[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

Title:	The Hunting Notesfile
Notice:	Registry #7, For Sale #15, Success #270
Moderator:	SALEM::PAPPALARDO

Created:	Wed Sep 02 1987
Last Modified:	Tue Jun 03 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1561
Total number of notes:	17784

924.0. "Colorado HB 1140.." by CSC32::SCHIMPF () Sat Mar 09 1991 11:38

    Copied without permisson...
    
    Saturday, March 19...Gazette Telegraph..Pg. B3..
    
    HB 1140: A bill to permit landowners to go to small claims court to 
    solve game-damage disputes drew initial approval in the  state Senate
    on Friday.
    
    HB 1140, sponsored by Re. Brad Young, R-Lamar, and Sen. Dave
    Wattenberg, also would raise from $25 too $100 the amount a landowner
    could charge for trespass privileges and still retain rights to game-	
    damage claims.
    
    Sen. Sam Cassidy, D-Pagosa Springs, added a provision to the bill that
    would allow landowners unable to solve claims with local Department of 
    Wildlife to go directly to small claims court.
    
    Cassidy said the appeals change would be less costly to landowner,
    eliminating a trip to Denver.
    
    IMHO: There is a VERY STRONG LOBBY doing some "real nice" work..
    I wonder who is get'n the kick back?
    
    Jeff

T.R Title User Personal
Name Date Lines

924.1 Rights to public land CSC32::J_HENSON It's just the same, only different Mon Mar 11 1991 10:10 38

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
924.1	Rights to public land	CSC32::J_HENSON	It's just the same, only different	`Mon Mar 11 1991 10:10`	38
	>> <<< Note 924.0 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>> >> -< Colorado HB 1140.. >- >> IMHO: There is a VERY STRONG LOBBY doing some "real nice" work.. >> I wonder who is get'n the kick back? Jeff, This isn't exactly staying on the subject, but it does fit in with your "VERY STRONG LOBBY" theory. I read just this week that the Colorado DOW was asked by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) to increase the harvest in certain parts of the state this year. This will most likely mean an increase on doe tags. This sounds ok at first, until you hear their reasoning. The local stockman's assocation has apparently petitiioned the BLM citing that the past three years of drought has reduced the carrying capacity to the point where it is interfering with their grazing operations. In other words, they want to reduce the wildlife population so that they can continue to graze on BLM land. While this will probably result in a banner year for hunters in 1991, it may also make for poor hunting for quite a few years down the road. In all fairness, I must admit that I don't know all of the facts surrounding this issue. I also don't know what the DOW will do. If someone can fill in the gaps, all the better. However, it does appear that this is an issue of wildlife rights vs. rancher's rights to public land. Comments? Jerry P.S. I don't mean to steal the thunder of the original note on this, and will move this to a separate topic if warranted.

>>                      <<< Note 924.0 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>>
>>                            -< Colorado HB 1140.. >-
    
>>    IMHO: There is a VERY STRONG LOBBY doing some "real nice" work..
>>    I wonder who is get'n the kick back?
    
    Jeff,

    This isn't exactly staying on the subject, but it does fit in with
    your "VERY STRONG LOBBY" theory.  I read just this week that the
    Colorado DOW was asked by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) to
    increase the harvest in certain parts of the state this year.  This
    will most likely mean an increase on doe tags.

    This sounds ok at first, until you hear their reasoning.  The local
    stockman's assocation has apparently petitiioned the BLM citing
    that the past three years of drought has reduced the carrying
    capacity to the point where it is interfering with their grazing
    operations.  In other words, they want to reduce the wildlife
    population so that they can continue to graze on BLM land.

    While this will probably result in a banner year for hunters in 1991,
    it may also make for poor hunting for quite a few years down the
    road.

    In all fairness, I must admit that I don't know all of the facts
    surrounding this issue.  I also don't know what the DOW will do.
    If someone can fill in the gaps, all the better.  However, it
    does appear that this is an issue of wildlife rights vs. rancher's
    rights to public land.

    Comments?

    Jerry

    P.S.  I don't mean to steal the thunder of the original note on this,
          and will move this to a separate topic if warranted.