The plot thickens regarding two widely separated events that have grabbed the attention of the Colorado outdoor community.
In a dispute involving continued access to public parcels on the Big Thompson River, the Federation of Fly Fishers has weighed in on the public’s side. That sentiment may not appear much of a surprise or of particular impact until one considers this. FFF is considering moving its national headquarters to Loveland, the city where the Big T meets the plains.
An FFF presence would be a major angling tourism boost for the Thompson Valley, and the state as a whole.
In a letter to Gary Buffington, director of Larimer County Natural Resources, R.P. Van Gytenbeek, FFF chief executive officer, wrote, “The Federation of Fly Fishers is appalled that your department would seek to sell off public access in the Big Thompson Canyon without full public disclosure and consultation with user groups.”
Van Gytenbeek proposed formation of a user group that might include representatives of the Division of Wildlife, FFF, Trout Unlimited and local fly shops. He said adverse Larimer County action won’t influence the impending move, but that FFF felt it had to do the right thing by the river.
My column two weeks ago concerning proposals by the county to sell numerous small parcels of public land along the river downstream from Estes Park brought a number of interesting responses. Most correctly opposed the disposal of any access to prime stream water, increasingly precious in a fast-growing state.
At issue are some 150 plots purchased by the federal government and earmarked for public access in the wake of the catastrophic 1976 flood and accrued to Larimer Parks and Open Lands. Most have languished in obscurity, but the list includes numerous unmarked areas accessed for years by anglers at pullouts from U.S. 36.
Other parcels have little or no public value or access. Question is, will a cash-strapped parks department have the good sense to keep those with public benefit.
Two calls that stood out reflect either hostility by canyon landowners toward visitors or the desire to grab some prime real estate at bargain rates. While it’s true that certain anglers are disrespectful of property, public or private, these are matters of law enforcement, not ownership.
Efforts to squeeze the public off precious fishing sites smack either of bureaucratic chicanery or private greed. The fact remains that stream footage with public value should remain in the public trust. Whatever the Federation of Fly Fishers might do to help is most welcome.
Halfway across the state, the story behind the slaughter of 34 elk on two ranches west of Craig has come into sharper focus with this revelation. The Rio Ro Mo cattle ranch, whose owner, Rodney Culverwell, is charged with felony counts involving the slaughter and illegal possession of 18 elk earlier this year, posts a minimum opening bid of $80,000 for an exclusive hunting lease on the 21,000-acre property west of Craig.
Why, one might wonder, would a rancher earning big bucks off a hunting operation want to shoot elk that invaded his haystacks and leave them to rot? The answer, of course, is these elk were cows, of minimal value among the pay-to-play crowd.
The other part of the equation is that this part of northwest Colorado is brimming elk. While Colorado Division of Wildlife efforts to bring herds near population objectives has been successful in other parts of the state, numbers remain high around Craig and Steamboat Springs. Many area ranchers — even those who charge for hunting — consider cow elk something of a nuisance during these recent years of plenty.
All of which brings us back to the continuing rub between ranchers and game managers striving to promote herd balance and public hunting. Landowners complain about elk troubles, but won’t allow public hunters on their property to crop the cows. Thus we have conflicts like the one leading up to the recent slaughter.
A neighboring rancher, Kenneth Wolgram, faces similar charges for shooting 16 elk during roughly the same time period.
