During the March 14, 2024, CPW Commission meeting, (see minute 1:43:00) CPW Director Jeff Davis declared “Title 33, thats our Colorado Revised Statute where we are to manage wildlife and provide recreational opportunities for the state residents and its visitors, the mission of the Division includes consideration for residents and nonresidents and if were not able to have equality for both groups than we consider equity. Its within the discretion of the Commission as you know, to decide fairness and preference to one residency group over another which makes your decision on equity a difficult one.” Was he prepping the CPW Commission on how they can ignore resident equity, the public trust, and the Colorado Constitution so CPW can continue to rake in record nonresident hunting dollars compared to all other states in the country?
What the CPW Director is twisting around is state law, CRS 33-1-101. (1) It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. (2) All wildlife within this state not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of this state.
On May 1, 2023, Jeff Davis was appointed Director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat). Is there any surprise that a Democrat appointee from Washington state would figure out how to screw over resident hunters and their family hunting heritage for money? Polis and his party just forced wolves on Western Colorado as well. Disneyland Democrats are running Colorado and they don’t care about resident hunters when nonresident hunters pay $800 for an elk tag and residents only pay about $70. There is money in the outdoors and communists like to convert private industry into government business revenue, just look at Cameo Shooting Complex and other shooting ranges that CPW buys up / runs in direct competition with the free market. If you are a hunter in Colorado and still vote Democrat, you need to get a clue. No state treats resident hunters worse than Colorado – Here are a few articles to bring you up to speed as residents prepare to lose Over-The-Counter (OTC) Elk Hunting in Colorado because of overcrowding caused 100% by non-residents.
- March 2024, CPW Votes to Choke Out Colorado Resident Hunters as Nonresident Elk Apps Surge by 45,000
- February 2024, Colorado’s Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity
- September 2023, Colorado Sells More Nonresident Elk Tags than All Seven Western States Combined
- August 2023, CPW Report reveals 54% of OTC elk hunters are Nonresidents, Colorado Resident Hunters on Decline from Non-Resident Overcrowding
- July 2023, Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only
- Dec 2022, CPW Commission Takes Small Step to Restore Resident Hunter Equity in Big Game Tag Allocation
- March 2021, No State Treats Resident Big Game Hunters Worse than Colorado- Tag Allocation- Hiding in Plain Sight. The Secret to the Elk and Deer Tags in Colorado.
When you have a CPW Director who is worried about treating nonresidents equally to residents you have a CPW Director who is likely more concerned about Nonresident dollars funding the agency’s coffers/salaries than a state employee serving its residents and resident youth. This appears to be happening in Colorado as we see the destruction of family hunting heritage in Colorado. Educated big game hunters know that nearly all western states allocate about 10% of big game licenses to nonresidents, with a hard cap to protect the resident resources for its residents and the resident youth. When it comes to tag allocation, No state treats its residents worse than Colorado, that is a statistical fact. Colorado not only has the most liberal deer and elk nonresident allocations in the country at 75/25 (25% to NR) but the allocation is not protected with a hard cap so nonresidents end up with about 34% of all the big game tags in the state. The numbers are even worse if you consider that half of all private landowner vouchers are sold back to nonresidents. No state brings in more hunting revenue than Colorado.
(1) The holding of public office or employment is a public trust, created by the confidence which the electorate reposes in the integrity of public officers, members of the general assembly, local government officials, and employees. A public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or employee shall carry out his duties for the benefit of the people of the state.
(2) A public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or employee whose conduct departs from his fiduciary duty is liable to the people of the state as a trustee of property and shall suffer such other liabilities as a private fiduciary would suffer for abuse of his trust. The district attorney of the district where the trust is violated may bring appropriate judicial proceedings on behalf of the people. Any moneys collected in such actions shall be paid to the general fund of the state or local government. Judicial proceedings pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any criminal action which may be brought against such public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or employee.
We Believe Hunters are Equal, Regardless of Residency
A draft letter from the Colorado Outfitter Association, as a member of the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project (CWCP), addressed to Jeff Davis-Director of the Colorado Park and Wildlife (CPW), Dan Gibbs – Executive Director, Colorado Department of National Resources (DNR), and the CPW Commission was shared on the Colorado Resident Hunter Association Facebook Group. In the letter, they plead with the Directors and Commissioners and declare “We believe hunters are all equal, regardless of their means of take, season, or residency”.
This letter reveals what many Colorado resident hunters have known since the 1990’s, that outfitters associations are loyal to nonresidents’ money. Many Colorado residents also feel that CPW is loyal to the nonresident’s dollars as well, don’t forget no state brings in more hunting dollars and no western state has tag allocation with less equity for residents. This nonresident loyalty does not apply to any other State “privilege”. We would never consider a nonresident with an equal voice to vote and it makes no sense that nonresidents have an equal opportunity to Coloradans’ limited resources. Under the most basic tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, wildlife is a state resource managed and allocated for the benefit of its residents. Nonresidents are not trust beneficiaries in any way, shape, or form.
Many nonresidents feel they have a right to hunt in Colorado because of federal public lands. If you spend some time on this website you will learn that 97.2% of Colorado federal lands are not federal enclaves, which means Colorado holds legislative jurisdiction over tag allocation within its borders just like the other 49 states. Nonresidents have equal access to recreate on our federal lands but are not beneficiaries of the state resource per The Public Trust. The elected legislators of all states work on behalf of their residents to enhance the health, safety, and security of our communities. Wild game is a natural resource managed by the states, not the federal government. Until Congress passes legislation to the contrary under The Property Clause, this is how state resource management will continue and it should, its constitutional. Be sure to listen to legendary hunter Randy Newberg discuss the public trust and a state’s obligation to its residents. This is solidified in Supreme Court rulings and Congressional legislation. 1. Elk Tag – Are Wildlife Trustees Qualified? 2. Screwing over the Non-Resident Hunter Episode 66.
The Colorado Outfitter Association draft letter (link),(written as a Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project Member), claims they are trying to “counter the movement that requests that all Over the Counter (OTC) licenses be reserved for Resident hunters alone”. This of course is not true, because if you read the online Resident Hunter OTC Petition (link), which has over 7000 signatures, it says “By signing this petition, you are expressing your support for preserving all remaining OTC elk hunting (archery and rifle) for Colorado Residents only, starting in 2024. We believe this measure will restore equity without infringing upon the rights or experiences of non-resident hunters who can still participate through limited draw hunts and non-resident caps on all OTC hunts“. If you haven’t signed the above-linked resident hunter petition please do so and share the link with your friends. This petition still allows nonresident opportunity at OTC hunts, just with a quota/ cap like nearly all other western states.
The CPW director has aligned himself with the Outfitters but in doing so, he may have adopted a position that violates CPW Policy, state law, and the Colorado Constitution.
COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION POLICY- 2021 IV. POLICY STATEMENT. Serving on the Commission is a public trust, created by the confidence, which the public reposes in the integrity of public officials. Commissioners shall perform their duties for the benefit of the people of the state, act in a fair and impartial manner, and avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Violation of Colorado Constitution Article XXIX (29), Section 1, Parts A through E.
Section 1 Purposes and Findings: The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that:(a) The conduct of public officers, members of the general assembly, local government officials, and government employees must hold the respect and confidence of the people; (b) They shall carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the state; (c) They shall, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated;(d) Any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust; and (e) To ensure propriety and to preserve public confidence, they must have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct, and of a penalty mechanism to enforce those standards. This is reinforced by the following Legal Annotation and Research referenced within/below the recorded CC Article 29, Section 1 “ Appearance of impropriety can weaken public confidence in government and create a perception of dishonesty, even among government officials who are in technical compliance with the law. Indep. Ethics Comm’n Advisory Opinion 17-10.”
CPW Petition Filed to Repeal a CPW Commission Policy that may violate CPW Policy, State Law, and the Colorado Constitution.
The CPW process for an individual to file a rulemaking petition (change to policy) is defined here on the CPW Website https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Citizen-Petition.aspx .
The recent Rulemaking Policy Petition filed with CPW is here. Link to Actual CPW Petition
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) commission policy that has been petitioned for repeal is titled-Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest (Dated 5.6.2021) Section V (B), Paragraph 2, “An official act that affects a group of industries or businesses does not, in and of itself, constitute an actual conflict of interest even though the Commissioner may work for or otherwise have an interest in one of the industries or businesses impacted by the official act.” (to be referenced in this document as “Section V (B), Paragraph 2”) appears to be a possible violation of the following:
- Colorado Constitution Article XXIX (29), (1) Parts A through E.
- CRS 24-18-108.5 (1) and (2). See CRS 24-18-102 Definitions (1) (2) (4) (7) and (9).
- CRS 24-18-103. Public Trust- breach of fiduciary duty (1) and (2). “For the benefit of the people of the state”.
- Current CPW Commission Policy, Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest (Section #IV and V). See also Section III – Definitions
Per CRS-24-18-102 (9) the CPW Commission is a “State Agency” and thus should be treated as such according to the laws and constitution of the State of Colorado and applicable federal laws/rulings.
Like the recent Chevron Deference Supreme Court ruling, CPW Commission Policy Section V (B), Paragraph 2 appears to be an illegal “state agency” policy that violates CPW Commission policy, Colorado law/s, and the Colorado Constitution (as referenced above). This policy appears to illegally allow a CPW Commissioner who is a business owner or licensed big game hunting outfitter to vote in instances where they stand to gain personally on a financial/fiduciary basis. This appears to be a blatant violation of CRS CRS 24-18-108.5 (1) and (2) (defined below).
A breach of fiduciary duty happens when the fiduciary acts in the best interest of themselves or someone else, rather than the beneficiaries.
Additionally, this possibly illegal CPW Commission policy allows a licensed big game outfitter/CPW Commissioner to represent Outfitters Associations who stand to gain financially as well. When CPW Commissioners vote to sell a resident resource (limited big game hunting tags), to nonresidents, based on financial gain, versus serving the residents of Colorado, it becomes a conflict of interest and promotes the commercialization of a state resource (hunting). In this case, the CPW Commission is the executor of the trust, and the residents of Colorado are the sole beneficiaries of that trust, nonresidents who receive a resident resource (big game hunting tags) are mere stakeholders in this process, they are not to be served equally by state agencies.
A licensed big game outfitter who is a CPW Commissioner should also be recusing themselves or requested to do so by the other CPW Commissioners per current CPW Commission policy, when and if, the result of the Commission vote, could mean an increase of nonresident big game tag allocations, at the expense of beneficiaries of the trust (residents), tag allocations.
This self-recusal policy should also apply to any Subgroup or Working Group that the Outfitter/ CPW Commissioner is a part of within CPW. If the CPW-affiliated group votes to make any recommendations for big game tag allocations, that may affect the Commissioner on a personal financial basis to the CPW Commission or the CPW Staff, a recusal from voting should be required.
Final Notes: During the June 12, 2024 CPW Commissioner meeting, see time 4:16:10 on Day 1 – YouTube video. You will hear the attorney for the CPW Commission declare that CRS 33-9-101 (3) requires an Outfitter to be on the CPW Commission Board. He is 100% correct and no one has ever challenged that. However, nowhere in Title 33-9-101 does it say a CPW Commissioners can violate the state laws referenced above or the Colorado Constitution when they vote, especially when they stand to gain financially for that official act (voting). The CPW Commission Attorney never makes mention of CRS § 24-18-108.5(2) or the appearance of impropriety that is so obvious to every resident of Colorado. The CPW Commission Attorney does quote the very CPW Policy that I have asked to be stricken as the only justification that allows a CPW Commissioner who is also a licensed Outfitter or business owner to be able to vote for the good of an industry (financial). The Attorney never says it’s ok for a CPW Commissioner to vote when they stand to gain personally / financially from that official act because it’s an obvious violation of state law and is fully viewed as an appearance of impropriety by the public. The CPW Commission cannot ignore Colorado Law, the Colorado Constitution, and CPW Policy, by passing policies that disregard all three.
The CPW Commission Attorney also declared that the CPW Commissioners serve the residents and visitors of Colorado, but he forgot to tell the Commission that the CPW Policy Statement reads as follows “Serving on the Commission is a public trust, created by the confidence which the public reposes in the integrity of public officials. Commissioners shall perform their duties for the benefit of the people of the state, act in a fair and impartial manner, and avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
It should also be noted that a random visitor in Colorado is not a stakeholder, when it comes to resident resources, such as big game hunting licenses. However, a nonresident hunter who spends hundreds of dollars for the right to harvest a resident resource (deer/elk), is a stakeholder. The CPW Commission serves the beneficiaries of the trust, and in all 50 states, only Residents are beneficiaries of that trust.
All hunters should be alarmed as to the direction of hunting in Colorado. If it’s all about the money then family hunting heritage is truly under attack by the blue states, New Mexico is another Democrat-run state that treats its resident hunters terribly.
UPDATE: 8.20.24 CPW Response to Petition– Must Read-
FROM: Hilary Hernandez, Regulations Manger
RE: July 30, 2024 Citizen Petition
DATE: August 20, 2024
CPW is in receipt of your citizen petition for rulemaking, which asks the Commission to repeal a portion of its conflicts of interest policy. Your petition will be forwarded to the Commission as a public comment. Your petition will not be placed on the Commission agenda as an action item unless the Commission directs otherwise.
The citizen petition process only applies to formal rules adopted by the Commission, meaning those rules that are codified in the Colorado Code of Regulations. The Commission’s formal rules are codified at 2 CCR 405 – 406 and are available on CPW’s website. These rules are commonly referred to as Chapters P-01 – P-08 (Parks Regulations) and W-01 – W-17 (Wildlife Regulations).
The conflicts of interest policy at issue in your petition is not codified in the Colorado Code of Regulations and is not a formal rule of the Commission. Citizen petitions for rulemaking are not an available means to repeal Commission policies or resolutions.
The Commission’s authority to adopt formal rules is codified in Title 33. See, e.g., § 33-9-102(2), C.R.S. (“In addition to any other specific grant of rule-making authority, the commission may adopt or revise any rules, in accordance with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., that the commission deems necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of, and fulfill its duties under, this title.”).
The Commission adopts formal rules pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), § 24-4-101 – 204, C.R.S., and in particular, § 24–4–103 (rulemaking). Any person has the right to file a citizen petition for rulemaking, requesting the Commission adopt, repeal, or amend a formal rule. § 24-4-103(7). Commission rule #1606 implements this provision of the APA, as does the Commission’s citizen petition policy, available here. These procedures only apply to formal rules, not policies or resolutions.
The Commission adopted its current conflicts of interest policy in 2021. It did so as required by HB 18-1198, now codified at § 24-3.7-102(1), C.R.S. This statute allows the Commission to adopt a conflicts policy instead of a formal rule and provides:
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, commencing January 1, 2019, each statutorily created board or commission in state government … shall implement written policies or bylaws and obtain annual training on: … (d) Identifying and managing conflicts of interest. (emphasis added).
The Commission complied with HB 18-1198 by adopting its conflicts of interest policy at its May 2021 Commission meeting. The agenda is available here.
Although no law required the Commission to adopt a formal rule codifying its conflicts of interest policy in the Colorado Code of Regulations, it has discretion to do so. Indeed, one other state agency – the Air Quality Control Commission – has adopted the identical phrase you have concerns with in its formal rules. See 5 C.C.R. § 1001-1:X (“An official act that affects a group of industries or businesses does not, in and of itself, constitute an actual conflict of interest even though the Commissioner may work for or otherwise have an interest in one of the industries or businesses impacted by the official act.”).
Thank you for your interest in CPW and this issue.