Friends of Animals Sues Colorado Parks and Wildlife for requring hunting license to use parks

[Beringia]

https://committeetoabolishsporthunting.wordpress.com/2020/08/05/animal-group-suing-cpw-over-hunting-fishing-license-requirement/




“Friends of Animals members oppose associating with or conveying messages in support of consumptive wildlife use, such as hunting and fishing,” the document says.

FoA claims the new rule imposes a person to express the message that they approve hunting and fishing in order to use the land and that CPW doesn’t have the authority to enact the new requirement.

FoA also claims the regulation violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting access.

The requirement was put into place July 1 for all visitors 18 or older.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife said the regulation is necessary because of a significant trend of people engaging in activities for which these properties were not intended.

The issues range from illegal camping to engaging in recreational activities that disturb and displace wildlife. To begin to address the trend, the CPW Commission voted to require everyone who enters to possess a proper and valid license to hunt or fish in Colorado.



Friends of Animals in court documents says:

The regulation fails to provide for a means to distinguish between consumptive and non-consumptive hunting or fishing licenses.

Anyone who purchases a hunting or fishing license, whether to hunt, fish, or engage in a non-consumptive use like bird watching, nature viewing or hiking, could be counted as a hunter or fisher. This could result in fundamental over-reporting of Colorado hunting numbers to the federal government.

CPW asserts that the regulation is aimed at reducing illegal and/or improper use of SWAs and STAs. Such uses may be unauthorized camping or travel. However, CPW failed to provide a rational explanation as to how the requirement to have a hunting or fishing license will in any way reduce such illegal or improper uses.

The regulation does not require any additional enforcement, and the funds it will generate are not directed to reducing such uses.

There is simply no rational connection between a new licensing requirement and the reduction of illegal/improper use of these public lands. There is also no rational connection between the regulation and the administration, protection and maintenance of lands in the SWAs and STAs.

CPW failed to adequately consider alternatives to the regulation.

By compelling non-hunters to purchase a hunting or fishing license, CPW has restricted their freedom of expression and forced them to associate with and pledge support for an activity that they fundamentally disagree with.





https://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/foa-sues-cpw-for-forcing-nature-lovers-to-carry-hunting-licenses/

Friends of Animals has filed a lawsuit in state court against Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) over its requirement of a valid hunting or fishing license to access any State Wildlife Area or State Trust Land even if someone just wants to hike, birdwatch, take photographs or simply get their nature fix.

“This desperate attempt to pump up the numbers of dwindling hunters in Colorado is sneaky and obscene and CPW should not get away with it,” said Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals. “There is no way to know if someone is purchasing a hunting license to hunt or to go bird watching. This is problematic because the state is required to report the number of hunters for allocation of hunting-related conservation funds made available to the state. The higher the number of hunters, the more funding. This new regulation will obviously skew the numbers of hunters that Colorado can report.”

[hlthe2b]

1. If they need more money, raise the fees. Linking the two is obscene.

I'm upset about this too. That hunting exists, in some instances NEEDS to exist, and will continue, is a given. But, I don't intend to be part of it.

[Duppers]

4. Agree with all you stated...

Except why does hunting need to exist?



Thanks.

[hlthe2b]

6. Thinning herds where insufficient predation occurs helps prevent both starvation and disease...

That, I can accept when properly managed. Likewise, old fashioned hunting sans high tech, cruel, or unsporting measures for those who need to hunt to subsist or at least DO eat their humanely acquired kill. I don't hunt and won't hunt ever, but I'm not about to tell Native Americans or subsistence farmer/ranchers living in the West that they can not continue to do so. The big $$$ hunters from back East who merely want a head on their wall? They can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

[Duppers]

7. Gotya. 👍

Thanks.

[Freethinker65]

2. Odd. Seems like they could just issue and charge a fee for a use pass for non-hunters/fishers?

Make the hunting and fishing license all inclusive. I would assume the fee for this pass would be a bit higher as regular hunting/fishing fees typically go towards Wildlife management and stocking.

A use fee to maintain access, trail maintenance, parking facilities, rest areas, etc. is not completely unreasonable. I remember dropping money through a slot in an envelope for self serve areas in many states.

[Bayard]

3. Make up your mind

You can't have hunters mixing with hikers and bird watchers.

[Duppers]

5. Had an evil thought

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2020, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

We hikers could pull a Dick Cheney...if he can have a hunting accident and be forgiven, then...




Hope my little joke doesn't offend anyone. I know hunting is a traditional and necessity for some, as hlthe2b so well stated above.