Colorado corner crossing bill proposed

[Hnthrdr]

Don’t blame California for Colorado's choices.

That shit won’t happen here believe me… cattle ranchers, vineyards and orchards have more protection then the weekend warrior.

You live in Commiefornia Stik? If so how about stik to Cali policy let Co sort out what we wanna do here. Especially if you are so confident that it will never happen to Ca. I’m the grandson of a cattle rancher pioneer who has 800 acres in AZ, doesn’t bother me one bit to open up public land to the public. Pretty elite stance to keep the public locked out of our land

 

[SwiftShot]

You live in Commiefornia Stik? If so how about stik to Cali policy let Co sort out what we wanna do here. Especially if you are so confident that it will never happen to Ca. I’m the grandson of a cattle rancher pioneer who has 800 acres in AZ, doesn’t bother me one bit to open up public land to the public. Pretty elite stance to keep the public locked out of our land

Very true. I have delt with this while hunting in Montana and Wyoming. Ranchers actually closed off public crossings that they did not own. Put a camper there with a ranch hand in it to try and stop us. Everyone was this is private property until the Game Department showed up. Even the sheriff was telling us that. I had hunted through there 3 years earlier so I knew, plus my hunt app still had it. Rancher was selling hunt and wanted to lock up a huge chunk of public. Sheriff looked stupid when the game warden pulled him aside and had a talk. Sad thing is I nothing happened to the rancher and trailer was back blocking right after we left.

 

[Stikbrandon]

You live in Commiefornia Stik? If so how about stik to Cali policy let Co sort out what we wanna do here. Especially if you are so confident that it will never happen to Ca. I’m the grandson of a cattle rancher pioneer who has 800 acres in AZ, doesn’t bother me one bit to open up public land to the public. Pretty elite stance to keep the public locked out of our land

Don’t take that out of context, I’m with you bud. Public should be the public’s, I'm all for ranchers having to allow access 100 percent.

I was just sayin in California, our voices are small where in Colorado it seems you all still have that voice. Use it and break it off in them ranchers for access!

 

[EJFS]

they are not running at a cost incurred negative number due to leasing costs of the program.

They may be running at a negative budget meaning the leasing money is not enough to offset entire NF or BLM budgets so they have to be supplemented with Congressional appointments. The deficit isn’t caused by leasing costs in conjunction with leasing out, it comes from stupid programs like 25 million to PROMOTE solar and wind on public land, not telling how much inclusion programs have cost.

If they didnt have leasing money they would need substainally more money allocated from congress.

so yes those ranchers with leases are paying substantially more then you and I to use those lands.

Your definition of AUM is not wrong but alittle misleading 1 cow and calf(under 6months). At 6 months it is its own AUM.

"Substantially more money allocated from Congress"... I really doubt that, the lease fees do not even cover the range program for the FS. Outfitting/special use permit fees also bring money in for the Forest.

I don't know what it would cost to run cattle on private land, but I'm guessing it's many times more than $1.35/AUM. It is a subsidy for sure. Not saying that's necessarily wrong, because it fits with the USDA mission, but it's not like they're funding the agencies in any significant way.

 

[Bubblehide]

...

I don't know what it would cost to run cattle on private land, but I'm guessing it's many times more than $1.35/AUM.

Running cattle or farming private land gives the owner a huge tax break. I'd guess the vast majority of large acre properties could not afford to keep the land without this tax break.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Don’t take that out of context, I’m with you bud. Public should be the public’s, I'm all for ranchers having to allow access 100 percent.

I was just sayin in California, our voices are small where in Colorado it seems you all still have that voice. Use it and break it off in them ranchers for access!

Not trying to break it off in the ranchers anything. Hell I know how hard it is, why the ranch went from 6500 acres to 800 in 4 generations, and hopefully it won’t get any smaller. Just think that the time for keeping cornered public locked up needs to end. Also the hunters in Co get chit on, but the hikers, bikers, hippies, and crunchies have a super loud voice, we can all agree on this so it has a chance here, plus the silly ole polis does like opening access about the only silver lining to the crap storm he has brought to co

 

[Matt Cashell]

Don’t take that out of context, I’m with you bud. Public should be the public’s, I'm all for ranchers having to allow access 100 percent.

I was just sayin in California, our voices are small where in Colorado it seems you all still have that voice. Use it and break it off in them ranchers for access!

Wait a minute …

Do you support the bill or not?

 

[Trial153]

This should passed in every state.

 

[Stikbrandon]

Wait a minute …

Do you support the bill or not?

Of course I support the bill! Public land is the publics and we all should have access. Land locking should be illegal.



All I was saying is ranchers can get sued if they do not move their fences to allow access if this bill passes.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Of course I support the bill! Public land is the publics and we all should have access. Land locking should be illegal.

Glad to hear it.

All I was saying is ranchers can get sued if they do not move their fences to allow access if this bill passes.

How is that different than now? Corner crossing is not explicitly illegal currently, and is currently happening.

Again, this bill likely reduces liability to the landowner.

 

[Stikbrandon]

Glad to hear it.



How is that different than now? Corner crossing is not explicitly illegal currently, and is currently happening.

Again, this bill likely reduces liability to the landowner.

Matt,

all do respect. If you don’t understand that if you own,rent,lease,maintain or any other word you would like to use that would make you think that it’s your property, you are liable for it.

If someone jumped your fence because they had legal access to public land behind it and broke there leg, face, arm, neck or any other body part or hurt them selfs In Any way, you would loose that suit In The court of law 10 out of 10 times. It doesn’t matter that the “bill would reduce liability” there is still liability.

if the cattle fence, gate, cross arm or what ever else you would like to call it is In The way of legal access they are opening them self to liability.

Im all for this bill, hope it makes it to other states as well, the way I see it if we all own the public space it should be illegal for ranchers to not allow public access. and to be honest if they have a problem with it, we’ll so do I just on The opposite side of the fence….

I hope this bill passes.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Matt,

all do respect. If you don’t understand that if you own,rent,lease,maintain or any other word you would like to use that would make you think that it’s your property, you are liable for it.

If someone jumped your fence because they had legal access to public land behind it and broke there leg, face, arm, neck or any other body part or hurt them selfs In Any way, you would loose that suit In The court of law 10 out of 10 times. It doesn’t matter that the “bill would reduce liability” there is still liability.

if the cattle fence, gate, cross arm or what ever else you would like to call it is In The way of legal access they are opening them self to liability.

Im all for this bill, hope it makes it to other states as well, the way I see it if we all own the public space it should be illegal for ranchers to not allow public access. and to be honest if they have a problem with it, we’ll so do I just on The opposite side of the fence….

I hope this bill passes.

With all do respect, you didn’t answer the question.

It is already legal (in so much as it isn’t illegal) to corner cross at these fenced corners as is. So how does this bill increase the liability? Wouldn’t the landowner already have said liability?

Also, I am not a stranger to court process, and your 10 out 10 cases argument is ridiculous. Injury lawsuits are tossed out of courts across this nation on a daily basis.

But, I will put my soda pop where my mouth is:

I bet you a Coke that there are exactly zero injury lawsuits in Colorado under the circumstances you propose in the first year after this law goes into effect. Are we on?

 

[Stikbrandon]

With all do respect, you didn’t answer the question.

It is already legal (in so much as it isn’t illegal) to corner cross at these fenced corners as is. So how does this bill increase the liability? Wouldn’t the landowner already have said liability?

Also, I am not a stranger to court process, and your 10 out 10 cases argument is ridiculous. Injury lawsuits are tossed out of courts across this nation on a daily basis.

But, I will put my soda pop where my mouth is:

I bet you a Coke that there are exactly zero injury lawsuits in Colorado under the circumstances you propose in the first year after this law goes into effect. Are we on?

It is NOT legal to corner cross,

Never said it increase liability.

You’re right, injury lawsuits are tossed out daily but also won.

We can agree to disagree.

I’m not gonna argue In regards to amount of lawsuits that are gonna come in a 1 year time frame, that’s ridiculous. I was just pointing out ranchers have and will continue to have liability if they don’t allow uninterrupted access.

 

[Bubblehide]

But, I will put my soda pop where my mouth is:

I bet you a Coke that there are exactly zero injury lawsuits in Colorado under the circumstances you propose in the first year after this law goes into effect. Are we on?

Is that for a Coke, Diet Coke, or Coke Zero?

 

[fngTony]

@Matt Cashell @Stikbrandon you’re both right in a way. In Colorado your liability as a property owner is partially determined by what access you allow and if the land is developed. This would be similar to private property owners who allow an easement to “pass through their land” such as many portions of hiking trails here. It’s not the same as city ordinances dictating when to shovel snow and keeping your sidewalk clear from overgrowth.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

The Colorado Sun article linked by the OP states that Bill 1066 proposes that no fences be erected within 5 ft of corners so as to allow for public crossing. However there is no mention of that in the actual Bill, only that within 4 ft of the corner there shall not be a fence or structure taller than 54 inches. It seems like most people skimmed the Sun article but didn't read the actual bill summary. The Sun article appears to be incorrect about that. Landowners would not have to remove fences, they just can't put up tall ones or barriers that would prevent crossing from occurring.

People can use "mechanical" means (ladders) to cross at the corners but wheelchairs would be the only "vehicle" allowed to cross. There is no mention of being ADA accessible so if you can figure out a way to get your handicapped uncle and his wheelchair over a 54 inch tall fence he can go hunting.

Here is the original thread with link to the Bill.

Colorado Corner Crossing Legislation - HB23-1066

A bill has been introduced regarding corner crossing in Colorado The bill can be seen and tracked here. (I’m not sure it will survive) https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1066

rokslide.com

 

[cnelk]

The Colorado Sun article linked by the OP states that Bill 1066 proposes that no fences be erected within 5 ft of corners so as to allow for public crossing. However there is no mention of that in the actual Bill, only that within 4 ft of the corner there shall not be a fence or structure taller than 54 inches. It seems like most people skimmed the Sun article but didn't read the actual bill summary. The Sun article appears to be incorrect about that. Landowners would not have to remove fences, they just can't put up tall ones or barriers that would prevent crossing from occurring.

People can use "mechanical" means (ladders) to cross at the corners but wheelchairs would be the only "vehicle" allowed to cross. There is no mention of being ADA accessible so if you can figure out a way to get your handicapped uncle and his wheelchair over a 54 inch tall fence he can go hunting.

Here is the original thread with link to the Bill.

Colorado Corner Crossing Legislation - HB23-1066

A bill has been introduced regarding corner crossing in Colorado The bill can be seen and tracked here. (I’m not sure it will survive) https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1066

rokslide.com

I’ve sent comments to the Bill sponsor that includes a 36” ADA dimension - they may be added to the revised Bill soon.

 

[cnelk]

 

[cnelk]

Update:

The AG committee voted 8 to 5 today to approve the task force to work on this bill. Had they shot the task force down that would have been the end of this bill. 3 republicans and 2 democrats voted against. The task force is responsible for coming up with ammendments so if you have any please send them to the Task Force. The taskforce will meet September to November 4 times.