So I am on board with you Randy. I am a Colorado resident. What things to I need to do and vote for to help prevent what could happen? A video on what to do would be helpful.
The next video, Episode 16, explains just that. Mostly, get active, get involved, and make sure your hunting friends get involved. The last public comment I was involved with, hunters were up in arms about the proposal. Only 84 of us provided written comments, while the other side provided over 2,200+ comments. Yet, I have talked to hundreds of hunters upset about the final outcome. Point being, if we do not get our friends engaged, we will be overwhelmed. Since this is a political issue, when I say "get involved," it means jumping into the ugly morass of politics and holding politicians accountable. Thanks for watching and thanks for your advocacy.
Couldn't a lot of these access and use issues be solved with some sort of stipulations with the transfer that would force the states to implement a program to keep use open? Not that it would actually happen that way ... but just a thought. Most of these issues seem to be apart of a larger set of issues that need to be solved. Long term if the Feds provided emergency relief funds for fires as they do for other natural disasters, transferred land is put in a different group that isnt required to make money, there was litigation reform, etc. would you have as much opposition to it?
Good questions. When I first studied the idea, I thought it had possibility. Now, after years of dissecting it, reading legal and economic reports, I realize it is one more "head fake" in the bigger game of politics. If it was about better management, I would be more open to it. The final objective is not about better management. When we ask some of these state politicians if they would be willing to make some of the changes you mention, they either say, "No," or they give some long-winded line about why it would be a problem. I agree, that it would not likely happen. When asked, they often say, "We will work on those changes once the transfer happens." I'm not trusting my hunting and fishing access to the promise of a "bought and paid for" politician who claims they will do what I need, after they get what they want. Not a single problem we face with public land management is solved by State Transfer. Every single problem we face on Federal public lands could be solved by Congress. They just refuse to do the work they were elected. Many of them try to BS me. I come from a logging family. My Dad was a logger, my uncles were all loggers, my brother is still a logger, many of my friends are loggers or work at mills. Not a single politician can give me a cogent explanation of how State Transfer would improve land management. They give me some smoke and mirrors, but when analyzed, none of it holds up. I suspect I know more about the logging/timber/forestry industry than most of them. As if beetle kill doesn't happen on State Lands, as if trees don't burn if the State holds title, or noxious weeds refuse to grow if State Land Boards own the land. Some of their explanations are laughable. And I do admit that at times, I do laugh out loud. One told me that states would be exempt from the ESA. I laughed so hard, the Representative looked around as though he had missed the punchline of a good joke. My point in doing all of this is driven my the fact that I've tired of politicians not doing their job. They could fix everything that is a problem, if they had the spine to do so. Some who want to take advantage of the frustration caused by Congress' inaction are out promoting schemes like State Transfer, that do nothing to improve the situation, but would cause big changes in hunting/fishing/recreation activities and access for such. Thanks for watching. I hope you have a great season ahead.
Randy Newberg, Hunter Thanks for the response. Makes sense that they wouldn't want to actually be fixing the problems ... makes it easier to push for the lands to be sold. Keep up the great work! I truly appreciate everything you do for the hunting/fishing community.
Randy I just read your post on HuntTalk which led me to this video. I was dumbfounded by your comment that no recreation including hunting is permitted on State Trust Land. That is a completely false statement. I hunt on STL annually and will continue to do so. Your presentation failed to present an accurate account of how the land is managed in Colorado. I direct you to the State Trust Lands page on the Colorado Parks and Recreation website so your readers will get a better understanding of how land is accessible to recreation. cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx
Jimmy - I have been denied hunting access to State Trust Lands in Colorado on multiple occasions. Why? Because allowing public hunting access is completely up the lessee, unless the property one of the small percentages that is leased by the CPW (only 12% of the State Trust Lands are leased by CPW.) The link you provided applies to that small minority of State Trust Lands leased by CPW. I notice the Colorado State Land Board has recently changed it website and removed the large notice that said how State Trust Lands are not open to public recreation use, as is shown at the 1:54 point in the video above. That is rather peculiar that they have removed that statement from the State Land Board website since this video was posted a few weeks ago. Were the people who denied me hunting access to State Trust Lands violating the law or the terms of their lease? CPW can barely afford to lease hunting access on the small percentage of State Trust Lands they currently lease from the State Land Board. I'm very confident in my statements in the video that Colorado State Trust Lands are not open for public recreation as are USFS and BLM lands, and that if 23 million acres of USFS and BLM lands were transferred to the Colorado State Land Board, the fact that CPW does not have budget to lease the hunting access on those 23 million acres, we would lose access to open hunting on those lands. If you have evidence showing I am wrong about Colorado State Trust Lands not being open for public recreation as are BLM and USFS lands, I would appreciate such links. Thanks for watching.
Randy you just agreed that Colorado STL is open to recreation just not at the percentages you want. Your video is a lie . Now you want to change your arguement and compare it with different government lands. Changing the focus of your arguement after you get exposed is a poor debate practice. I deal with bias people all the time and your simply not an honest man. By your extended reply you seem to be a victim of injustices and conspiracy issues as well. Below is the link proving what you say in your video is a lie. cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx
Jimmy, you are the "liar". Randy's video did not claim that ALL CO state lands were not open to recreation, just that a very small percentage was - which is certainly the truth. As a CO native, I have hunted/recreated all over this state, and spent untold hours perusing maps, documents and websites, to ferret out all manner of public lands. Not only does the CO state land board lease only a small portion of their holdings to CPW for public access, they are very much "in the pocket" of all the extractive industries as well as developers, to basically sell (or lease) off the state lands to the highest bidder. Per the CPW website as of 8/17/16: State Trust Lands in Colorado currently total nearly 3 million surface acres. The federal government endowed the lands to Colorado in 1876, the year the Centennial State officially joined the union. Public access for wildlife-related recreation on 500,000 acres of State Trust Land (STL) is made possible through the Public Access Program, a lease agreement between the State Land Board and Colorado Parks & Wildlife. And from the State Land Board website: The State Board of Land Commissioners prudently manages the assets it holds in trust to produce reasonable and consistent income over time while protecting and enhancing the long-term value and productivity of these assets through the application of sound stewardship. "Stewardship" in this case is another way of saying "maximize profit". Oh - by the way, the link you included to "prove" Randy was lying is broken. Try again.
"Colorado does not allow public recreation on State Trust Lands." Begins at :50 and ends at :55. Do you want to watch the video again and maybe this time turn on the volume? The rest of your blathering is my point exactly. The percentages may be small but recreation is allowed. That is a completely different arguement than not allowed at all. Thank you for supporting and proving that the video is false. The link isnt broken however if you cant copy and paste a link than you have told me all I need to know.
Thank you for producing these videos. I guide as many hunters and sportsmen to these videos and your podcasts as possible!
Thanks for watching/listening. Glad to hear that our message resonates. Hope you have a great season ahead.
So I am on board with you Randy. I am a Colorado resident. What things to I need to do and vote for to help prevent what could happen? A video on what to do would be helpful.
The next video, Episode 16, explains just that. Mostly, get active, get involved, and make sure your hunting friends get involved. The last public comment I was involved with, hunters were up in arms about the proposal. Only 84 of us provided written comments, while the other side provided over 2,200+ comments. Yet, I have talked to hundreds of hunters upset about the final outcome.
Point being, if we do not get our friends engaged, we will be overwhelmed. Since this is a political issue, when I say "get involved," it means jumping into the ugly morass of politics and holding politicians accountable.
Thanks for watching and thanks for your advocacy.
Simply disgusting.
I've been buying an Elk tag every year for the past 40 years... if this happens... I and most will not hunt there.
No way I would be putting money into that state if they transfer. No way.
If you hike, bike, climb, hunt, camp, ride or anything on public land time to band together for the sake of everyone's enjoyment.
Couldn't a lot of these access and use issues be solved with some sort of stipulations with the transfer that would force the states to implement a program to keep use open? Not that it would actually happen that way ... but just a thought. Most of these issues seem to be apart of a larger set of issues that need to be solved. Long term if the Feds provided emergency relief funds for fires as they do for other natural disasters, transferred land is put in a different group that isnt required to make money, there was litigation reform, etc. would you have as much opposition to it?
Good questions. When I first studied the idea, I thought it had possibility. Now, after years of dissecting it, reading legal and economic reports, I realize it is one more "head fake" in the bigger game of politics. If it was about better management, I would be more open to it. The final objective is not about better management.
When we ask some of these state politicians if they would be willing to make some of the changes you mention, they either say, "No," or they give some long-winded line about why it would be a problem. I agree, that it would not likely happen. When asked, they often say, "We will work on those changes once the transfer happens." I'm not trusting my hunting and fishing access to the promise of a "bought and paid for" politician who claims they will do what I need, after they get what they want.
Not a single problem we face with public land management is solved by State Transfer. Every single problem we face on Federal public lands could be solved by Congress. They just refuse to do the work they were elected.
Many of them try to BS me. I come from a logging family. My Dad was a logger, my uncles were all loggers, my brother is still a logger, many of my friends are loggers or work at mills. Not a single politician can give me a cogent explanation of how State Transfer would improve land management. They give me some smoke and mirrors, but when analyzed, none of it holds up. I suspect I know more about the logging/timber/forestry industry than most of them. As if beetle kill doesn't happen on State Lands, as if trees don't burn if the State holds title, or noxious weeds refuse to grow if State Land Boards own the land. Some of their explanations are laughable. And I do admit that at times, I do laugh out loud. One told me that states would be exempt from the ESA. I laughed so hard, the Representative looked around as though he had missed the punchline of a good joke.
My point in doing all of this is driven my the fact that I've tired of politicians not doing their job. They could fix everything that is a problem, if they had the spine to do so. Some who want to take advantage of the frustration caused by Congress' inaction are out promoting schemes like State Transfer, that do nothing to improve the situation, but would cause big changes in hunting/fishing/recreation activities and access for such.
Thanks for watching. I hope you have a great season ahead.
Randy Newberg, Hunter Thanks for the response. Makes sense that they wouldn't want to actually be fixing the problems ... makes it easier to push for the lands to be sold. Keep up the great work! I truly appreciate everything you do for the hunting/fishing community.
Randy I just read your post on HuntTalk which led me to this video. I was dumbfounded by your comment that no recreation including hunting is permitted on State Trust Land. That is a completely false statement. I hunt on STL annually and will continue to do so. Your presentation failed to present an accurate account of how the land is managed in Colorado. I direct you to the State Trust Lands page on the Colorado Parks and Recreation website so your readers will get a better understanding of how land is accessible to recreation. cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx
Jimmy - I have been denied hunting access to State Trust Lands in Colorado on multiple occasions. Why? Because allowing public hunting access is completely up the lessee, unless the property one of the small percentages that is leased by the CPW (only 12% of the State Trust Lands are leased by CPW.) The link you provided applies to that small minority of State Trust Lands leased by CPW.
I notice the Colorado State Land Board has recently changed it website and removed the large notice that said how State Trust Lands are not open to public recreation use, as is shown at the 1:54 point in the video above. That is rather peculiar that they have removed that statement from the State Land Board website since this video was posted a few weeks ago.
Were the people who denied me hunting access to State Trust Lands violating the law or the terms of their lease?
CPW can barely afford to lease hunting access on the small percentage of State Trust Lands they currently lease from the State Land Board. I'm very confident in my statements in the video that Colorado State Trust Lands are not open for public recreation as are USFS and BLM lands, and that if 23 million acres of USFS and BLM lands were transferred to the Colorado State Land Board, the fact that CPW does not have budget to lease the hunting access on those 23 million acres, we would lose access to open hunting on those lands. If you have evidence showing I am wrong about Colorado State Trust Lands not being open for public recreation as are BLM and USFS lands, I would appreciate such links. Thanks for watching.
Randy you just agreed that Colorado STL is open to recreation just not at the percentages you want. Your video is a lie . Now you want to change your arguement and compare it with different government lands. Changing the focus of your arguement after you get exposed is a poor debate practice.
I deal with bias people all the time and your simply not an honest man. By your extended reply you seem to be a victim of injustices and conspiracy issues as well.
Below is the link proving what you say in your video is a lie.
cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx
Your welcome to keep thinking that, Jimmy. Best of luck to you this season.
Jimmy, you are the "liar". Randy's video did not claim that ALL CO state lands were not open to recreation, just that a very small percentage was - which is certainly the truth. As a CO native, I have hunted/recreated all over this state, and spent untold hours perusing maps, documents and websites, to ferret out all manner of public lands. Not only does the CO state land board lease only a small portion of their holdings to CPW for public access, they are very much "in the pocket" of all the extractive industries as well as developers, to basically sell (or lease) off the state lands to the highest bidder. Per the CPW website as of 8/17/16:
State Trust Lands in Colorado currently total nearly 3 million surface acres. The federal government endowed the lands to Colorado in 1876, the year the Centennial State officially joined the union. Public access for wildlife-related recreation on 500,000 acres of State Trust Land (STL) is made possible through the Public Access Program, a lease agreement between the State Land Board and Colorado Parks & Wildlife.
And from the State Land Board website:
The State Board of Land Commissioners prudently manages the assets it holds in trust to produce reasonable and consistent income over time while protecting and enhancing the long-term value and productivity of these assets through the application of sound stewardship.
"Stewardship" in this case is another way of saying "maximize profit".
Oh - by the way, the link you included to "prove" Randy was lying is broken. Try again.
"Colorado does not allow public recreation on State Trust Lands." Begins at :50 and ends at :55. Do you want to watch the video again and maybe this time turn on the volume?
The rest of your blathering is my point exactly. The percentages may be small but recreation is allowed. That is a completely different arguement than not allowed at all. Thank you for supporting and proving that the video is false.
The link isnt broken however if you cant copy and paste a link than you have told me all I need to know.
If you hike, bike, climb, hunt, camp, ride or anything on public land time to band together for the sake of everyone's enjoyment.