Northern Colorado Hunters

HiMtnHntr · Apr 22, 2008

Northern Colorado Hunters: The possible expanision of your hunting activities is being decided by a bunch of non-hunter land use managers.....Case in point: The City of Fort Collins has one of the most successfull natural area programs in the country. In other words, they have a lot of money (Your Money!!!!) to throw around for the aquisition of lands. Now, for those of you that think, "ah, these are just small tracts in and around the city of Fort Collins." Wrong! They are buying large tracts (15,000+ acres), ranches mostly, that the state can't touch because they are too expensive. They're turning these areas into nature parks and as of now no hunting is allowed on any City of Fort Collins lands. I read one of the reasons why hunting will not be allowed in one particular management plan: I quote "Rangers are unarmed. Enforcement activities or field situations would pose a threat to officer safety and place rangers at a serious disadvantage." City managers believes hunters are dangerous! When's the last time you heard of a hunter shooting a wildlife manager or warden!! This guy has no clue! The mentality of this area has been being taken over for years by liberal bunny-hugging hippies that have come to epitomize everything the west is against. This is the type of thinking that will continue to ruin opportunities for hunters. The continued aquisition of lands by the City and County(the county is only slightly more hunter-friendly) is sure to continue. In my view, the lands they aquire are worse than simply private holdings if hunting is not allowed. They essentially become off limits to you for hunting forever. Ranchers are selling out because the money is there. Are there enough hunters in the area to influence what is happening?

hotdiggity · Apr 23, 2008

The rules and regs of Larimer county are odd. It goes beyond hunting, if you want to walk off of the trail you are ticketed, if you want to access National Forest from the county land you are ticketed, and I believe you can be cited for fishing since you are off of the designated trail. I think the only way to influence them would be to petition and show up at the county meetings in force. The laws are BS and what you are creating isn't natural, it's another gay park where you might as well pave the trails and forgo utilizing any of its "natural" value.

HiMtnHntr · Apr 24, 2008

LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-08 AT 08:05AM (MST)[p]The reality is that we really can't show up at meetings in force because we are so outnumbered by non-hunters who have a different idea of what conservation/preservation means. As the old timers would say, the place going to "he11 in a handbasket." This due to a large population that is further and further removed from the land. City dwellers. Many haven't the slightest clue where their protein comes from or how it is to procure their own stash of meat. They're content to view the land and wildlife from outside of the natural scheme, from a trail at a nature park. They've not been taught to participate in nature and to appreciate the amazing experience of roaming free in wild country....The reality is that this mentality is spreading far and wide. Watch out in any "progressive" city throughout the west for these changing ideas of wilderness and wild country, not just califorado. The reality is that this cohort has a lot of money. The agencies we'd like to see end up with this land are just not able to compete.

MuleyBuck009 · May 1, 2008

If we are talking about the same large tracts of land that the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have purchased over the last couple of years - some of the money that was used to purchase those lands came from Lotty dollars - Colorado Outdoors grants not just local tax dollars. One recent article I read said there would be limited hunting opportunities provided in the near future - keep in mind that these land were never accessable to the general public and yes I do believe that if local tax dollars were used to purchase these land, we should all have a right to use them regardless of polical ties. The limited hunting opportunities would be a very limited # of access tags being issued to control harvest numbers (elk, deer and antelope) - it did not go into detail on how those access tags would be issued.
Your statements would have us all believe there's nothing but doom and gloom on the horizion for all our fellow hunters. The silver lining is somewhat tarnished but not gone. We do need to make our presence well known and not allow the transplants to instill their values over our own (remember in the early 90's and they took our spring bear hunts from us - we can't allow that to happen ever again).
We all need to continue to fight the good fight. Keep our youth invovled, teach proper hunting ethics and not give the anti's fuel for their fire. They will never be able to manage our wildlife like the hunters of this country have for the last 100 years - we support wildlife with our license dollars - where are they going to get the money to manage the herds, from the humane society (even though they do have deep pockets - there not deep enough). United we won't fail / Divided and they succeed.
I'm off my soap box for now -

Robert

HiMtnHntr · May 3, 2008

There will be limited hunting on the chunk owned by the county, but as of now not on the largest chunk owned by the city. It is my understanding that since the DOW had a hand in the county's purchase, there will be limited hunting allowed there. I do agree that hunters should make their presence known on these issues, but I'm afraid that in this neck of the woods, united to the man, we are still grossly outnumbered by a populace that would vote every time not to allow hunting on these places. How does it come to be decided that the best use for these lands is to carve them up with access roads, miles and miles of maintained trails, parking lots, outhouses, interpretive signs, etc? Is this a benefit to wildlife and wild country? The primary goals for these new aquisitions are being determined by people who view human enjoyment as paramount, not wildlife or the land. They are not hunters, and they sure as heck aint wildlife managers.

MuleyBuck009 · May 3, 2008

You are correct. The county land will allow limited hunting on approx. 13,000 acres and the 70,000 arce area is still under consideration due largely in part to the still existant cattle opperation (the city is leasing the property back to the original owners for the cattle rights).
I agree with your assesment of the managers - they are not wildlife managers. I also beleive it will take a greater number of hunter involvement to make changes to their master plan - maybe some of our larger organization can give a helping hand (Mule Deer foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, etc... - anybody want to get involved ?)
I'm willing to put forth some effort for our greater good - let's see if we can make something happen - we've got to start somewhere, no matter how small the movement will be in the begining.

Robert