Mountain Buzz banner

21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
My assumption would be that this policy was on the desk of, and approved by, the lawmakers prior to COVIID times. With the safer-at-home logic still in place, anyone that's not a resident of the area is supposed to avoid contact with locals at all costs, right? I know that the verbiage on this new policy is saying they will "educate" first before writing tickets, but I think it would be in law enforcers' best interest to not send any of us river rats into the local gas stations or walmarts to pick up a license and risk more spread of the virus.

Just opinion, but my guess is this won't be enforced too often (if at all) until things COVIID related are officially back to as close to normal as we'll get.

All the same, I guess I should pick up that annual fishing license I've been meaning to get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Good Morning!

The Loma Boat Launch is not a BLM managed launch. We do provide check in's and the occasional LE support but the ramp is in fact a CPW managed State Wildlife area. Feel free to give us a call with any questions! 970-244-3000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Colorado should combine a State Wild Life license with a search and rescue fee. I'd be good with that as I'm not a fisher person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,010 Posts
You would think that a CPW parks pass would work like it does at the reservoirs in the state. You don't need a fishing license to launch on any of the lakes they manage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
Colorado should combine a State Wild Life license with a search and rescue fee. I'd be good with that as I'm not a fisher person.
When you buy a hunting and I believe a fishing license, there is a search and rescue fee attached. I don’t remember as I buy both each year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
I've been a life long fisherman and hunter and support the intents of the new regulations. I feel that there should be exceptions and than the Loma boat ramp is one of the exceptions. An adversarial relationship with the CFW will not solve anything. Discussion and compromise will be the only way to solve our legitimate challenges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Pretty sure the same laws that apply to "Navigable waterways", private land and all apply to the ability to float past Loma. As long as you don't touch the ground you don't need a license. I would suspect the same for those floating the Gunnison from Delta as it goes through the middle of a real Wildlife area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
This fee now applies to boaters running Dowd Chute on the Eagle River and using the scramble trail and CDOT pull-out parking at the River Run bus stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
So, did anyone else notice on the map of the Loma SWA that the other side of the river is the Horsetooth Canyon SWA? That map makes it look like there is a narrow passage between the 2, better bring your GPS. As a hunter also, this regulation doesn't bother me that much, as these lands don't have another source of funding, and most of the ones I have seen really are just for wildlife recreation. Loma is a bit of a weird one, as wildlife recreation seems like a minor use of it.

I like the float through suggestion, but also wondered if they treated it like a State Park, and placed one of their credit card readers at the parking lot, and charged $9 to park there, like the others is there would be as much push back.

I think we need to convince the BLM it is in everyone's best interest if the BLM buys the Loma SWA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Why isn't there any CPW signage at Loma?


Posts: 1

1 minute ago
Why no CPW signage at Loma boat ramp?
I was just there and all signage indicates this is a BLM resource. Absolutely nothing regarding it being CPW land. The BLM has extensive signage...a Stop sign at the gate stating necessity for permits, extensive "display" map at the launch showing campsites, permit information etc. I'm attempting to be a responsible user, but a user should not have to download a detailed state parcel map to determine who manages what land especially when the public signage says nothing about CPW and gives every indication it's BLM land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Clarification on license requirements for SWA's like Loma

I contacted a CPW official and this was his reply about the change at the Loma Boat Ramp (and other SWA's):please bear with me because I want to give you a full answer including relevant history and background.

Colorado’s SWAs were originally acquired, and are managed today, primarily to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wildlife and wildlife habitat. Some of the important habitats protected by SWAs include wintering areas for big game, calving and fawning areas for big game, spawning habitat for fish, and nesting habitat for a variety of birds. These properties were also acquired to provide compatible wildlife recreation for hunters and anglers.

The funds used to acquire these areas were derived from the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses.

Historically, SWAs have been used by some people who did not hunt or fish for activities like wildlife watching, hiking, etc. At one time, those uses were limited enough that they remained compatible with the purposes for which the SWAs were acquired. Unfortunately, as Colorado’s population has grown and physically expanded into closer proximity with many of these SWAs, public uses have increased and are reaching the point where they are not compatible with the original wildlife purpose. Furthermore, these other public uses have placed increasing pressure on the property infrastructure and habitat, resulting in wildlife being pushed off the properties, habitat degradation and increased costs for CPW.

In some extreme cases, certain hunting programs had to be discontinued due to conflicts with users who did not purchase hunting and fishing licenses and were using SWAs for non-wildlife related activities like dog walking, running, etc. We do not believe it is fair to ask hunters and anglers to forego hunting and fishing opportunities because other uses are becoming incompatible. Nor do we believe it is fair to ask anglers and hunters to pay the increased costs for management and operation of these areas resulting from these other uses.
The change was made by the CPW Commission after studying how other states manage their State Wildlife Areas. Some states that require a valid hunting or fishing license to access State Wildlife Areas include: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Delaware, South Carolina and North Carolina.

The license requirement is an effort to limit multi-use recreation on these properties, not encourage it. While hikers, photographers, birders and others may, in fact, be recreating by watching wildlife, only those with a hunting or fishing license are contributing to the purchase and maintenance of these properties.

A parks pass is not the same as a hunting or fishing license. Funds generated by the parks side of the agency are strictly segregated from the wildlife (hunting/fishing) side. When you buy a Colorado hunting or fishing license, you are contributing directly to wildlife conservation.

CPW's income from hunting and fishing licenses supports all wildlife programs in Colorado, including: programs for nongame, threatened, and endangered species, as well as hatcheries, habitat protection, education, law enforcement, wildlife research, big-game and small-game management, fisheries and aquatic management, and more. That is why a parks pass is not adequate.

All proper and valid hunting and/or fishing licenses will be acceptable for access to SWAs for the license year from April 1 through March 31 of the following year. A 1-day and/or 5-day fishing license would ONLY be valid the day(s) specified on the license.

Here are the current 2020 prices of resident licenses that are most cost-effective: Adult fishing, $35.17; small game, $30.11; combo small-game and fishing, $50.37. Senior fishing is $9.85. A person 18 years of age and older and under 65 years of age will also need a Habitat Stamp when applying for or purchasing a hunting or fishing license. No Habitat Stamp is required for applying for or purchasing a person’s first two one-day hunting or fishing licenses. The 2020 charge for a Habitat stamp is $10.13. That is a one-time charge in a 12-month period, so that is not charged on the purchase of another license(s).

Hope this explanation answers your questions. If not, I'd suggest checking out this page on our website that goes into greater detail about the decision: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/SWA/License-Requirements-SWA-STL-Access-FAQ.pdf

Best,

Bill Vogrin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Anyone know where all this landed. I seem to remember that this wasn't going into effect for a year or so at the time. Just trying to get some up to date beta.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Anyone know where all this landed. I seem to remember that this wasn't going into effect for a year or so at the time. Just trying to get some up to date beta.

Thanks.
Per the CPW website, Loma and other SWAs will require fees starting 5/1/2021. I haven't been to Loma yet this year, so I'm not sure if there have been any signs installed or other changes that reflect this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
So, as long as we're going to be charged and required to obtain individual "permissiones" to enter these publicly owned "State" lands, we'd might as well kill some fish. And thus, the State Fish and Wildlife people had better make the fishing worth the while for all of us who enjoy the rivers and canyons for other reasons. Think you can do that, Colorado?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I've been a life long fisherman and hunter and support the intents of the new regulations. I feel that there should be exceptions and than the Loma boat ramp is one of the exceptions. An adversarial relationship with the CFW will not solve anything. Discussion and compromise will be the only way to solve our legitimate challenges.
When the Imperial State fires a shot across the bow of all users of publicly owned lands and waters, it hardly calls toward discussion and reasonable compromise. Truth be told, it stems from a mentality that needs to be de-funded in its entirety, regardless of whether we carry a fishing pole or a paddle in our hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I cannot say this strongly enough. Please ... hear me out ...
Why do we love the canyons and the rivers, the mountains and the land?
The incremental building of Power and the State's micro-management has all been seen before. The Camel's Nose has never taken us anywhere we want to go. There are plenty of places that are full of petty control freaks. If we do not want to live in such places we should be loud and active in purging them from our legislatures. Compromise only means surrendering ground to those who would ever tighten their needless, onerous control over all things without regard for those harmless, silent souls who only want to be left alone. I can tolerate the occasional dung-heap a lot more easily than I can tolerate even one that is wearing a badge and a Baden-Powell hat. I love our rivers because they are largely free of such intrusion. Keeping the bureaucracy off the rivers and the land provides us with a much needed respite, an island of solace, a place in time and space that at least provides the illusion of escape from the oppressive nature of The State's "presence." Enforcing the "Presence" of The State is like spreading the map of our state and taking a butter-knife, spreading a large, soft, warm turd across the land that so many have once loved. And once it is so defiled, it becomes very hard to tear it loose from the self-perpetuating metastasis of the Power of The State.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top