Couldnt roll my eyes any harder

[Bigjay73]

Lawsuit targets new Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations for State Wildlife Areas

Colorado Parks and Wildlife's new regulations for recreation in more than 350 State Wildlife Areas targeted in lawsuit by animal rights group

coloradosun.com

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I’ve been waiting to see legislation like that here in Montana. God, I couldn’t jump on board fast enough.

“for the purpose of conserving wildlife habitat and providing wildlife-related recreation.” Seven years ago the agency began noticing increases in recreation at State Wildlife Areas from visitors who were not hunting and angling. In 2019, wildlife managers began studying the negative impacts from the increased recreational visitation and formed a task force that helped draft new rules to better protect wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation at the areas.

The agency said the new requirement was due to “a significant trend of people engaging in activities for which these properties were not intended.”

GOOD!

 

[Nick87]

Lawsuit targets new Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations for State Wildlife Areas

Colorado Parks and Wildlife's new regulations for recreation in more than 350 State Wildlife Areas targeted in lawsuit by animal rights group

coloradosun.com

Somehow the idiots will prevail. Somehow I think they're more passionate and definitely less divided Tham our side.

 

[LuketheDog]

Lawsuit targets new Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations for State Wildlife Areas

Colorado Parks and Wildlife's new regulations for recreation in more than 350 State Wildlife Areas targeted in lawsuit by animal rights group

coloradosun.com

Like I said in the other thread, we are inundated by morons in this state...

 

[Nick87]

Like I said in the other thread, we are inundated by morons in this state...

You are not alone.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I’ve been waiting to see legislation like that here in Montana. God, I couldn’t jump on board fast enough.

“for the purpose of conserving wildlife habitat and providing wildlife-related recreation.” Seven years ago the agency began noticing increases in recreation at State Wildlife Areas from visitors who were not hunting and angling. In 2019, wildlife managers began studying the negative impacts from the increased recreational visitation and formed a task force that helped draft new rules to better protect wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation at the areas.

The agency said the new requirement was due to “a significant trend of people engaging in activities for which these properties were not intended.”

GOOD!

I think if you buy the State Wildlife Area Pass you should have the same rights as anyone hunting or fishing. The problem in some of these areas is too much human use. Whatever the person is doing there is irrelevant. There are plenty of other ways to restrict the total # of persons using a parcel. I know hunters might not want to share, but that’s simply the reality of the world we live in today.

I hope they win the lawsuit.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

You probably like to walk your dogs and ride bikes with bear bells thru the woods during hunting season too.

I disagree- it’s very relevant.

A person quietly sneaking through the woods, trying their damndest to NOT disturb wildlife is not equally as disruptive as the hoards of others NOT hunting or fishing

 

[Bigjay73]

I think if you buy the State Wildlife Area Pass you should have the same rights as anyone hunting or fishing. The problem in some of these areas is too much human use. Whatever the person is doing there is irrelevant. There are plenty of other ways to restrict the total # of persons using a parcel. I know hunters might not want to share, but that’s simply the reality of the world we live in today.

I hope they win the lawsuit.

We paid for the lands, don't see why we should share. There's areas restricted only to mountain bikes, only to OHVs, only to foot traffic, where no hunting or fishing is allowed, don't know why we can't have some land that our fees paid for for our own uses. And anyone who can legally hunt or fish can use the lands, nobody is turned away. And honestly, most of the parcels are so small, I don't see why anyone would us them for anything else.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

This is why I effing HATE the other side! They are just assholes for the sake of being assholes. Things like this make it harder and harder for me to even try to understand the other sides point of view on stuff. Gives the me straight eff-em mentality!

 

[Hunting Wife]

Curious how the documents establishing these areas are written. I find it interesting the plaintiffs are using “conflicts with the multiple-use concept of management” as one of their arguments. I would think a state wildlife area has no such mandate - similar to USFWS properties.

If these areas are in fact established for the express purpose of “wildlife-dependent recreation and habitat”, I would think the agency does have latitude in regulating allowable activities. They may need to formally identify what those are however.

 

[MTGomer]

I too can see how it isn’t “fair” but a group that calls themselves “animal advocates” filing a lawsuit when the intended outcome is to intentionally have a negative effect on animals is hilarious.
That would be as dumb as people that call themselves feminists wanting men to play women’s sports or people that aren’t totally mentally handicapped trying to rationalize why a motor isn’t a motor, if it’s electric. Both of which we know would NEVER happen….. right!?

 

[elkduds]

From the article:

Noting that hunting and fishing license sales fell 10% between 1990 and 2020, the Friends of Animals lawsuit group suggested the new rule was simply a way to generate more revenue.

A national stat. The opposite is true in CO, your honor.

CPW's process for developing these rules was inclusive of public input.

 

[MTGomer]

I’m a child safety advocate. For that reason, I’m suing the state to lift the burdensome speed limits in school zones and to wave DUI laws during the hours school children are being picked up and dropped off.

 

[LuketheDog]

I think if you buy the State Wildlife Area Pass you should have the same rights as anyone hunting or fishing. The problem in some of these areas is too much human use. Whatever the person is doing there is irrelevant. There are plenty of other ways to restrict the total # of persons using a parcel. I know hunters might not want to share, but that’s simply the reality of the world we live in today.

I hope they win the lawsuit.

I hope they get their butts kicked in the lawsuit. The only way I think it would be remotely fair is if the other SWA users, like mountains bikers and hikers, had to buy an access license equivalent in price to a hunting or fishing license. CPW already tried to make access dependent on buying a $10 habitat stamp and the same side who are suing CPW now absolutely lost their sh*t over it because it wasn't "fair" (looking at you birdwatchers, who are utilizing a resource just like bird hunters). It's hard for some to wrap their heads around the fact that things like roads and trail maintenance, parking areas, outhouses, and law enforcement don't come for free, those dollars have to be generated from somewhere. Also, SWAs are designated for wildlife, many of them are closed for parts of the year to protect the wildlife, and the "recreation" this new group proposes will be year-round and way more disruptive and detrimental to the resource than hunting seasons will.

 

[Gellar]

The article said that Usfws money is/was used to purchase most of the state wildlife properties, I assume that is Pittman Robertson funds. Iowa has successfully argued against atv and snowmobile use on state WMA’s because federal funds were used to purchase the properties BUT, hunters aren’t allowed to use those machines either on WMA’s in Iowa. So if Colorado made the machines illegal on wma’s for everyone would that appease the group? For hiking and biking the state could allow those activities only on established trails and not have established/maintained trails on WMA’s. Essentially limiting off trail activities to hunters and anglers, but there are no trails on WMA’s so that makes those activities against the area regulations.

11,000 WMA passes in 2 years doesn’t seem like a lot of extra passes. Does that mean that the dog walkers and hikers were already buying hunting/fishing licenses?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m a child safety advocate. For that reason, I’m suing the state to lift the burdensome speed limits in school zones and to wave DUI laws during the hours school children are being picked up and dropped off.

Finally. The hero we need is here.

Don't see how this is successful, but man, what a bunch of maroons.

 

[one ate E grain]

I don't think it will go anywhere. The commissioners, which include many bunny hugging anti hunting types, passed the rule in August. Currently all users have to follow the same rules as hunters. Many SWA have very specific rules to make the areas into ideal habitat, other SWAs allow camping. The SWAs are managed with wildlife in mind, not hunters, and certainly not other types of recreation.

 

[Sasquatchewan]

"Couldn't roll my eyes any harder"

Bet you my wife could...

 

[Nick87]

"Couldn't roll my eyes any harder"

Bet you my wife could...

Amen.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Lawsuit targets new Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations for State Wildlife Areas

Colorado Parks and Wildlife's new regulations for recreation in more than 350 State Wildlife Areas targeted in lawsuit by animal rights group

coloradosun.com

The real intent here from “Friends of Animals” is greater and more sinister than just defending multi-use outdoor recreation. The intent is to slander and generate negative publicity regarding hunters and hunting in general. They want Colorado residents to believe that hunters receive preferential, privileged status from the state. They use the term “killing animals” numerous times, intentional. They know that they probably won’t win a lawsuit, CPW and AG have their stuff together mostly. They just want to take advantage of every opportunity to generate anti-hunting sentiment through public legal battles. It’s an effort to shape public opinion against hunters and hunting. The extremely powerful and well-funded national anti-hunting groups have set up shop in Colorado to begin a multi-decade, campaign to eliminate hunting here, they see the “blood in the water” -pun intended-and probably at the invitation of the Polis administration.