So far, it would seem, the Rifle Climbers’ Coalition has done everything right. Yet, in the eyes of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPWC), something just feels wrong.
“Diversion” is the dirtiest non-four-letter word the recently combined board of Parks and Wildlife Commissioners can hear right now. Since the two agencies were unified last summer, the resulting Division of Parks and Wildlife has been under the watchful eye of the outdoors community in anticipation of its first misstep of the use of wildlife funds for nonwildlife purposes, a.k.a. diversion.
“We’ve heard it from the public that diversion is unacceptable,” CPWC chairman Tim Glenn said. “We’ve heard that loud and clear.”
Under rigid interpretation, rock climbing within the boundaries of the Rifle Falls State Fish Unit has potential to fall into such a category. At the very least, the unwitting members of the climbers’ coalition are the first to crack the seal on a can of worms that will test the boundaries of the 14-member combined commission as it sets parameters and precedents for the future.
“If I were to put on simply a wildlife commissioners’ hat, I think the decision is pretty easy. But on the Parks side, where we’re interested in promoting outdoor recreation and opportunities to engage people and get them outside and encouraging this type of activity, this represents a seemingly good opportunity,” said Gary Butterworth, CPWC vice chairman.
That’s not to overlook extenuating circumstances that could nix the proposal. An active golden eagle’s nest in the proposed climbing area is first and foremost among them, although there is ample precedent of management plans complete with temporary closures to recreational uses during nesting seasons in similar areas nationwide.
Under DOW regulations, the Parks and Wildlife Commission has authority to open Rifle Falls to noncommercial climbing as long as there is no adverse impact on wildlife or habitat, no interference with wildlife-related recreational uses and the area can safely accommodate such use.
R.D. Pascoe, policy director for climbing advocacy group Access Fund, assured the commission that the climbing community has a lengthy track record of successfully mitigating such concerns. What he didn’t anticipate was “diversion.”
“Anytime you use a property that was purchased with fish and wildlife funds for a non-fish and wildlife purpose, you raise an issue with regard to diversion, whether or not a diversion occurs,” CPW attorney Tim Monahan told the commission. “You really need to have a finding where there’s an adverse impact to the wildlife use of that property by the other use that you’ve allowed.”
The spirited debate that ensued appeared to pit the mind-set of former wildlife commissioners against more progressive interpretations of the former parks board.
“Here is an example of non-consumptive users who are using (wildlife areas) in a different way,” commissioner Dorothea Farris said. “I think we need to find a way to investigate this much more fairly, and that is the precedent: that we are willing to look at the uses of our land in a way that meets the needs of both parks and wildlife.”
Scott Willoughby: 303-954-1993 or swilloughby@denverpost.com
