My Public Trust Comments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), May 7, 2026. If the Public Trust Doctrine is the foundation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, we must all agree that the first of the seven components (7 sisters) is that Residents of each state are the beneficiaries of the trust. It’s not “all citizens”. The states serve their residents, and the federal government and its federal enclaves serve “All Citizens” of the USA. There is a huge difference.
Dear Commissioners, thanks for taking the time to review my general comment today. I hope you’re enjoying your visit to Grand Junction. I started the Colorado Resident Hunter Page on Facebook a few years ago, and today it’s about 2500 members. We work to restore tag equity for the resident hunter.
TOPIC- Is the Public Trust Doctrine the foundation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?
My concern is the various interpretations of the seven components (The Seven Sisters) of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the absence of declaring the resident of the state as the beneficiary of the Trust. We do not live in a federal enclave; we live in a sovereign state. The federal government is the trustee for all American citizens; you are the trustee for CO residents only, and the residents of Colorado are the beneficiary. Nonresidents are mere stakeholders.
Normally, the first component (#1) of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation defines the beneficiary of the public trust. Various Examples:
CPW Website – https://cpw.state.co.us/conservation “The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone.” (federal enclave)
The NE Wildlife Society – “1. Wildlife as a Public Trust Resources” (vague)
Coloradoans for Responsible Wildlife Management – “Wildlife Resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens” (federal enclave)
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership- “Wildlife is a public resource and held in public Trust….on behalf of all citizens” (federal Enclave)
I see a trend- no one is recognizing the citizen of the state as the beneficiary of the trust; you are the trustee. This was secured with the following Supreme Court Rulings and a Congressional Act:
1842 – Martin vs Waddell– Supreme Court ruling, wildlife is not attached to the land, it’s held in trust for the benefit of every citizen of the State.
1896- Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, the Supreme Court ruled that wild animals are held in trust by the state for the benefit of its residents, establishing the “state ownership doctrine”. The court affirmed that the state, as trustee
2005- Congress passes S.339 —–the “Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act. -Confirms the State Management of Fish and Wildlife and residents as the beneficiary under state laws.
Also Secured by the Colorado Constitution – In Colorado, the management of state resources for the benefit of the residents is also protected in Colorado Constitution Section 29, Ethics in Government Section 1. (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.
Must listen to Podcasts – Randy Newberg did a great job with 3 separate podcasts on this issue in Colorado in 2024.
- March 2024 Elk Talk Podcast CPW Commissioner and Public Trust -Podcast 1
- 2024 Screwing over the Nonresident Hunter – Podcast 2
- 2024 Fresh Tracks You Tube No More OTC in CO and Public Trust – Podcast 3
My request is that CPW update its website and pass a resolution formally recognizing the residents of Colorado as the beneficiary of the Public Trust.
Thank you for your service,
Brandon Siegfried
Colorado Resident Hunter Association
Lets try a new table for the folks in back.
| Public Trust Doctrine Reference Materials for big game | ||
| The public trust foundation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation | THE PIONEER SPIRIT AND THE PUBLIC TRUST: THE AMERICAN RULE OF CAPTURE AND STATE OWNERSHIP OF WILDLIFE | NRPA Public Trust Doctrine, Supreme Court 1896 |
| The Wildlife Society - The Public Trust Doctrine | Geer v Connecticut 1896 | Hughes v. Oklahoma 1979 |
| S 339 Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting Act of 2005 | The Wildlife Society - The Public Trust Doctrine | Colorado Public Trust, breach of fiduciary duty CRS 24-18-103 |
| The publc trust doctrine Randy Newberg slide | slide show for cpw tag allocation and public trust | Baldwin vs Commissioner- Nonresident sued, supreme courts says, hunting is not a right for nonresident, it’s a privilege. States serve their residents as the beneficiaries of the trust |
| Randy Newberg Elk Talk podcast- Episode 123, March 2024, --CPW Commissioner Tutchton, Public Trust Doc, supreme court rulings on hunting | 2024 Screwing over the nonresident video Fresh Tracks You Tube w Randy Newberg – public trust doctrine, 90/10 tag allocation is fair, residents are the beneficiary | June 2024, Fresh Tracks You tube podcast, interviewed Brandon Siegfried, No More OTC Elk in CO more on Public Trust Doctrine |
| Martin vs Waddell 1842 | THE PIONEER SPIRIT AND THE PUBLIC TRUST: THE AMERICAN RULE OF CAPTURE AND STATE OWNERSHIP OF WILDLIFE | |
| Supreme Court 1842, Martin vs Waddell- If it was a trust estate in the king, for the benefit of his subjects, and uponthe revolution, the government of New Jersey became the trustee, in the place of the king, and the trust devolved upon such government, and theland became as inalienable in the government of New Jersey as in the hands of the king, and the state must be bound to hold all such lands subjectto the trust, which, as contended, embraces [41 U.S. 367, 433] a common right of fishery in the waters, and the dredging for oysters in the land coveredby the waters; and if this be so, there certainly can be no power in the state, without a breach of trust, to deprive the citizens of New Jersey of such common right, and convert these oyster grounds to the private and exclusive use of individuals | ||
| NE -The public trust foundation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation 1896 Geer v Connecticut "...the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from the common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government, as a trust for the benefit of all people (of that state), and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government, ...or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public" | ||
| Colorado Constitution Article 29, Section 1 - benefit the residents Colorado Constitution Article XXIX, Ethics in Government Section 1. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS (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 government officials, and government employees must hold the respect and confidence of the people. (b) They shall carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the state. (c) They shall, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated. | ||