am not so concerned about habitat improvements as the landowners would surely want to improve the habitat in order to have more sheep and more tags.

As mentioned this is huge, even for non-sheep guys. It is a dangerous sample to set up a system in which private landowners control 66% or as high as 75% of the tags...

 

[jims]

It's great to hear that RMBS is not in favor of the idea and hopefully has input on preventing this from happening! I still don't understand why public hunters loose their pref pts when tags are drawn and those hunters that purchase landowner and RFW tags don't loose their pts when they buy tags? Doesn't make any sense to me! It also is a shame that the CPW doesn't stand up for public hunters (which are the majority of tax paying residents within Colorado)! This year more landowner tags were taken out of the public hands and now more RFW tags issued to the private....what's next?

Hopefully the CPW will allow the public time to respond?

 

[ColoradoOak]

>Hopefully the CPW will allow the
>public time to respond?


Jim, this isn't directed at you, but...

I started this thread on the day the proposal was posted on the CPW website in April. It got zero replies. Approval of such proposals must go through a 3 step process with the CPW Commission, and this proposal was first introduced at the May meeting. Three people testified on the proposal at that meeting: representatives of RMBS and CWF opposed, and a representative of Colorado Cattlemen's Association supported. The Commission advanced the proposal for further discussion, placing it on the July meeting agenda. They requested CPW staff to attempt to produce an estimate of license allocation under the proposal for the July meeting, so that they could gauge the net benefit to the public.

There were several people at the July meeting to testify on the proposal, including:

- Representatives of RMBS and CWF, opposed.
- Three members of the public opposed, including one who drove all the way from NM to testify, imploring the Commission to not turn CO into what NM has become with landowner tags.
- A representative for CBA, who opposed the proposal on behalf of CBA and then spent more time telling the Commission that he personally fully supported the proposal.
- Four ranch managers in support.
- A representative of CO Trappers Association in support.

At the end of testimony, one of the Sportsmen's Reps on the Commission made comments that the email input he received on the proposal was overwhelmingly in favor. The Commission forwarded the proposal to the September meeting for a vote.

The public had 72 days to provide input between the time the proposal was first posted on the website until the meeting on Thursday. If just 1% of the over 14,000 people who applied for a sheep license last year would have taken the time to write an email opposing the proposal, we may have had a different outcome. But as long as sportsmen continue their apathetic disengagement, we will continue to lose opportunity to landowner and outfitter interests.

An aside: one of the major tenets of this proposal from the outset was that sportsmen would not lose licenses currently allocated in the public draw to a reallocation to ranches enrolled in the program. However, the table of estimated license quotas presented at the meeting on Thursday included a reallocation of 4 licenses annually that are currently issued in the public draw, including the three licenses issued in S61 (Pinyon Canyon). So over the 12 year projection presented in the table, 48 unitwide public licenses will be converted to 12 ranch-only public licenses and 36 ranch-only vouchers issued to landowners. But apparently the public doesn't care....

 

[elks96]

This really bothers me. I sent 2 rounds of emails in opposition to this and never got a response.

I also would like to know who the CBA rep was! I have been very disappointed by the CBA in the past and this is almost the last straw. How can you attend a meeting and represent the organization, but then inject your personal views. Your either there as a CBA rep or your not.

So now we need to get some people fired up! Of course next meeting is in the middle of hunting season!

While I agree that the public needs to speak up, I feel the CPW is totally failing at communicating! They expect the hunter toseek out the information and find out the issues. Sorry but average working hunters have no chance to compete with the outfitters who are actually working when attending! I could not make the meeting because I am across the state at a conference for my career.

It is a broken system that reminds me of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Sure you know about this, and I know but hell I do not always have time to even tell my father and he sure does not have time to figure out all the crap we constantly get hit with!

It just never ends and one issue gets pushed through while 2 or 3 others come up and a guy can not keep up with all! Right now I am trying to figure out how much the wildlife fence will screw up unit 22, what is happening to 22,000 acres in NW Colorado that the public is going to loose, the Sheep Issue, the Finance issues, etc.

We then expect groups like the CBA, MDF, RMBS, to represent. Only to find one said the CBA was against but it seems like a good idea is crap!

>>Hopefully the CPW will allow the
>>public time to respond?
>
>
>Jim, this isn't directed at you,
>but...
>
>I started this thread on the
>day the proposal was posted
>on the CPW website in
>April. It got zero
>replies. Approval of such
>proposals must go through a
>3 step process with the
>CPW Commission, and this proposal
>was first introduced at the
>May meeting. Three people
>testified on the proposal at
>that meeting: representatives of RMBS
>and CWF opposed, and a
>representative of Colorado Cattlemen's Association
>supported. The Commission advanced
>the proposal for further discussion,
>placing it on the July
>meeting agenda. They requested
>CPW staff to attempt to
>produce an estimate of license
>allocation under the proposal for
>the July meeting, so that
>they could gauge the net
>benefit to the public.
>
>There were several people at the
>July meeting to testify on
>the proposal, including:
>
>- Representatives of RMBS and CWF,
>opposed.
>- Three members of the public
>opposed, including one who drove
>all the way from NM
>to testify, imploring the Commission
>to not turn CO into
>what NM has become with
>landowner tags.
>- A representative for CBA, who
>opposed the proposal on behalf
>of CBA and then spent
>more time telling the Commission
>that he personally fully supported
>the proposal.
>- Four ranch managers in support.
>
>- A representative of CO Trappers
>Association in support.
>
>At the end of testimony, one
>of the Sportsmen's Reps on
>the Commission made comments that
>the email input he received
>on the proposal was overwhelmingly
>in favor. The Commission
>forwarded the proposal to the
>September meeting for a vote.
>
>
>The public had 72 days to
>provide input between the time
>the proposal was first posted
>on the website until the
>meeting on Thursday. If
>just 1% of the over
>14,000 people who applied for
>a sheep license last year
>would have taken the time
>to write an email opposing
>the proposal, we may have
>had a different outcome.
>But as long as sportsmen
>continue their apathetic disengagement, we
>will continue to lose opportunity
>to landowner and outfitter interests.
>
>
>An aside: one of the
>major tenets of this proposal
>from the outset was that
>sportsmen would not lose licenses
>currently allocated in the public
>draw to a reallocation to
>ranches enrolled in the program.
> However, the table of
>estimated license quotas presented at
>the meeting on Thursday included
>a reallocation of 4 licenses
>annually that are currently issued
>in the public draw, including
>the three licenses issued in
>S61 (Pinyon Canyon). So
>over the 12 year projection
>presented in the table, 48
>unitwide public licenses will be
>converted to 12 ranch-only public
>licenses and 36 ranch-only vouchers
>issued to landowners. But
>apparently the public doesn't care....
>