The resident big game Tag allocation confusion continues in Colorado under the direction of CPW Director Jeff Davis and CPW Commissioners.

For the past two years, we have watched the CPW Commission lead efforts to “simplify” the Colorado big game draw, but in 2025 the results show that largely the opposite is happening.  Not only did the CPW pass a new hybrid draw process in January 2025 that will likely increase point creep and double preference points requirements in hard to draw units, but they failed to remove a very confusing and unfair soft tag allocation cap that filters 6,510 resident big game tags each year to nonresidents.  (CPW slide attached)

In 2024, the Colorado Draw Process Working Group recommended removing the soft tag allocation cap that applies to the current big game primary draw for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear and turkey.  Many educated resident hunters call this the “fake cap”.   While nearly all western states have a 90/10 tag cap for their residents, Colorado has the worst big game tag allocation in the west for its resident hunters at 75/25 (75% to residents and 25% to nonresidents).  Additionally, the Colorado non-equitable tag allocation is protected by a fake cap which currently allows 6,510 limited big game tags to be sold to nonresidents above that tag allocation limit.  This $4.2 million financial windfall (see CPW slide) for CPW and Outfitters is achieved on the backs of residents because the soft/fake cap only applies to the first of four draw choices in the Colorado big game draw.  No state in the country does this to its residents; it is one reason resident youth and resident adults are drawing over 17,000 fewer elk tags over the past 10 years.   The soft/fake cap has been exposed over the past 10 years because 46,000 additional nonresidents have been added to the Colorado limited big game draw.  In most limited big game units, there simply are not tags left for the second, third, and fourth choices as nonresidents scoop up the remaining tags at the end of the first choice of the draw.  So if residents fail to draw a first choice hunt, the fake cap fails to protect their allocated allotment of tags throughout their draw selections in primary draw.

In the January 9, 2025 CPW Commission meeting, the early discussions amongst CPW Commissioners were leaning toward removing the soft/fake cap once and for all, until CPW Director Davis changed the discussion to focus on the loss of revenue and this was backed by some Commissioners.  This is when the confusion started at the January meeting you can watch here start at point 6:40:00. The result was the Commission voted to adjust the soft/fake cap to apply to residents first two choices of the primary big game draw and leaving the fake cap in place for residents in the third and fourth choices of the primary draw.  This is positive for residents, but most estimate that only half of the 6,510 stolen resident big game tags will be restored to residents.  Additionally, without a public comment process, the CPW passed a new preference point fee for nonresidents and residents that will bring in as much as $9 million for CPW.    If we estimate that CPW will only lose $2 million in revenue by the soft cap adjustment to the second choice, this means CPW came out ahead by as much as $7 million in January and residents still have a fake cap.  We can’t forget that the 46,000 new nonresident big game applicants over the past 10 years bring in a minimum of $6 million per year without even issuing a tag, that’s just the qualifying tag and fees needed to apply.

In the March 5, 2025 CPW Commission meeting (start watching a 3:06:30) the confusion and chaos continued on this situation and although CPW Commissioners Robinson and Otero tried to remove the fake cap again by offering up an amendment, ultimately all the Commission agreed to do was to offer more discussion on how much to charge for the new preference points fees for deer, elk, pronghorn and turkey.  Resident hunter, Steve Hilde pointed out that a $15 preference point fee for residents is a price increase of over 30% for deer and elk.

The CPW Commissioners are yet to recognize that the soft caps are a form of theft of a resident resource.  Instead, the focus is on potential lost revenues, and no one is pointing out how removing the soft/fake cap will undo a wrong perpetrated on residents for decades.  It’s time to restore equity to the residents of Colorado.  CPWs’ focus should be on regaining resident public trust vs expanding the bureaucratic budget.

During the February 19, 2025 CPW Southwest Sportsman’s Roundtable (start at 1:21:10) it was revealed that CPW will not be reducing Nonresident Hunter numbers in the archery hunts that were formerly Over-The-Counter (OTC).  While residents were pleased that the CPW Commission voted in June 2024 to preserve OTC archery for residents, we can’t forget that the purpose of the nearly 2-year public discussion was to reduce overcrowding in the archery OTC units.   It was proven during the two-year debate that 100% of the overcrowding in archery season was from the surge of nonresident hunters to Colorado.  Colorado hunting pressure on public lands is about 6 times higher than other western states.  CPW has failed to address the overcrowding caused by nonresidents and has chosen not to drop Nonresidents archery tags by 10% (as discussed) in the former OTC units for nonresidents.  Bureaucracies like CPW continue to neglect the residents they serve if it means a drop in revenue regardless of overcrowding.

Colorado OTC-trends-CO-elk-2002-to-2021

One thing to note during this CPW Southwest Sportsman’s Caucus meeting is you will observe CPW biologist Jamin Grigg give a presentation with a slide (picture below) that shows resident hunter OTC archery participation has declined over the past 13 years.  Mr. Grigg testified at the April 2024 CPW Commission meeting that the resident hunter’s testimony/ CORA data showing the decline of resident participation in OTC archery was a “fallacy” and he declared that residents and nonresidents in OTC archery had doubled over the past 20 years.   Through an additional CORA request, this statement by Mr. Grigg was proven false and CPW staff changed their staff recommendation shortly afterward.  It’s restorative justice to now see Mr. Grigg presenting data that confirms residents did not participate in the archery OTC overcrowding, and the overcrowding issue over the years has 100% been caused by nonresidents.

In summary, CPW and the CPW Commission have failed to address the overcrowding and failed to simplify the draw process associated with big game hunting in Colorado.  What is abundantly clear is that those in charge of these decisions are guided by poor data by CPW staff and many of the commission lack a basic understanding of Colorado’s big game draw process.

7 Western States Nonresident ELK Tags Sales Vs Colorado

The Colorado Resident Hunter Association has started up a change.org petition to urge CPW Commissioners to move forward with the Draw Process Working Groups recommendation to end SOFT CAPS and have Colorado tag allocation caps apply to all 4 choices in the Colorado Big Game Draw.   This change would restore a hard cap system for tag allocation like every other state in the country currently has.   Many call Colorado current Soft Cap big game tag allocation system a “Fake Cap”.  It was interesting to watch the CPW Staff come out against removing the Fake Caps at the 11.15.24 CPW Commission meeting.   The CPW staff continues to show their preference for nonresident dollars over treating their residents with equity when compared to any other states in the country.   No state treats its resident hunters worse than Colorado.   As discussed in the articles on this web site.   If you have a friends that is confused about what the fake caps do to resident hunters in Colorado have them read this article https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/cpw-votes-to-choke-out-resident-hunters/ .

Please sign this Colorado Resident Hunter Association Petition in support of Resident Hunters and youth in Colorado.

You can also go to https://www.change.org/COResidentHunterEquity.    

 * The foundation of equity is fairness, while nearly all other Western State have a 90/10 cap for their Residents, Colorado has 75/25, the worst resident big game tag allocation in the country.  This is by Colorado, which collects more hunting revenue than other state in the country.

** On top of the worst resident tag allocation in the country, Colorado is the only state in the country that has Soft Big Game Tag allocation Caps that only apply to the 1st choice of 4 choices in the primary draw.  Many call this the “Fake Tag Cap” –which allows Nonresidents to get about 40% of our Limited Bull elk tags while ignoring Thousands of Residents in their 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices of our primary limited draw. You saw the slide on the cover picture – its steals 6,510 tags from Residents and Resident Youth and sells them to NR. Very few bull and buck unit hunts have left over tags. This has resulted in the following trends from 2015 to 2023 (see below):  (numbers rounded to nearest 100)

1.  Resident Youth are drawing 37% fewer limited elk tags (Down 3300, from 9000 to 5700)
2.  Even though Resident Limited Elk Tag applications have increased since 2015, Residents are drawing over 17,000 fewer limited elk tags (down 23% from 74,000 to 56,700 tags drawn).
3.  Nonresidents are magically drawing 250 more limited elk tags since 2015 (How is this possible) = Fake tag caps!
4.  Nonresidents Elk applications have surged by 45,000 (up 55%) and there are now more nonresident adults applying for limited elk tags than Residents. There are no longer any tags available for Residents in the 2nd 3rd and 4th choices—because of the fake tag caps that allow all remaining tags at the end of the 1st draw to spill over to NR.
Today we am asking the CPW Commission to listen to the Draw Process Working Group that recommended restoring equity to the resident hunter by getting rid of the fake tag caps in Colorado and start to treat Colorado’s Resident Hunters, like every other state in our country treats their Residents.

Residents of Colorado Deserve a Hard Cap because we are a stakeholder in this resident resource and nonresidents are not. Colorado Resources are to be managed for the benefit of its Residents of the state,  per the Colorado Constitution.  On top of all this CPW is looking to remove the 80/20 tags that were just fixed for Residents 2 years ago. Here is the article that explains how Resident received about 200 tags when CPW was forced to start using the current 3 year rolling average vs using 15 year data to sell more tags to Nonresidents https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-resident-hunter-equity/. The Nov 15, 2024 CPW Commission slide shows $16,000 in financial gain for CPW from getting
rid of the 80/20 tags and having all tags at 75/25, how is that possible when Residents will lose over 200 deer and elk tags alone.   

Hunter applications of nonresidents are surging, and resident applications are up by about 2,000 since 2015. This has to be taken into account as CPW will make more money each year with these trends. Why do we not see financial numbers from having 50,000 new nonresidents applying in our big game hunts since 2015?? AT a minimum that is $121*45,000 = about $5.5 million in revenue increase (without them drawing a single tag).  The surge of NR hunters more than pays for getting rid of the fake tag caps and we restore equity to the resident hunters.  

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.

1. March 2024, CPW Votes to Choke Out Colorado Resident Hunters as Nonresident Elk Apps Surge by 45,000
2. February 2024, Colorado’s Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity
3. September 2023, Colorado Sells More Nonresident Elk Tags than All Seven Western States Combined 
4. August 2023, CPW Report reveals 54% of OTC elk hunters are Nonresidents, Colorado Resident Hunters on Decline from Non-Resident Overcrowding
5. July 2023, Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only
6. Dec 2022, CPW Commission Takes Small Step to Restore Resident Hunter Equity in Big Game Tag Allocation
7. 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.

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:

1. Colorado Constitution Article XXIX (29), (1) Parts A through E.
2. CRS 24-18-108.5 (1) and (2). See CRS 24-18-102 Definitions (1) (2) (4) (7) and (9).
3. CRS 24-18-103. Public Trust- breach of fiduciary duty (1) and (2).  “For the benefit of the people of the state”.
4. 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.

The average Western state has a 90/10 big game tag allocation split for resident / nonresident hunters on all limited licenses.  90% of the elk, deer, and pronghorn licenses go to the residents of the average western state and only 10% are reserved for the visiting nonresidents.  Big game and the meat they provide families is a resource that should be managed for the benefit of the residents of the state and 90/10 is the equity standard all states should aim to achieve.  There are still some states that only offer leftover tags to nonresidents, now that’s preserving the resident public trust (Public Trust Doctrine).  What about public lands- do nonresidents have equal hunting rights to federal lands??  No, since the states hold legislative jurisdiction over big game on nearly all federal lands within their state boundaries the fact that there are federal public lands in the state holds no bearing on a nonresident’s status for preference on a state resource.  This is a great website for learning about jurisdiction on federal lands.   Nonresidents are visitors to a state’s big game draw system and they hold no seat at the table just like they have no voting rights in a state they do not reside in.

Then there is Colorado, Yes, things have slightly improved based on residents shining a light on things in the past three years.  This 2021 article helped procure some positive change and the CPW commission improved tag allocation to 75/25 for limited deer, elk, bear, and pronghorn (see this 2023 article) in Colorado.  However, Colorado still treats its resident hunters with less tag equity than any other western state, it’s a statistical fact. On top of that, the CPW has finally recognized that overcrowding on unlimited over-the-counter (OTC) elk hunts is real and they are considering removing all OTC elk hunts this year with the CPW Commission – sign the petition, over 5,000 signatures.  However, CPW is not sharing the fact that resident OTC elk hunters have declined by 8,000 (20%) since 2014 and nonresident elk hunters are up by 10,000 since 2014.  The numbers show that Residents are not contributing to overcrowding because they are getting out of hunting likely because of the overcrowding procured by nonresident hunters.  See the OTC Table below.

The (16) sixteen voting member CPW Draw Process Working Group is off and running in Colorado, google them on YouTube.  The meetings and discussions are directed by two nonvoting CPW staff.  This group has only (5) five resident hunters and (1) one CPW Commissioner (Otero) who represents the approximately 100,000 Colorado resident hunters who apply in limited license and OTC license hunts each year.

The other (10) ten voting members consist of  (5) five active CPW state employees, (1) one Utah nonresident (outfitter with Hunting Fool Magazine), (3) three Colorado Licensed Outfitters (CPW Commissioner Haskett, Burbey – President of the Colorado Outfitters Association and Znamenacek who is former CPW staffer and active outfitter), and (1) one other Commissioner that is retired CPW (Skiba).  You could say it is 12-6 voting members, likely in favor of more nonresident money/tags.

The approximately 200 Big Game Outfitters in Colorado have 4 “Outfitter” financially motivated representatives lobbying for them within the CPW Draw Process Working Group.  If Residents Hunters had an equitable seat at the table, when compared to outfitters, they would have 2000 Resident Hunters within the working group (.02) for their 100,000 residents.  However residents have only 5 representatives’ and when you read the bios of the 5 residents you will see many have been a part of outdoor organizations that have a long history of partnering with the CPW vs standing up to the CPW tag allocation equity debacle, like the Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers groups have done.  Colorado outfitters depend largely on nonresident dollars for payment so they are not going to restore 30 years of stolen tag equity for Colorado Residents Hunters.

Do you think the nonresident voting member from Utah (also an outfitter) will vote for a 90/10 tag allocation (hard cap) like the one they have in Utah or do you think he will vote for more nonresident tags?  I would place that bet over an NFL bet any day.   Does Colorado allow nonresidents to vote in its elections?  — No, then why does Colorado give nonresident hunters a voting right within the CPW Draw Process Working Group?   No state has ever allowed nonresidents the right to control or make recommendations on how to manage a state resource that the state holds all legislative jurisdiction over.  The fox is in the hen house and once again CPW has breached the public trust by not serving the residents equitably.

If its 12 to 6 voting members in favor of more nonresident money/tags, residents of Colorado will continue to see the historical effort to hold down resident tag equity.   CPW staffers will likely not vote to improve resident tag equity because reducing nonresident hunting will reduce their yearly budget and could lead to lower salaries or staff cuts.  Does CPW really need 1100 employees?

 CPW Commissioner Ethics and Voting Conflicts

Isn’t it a conflict of interest for a CPW Commissioner to benefit financially by voting in favor of more nonresident tags?  A Commissioner/Outfitter Association Member voted against the 75/25 tag allocation improvement last year.  “Voting members of the Commission shall not perform an official act which may have a direct economic benefit on any business, including nonprofits, in which such member has a direct or substantial financial interest.” CRS § 24-18-108.5(2)   —​Conflict of Interest.

“Appearance of impropriety” means an official act that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the Commissioner has engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on the Commissioner’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve the public trust. An appearance of impropriety may exist even though the facts and circumstances of the matter do not constitute an actual conflict of interest as defined by CRS § 24-18-108.5(2).

Colorado’s FAKE Big Game Caps 75/25

The first real test for the Draw Process Working group comes at hour 3, minute 01 of session 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCLlxtPqtB8. The CPW fake tag allocation caps are discussed and no one brings up the fact that resident allocation caps should apply to all 4 draw choices vs just 1st choice in the state’s primary limited tag draw.  It’s brushed over, this fake tag cap is a breach of public trust, no other state does this to its residents.  Check out this 2023 example, during the 1st Rifle Season in Unit 21- 70% of the tags go to nonresidents and over 300 residents and Resident Youth! are ignored in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices of the primary draw.

There are no hard caps in place for the limited deer and limited elk hunts in Colorado like we see in Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, etc.  The current soft (fake) tag caps in Colorado only apply to the resident 1st Choice Draw.  There are 4 Draw Choices in the CO Big Game limited primary draw.  If there are not enough residents to claim 75% of all the limited tags in Choice 1 draw, the remaining tags are given to all remaining nonresidents within Choice 1.  The resident state-mandated tag allocation caps are not honored (hard cap) throughout the 4 draw choices of the primary draw.   This is a breach of public trust for all residents of Colorado.

Linked is a document that shows two limited elk hunts in unit 41  (there are many more) from the 2020 limited elk draw results, it shows nearly 50% of limited elk tags went to nonresident hunters last year in unit 41– Grand Mesa.  Over 500 resident and resident youth hunters were not able to draw the tag for their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th draw choices because all the tags (over the nonresident cap) went to nonresidents in the 1st draw.  This is the result of what is called the “outfitter loophole”.  Another example of this is unit 43 mule deer in Colorado, in 2019, 60% of the muzzleloader-limited deer tags in this Gunnison Basin area went to nonresidents.  There are many examples like this whether deer or elk limited big game units in Colorado, especially with muzzleloader and 1st rifle elk seasons. Here is a link to thirty-four (34) limited deer unit hunts that gave 41% to 71% of deer tags to nonresidents.  In the application column of each page, you see (in some cases) hundreds of resident deer hunters were denied a tag because they put in for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice.  Here is a link to fifty (50) limited elk unit hunts that gave up to 83% of the tags to nonresidents.  Be sure to notice all the hundreds of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice residents and resident youth that never drew because Colorado fake big game tag allocation caps.

Some call it a “soft” big game tag allocation cap, most Coloradans call it a FAKE tag cap, and behind the scenes, it siphons hundreds or thousands of tags to nonresidents.   All at the expense of the unsuccessful first-choice residents and 1st choice resident youth.  If a resident does not successfully draw a limited tag in their first choice, they should not be ignored in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice of the primary draw.  An honest big game cap would protect the residents’ rights to their resource until that allocation was filled.  There is no reason Coloradans should not be ensured of every tag that is due to them based on the Equity, Colorado Constitution, and the Public Trust Doctrine.  Our state representatives and state employees work for the Colorado residents, not nonresident money.  This fake cap loophole must be closed, the idea that resident youth are not able to hunt each year because their tag was siphoned off to a nonresident is offensive.

Disclosure -This data is from various sources (CORA, online and print (some data can be very fragmented to collect)).  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the residents.

While the chatter is all about how the Republicans are going to sell our public lands.  The federal government (BLM) is busy buying/acquiring private lands in Colorado and other western states. Just do some googling, and you will find the BLM is busy acquiring private lands in Colorado and in other states.  The federal government owns 1/3 of our country already. Is this a slippery socialist slope, or should we just turn all recreational land into a federal enclave?    What if a state or county does not support the sale of private lands to the federal government because they need taxable land and don’t want the federal government to control the land as a federal enclave?   

The Marton Property Acquisition refers to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) $21 million purchase of the 35,668-acre private Marton Ranch southwest of Casper, Wyoming. Finalized through the Land and Water Conservation Fund in partnership with The Conservation Fund in 2022, it is the largest federal land acquisition in recent Wyoming history.

This article is a detailed review of the legal appeal filed regarding the 2023 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Buffalo Horn Land Exchange in Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties, Colorado.    Please keep in mind that this appeal is not filed in a courthouse; it is an appeal that is reviewed by the BLM itself.  Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to police yourself?  In this case, the BLM was acquiring more private lands in Colorado by “swapping” lands with a private seller.  Here are the details of this BLM land swap and the details of the initial appeal filed (links are in blue). This appeal will show the federal agency’s overreach and an uneducated BLM assumption that they have automatic consent to acquire vast amounts of vacant lands in Colorado without the consent of the Colorado Legislature or County Commissioners.  Please keep in mind this has been going on for years, and no one in Colorado (County Commissioners or State legislatures) has done anything to define the legal conundrum of “what if the county/state doesn’t want to sell all/some of their land to the federal government????

One must recognize that when the federal government acquires (buys or swaps) private lands in Colorado, those lands are no longer controlled by the state.   Those newly acquired federal lands that were once private lands controlled by a sovereign state are now controlled by Congress and the often overreaching federal bureaucratic agencies that get to write their own rules/laws and print them in the Code of Federal Regulations at will.  Are all federal lands a federal enclave?  Yes, they have essentially all become federal enclaves.  Read these two articles (BLM #1 and USFS #2) to see how our federal lands became unconstitutional federal enclaves without the constitutionally required cessions of jurisdiction by the states (consent).  This website will teach you all you need to know about jurisdiction on federal lands if you wish to become educated on the matter.   

Does the federal government have to follow Colorado law when acquiring private lands?  The answer is yes, the federal government holds no legislative jurisdiction over Colorado’s private lands.  

Can the federal government buy private lands in Colorado?  Yes, with the consent of the County Commissioners and, if necessary, the state legislature. The only exception to this would be if they needed a piece of property for critical infrastructure, such as courts, jails, forts, post offices, interstates, etc. 

The foundation of this argument is that the BLM is ignoring state law, specifically Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 3-1-102 when acquiring large tracts of private lands in Colorado.  A review of this law shows that since these large tracts of private lands (hundreds/thousands of acres or vacant land that will be used for recreational purposes only) are not used for critical federal government infrastructure such as buildings, forts, courthouses, interstates, etc., the consent of the state is required for such transfers of ownership.  Here is the state law:

CRS 3-1-102. Consent to acquire land – when notice required – directive to the attorney general  (1) Except as provided in this section, the consent of the state of Colorado is hereby given [automatic consent], in accordance with section 8 (17) of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, of any land in the state required for custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other buildings whatever, or for any other proper purpose of the United States government; …. However, before any privately owned land in the state is acquired for any purpose other than for public highways, custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other governmental buildings, the United States shall give written notice of intention to acquire the land to the board of county commissioners of the county wherein the land is situated and to the division of property taxation, which notice shall be given at least sixty days prior to the date of the intended acquisition. If the notice is not given or if the board of county commissioners or the division files with the secretary of state of the state of Colorado within the sixty-day period a request that the acquisition be considered by the general assembly of the state of Colorado, then the consent of the state of Colorado shall not be deemed to have been given to the acquisition unless and until the general assembly of the state of Colorado shall have by law specifically consented thereto.

Would state consent likely be given in most circumstances?  My guess is yes, for small private land transfers that enhance public access,  but what happens if the state or county commissioners object to the BLM buying, let’s say, a 20,000-acre ranch?   This is an area equal in size to the Colorado National Monument.  Currently, according the BLM, the state and the county have no way of unilaterally stopping any vacant land or large land acquisition by the BLM.  Colorado and its County Commissioners can only protest a BLM land acquisition by working within the BLM controlled protest process (which surely is not biased in favor of the BLM).  So, the State of Colorado has no authority over the sale of private lands within its sovereign borders and lacks the ability to control who buys private lands that are currently under Colorado jurisdiction?  The federal government holds no level of legislative jurisdiction over private land in Colorado.  Generally, in order for the President to federalize the Colorado National Guard for a civil action, the Governor would have to cede that authority (give permission) to the President.  We saw this in the 2020 riots, President Trump waited for permission from the Governors to bring in the National Guard.  We have also heard recent concerns like this over foreign entities buying farm lands in the USA, and we must recognize that when the BLM/USFS acquires Colorado private lands those lands are no longer county taxable land, controlled by Colorado.  Colorado must be able to regulate private land sales/transfers of ownership to preserve and defend its state sovereignty and integrity, it would be unconstitutional to declare otherwise.   

The BLM claims automatic consent in the details of the Buffalo Horn Land Exchange Answer to Appeal.

“C.R.S. 3-1-102 specifically, and importantly, provides in relevant part that “[e]xcept as provided in this section, the consent of the state of Colorado is hereby given, in accordance with section 8 (17) of article I of the constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, of any land in the state required for custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other buildings whatever, or for any other proper purpose of the United States government.” Emphasis added.”

Which means the BLM can claim automatic consent in any private land acquisition in Colorado, regardless of intended use.  This is contrary to CRS 3-1-102, which specifically gives the County Commissioner and State Legislature a path to stop the federal government from acquiring private lands. 

Furthermore, this is all being done under a state statute that was meant only for procuring exclusive jurisdiction over federal enclaves such as Rocky Mountain National Park, under CRS Title 3 – Property Ceded to the United States.  If you read CRS 3-1-101, CRS 3-1-102 and CRS 3-1-103 in their entirety (below), you will see these Colorado laws all written within CRS Title 3, are meant to procure exclusive jurisdiction federal enclaves over federal infrastructure within the state (where only the federal government can enforce laws and the state has no authority).  More importantly, as defined within these three state laws, the automatic consent/cession of exclusive jurisdiction is only intended for critical infrastructure needed by the federal government to conduct business; it is not for vacant recreational land transfers, as we see in all BLM land acquisitions.

CRS 3-1-101– Consent to acquisition of lands by the United States- The consent of this state is hereby given to the purchase by the United States of such ground in the city of Denver, or any other city or incorporated town in this state, as its authorities may select, for the accommodation of the United States circuit and district courts, post offices, land offices, mints, or other government offices in said cities or incorporated towns, and also to the purchase by the United States of such other lands within this state as its authorities may from time to time select for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings.

CRS 3-1-102 – Consent to acquire land – when notice required –  see definition above

CRS 3-1-103 – Jurisdiction of United States over land – Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired by the United States shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States for all purposes….   

As you see in the linked “Answer to Appeal”, the BLM claims CRS 3-1-102 gives them automatic consent, so does this mean all private lands acquired by the BLM under CRS 3-1-102  are exclusive jurisdiction federal enclaves as intended? 

Two Problems with the BLM using CRS 3-1-102 to Claim Automatic Consent

1. CRS 3-1-102 is not intended for rural vacant land acquisitions.  Its meant for federal infrastructure within a city. See CRS 3-1-101 as adjoined. 

2. All of CRS Title 3 and CRS 3-1-102 form exclusive jurisdiction federal enclaves, clearly not the intent of vast tracts of recreational BLM lands that are all held in a proprietorial interest only in Colorado.  You can find the definition of proprietorial interest only, within www.publiclandjurisdiction.com.

Another consideration is the BLM is misreading CRS 3-1-102 and conveniently ignoring the parts of the law highlighted above.  “However, before any privately owned land in the state is acquired for any purpose other than for public highways, custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other governmental buildings” That implies vacant recreational lands qualify as “other than” exceptions that don’t apply.    Its very apparent the BLM has not taken into consideration CRS 3-1-101 (city acquisitions only) and CRS Title 3 as a whole.  

This Updated Petition and Request for Stay was submitted after the Answer and was ultimately ignored.  The BLM ultimately ruled to reject the appeal because of “lack of standing” since the person had not visited the public lands in questions- what?  They did not reject based on merit or material fact.  Here is the BLM’s Final Answer.  You have to have visited the federal lands in question in order to legally challenge the BLM’s ignorance or illegal overreach.  Name removed from quote below. 

“We have held that an appellant challenging a BLM decision denying a protest of a land exchange had standing because they used the Federal lands at issue.34 In his protest and filings with this Board, XXXXXXX does not allege that he uses the Federal lands or private lands at issue. Instead, XXXXXXX merely alleges that BLM violated various State and Federal laws, including Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution (the Enclave Clause) in approving the land exchange.35 But XXXXXXX general concern that BLM may have violated certain laws in approving the exchange is not a legally cognizable interest,36 and, without a legally cognizable interest, XXXXXXX lacks standing to appeal.37”

Colorado desperately needs a new state law outside of CRS Title 3  (which is intended for procuring federal enclaves) to help define this federal land acquisition process and protect the states sovereignty.   At some point the federal government is going to try and buy too much of a Colorado County and the integrity of the state will be in question.  the idea that Colorado has petition a federal agency to preserve private lands within its sovereign boundaries is absurd.  Colorado should also clarify if the lands acquired by the BLM with “automatic consent” as claimed by the BLM under CRS Title 3 are an exclusive jurisdiction federal enclave, since that is the intent of those laws.  Additionally, since 1940 when Congress passed 40 USC 3112, it now requires recorded acceptance of a state cession of jurisdiction.   The BLM generally uses the Property Clause to push its agenda, but there is only one way to form a federal enclave and that is under the Enclave Clause of the Constitution.  The CRS Title 3 laws are clear that if automatic consent is given, it procures an exclusive jurisdiction federal enclave. 

Experience over the past 11 years shows few elected representatives understand jurisdiction on federal lands within the state and its the foundational mission of this website to educate those elected officials to prevent federal overreach and protect the rule of law and the constitutional integrity of our states with federal lands. 

The United States Forest Service (USFS) Law Enforcement is taking public comment until December 4, 2023, and they want to know if you are okay with the USFS  unconstitutionally and illegally enacting enclave law on all USFS National Forests.  That’s right they are following the lead of the BLM and unilaterally turning the public lands they manage into a federal enclave without a cession of jurisdiction by the State Legislature.   If you wish to make a comment or ask your elected official or sheriff to stand up for the Constitution here is the link https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/03/2023-21563/law-enforcement-criminal-prohibitions

It would be appropriate for our elected officials across the West to ask for an extension on this comment period since it’s clear that this action by USFS law enforcement is a violation of federal law and the US Constitution.  Here is the PDF version of the USFS plan to turn all USFS National Forests into a federal enclave.

Summary- “The Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency), United States Department of Agriculture, is proposing to revise the Forest Service’s criminal prohibitions to enhance consistency of the Forest Service’s law enforcement practices with those of State and other Federal land management agencies. The Forest Service is proposing to streamline enforcement of criminal prohibitions in related to fire and use of vehicles on National Forest System roads and trails by eliminating the requirement to issue an order for enforcement.”

Traffic / Drugs / Alcohol / etc. – The proposed rule would incorporate (adopt/assimilate) state law in § 261.12 so that state law is enforceable as Federal law and the person is tried in a federal court.  This is the definition of enacting enclave law.  Please see below and after reading submit your comments to stop this massive federal overreach.  Isn’t it odd that the folks who swear an oath to protect the Constitution stand idle while the federal government violates that very Constitution?

Link to the Public Comment that explains the violation https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FS-2023-0012-0020.  Quoted Comments below:

Without a cession of jurisdiction by the State and the required recorded federal acceptance per {40 USC § 255, 40 USC § 355}, currently 40 USC § 3112, this appears to be an unconstitutional and illegal unilateral action.  Additionally, the USFS ignored, 18 USC 7, and  18 USC 13 – Assimilative Crimes Act and the Enclave Clause (aka Jurisdiction Clause) of the US Constitution (Art 1 Sect 8 Clause 17).  Additionally, the USFS ignored the federal policy guidelines defined in Federal Jurisdiction reports and federal laws referenced below,  regarding how to legally acquire a state’s jurisdiction on federal lands within the States and enforce enclave law- 12 citations defined and linked/quoted below:

1. Part I, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States. Chapter III, Page 26.  “The term Exclusive legislative jurisdiction as used in this report refers to the power “to exercise exclusive legislation” granted to Congress by article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, and to the like power, which may be acquired by the United States through cession by a State, or by a reservation made by the United States through cession by a State, or by a reservation made by the United States in connection with the admission of a State into the Union.”

2.  Part II, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States. (Pages 46-47), “Constitutional consent –The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction– by State consent under article I, section 8, clause 17…. No federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation.  It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or (3) unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State.”

Ch. 3 (Acquisition of Legislative Jurisdiction), Pages 47-48 declare:  “NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Constitutional consent.–The Federal Government cannot,  by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.  Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms, only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.  As was indicated in Chapter II, the consent requirement of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, as intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the States’ jurisdictional integrity against Federal encroachment.”   

3. President Eisenhower Commissioned the Federal GSA Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States. Defines what level of jurisdiction the federal government has on every acre of federal land within the United States.  Four types of jurisdiction defined – Exclusive, Concurrent, Partial, and Proprietorial Interest Only.  95% of federally owned lands within the United States is held in a Proprietorial Interest Only by the federal government.

4. 1973 Military Administrative Law Handbook, Ch 6.8 “(a) Methods of Acquisition. “There are 3 methods of acquiring Federal legislative jurisdiction over areas within a State: purchase with consent; cession of jurisdiction by the state; and reservation federal legislative jurisdiction at the time the State is admitted to the Union.” Page 27-21 “The requirement for state consent was deliberately inserted by the framers of the Constitution, and it is not possible for the United States to unilaterally assume Federal jurisdiction over an area within a State”.

5. 1974 US Army Jurisdiction Regulation 405-20 “ (a) Characteristics of exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Only Congress has the authority to legislate for areas held under exclusive legislative jurisdiction and the Federal Government has the responsibility for law enforcement. The State cannot enforce its laws and regulations in such areas”.

6. 18 USC 7, Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 664 “the United States may exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over lands within state borders: A. Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the union; B. Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state; C. Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent domain, and thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession of jurisdiction from the state; and D. Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state’s consent or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the requisite acceptance.”

7. The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government as provided in 18 USC 7, Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 664 and 18 USC 7, Section 1630, DOJ Criminal Resource Manual “Yet it is clear that federal criminal jurisdiction does not exist over real property simply because the United States owns it. See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943). “…”There are three methods by which the United States obtains exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over federal lands in a state: (1) a state statute consenting to the purchase of land by the United States for the purposes enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States; (2) a state cession statute; and (3) a reservation of federal jurisdiction upon the admission of a state into the Union. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938).  Since February 1, 1940, the United States acquires no jurisdiction over federal lands in a state until the head or other authorized officer of the department or agency which has custody of the lands formally accepts the jurisdiction offered by state law. See 40 U.S.C. § 255; Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943). Prior to February 1, 1940, acceptance of jurisdiction had been presumed in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent on the part of the acquiring agency or Congress. See Silas Mason Co., Inc. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 186 (1937). See also JM 9-20.000 et seq., for a discussion of federal enclave jurisdiction.”

8. In 1940, Congress enacted the following statute, which now appears as 50 U.S.C. § 175 (the same statute also appears as 40 U.S.C. § 255), now 40 USC § 3112 and reads as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department or independent establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.”

9. In 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 139, p. 373, State V Sullivan, appears the following: “Generally in order to deprive the state courts of criminal jurisdiction over lands ceded to the United States there must be a surrender of jurisdiction by the state and an acceptance of jurisdiction by the United States. Moreover, where the federal government has not given notice of acceptance of jurisdiction over land acquired by it in a state, the federal courts are without jurisdiction of prosecution for an alleged crime committed therein although a state statute authorizes the United States to take jurisdiction, or at least the United States is without exclusive jurisdiction over the offense, and a state may enforce its criminal laws within the area acquired by the United States.”

10. As to 50 U.S.C. § 175, see Adams v. United States (1943), 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122, 87 L.Ed. 1421, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that “the Act [50 U.S.C. § 175] created a definite method of acceptance of jurisdiction so that all persons could know whether the government had obtained `no jurisdiction at all, or partial jurisdiction, or exclusive jurisdiction.”

11. In Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2293, 49 L.Ed.2d 34, 45 (1976), the United States Supreme Court stated: “Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.” Congress can surely pass laws under the Property Clause for rules and regulations on federal lands as defined within the Property Clause.  If State laws conflict with those Congressional laws, “the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause”.   However, the Property Clause does not define the process for forming a federal enclave or enacting enclave law within a state, that process is exclusively controlled by the Enclave Clause and applicable federal laws referenced above regarding acceptance of cessions of state jurisdiction.  Also note, that CFR regulations are unilaterally enacted by federal agencies, not laws passed by Congress.  The United States Supreme Court stated:   The court correctly ruled.   “The Act does not establish exclusive federal jurisdiction over the public lands in New Mexico; it merely overrides the New Mexico Estray Law insofar as it attempts to regulate federally protected animals”.

12. FLPMA [43 USC 1701] Section 701 (G) (2) “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or – as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction”.

Mesa County Commissioners and Colorado Sheriffs Unite Against USFS Rule Change in 2024

 In early 2024 the Mesa County Commissioner and the Mesa County Sheriff submitted this letter against the United States Forest Service unilaterally assimilating state laws without a cession of jurisdiction by the State of Colorado.  Mesa County Commissioners and Sheriff Rowell February 6, 2024 Letter to the USFS. 

County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC)  Issue Letter Against USFS Rule Change in 2024

CSOC represents 64 Sheriffs of Colorado and they submitted this letter against the USFS unilaterally assimilating state laws without a cession of jurisdiction by the State of Colorado.  64 County Sheriffs of CSOC February 7, 2024 letter to the USFS. 

Lewis and Clark County Sheriff in Montana Comment Against USFS Rule Change 

 Lewis and Clark County Sheriff, Leo Dutton in Montana submitted this comment against this USFS rule change and shares his MOU that deputizes specific USFS LEOs.   Sheriff Dutton November 2023 Comment discusses why its critical to maintain local and constitutional control of federal law enforcement in western states.   Sheriff Dutton’s MOU deputizing federal agents to enforce local and state laws. 

Western State Sheriffs Association Letter Against USFS Rule Change

The Western State Sheriffs Association (WSSA) issued this letter in opposition of the USFS assimilating state laws. “Assimilation.  Many of the proposed changes appear to take a direct route toward assimilating state law into the Code of Federal Regulation. Through this assimilation and, by channeling a large portion of Subpart B orders to the category of Subpart A orders, the nationalization of enforcement of rules becomes troubling. While we recognize that Congress provided the USFS with the authority to create needful rules and regulations to effectively manage NFS lands, we stand firm in the belief that the law prohibits assimilation of state law on those lands held under proprietary interest. Most lands managed by the USFS in the western United States fall under the definition of proprietary interests. We oppose this effort to bolster the federal enforcement tool chest through the assimilation of state law and in fact, we believe by doing so, the USFS may create significant legal challenges across the lands they manage in the western United States. The County Sheriff, working within the legal systems in each of the western states, is best suited to address crimes against persons and property. The various legal ramifications for any person charged with alcohol and drug offenses in a state are designed to carry long term impacts associated with not only a citation, but several other requirements related to rehabilitation of the offender and long-term consequences that State legislatures have implemented to increase the safety to the public. The federal government has not legislated in the same manner and is therefore not designed to effectively address these lesser offenses. “

BLM Complaints filed in 2022 also apply to USFS illegally enacting enclave law on USFS lands

This BLM Complaint from 2022 (bottom on the attached USFS Letter) has been filed with the BLM in Colorado regarding the BLM unilaterally assimilating 115 state laws in Colorado – see the bulleted pdf documents below. The Colorado BLM director did not respond to the complaint.   The same “no response” was received from the BLM Director in the State of Utah in 2023, where the BLM has also unilaterally assimilated dozens of Utah state laws.

• 40 USC 3112, 40 USC 255
• BLM adopts 115 CO state laws
• DOJRES~2
• DOJ Resource Manual 1630 18 USC 7 a
• statviewer 355 

As stated earlier, It would be appropriate for our elected officials across the West to ask for an extension on this comment period since it’s clear that this action by USFS law enforcement is a violation of federal law and the US Constitution.

Are De Facto Federal Enclaves being formed as a result of Kleppe Vs New Mexico –   Bill Reed and Bill Howell RS 2477 Report (pages 10-18) goes into great detail on this topic.

Colorado State Representative Matt Soper on the Issue

https://repmattsoper.substack.com/p/forest-service-rule-change-reflects?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2079239&post_id=139700145&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=336po8&triedRedirect=true 

 Here is the pdf of the write up on this issue from Rep Matt Soper in February 2024- PDF Link.

Has the BLM Turned Federally Managed Public Lands Into an Unconstitutional Federal Enclave?

  Colorado Sells More Nonresident Elk Licenses

Than All Western States Combined

Recent research shared by the Colorado Resident Hunter Association Facebook group reveals that Colorado sells more nonresident elk tags than all seven western states combined.  The numbers are staggering when you look at this table.

Even though these seven western states have an elk population that is 2.5 times that of Colorado (742,000 elk vs 280,000 elk), the 7 western states collectively sell 5,100 less elk licenses to nonresidents, than Colorado sells to nonresidents.  How can one state sell its resident hunters equity like this?  Clearly Colorado find nonresident dollars more valuable than resident hunters since Colorado resident Over The Counter elk hunters have declined by 8,000 since 2014, this is the result of overcrowding by nonresident elk hunters within OTC units, as the nonresidents are up by 10,000 since 2014.  The nonresident surge has been going on for 20 years+ and this is why Colorado brings in more hunting dollars than any other state in the Country.  Even with a $52 million dollar surplus in 2022 they continue to sell resident equity for nonresident dollars.

Disclosure -The data within this article is from various sources (CORA, CPW Stats, online research and print (some data can be very fragmented to collect)).  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the residents.

Can resident hunters of Colorado apply for Governor Polis’s Equity Grants to help pay for a nonprofit that will properly sue to restore equity for resident hunters?   This is the biggest “Apples to Oranges” hunting tag allocation comparison of all time; it shows an unmatched bias against Colorado residents. 

If CPW commissioners or state legislators were to demand equity for residents, Colorado would have to fall in line with the western states’ averages for nonresident tag sales.  This would be done either based on actual elk populations or based on total elk tag sales.  Colorado sells 72,000 elk tags to nonresidents each year—based on “total elk tag sales”, Colorado would only be able to sell (201,000* 14%) = 28,140 elk tags to nonresidents each year if it were to treat residents equitably.  Based on “elk populations”, Colorado would only be able to sell (280,000*9%) = 25,200 elk tags to nonresidents each year to meet equity guidelines.

Be sure to read these other articles (below) to understand how the overcrowding in Colorado is caused by ever surging nonresident elk tag sales.  Resident participation has been declining 10-25%, since 2014, while nonresidents have increased 21-28% during that time, and now residents would rather stay home than battle the sea of orange/camo in Colorado’s public land OTC units.  See this data research that shows how Colorado has 3-6 times the hunting pressure observed in other Western States.  This 2022 CPW OTC Study shows Resident OTC elk archery hunters in Colorado are down 25% since 2016.  Since 2014 resident OTC hunters are down 8000 and nonresident are up 10,000.  No other state in the country is replacing its resident hunters with nonresident dollars. 

Conflict of Interest on CPW Commission Board

If Colorado removed all nonresident big game tags it would be safe to say outfitters would go out of business.  So we know outfitters benefit financially from more nonresident tags, this is an undisputed fact.   The Colorado Constitution declares Colorado government officials shall carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the State (residents).   Should appointed outfitters on the CPW Commission that benefit financially from expanding tag allocation for Nonresident hunters, recuse themselves from voting on big game tag allocation and on OTC hunting in Colorado?  The Colorado Constitution is clear on this issue.

Article XXIX, Ethics in Government, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution reads (1) The people of the State of Colorado hereby find and declare that:

(a) The conduct of public officers, members of the general assembly, local gov’t 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.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Policy- A.“Conflict of interest” means a situation where a Commissioner’s personal interest is incompatible with a Commissioner’s public duty. Voting members of the Commission shall not perform an official act which may have a direct economic benefit on any business, including nonprofits, in which such member has a direct or substantial financial interest. CRS § 24-18-108.5(2)   —​Conflict of Interest

 How to file a complaint with the Colorado Ethics Commission.  Click Here

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 recently 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 many conservation groups and outfitters associations are loyal to nonresidents and their money.  Many Colorado residents also feel that CPW is loyal to the nonresidents 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 border just like the other 49 states.  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. 

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 3000 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 letter also states the following, “The Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project (CWCP) is an alliance of diverse wildlife organizations with a common interest in conserving and sustaining wildlife and wildlife habitats and preserving our hunting, angling, and conservation heritage. We are steadfast in our efforts to continue the state’s long history of responsible, science-based wildlife management. CWCP comprises organizations representing tens of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts across the state and country. “

google-site-verification: googlebd6e25fabcdbb6f2.html

Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only

Colorado’s Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is meeting on August 25, 2023, in Steamboats Springs to discuss the possible removal of Over The Counter (OTC) elk tags in Colorado.  Resident OTC elk hunters (rifle + archery) have declined by 8,000 since 2014, but nonresident OTC elk hunters in Colorado are up by 10,000 since 2014.  Many residents OTC hunters have quit hunting in Colorado because the OTC units have been overrun by nonresidents in Colorado.  See this detailed report https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-sells-more-nonresident-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/ .

One concern of many resident hunters in Colorado is that their voices are not being heard during public forums and surveys. No officials at CPW are discussing the declining resident hunter trends since 2014 in both rifle and archery OTC elk hunts.  Since 2014, Non-Residents have continued to flood Colorado’s public lands during OTC elk hunting (rifle and archery) and residents are dropping out because of the overcrowding.    A perfect example of this is what we just saw on the five Grand Mesa units (421, 421, 41, 52, 411) in Colorado in 2022.   Nonresidents OTC archery hunters were up 250% since 2014 and residents were down 20%.  Yet in 2022 CPW took away all archery OTC hunting on the Grand Mesa, when the numbers clearly showed that non-residents are the cause of all the overcrowding.  This was in Eastmans Hunting Journal Blog regarding the story.

Is CPW missing the mark and ignoring the residents that they are supposed to work for?   If you review the CPW’s mission statement you won’t find any reference to serving the residents of Colorado- none.  All elected officials and the governor have a duty to represent their constituents (residents) and ensure they are treated fairly (equity) when compared to other states.  During CPW public forums and surveys the nonresidents have more than one seat at the table because most outfitters are also fighting for the nonresident dollars. Why are nonresidents even at the table, no other western state serves up such a seat to nonresident hunters.  This 2022 CPW tag allocation survey report is a perfect example, by including nonresidents it waters down the wishes of the residents because they are on opposite sides of most issues.  Do you actually think nonresidents would support OTC for residents only?  Colorado holds full legislative jurisdiction over big game tag allocation on all public and private lands in Colorado just like all other states.  Just because there are federal lands in Colorado does not give a nonresident a “right” to hunt in Colorado, they have an equal right to visit the federal public lands but the state and its voting residents have the authority over the tags, just like all other western states, many of which have millions of acres more federal lands and provide only 10% of their tags to nonresidents and cap all general season nonresident tags in general season/otc hunts.  Residents in Colorado have not had a fair seat at the table since the 1990s when CPW past the worst tag allocation split in US history which gave nonresidents 35% of limited big game tags when all other western states average a tag allocation of 10% to nonresidents.

Colorado is selling about 72,000 nonresident elk tags each year, this is more than all western states combined, most western states only sell 5,000 to 17,000 elk tags to non-residents each year.  2021 acres per elk hunter western states public land

54% of OTC archery elk hunters in Colorado are Nonresidents. Residents archery hunters are dropping out because of overcrowding on Colorado’s Public lands

This August 2022 CPW OTC Report confirms the declining trends of resident hunters in all OTC hunts in Colorado since 2013/2014 and it confirms the surging Nonresident trends by nonresidents in all OTC hunts in Colorado.  Its also show that 54% of OTC archery elk hunters in Colorado are nonresident.  Compare this to Utah which in 2022 had 45,000 general season resident elk hunters and 2500 nonresident general season elk hunters or compare it to Wyoming which only sells about 5000 elk tags each year to nonresidents.

 August 2022 Presentation for Over The Counter OTC Distribution Workshop

All residents of Colorado need to sign this OTC petition to save OTC hunting in Colorado for residents and residents need to join the Colorado Resident Hunter Association Facebook group to stay informed.  It’s time for resident hunters to stand up and be heard.

Does Colorado Sell more Nonresident Elk Tags than all other Western States Combined?

Disclosure -The data within this article is from various sources (CPW website, online research, and print.  Some data can be very fragmented to collect.  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the resident hunters.

Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only

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.

Colorado State House Representative District 39, Brandi Bradley (R) presented HB23-1066 on February 27, 2023 and the public and special interest groups were there to give testimony in support or against the bill.  It’s important to start educating hunters and recreationists as to who supports public land access and this bill was no exception for exposing the true colors of hunting groups, politicians, and private land special interest lobbyist groups.  Insiders said that hunters needed massive support (live testimony) to move things forward.  Written testimony does not carry the same weight no matter what people say.  Two hunters and one hunting group showed up for live testimony in support of the bill, that’s pretty weak.   Meanwhile, the opposition (anti-pubic land access) had representatives from the Colorado Farm Bureau, Rocky Mountain Farmer Union, Colorado Counties Inc, Republicans, and four ranchers there to testify.

The first thing hunters and public land recreationists have to realize with the issue of public land access (whether it be by legal right of way (road) thru private property or corner crossing) it will be fought by all private land rights activist groups and their politicians that promote the special interest of ranchers and outfitters.  Private landowners love having exclusive access to our federal lands, greed is human nature anymore.  This is because they benefit from better hunting, exclusive use, charging the public trespass fees to cross their property to get to the public lands, and their outfitters charging 5k to 15k per hunt which is split with the land owner.  This is big business and keeping the public from accessing federal lands is not about protecting private property, it’s about protecting private landowners’ exclusive access and pocketbooks.  Bradley’s (R) corner crossing bill is the perfect example of that since the public has no interest in accessing private land, they want to step from public land to public land.  It’s also interesting to see how some Republicans’ actions promote public land access and other Republicans promote the interests of private land owners and help block access and legal public highways based on law, whenever they can.  This has been going on since outfitting became profitable in the 1980s.

HB-1066 would establish legal access at 398 corner access points (BLM to BLM) and open up over 100,000 acres of federal public lands to the public, I would argue that it is much more than that.  Let’s do some math, for hikers to have corner access to nearly 400 corners and each square mile of land is 640 acres.  Most backcountry hikers will hike for miles, so if we take a modest estimate 398 X 2 square miles (1280 acres) = 509,440 acres of new access.  Currently in Colorado, it’s not legal or illegal to corner cross, but it is not encouraged by law enforcement and citations have been issued.  Often times in Colorado when there is a grey legal area law enforcement will side with the rancher, most long-time public land hunters who have ever reported a violation that affected their hunt (by a rancher) have likely seen this cautionary approach to ranchers firsthand. 

The bill was “laid-over” on February 27th and the only hunting group that testified in support of this bill was Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA).  Kudos to BHA for standing up for access but where were all the other “Pro-Access” hunting groups like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Mule Deer Foundation, Safari Club International, Colorado Wildlife Federation, etc.?    Many hunting groups claim to be pro-access but when it comes time to fight for the general public land hunters’ right to access their federal lands, they are silent.    Many of these “hunting” groups are more interested in paying for perpetual conservation easements with private ranchers that exclude public access than they are in the general public land hunter having access to their federal lands.

Teller County Commissioner Dan Williams testifying against HB 1066 corner crossing public lands bill

No special interest groups do more to block access to your public lands than the Farm Bureaus and Farmer Unions.  Private land special interest groups, such as Colorado Farm Bureau and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union were there to testify against public land access once again.   We saw this last year when Garfield County opened up 70,000 acres of BLM land by reopening a historic road in federal court, by using federal and state law (RS-2477).  These groups submitted this Amicus Curiae to the federal courts claiming that restoring the rule of law and reopening a legal public highway should be ignored because a road to public land hurts conservation and private property rights.  Amici Curiae – “Western Landowners Alliance (WLA), Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU), Utah Farmers Union (UFU), The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), and New Mexico Habitat Conservation Initiative (NMHCI) submit these disclosure statements under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a)”.  

Let’s be clear, there is no private property right that trumps the rule of law.

Many hunters are Republicans but many hunters don’t know where their Republican county commissioners and Republican state representatives stand regarding things like corner crossing and protecting legal public highways to our public lands.  Many GOP candidates say they promote public land access when running for office but when the time comes to stand up for access, they hide in the shadows and claim “private property rights”.  In this case, Teller County Commissioner Dan Williams testified against the bill on behalf of Colorado Counties Inc.  Republican State House Representative for District 47 (Pueblo area) Ty Winter was quoted as saying the following “I will be voting against this legislation, it is a clear violation of private property rights and could put property owners at risk of frivolous lawsuits“.  Coloradans, hunters, and public land recreationists have to pay attention to these actions and vote these anti-access politicians out.   We have to start asking specific public land access questions during campaigns.

Bravo to Brandi Bradley for presenting such a great bill, let’s hope we can garner the bipartisan support necessary to promote public land access and pass a corner crossing bill in Colorado.

 https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/4.18.22-AGNC-JURISDICTION-RESOLUTION-draft.pdf

 RESOLUTION # _______________

DEFINING LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY ON FEDERAL LANDS

WHEREAS, Legislative jurisdiction is the constitutional authority to make and enforce laws. A transfer of the state’s legislative jurisdiction to the United States is a cession, and the return of that legislative jurisdiction to the state is a retrocession.

WHEREAS, The Enclave Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States constitution, referred to herein as “Clause 17”, states that the federal government will “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.”

WHEREAS, During the Eisenhower Administration, the United States General Services Administration (GSA) published a series of reports titled “Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States” referred to herein as “GSA Jurisdiction Reports”.  There were three separate GSA jurisdiction reports published, Part I (1956), Part II (1957), and the Inventory Report (1962); in which four types of legislative jurisdiction were identified and the jurisdictional status of every acre of federal land within the United States was recorded in each state, categorized by county.

• Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction: This term is applied when the federal government possesses, by whichever method acquired, all of the authority of the state, and in which the state concerned has not reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the authority concurrently with the United States except to serve civil or criminal process in the area for activities that occurred outside the area.  The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Part I) states: “The term “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” as used in this report refers to the power “to exercise exclusive legislation”…  In the exercise of such power as to an area in a State the Federal Government theoretically displaces the State in which the area is contained of all its sovereign authority, executive and judicial as well as legislative.”;
• Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction: This term is applied in those instances wherein by granting to the United States authority, which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, the state concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United States, all of the same authority;
• Partial Legislative Jurisdiction: This term is applied in those instances wherein a state has granted authority to the federal government to legislate over an area of the state, but the state has reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than merely the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area, or the right to tax private property; and
• Proprietorial Interest Only: This term is applied to those instances wherein the federal government has acquired some right or title to an area in a state but has not obtained any measure of the state’s authority over the area. In applying this definition, recognition should be given to the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions of the constitution, has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest, and of the further fact that all its properties and functions are held or performed in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity.

WHEREAS, The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Part II, Pages 46-47), states: “It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to [Clause 17] by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or (3) unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State…“NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Constitutional Consent – The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State… The consent requirement of [Clause 17] was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the States’ jurisdictional integrity against federal encroachment.”

WHEREAS, The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Part II, Page 48) states: “NECESSITY OF FEDERAL ASSENT: Express consent required by R.S. 355–Acquiescence, or acceptance, by the Federal Government, as well as by the State, is essential to the transfer of legislative jurisdiction to the Federal Government. When legislative jurisdiction is reserved by the Federal Government at the time statehood is granted to a Territory, it is, of course, obvious that the possession of legislative jurisdiction meets with the approval of the Federal Government. When legislative jurisdiction is to be transferred by a State to the Federal Government either pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution, or by means of a State cession statute, the necessity of Federal assent to such transfer of legislative jurisdiction has been firmly established by the enactment of the February 1, 1940, amendment to R.S. 355. While this amendment in terms specifies requirement for formal Federal acceptance prior to the transfer of exclusive or partial legislative jurisdiction, it also applies to the transfer of concurrent jurisdiction.”

WHEREAS, The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Part I, Page 11) states the following:  “Exclusive jurisdiction requirement terminated.– enacted, on February 1, 1940, an amendment to Section 355 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which eliminated the requirement for State consent to any Federal acquisition of land as a condition precedent to expenditure of Federal funds for construction on such land. The amendment substituted for the previous requirement provided that (1) the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands which it acquired was not to be required, (2) the head of a Government agency could file with the governor or other appropriate officer of the State involved a notice of the acceptance of such extent of jurisdiction as he deemed desirable as to any land under his custody, and (3) until such a notice was filed it should be conclusively presumed that no jurisdiction had been accepted by the United States. This amendment ended the 100-year period during which nearly all the land acquired by the United States came under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government. “

WHEREAS, The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Part I, Page 64) “Federal lands primarily in proprietorial interest status– The committee notes as to the great bulk of land owned by the United States, including substantially all lands of the so-called public domain, the Federal Government holds only a proprietorial interest, possessing with respect to such land no measure of legislative jurisdiction within the meaning of article 1, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution.”

WHEREAS, The GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Inventory Report, Page 895), categorize 95% of United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands in the United States as held in “Proprietorial Interest Only” (aka Proprietary Jurisdiction) by the federal government.

WHEREAS, Cessions of legislative jurisdiction by the Colorado State Legislature to the Federal Government are recorded in Title 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS).  Research reveals that since 1962, (when the GSA Jurisdiction Reports (Inventory Report) was published), only one recorded cession of jurisdiction has occurred on federal lands within Colorado.  The cession of concurrent jurisdiction within the boundaries of nine separate National Monuments and National Recreation Areas in 1983, with the passage of State Senate Bill 313 (CRS 3-3-101).  This included areas such as the Colorado National Monument, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, and Dinosaur National Monument.  Federal acceptance of the cession of concurrent jurisdiction was recorded by the DOI in 1984.

WHEREAS, Once the federal government has obtained exclusive, concurrent, or partial jurisdiction over federal lands thru the cession/reservation process, it is often referred to as a federal enclave.  Federal enclaves are subject to the Assimilative Crimes Act 18 U.S.C § 13 and territorial jurisdiction per 18 U.S.C § Section 7 (3) where federal law enforcement agencies can assimilate (adopt) state laws and prosecute them as a federal law violation (when the violation is not punishable by an applicable federal law). The process is often referred to as Enclave Law.

WHEREAS, When the federal government holds a proprietorial interest only (proprietary jurisdiction) on federal lands they cannot unilaterally assimilate (adopt) state and local laws.

WHEREAS, In 1970 the United States Government published the One Third of Nations Land report, prepared by the Public Land Review Commission and Chaired by Wayne Aspinall (Colorado Congressman from Palisade, CO).   Page 278 of the report identifies the four types of legislative jurisdiction on federal lands as Exclusive, Concurrent, Partial, and Proprietorial.  Additionally, the report states: “Two other provisions of the Constitution are germane to the power which the Federal Government may exercise over its lands, the “Property” and “Supremacy” clauses. While the Property Clause was originally thought to apply only to federally held lands outside the boundaries of any state, later judicial decisions leave no doubt that plenary authority is vested by this provision in Congress as to the protection, management, and disposition of federal lands within the states. The Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made under its authority are declared to be the supreme law of the land in the Supremacy Clause. Conflicting state law must yield to federal law, and a state cannot interfere with an agency or instrumentality of the United States engaged in a lawfully authorized activity, without the consent of Congress.”

WHEREAS, The Property Clause (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2) of the Constitution allows Congress to dispose of and make needful rules and regulations over federal lands.  The Property Clause does not apply to how the federal government obtains a state’s legislative jurisdiction over federal lands.

WHEREAS, Title VII, Section 701 (G) (2)  of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 states “(G) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or–  (2)  as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction.”

WHEREAS, Within the 1987 Department of Army, Field Manual 19-10, Ch. 5 Pg. 1 it states “jurisdiction and authority are not the same.  MP may have the authority to apprehend a suspect, but the military may not have jurisdiction to try the suspect.  Authority is the lawful right of designated persons or agencies to exercise governmental power and control.”

WHEREAS, The Colorado State Legislature has provided a cession of “authority” for federal law enforcement agents (LEOs) to enforce state law felonies and misdemeanors in Colorado with the passage of CRS 16-3-110.  This law is not a cession of jurisdiction, it’s a cession of the states’ law enforcement authority.  Upon making an arrest for state felonies or misdemeanors (not petty offenses), federal LEOs must contact the local authority with “jurisdiction” and release the person/s to the local law enforcement agency with “jurisdiction”.  It should also be noted that some federal agencies such as the BLM, also require a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the local Sheriff, before they will enforce any state law, even if state statute allows it.

WHEREAS, Sheriffs in Western Colorado have, on occasion, provided cessions of authority to federal BLM LEO’s beyond CRS 16-3-110; in the form of MOUs which included the authority to enforce state law petty offenses, county ordinances, and even county regulations.  The 2015 and 2020 Mesa County Sheriff / BLM MOU are such an example.

WHEREAS, The State of Colorado passed CRS 3-1-102 Consent to Acquire Land.  It states “the United States shall give written notice of intention to acquire the land to the board of county commissioners of the county wherein the land is situated and to the division of property taxation, which notice shall be given at least sixty days prior to the date of the intended acquisition. If the notice is not given or if the board of county commissioners or the division files with the secretary of state of the state of Colorado within the sixty-day period a request that the acquisition be considered by the general assembly of the state of Colorado, then the consent of the state of Colorado shall not be deemed to have been given to the acquisition, unless and until the general assembly of the state of Colorado shall have by law specifically consented thereto.”

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, that the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (“AGNC”) hereby proclaim that review of Colorado Enabling Act of 1875 and review of the GSA Jurisdiction Reports, reveal Colorado provided no reservation of legislative jurisdiction for the United States at statehood, regarding public lands (public domain) within the borders of Colorado.  It is also worth noting that Colorado provided no reservation of legislative jurisdiction to the United States toward “reserved” public lands within its borders.

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, that since 1940 and the passage of R.S. 355 the federal government and its various agencies such as the BLM and USGS, cannot currently take unilateral action to acquire any level of the state’s legislative jurisdiction or adopt/assimilate state laws without a cession of jurisdiction (exclusive, concurrent, partial) by the Colorado State Legislature.   This legal cession process is defined within Clause 17, 40 USC § 3112 (RS 355), and the Assimilative Crimes Act.  Approximately 97% of Colorado’s 23+ million acres of federally managed public lands are held in a Proprietorial Interest Only by the Federal Government.   These federal lands are largely made up of USFS and BLM lands.  When the federal government holds a proprietorial interest only (proprietary jurisdiction) on federal lands they cannot unilaterally assimilate (adopt) state and local laws.

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, that the AGNC hereby proclaims that unless a recorded cession of jurisdiction or a legal cession of authority has occurred, the federal government and its various agencies cannot enforce state laws, county ordinances, or county regulations. The various federal agencies have certain defined and limited jurisdiction/authority on federally managed public lands. The enforcement of criminal and civil law on federal lands within the boundaries of a state is not one of them.  County and state governments using local ordinances and state statutes oversee and enforce all criminal and civil actions within their jurisdiction.  In the event, an AGNC members county sheriff provides a cession of authority to federal LEOs (MOU/Cooperation Agreement, etc).  The AGNC hereby advises it would be appropriate to share this cession document with county commissioners and county residents to encourage full transparency.  Residents should be made aware of what local law enforcement authorities a sheriff has given to federal agents within their county on public and private lands.

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, That the AGNC hereby supports the inherent right of its member counties to object to the Federal Government purchasing/acquiring private lands within its borders as defined in CRS 3-1-102.  It should be recognized that the various federal agencies hold no level of legislative jurisdiction whatsoever, over Colorado private lands and once those private lands are transferred to federal ownership it can negatively impact the county (taxes / local control).  Prior to private lands within member counties being transferred to the Federal Government (sale, land swap, etc), approval must be attained either by the appropriate Board of County Commissioners or the General Assembly (Colorado State Legislature) per CRS 3-1-102.

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, That the AGNC fully recognize the constitutional and legal process to form a federal enclave on federal lands within Colorado.  The list below are few examples of recorded legislative cessions of jurisdiction from the Colorado Assembly to the Federal Government forming federal enclaves on federal lands within the state.

AS DEFINED HEREIN, IT IS RESOLVED, That the AGNC fully recognizes that there are also federal enclaves (exclusive jurisdiction) formed within certain communities of NW Colorado, as a result of the federal government purchasing lands within the state prior to Congress amending R.S. 355 in 1940.  These acquisition federal enclaves are identified (by county) within the GSA Jurisdiction Report (Inventory Report).  Three such examples are on Page 123 of the GSA Inventory Report for Mesa County, CO:

1. 1) 402 Rood Ave. Post Office (0.5 acres)
2. 2) VA Hospital, 2121 North Avenue (27.2 acres)
3. 3) Atomic Energy Comm., Grand Jct OPR. HDQT-S (55.7acres)

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on April ?, 2022

_________________________________

Chairman

Yesterday the US House passed The Washington, DC Admission Act (H.R. 51) which would make the most populated federal enclave the 51st state if it passes the Senate.  Some people that live in DC say they lack representation because they are not part of a State.  In this article, we will dive into Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 known as the Enclave Clause (aka Jurisdiction Clause) and we will compare it to another federal enclave in Colorado that has residents.  The Jurisdiction Clause is often misunderstood and ignored on federal lands in the Western United States.  Luckily you’re on the website with the most federal jurisdiction reports ever assembled pertaining to federal lands.

In 1790, Maryland ceded the federal district that became Washington DC.   The town of Georgetown went from a city in Maryland to a federal enclave overnight.  Virginia withdrew its lands from the DC enclave in 1847.  In 1801, with the passage of the Organic Act, Congress took control per the Enclave Clause and the federal government has had exclusive jurisdiction ever since.  A detailed reference of this process and the types of jurisdiction on federal lands is provided in the federal report commissioned by President Eisenhower in 1956, Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the State, Part 1.

From 1841 to 1940 and the passage of Section 355 of the Revised Statutes, when the federal government purchased land in a state it acquired exclusive jurisdiction by default.  After Section 355 passed, the state legislature must provide a cession of jurisdiction over lands acquired by the federal government, and per federal law 40 USC 3112, the federal government must formally accept and record that acceptance to receive the cession by the state.  Around this time, the states started to provide cessions of Exclusive, Concurrent (shared jurisdiction), and Partial jurisdiction to the federal government over purchased lands.  All pubic domain (public lands) remained in a proprietorial interest only. 

In 1929, Colorado passed CRS 3-1-130 (link shows bill and federal acceptance) providing a cession of exclusive jurisdiction over Rocky Mountain National Park making it a federal enclave with reservations of partial jurisdiction for the state.  There are permanent residents that live within Rocky Mountain National Park.  Within CRS 3-1-130 wise Colorado state legislatures also preserved for the residents of the National Park, the right to vote in all elections (county, state and federal) “… and saving, also, to the persons residing in said park now or hereafter the right to vote at all elections held within the county or counties in which said tracts are situated.”

Once a state provides a cession of jurisdiction to the federal government the only way to get jurisdiction or partial jurisdiction returned is a retrocession from Congress.  A state cannot take unilateral action to regain or adjust its cession of jurisdiction, just like the federal government cannot take unilateral action to acquire a state’s jurisdiction.  In this case, under no fault of their own, the State of Maryland did not reserve the right to vote in 1801 for the residents within the Washington DC area.  That included the city of Georgetown at that time.  

The only constitutional fix for those residing in Washington DC that feel disenfranchised would be for Congress to follow the example of Rocky Mountain National Park and the Colorado legislatures defined in CRS 3-1-130.  Congress should immediately provide a retrocession of partial jurisdiction that cedes to DC residents the right to vote in all local, state, and national elections, held within Maryland.  This retrocession of jurisdiction would then need to be accepted by the Maryland Legislature.  Problem solved and the Constitution is preserved. 

Note another good reference for the Enclave Clause and its processes is the Assimilative Crimes Act and 18 US Code § 7(3).  This legal cession process is defined within Clause 17, 40 USC § 3112 (RS 355), and the Assimilative Crimes Act.  Also see these GSA Reports, Part I (1956), Part II (1957), and the Inventory Report (1962). Federal enclaves are subject to the Assimilative Crimes Act 18 U.S.C § 13 and territorial jurisdiction per 18 U.S.C § Section 7 (3). 

One main issue with the idea that a federal enclave can become a new State is common sense, Maryland gave us the land that encompasses Washington DC, if the federal enclave is dissolved then the lands should go back to the State of Maryland.  This is currently what happens when the federal government disposes of or sells land, buildings, and forts within a state today.  Those lands go back to the state as private property, under the state’s jurisdiction.  Forming the 51st state from a federal enclave that was developed under the Jurisdiction Clause is contrary to what our founders intended and is likely unconstitutional.  

In March 2021, Colorado finally proposed a Senate Bill, SB 21-150 (Reserve Big Game Hunting Licenses for Residents), to ease resident hunter frustration as a result of a tag allocation bias inflicted on resident hunters for decades —-when compared to other western states.  This Bill appears to be an effort to help resident big game (deer and elk) hunters get fair tag allocation when compared to other western states. To view what other western states allocate for big game tag percentages see Western States Big Game Tag Allocation.  You might be surprised that Colorado gives 100% to 250% more limited deer and elk tags to nonresident hunters than the average western state.  Currently, Colorado has nonresident big game tag allocation caps of 20% and 35% for limited mule deer and elk tags.  20% of the elk and deer tags are given to nonresidents in the limited units that take 6 or more preference points to draw, all other limited units give “up to” 35% of tags to nonresidents. On average all other western states give just 10% of big game tags to nonresidents.   See page 4 “Nonresident License Allocation” of 2021 Big Colorado Big Game Brochure.

Problem #1:  When you read the above-referenced page 4 “Nonresident License Allocation” of 2021 Big Colorado Big Game Brochure you will notice that the CPW is still using the tag draw data from the 2007 – 2009 draw results (15-year-old data) to determine which units give 20% or 35% of the tags to nonresident deer/elk hunters.  The amount of limited deer/elk units that now require 6 or more preference points has surely doubled since 2007 and the CPW will not update the draw process!  Today, many more limited units should be at 20% vs 35% for nonresident hunters.  Example: Unit 40 archery elk in Colorado has gone from 3 preference points to draw in 2009 to 8-9 preference points since 2017.  But since the CPW does not update the system, 35% of tags in unit 40 (Glade Park) are still going to nonresidents, when the legal amount should be 20%.  This is robbing many resident hunters of the opportunity to hunt in unit 40 and in many other units just like it. Thousands of trophy (6+ points) tags are filtered to nonresident hunters using this ancient data in our modern world.  Preference point creep is through the roof in many of the Colorado units, many units like 2, 201 go up one preference point every year, which means if you don’t have 20+ points today you will never draw the tag. 

This November 2020 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Report shows thousands of deer and elk tags are stolen from resident hunters each year because of the CPW using the 2007-2009 data.  Simply unbelievable.  

Problem #2: These are not hard caps in place for the limited deer and limited elk hunts, the current caps only apply to the resident 1st choice draw.  There are 4 draw choices in the CO big game tag draw.  If there are not enough residents to claim 65% of all the limited tags in Choice 1 they are given to all remaining nonresidents in Choice 1.  Linked is a document that shows two limited elk hunts in unit 41  (there are many more) from the 2020 limited elk draw results, it shows nearly 50% of limited elk tags went to nonresident hunters last year in unit 41– Grand Mesa.  Over 500 resident and resident youth hunters were not able to draw the tag for their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th draw choices because all the tags (over the 35% nonresident cap) went to nonresidents in the 1st draw.  This is the result of what is called the “outfitter loophole”.  Another example of this is unit 43 mule deer in Colorado, in 2019, 60% of the muzzleloader limited deer tags in this Gunnison Basin area went to nonresidents.  There are many examples like this whether deer or elk limited big game units in Colorado, especially with muzzleloader and 1st rifle elk seasons. Here is a link to thirty-four (34) limited deer unit hunts that gave 41% to 71% of deer tags to nonresidents.  In the application column of each page, you see (in some cases) hundreds of resident deer hunters were denied a tag because they put in for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice.  Here is a link to fifty (50) limited elk unit hunts that gave up to 83% of the tags to nonresidents.  Be sure to notice all the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice residents that never drew. 

Problem #3: There is no nonresident tag allocation cap for limited pronghorn, bear, and turkey licenses. The nonresident license allocation is specific to elk and deer. Therefore, nonresident hunters could draw all the license quota available, if they have enough preference points. No state sells out its resident big game hunters like this, it’s simply unprecedented.  You will also notice this bias or any others defined herein are never discussed in out-of-state western big game hunting magazines.  They like cashing in on these tags and they do not want to see a change in favor of a fair system for Colorado resident hunters.   Colorado resident hunters should be forming an association to protect their rights.  Speaking of “rights”, be sure to notice in your online CPW account, Colorado no longer issues a “license number” when you draw a hunting tag, they now call it a “privilege number ”.  You pay your Colorado state taxes, you pay for hunting licenses, you pay for your ATV permits, you pay junk fees like the habitat stamp, you pay the excise tax on your hunting supplies and weapon, you pay to get your hunting certificate, but you have not earned the right to hunt in Colorado. 

Problem #4: New deer and elk limited tags offered after 2007 that take more than 6 points to draw have the 65/35 split, robbing hundreds of tags from residents from a trophy deer and elk tags.  Example: In the history of the Colorado Big Game Draw, no one has ever drawn EE061E1R (trophy elk tag unit 61) with less than 18 points.  This was a new hunt in 2016. So why does the CPW have a 65/35 split on the EE061E1R trophy elk tags?  The legal resident/nonresident allocation split should be 80/20 in this trophy elk unit which far exceeds 6 points.  The answer is No State Treats Resident hunters worse than Colorado.  CPW policy is to give a 65/35 split for all new hunts since 2007 regardless of the points necessary to draw the tag.  Here is a video of the CPW trying to prepare the apparently uneducated wildlife commission on the draw tags for this hunt https://youtu.be/4SnQKrply6g .  The CPW representative incorrectly calls the unit EM061E1R, there is no such elk hunt, its EE061E1R, and the draw allocation she defines is correct, 16 elk tags for residents and 8 for nonresidents.  The correct allocation should be 80/20 which would be 20 tags for residents and 4 for nonresidents. That’s right, the correct allocation would cut the nonresident tags in half 50%!  

Problem #5: Colorado allocates 20% of all limited deer and elk tags to private landowners right off the top, the vast majority of these private land ownership tags, are ultimately sold to nonresidents and managed by outfitters.  When sharing this data with a well-known Western Big Game Hunting Editor (to remain unnamed) he said the following “I think you should push to fix the Landowner tag debacle in CO.  A ton, I mean a ton of your best tags are headed to out-of-state hunters through that program. WY is trying to go to a similar system and we are prepared to fight that cause as I have seen what it has done to the best units in CO.”

Colorado needs to reduce all limited nonresident big game tags in Colorado to a hard cap of 10% regardless of how many preference points it takes to draw the tag.  Nearly all other western states only allocate 10% of big game tags to nonresidents (this is for all tags regardless of how long it takes to draw).   New Mexico gives only 6% of its tags to nonresidents; AZ, UT, CA, OR, MT, ID, WA, only allocate 10% of tags to nonresidents; South Dakota gives 0% to nonresidents.  WY is the only other state that gives above 10%, they give 16% to nonresidents and they are the least populated state in the country at 450,000-their 16% cap is not always met because of a quota limit that is set at 7,250 (they do offer tags over the quota but only in the form of leftover tags.  Only Colorado offers limited tags over 20% and the population of the State of Colorado is over 7 million.

So when all is considered, you can see how Colorado does not treat its resident hunters fairly or equitably compared to other western states.  Not only does Colorado have limited big game units with 35% soft caps (problem #2 above) but that does not take into account that another 20% of the limited tags can be sold back to nonresident hunters, from the sale of private landowner tags.  Truly the most resident hunter-biased system of all the western states.  It’s no wonder we are seeing new Facebook groups like Colorado Resident Hunter Association start up.  Resident hunters in Colorado should get united since their state legislature is not stepping up.                                                                                                                                            

The limited big game tags requiring less than 6 preference points need a hard cap 10% with no loopholes.  SB 21-150 proposes 33.3% (1/3), this is not much better than the current 35% cap for non-residents.  Colorado’s population continues to grow and it’s millions higher than nearly all other western states, resident and resident youth hunters need to be protected.  The other states are doing a much better job of securing tags and fair treatment for their residents.  Based on nonresident tag allocation percentages,  no state treats resident hunters with less equity, than Colorado. When it comes to bias against resident hunters there is only one Champion, Colorado sets all records and has been getting away with it for decades.   This Bill is a tiny step in the right direction, but Colorado can do much better.  Share this article with your state representative.  Let’s face it, someday Colorado will have to join the other western states and reduce all nonresident big game tag allocations to 10%, it’s only fair.   

equitably =in a way that is fair and reasonable; justly:

You Must Remember To Bring a Rock to Sit On

During Your Colorado Big Game Hunt

In Colorado, many long-time resident hunters say you have to bring a rock to sit on during Over-The-Counter (OTC) seasons.  This is because Colorado has 3-6 times the hunting pressure as other western states on its public lands.   Colorado sold about 94,000 Over-The-Counter elk tags.  Archery OTC elk hunters doubled between 2002 and 2021, with more nonresident archery hunters than resident hunters since 2019.  No other state does this to its residents.  Trends show resident archery hunters are bowing out, in 2021 there were 4600 more nonresident archery bull elk hunters in Colorado vs resident. Resident archery OTC elk hunters are down 20% since 2014 likely the result of hunting pressure and poor results.   Resident rifle OTC hunters are also down and you can see that in the previous links.

Resident hunters are driven out of the woods by swarms of orange and camo every fall.  Stands are ripped down from trees, trails are blocked, fights break out.  I have talked to many long-time hunters in Colorado that get frustrated and quit hunting, some feel its just not safe to hunt on OTC public lands any longer.   At some point, Colorado is going to have to address the unlimited Over-The-Counter (OTC) elk tag crisis in Colorado.  With over 94,000 OTC elk hunters in 2019, of which about 42,000 are nonresidents, the state is overhunted.  You can pack in 6-10 miles and it’s still overhunted.   Did you know that in 2019 there were more nonresident OTC archery elk hunters in Colorado than resident OTC archery elk hunters (19,000 vs 17,800), the trend continued in 2021 but the gap is now nearly 3000 more nonresidents (19,250 vs 16,492).  That is about 1,300 fewer resident archers in two years, residents archers are bowing out. 

It appears statistically, no other state treats its resident big game hunters worse than Colorado.  Hunting Pressure on Colorado public lands is 3 times higher than in other western states and Colorado sells 100k more elk tags (click on the link or see picture at bottom) than other western states.  From tag allocation percentages to using outdated draw results data that short changes resident hunters.  On the surface, Colorado appears to be more interested in money than serving its resident hunters and resident youth hunters.   Colorado needs nonresident tag caps like Wyoming, which limits its nonresident elk hunting sales to about 7,250 tags regardless if they have met the 16% nonresident cap or not.  Colorado sells more over-the-counter (OTC) elk nonresident archery tags (19,000 in 2019) than most western states sell “total” of all big game species to nonresidents.   The numbers are simply staggering.  It appears that Colorado may sell more nonresident western big game licenses each year than WY, UT, AZ, and NM combined.   The vast majority of these are the result of the unlimited OTC tag plague. 

Wyoming and Montana have transitioned non-residents to a draw system for the “general” tag rather than an over-the-counter tag. This would be a good option to help balance the number of non-residents in the field, but ultimately there needs to be a cap on all non-resident tags issued, and this number should be based on herd management and safety goals rather than financial goals.  A resident elk tag in Colorado costs $56 vs a nonresident elk tag which costs $688.  A resident deer tag costs $41 vs a nonresident deer tag that costs $412.  Research shows Colorado brings in much more than other states financially through hunting but has less public land acreage (23 million acres).

Fleecing is a Form of Theft and Should be Prosecuted 

The intent of use is no longer a consideration when fleecing big game hunters,  this is true in most western states and the crime is against residents as well as nonresidents.  All big game hunters hoping to hunt in Colorado are now required to purchase a small game license and a habitat stamp (scam stamp) before they can even apply to hunt big game.  Fishermen only have to buy a habitat stamp, why fishermen are not required to buy a small game license is an unknown prejudice against hunters.  Why not make big game hunters buy a duck stamp, furbearer license and an annual state park pass as well?   What the heck- “if hunters are willing to pay it” seems to be the CPW Commission’s attitude toward hunters.  Below is a table that shows a cost comparison of big game tag costs for most western states. 

Good luck Colorado resident hunters, it will likely get worse before it gets better,   Archery hunters in Colorado should always bring orange if you are hunting during the muzzleloader season or rifle bear season.  There are over 60,000 hunters active during muzzleloader big game season so cow call, and bugle at your own risk.

Sign this petition to save OTC hunting in Colorado for Residents.

Disclosure -The data within this article is from various sources (CORA, CPW website, Annual BLM Public Lands Statistics Report, online research, and print).  Some data can be very fragmented to collect.  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the resident hunters.

Click on the 4 tables below to view as a pdf and save for future reference.

https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-petition-to-save-over-the-counter-otc-elk-hunting-for-residents-only/