Full Version: This for That Cooperation
What positive solutions can you suggest that public interests, i.e., fishermen, hikers, walkers, boaters, etc., can give to private water frontage landowners to get walking access to public waters and public fish?
QUOTE (rstrouts @ Jan 2 2006, 06:18 PM) 
What positive solutions can you suggest that public interests, i.e., fishermen, hikers, walkers, boaters, etc., can give to private water frontage landowners to get walking access to public waters and public fish?
Check out the Private Lands/Public Wildlife program from the Wyoming Game and Fish. If I remember correctly, there's over 1/2 million acres enrolled. Some great hunting and fishing on those lands. It's a fairly popular program with landowners, as they recieve a decent amount of money for enrolling. They won't get rich, but it encourages civic minded landowners to step up to the plate. Good luck.
http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/access/plpw/index.asp
Ben's right...
...MOOLAH...
...spring a buck fer "Access Yes"...
...it ain't just the money, tho. A program like this gives the landowner a feeling of a little more security. He's not liable, the State assumes some of the responsibility, & people seem to realize that if they don't take care of it they'll loose it & they spent money for it, so they seem to be a little more responsible...
Another program you might be interested in is FFF's "Adopt A Stream", a lot like the "Adopt A Hiway" program.
We do need to realize when it comes to landowner relations, we can be our own best advocate, or our own worst enemy. Respecting the property has to be the No. 1 priority...
...MOOLAH...
...spring a buck fer "Access Yes"...
...it ain't just the money, tho. A program like this gives the landowner a feeling of a little more security. He's not liable, the State assumes some of the responsibility, & people seem to realize that if they don't take care of it they'll loose it & they spent money for it, so they seem to be a little more responsible...
Another program you might be interested in is FFF's "Adopt A Stream", a lot like the "Adopt A Hiway" program.
We do need to realize when it comes to landowner relations, we can be our own best advocate, or our own worst enemy. Respecting the property has to be the No. 1 priority...
QUOTE (rstrouts @ Jan 2 2006, 06:18 PM)
What positive solutions can you suggest that public interests, i.e., fishermen, hikers, walkers, boaters, etc., can give to private water frontage landowners to get walking access to public waters and public fish?
Richard,
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, so this might not even be realistic.
As stated above it takes money and willing landowners. But I think the former is available in Colorado, even though the latter may be hard to come by. To be honest, I'm not up to date on where all the Colorado Lottery funds go these days, but I would love to see some legislation that would set aside a portion those funds specifically for "access" projects, and have those funds placed under the control of the DOW. That would enable them them to purchase more Access Easements, and possibly also offer cash bonuses for landowners willing to place their lands in Conservation Easements (on top of the tax breaks the landowener get in the future).
A full boat Montana type solution may still be a long ways down the road for the Colorado, but perhaps the use of Lottery money for recreation purposes other than bike paths and play-grounds might help get more access in the short term.
Montana recently enacted the Fishing Access Enhancement program (Montana Code 87-10286), which was designed to provide tangible benefits to participating private landowners who grant access to or across their land for public fishing. While the program currently suffers from a lack of funding (as most do), it is hoped that it will get launched in the coming months. Its a great model for others considering something of the same. The text can be read here.
Now, my rant: We're lucky in Montana to have so much access to so much water. That access is protected not only by law, but by the many, many individuals that fight daily to protect it. Challenges to Montana's Stream Access Law are constant, and its frightening to imagine how quickly things could change if we dropped our guard against these very rich, very powerful private/corporate/governmental interests.
As a member of the Montana Public Lands/Water Access Association, I urge you to join your local and state organizations and get involved. Search for new access, but be careful to protect the access you have now. Let's face it, sympathetic chit-chat on these forums is all well and good, but it will take more than that. Get involved. Report blocked access. Make a few calls, Write a few letters. Make your vote count. Yes, your money helps, but an hour a month of your time is worth much more. If you're not already involved, please think about it.
To that end, I'm working on a database to track as many Montana public access fishing access sites as possible, including informal accesses such as turnouts and bridge crossings. Right now, it includes most state sites, along with many federal and other agency sites. The database will help those across the state monitor problems and issues relating to those sites. Users can view each site's status, GPS coords, and satellite maps (via google). You can view the site here. If you're planning a trip to Montana, you might find a new spot to try!
Sorry for the length of the post, but if you've read this far, my thanks.
-Bugger
Now, my rant: We're lucky in Montana to have so much access to so much water. That access is protected not only by law, but by the many, many individuals that fight daily to protect it. Challenges to Montana's Stream Access Law are constant, and its frightening to imagine how quickly things could change if we dropped our guard against these very rich, very powerful private/corporate/governmental interests.
As a member of the Montana Public Lands/Water Access Association, I urge you to join your local and state organizations and get involved. Search for new access, but be careful to protect the access you have now. Let's face it, sympathetic chit-chat on these forums is all well and good, but it will take more than that. Get involved. Report blocked access. Make a few calls, Write a few letters. Make your vote count. Yes, your money helps, but an hour a month of your time is worth much more. If you're not already involved, please think about it.
To that end, I'm working on a database to track as many Montana public access fishing access sites as possible, including informal accesses such as turnouts and bridge crossings. Right now, it includes most state sites, along with many federal and other agency sites. The database will help those across the state monitor problems and issues relating to those sites. Users can view each site's status, GPS coords, and satellite maps (via google). You can view the site here. If you're planning a trip to Montana, you might find a new spot to try!
Sorry for the length of the post, but if you've read this far, my thanks.
-Bugger
QUOTE (tplane @ Jan 2 2006, 09:23 PM)
Richard,
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, so this might not even be realistic.
As stated above it takes money and willing landowners. But I think the former is available in Colorado, even though the latter may be hard to come by. To be honest, I'm not up to date on where all the Colorado Lottery funds go these days, but I would love to see some legislation that would set aside a portion those funds specifically for "access" projects, and have those funds placed under the control of the DOW. That would enable them them to purchase more Access Easements, and possibly also offer cash bonuses for landowners willing to place their lands in Conservation Easements (on top of the tax breaks the landowener get in the future).
A full boat Montana type solution may still be a long ways down the road for the Colorado, but perhaps the use of Lottery money for recreation purposes other than bike paths and play-grounds might help get more access in the short term.
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, so this might not even be realistic.
As stated above it takes money and willing landowners. But I think the former is available in Colorado, even though the latter may be hard to come by. To be honest, I'm not up to date on where all the Colorado Lottery funds go these days, but I would love to see some legislation that would set aside a portion those funds specifically for "access" projects, and have those funds placed under the control of the DOW. That would enable them them to purchase more Access Easements, and possibly also offer cash bonuses for landowners willing to place their lands in Conservation Easements (on top of the tax breaks the landowener get in the future).
A full boat Montana type solution may still be a long ways down the road for the Colorado, but perhaps the use of Lottery money for recreation purposes other than bike paths and play-grounds might help get more access in the short term.
This site might be doing what tplane's talking about...
GOCO
Anybody know anyone there that you could talk to directly to find out if they already are funding through DOW for access or if new, additional funding could be done under their existing mandates?
Or post contact info and we'll flood em with requests!!!
Guess I have some studynig to do on GOCO and how it works.
On a different thought, I happened to run into Sharon Lance (CTU President) at dinner the other night, and had a very brief conversation. She said something about how many kazillion miles of water Colorado had, and how CTU was all about protection it. I mentioned that access to those kazillion miles was just as important to a lot of people, and maybe more so in some cases. She said CTU was aggressively getting engaged with rafting and kayak groups and that this would be a major topic for them in the future, but we didn't have time to get into specifics.
So does anyone know what it is that CTU may be doing on the access front? Is it actually going to be a focus for them, or was she just telling me what I wanted to hear?
On a different thought, I happened to run into Sharon Lance (CTU President) at dinner the other night, and had a very brief conversation. She said something about how many kazillion miles of water Colorado had, and how CTU was all about protection it. I mentioned that access to those kazillion miles was just as important to a lot of people, and maybe more so in some cases. She said CTU was aggressively getting engaged with rafting and kayak groups and that this would be a major topic for them in the future, but we didn't have time to get into specifics.
So does anyone know what it is that CTU may be doing on the access front? Is it actually going to be a focus for them, or was she just telling me what I wanted to hear?
QUOTE (tplane @ Jan 3 2006, 05:40 PM)
So does anyone know what it is that CTU may be doing on the access front? Is it actually going to be a focus for them, or was she just telling me what I wanted to hear?
I'm not familiar with Colorado, but TU is reluctant to get into access issues up here because of the work they are doing with landowners. Tu's mission is coldwater fishery conservation, not access.
.
QUOTE (tplane @ Jan 3 2006, 05:40 PM)
Guess I have some studynig to do on GOCO and how it works.
On a different thought, I happened to run into Sharon Lance (CTU President) at dinner the other night, and had a very brief conversation. She said something about how many kazillion miles of water Colorado had, and how CTU was all about protection it. I mentioned that access to those kazillion miles was just as important to a lot of people, and maybe more so in some cases. She said CTU was aggressively getting engaged with rafting and kayak groups and that this would be a major topic for them in the future, but we didn't have time to get into specifics.
So does anyone know what it is that CTU may be doing on the access front? Is it actually going to be a focus for them, or was she just telling me what I wanted to hear?
On a different thought, I happened to run into Sharon Lance (CTU President) at dinner the other night, and had a very brief conversation. She said something about how many kazillion miles of water Colorado had, and how CTU was all about protection it. I mentioned that access to those kazillion miles was just as important to a lot of people, and maybe more so in some cases. She said CTU was aggressively getting engaged with rafting and kayak groups and that this would be a major topic for them in the future, but we didn't have time to get into specifics.
So does anyone know what it is that CTU may be doing on the access front? Is it actually going to be a focus for them, or was she just telling me what I wanted to hear?
I talked briefly with Sharon at the FF'ing Expo a couple years ago and she was pretty adamant that TU wasn't about access.
As I recall when I was involved with Coloradans for Fair Fishing back in 95, TU was not supportive then, either.
One thing that I would suggest, however, is, as access initiatives are developed, is to bring the issue up at TU meetings and get support from the members as individuals, separate from the TU organization. Maybe meet after or before TU meetings or publicize web links to get to the access initiatives, etc.
Next time any of you go to a TU meeting, how about talking to members?
QUOTE (Ben @ Jan 3 2006, 06:05 PM)
I'm not familiar with Colorado, but TU is reluctant to get into access issues up here because of the work they are doing with landowners. Tu's mission is coldwater fishery conservation, not access. .
.TU has been trying to seperate itself from fishing for quite awhile, now. Ben, I think they would be upset w/ you for the "coldwater fishery conservation" comment, cause even tho regs. & conservations effort may enhance populations, TU is playing it safe & "Habitat" is the only mission, whether there are trout left to inhabit it or not...Issues that effect fishermen as well as fish are not issues...
Interesting comments about TU.
Here is part of the mission statement from the TU website:
"Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds."
Doesn't fly fishing or fishing in general go against the concept of protecting a fishery? Whether we like it or not, fly fishing is a blood sport and contributes in some ways to the degradation of a fishery.
I had a look at the MT TU site and one of the issues at the state level is the following:
"Protecting Traditional Access for Angling. Montana TU intervenes in challenges to Montana's stream access law that have state-wide precedent. Though TU is not a recreational organization, it is comprised of conservation-minded anglers. Protection of traditional stream access ensures that anglers have places to enjoy their sport. When anglers have access, they are motivated to fight for conservation of wild trout."
So at least on a state level, MT TU is concerned about access rights. It is worded in a very interesting fashion. It seems they realize that access is very important for continued donations to the conservation side of trout. Not a bad way to go...
Here is part of the mission statement from the TU website:
"Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds."
Doesn't fly fishing or fishing in general go against the concept of protecting a fishery? Whether we like it or not, fly fishing is a blood sport and contributes in some ways to the degradation of a fishery.
I had a look at the MT TU site and one of the issues at the state level is the following:
"Protecting Traditional Access for Angling. Montana TU intervenes in challenges to Montana's stream access law that have state-wide precedent. Though TU is not a recreational organization, it is comprised of conservation-minded anglers. Protection of traditional stream access ensures that anglers have places to enjoy their sport. When anglers have access, they are motivated to fight for conservation of wild trout."
So at least on a state level, MT TU is concerned about access rights. It is worded in a very interesting fashion. It seems they realize that access is very important for continued donations to the conservation side of trout. Not a bad way to go...
Yes and no Paul. Some streams (brookie streams, cough, cough) get overgrown and are subject to stunting the growth of the fish, making it a less fertile fishery, and as is often the case, harvest is a viable management tool to regulate and manage the fishery. Other actions of man have a far greater impact on stream ecology than angling.
As far as individual chapters or State Councils getting involved, I'm not sure, but I think that the chapters can do some access stuff and not get whacked by National.
As far as individual chapters or State Councils getting involved, I'm not sure, but I think that the chapters can do some access stuff and not get whacked by National.
QUOTE (Ben @ Jan 4 2006, 08:16 AM)
Yes and no Paul. Some streams (brookie streams, cough, cough) get overgrown and are subject to stunting the growth of the fish, making it a less fertile fishery, and as is often the case, harvest is a viable management tool to regulate and manage the fishery. Other actions of man have a far greater impact on stream ecology than angling.
I'm not so sure Ben. When you factor in all the consumable resources involved in our fly fishing adventures, one might question the true impact. Of course we should probably leave this discussion for another thread.
QUOTE (PaulM @ Jan 4 2006, 07:48 AM)
Interesting comments about TU.
"Protecting Traditional Access for Angling. Montana TU intervenes in challenges to Montana's stream access law that have state-wide precedent. Though TU is not a recreational organization, it is comprised of conservation-minded anglers. Protection of traditional stream access ensures that anglers have places to enjoy their sport. When anglers have access, they are motivated to fight for conservation of wild trout."
So at least on a state level, MT TU is concerned about access rights. It is worded in a very interesting fashion. It seems they realize that access is very important for continued donations to the conservation side of trout. Not a bad way to go...
"Protecting Traditional Access for Angling. Montana TU intervenes in challenges to Montana's stream access law that have state-wide precedent. Though TU is not a recreational organization, it is comprised of conservation-minded anglers. Protection of traditional stream access ensures that anglers have places to enjoy their sport. When anglers have access, they are motivated to fight for conservation of wild trout."
So at least on a state level, MT TU is concerned about access rights. It is worded in a very interesting fashion. It seems they realize that access is very important for continued donations to the conservation side of trout. Not a bad way to go...
The statements above from Richard, Ben, and Gene about TU traditionally avoiding the access issue, certainly represented my assumption of what Sharon would say. So I was pretty surprised by her answer that access was allegedly becoming more of a focus for CTU. Montanta obviously has made the connection between access and more motivated members (with checkbooks), so maybe CTU is changing their tune from several years ago.
QUOTE (rstrouts @ Jan 3 2006, 01:18 AM)
What positive solutions can you suggest that public interests, i.e., fishermen, hikers, walkers, boaters, etc., can give to private water frontage landowners to get walking access to public waters and public fish?
Utah has a "Stream Team" program that is similar to the "Adopt a Highway" program used in many states.
here is the link: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/ae/streamteam.html
Alright fellas,
I 'll wade in on this again. My understanding has always been that TU would not support anything related to access. I have yet to be proved wrong on this. A few weeks ago, on the other site, I got involved in an arguement with Great Gatsby about this. I was going to ask Dave Nickum, COTU Guy, about this, as he was scheduled to come to one of our board meeting. Unfortunately, he had something come up, and couldn't make it. However, our Chapter, the St Vrain Anglers, has been chosen to host the quarterly state board meeting coming up in a few weeks, and all the COTU heavyweights will be there, as well as chapter presidents. There is a decent chance I'll get to go to this (space limitations), and if I do, I'll try to bend a few ears. If I can't, I'll try to get our chapter president to sniff around it a bit. I'll do what I can. Really hope I can make it. I think I'll swing by the booth at the show though and ask.
My opinion is that TU could do it for us, and I bet it would be a boon for membership and donations. I still have a real bad taste from that 3 Rivers article a few months ago.
MK
I 'll wade in on this again. My understanding has always been that TU would not support anything related to access. I have yet to be proved wrong on this. A few weeks ago, on the other site, I got involved in an arguement with Great Gatsby about this. I was going to ask Dave Nickum, COTU Guy, about this, as he was scheduled to come to one of our board meeting. Unfortunately, he had something come up, and couldn't make it. However, our Chapter, the St Vrain Anglers, has been chosen to host the quarterly state board meeting coming up in a few weeks, and all the COTU heavyweights will be there, as well as chapter presidents. There is a decent chance I'll get to go to this (space limitations), and if I do, I'll try to bend a few ears. If I can't, I'll try to get our chapter president to sniff around it a bit. I'll do what I can. Really hope I can make it. I think I'll swing by the booth at the show though and ask.
My opinion is that TU could do it for us, and I bet it would be a boon for membership and donations. I still have a real bad taste from that 3 Rivers article a few months ago.
MK
QUOTE (rstrouts @ Jan 2 2006, 06:18 PM)
What positive solutions can you suggest that public interests, i.e., fishermen, hikers, walkers, boaters, etc., can give to private water frontage landowners to get walking access to public waters and public fish?
In regards to "Great Outdoors Colorado" (GOCO), goco.org, here is the link to the goco amendment in the Colorado State Constitution:
http://i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnart27.htm
How about you also reading through it and seeing if it means that goco does fund for access? If it does, maybe there might be ways to increase the funding for access within goco or maybe someone interested enough to call or contact goco might find out if funding for access is possible and/or who are the decision makers for funding, etc.
QUOTE (MKyner @ Jan 5 2006, 04:03 PM)
Alright fellas,
I 'll wade in on this again. My understanding has always been that TU would not support anything related to access. I have yet to be proved wrong on this. A few weeks ago, on the other site, I got involved in an arguement with Great Gatsby about this. I was going to ask Dave Nickum, COTU Guy, about this, as he was scheduled to come to one of our board meeting. Unfortunately, he had something come up, and couldn't make it. However, our Chapter, the St Vrain Anglers, has been chosen to host the quarterly state board meeting coming up in a few weeks, and all the COTU heavyweights will be there, as well as chapter presidents. There is a decent chance I'll get to go to this (space limitations), and if I do, I'll try to bend a few ears. If I can't, I'll try to get our chapter president to sniff around it a bit. I'll do what I can. Really hope I can make it. I think I'll swing by the booth at the show though and ask.
My opinion is that TU could do it for us, and I bet it would be a boon for membership and donations. I still have a real bad taste from that 3 Rivers article a few months ago.
MK
I 'll wade in on this again. My understanding has always been that TU would not support anything related to access. I have yet to be proved wrong on this. A few weeks ago, on the other site, I got involved in an arguement with Great Gatsby about this. I was going to ask Dave Nickum, COTU Guy, about this, as he was scheduled to come to one of our board meeting. Unfortunately, he had something come up, and couldn't make it. However, our Chapter, the St Vrain Anglers, has been chosen to host the quarterly state board meeting coming up in a few weeks, and all the COTU heavyweights will be there, as well as chapter presidents. There is a decent chance I'll get to go to this (space limitations), and if I do, I'll try to bend a few ears. If I can't, I'll try to get our chapter president to sniff around it a bit. I'll do what I can. Really hope I can make it. I think I'll swing by the booth at the show though and ask.
My opinion is that TU could do it for us, and I bet it would be a boon for membership and donations. I still have a real bad taste from that 3 Rivers article a few months ago.
MK
Hopefully you can make this meeting and see let us know what reality is (with regard to TU's stance). I was hoping to run into Sharon at the show this weeken and follow up on more specifics as well. It sure would be nice if COTU would start embracing the access issue a little more.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.