Colorado Bill SB 69 would give Poachers an open Door
TheGreatwhitehunter
2/11/08 1:59am
charlie meyers
Taylor-made bill leaves wildlife in rough
By Charlie Meyers
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/09/2008 10:36:29 PM MST
The official name of a bill that remains alive and kicking in the Colorado General Assembly is SB 69.
Critics derisively call it the Poacher Protection Act, which might seem a flippant title until one considers the source and the circumstances.
In its current form, the bill authored by Sen. Jack Taylor of Steamboat Springs effectively allows wildlife miscreants to commit various heinous acts with only a fraction of the current penalty, a relative slap on the wrist.
Among the provisions:
• As long as a person has a license for the proper date and unit, he can possess and keep a trophy-sized big-game animal taken on private property without permission. Anyone willing to risk a trespass fee and absorb the 20-point assessment against a license — for example, a nonresident who doesn't intend to hunt here again — can hop the fence, bag his prize and be gone.
• A person who has said license for the proper place and time can retain certain parts of the animal — i.e., head, horns or hide — without facing a felony charge of willful destruction of wildlife for wasting the meat, as is the case under the current statute.
• A license holder can possess an animal even if he used a motor vehicle or aircraft in the process of take.
On Thursday, Jim Isgar, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee, held the bill over until the next week. He instructed Taylor and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to work out their differences on the measure — which, of course, means just about everything.
It's difficult to perceive how Taylor's bill — which has no other sponsors in either house — might gain much support, let alone assembly approval. But it illustrates the extremes to which he'll go to promote special interests. More on that later.
In posting this bill, Taylor in his own bizarre way might have achieved something previously not thought possible, which is to grievously offend both landowners and sportsmen in one fell swoop.
That such a measure might emanate from Taylor isn't surprising. In an extended and cantankerous legislative career, he has made something of a fetish of bullying the Colorado Division of Wildlife with absurd measures that often reek of pure vindictiveness.
This one takes the cake, in part because of the apparent motive behind it. Taylor's bill appears to be in response to a 2003 case in which Jim Gordon of Evergreen was charged with willful destruction of a big-game animal.
According to the official record, Gordon shot a Rocky Mountain goat while hunting in Chaffee County, taking the head and cape while leaving the carcass in violation of Colorado wildlife law. When Gordon refused to pay the fine and surrender the head, the district attorney filed felony charges as provided by statute.
Gordon was convicted in court, a decision upheld on appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court refused to entertain a further appeal.
It isn't certain how Gordon gained Taylor's ear, but what happened next throws some light upon the senator's methods as it involves influence peddling. Taylor arranged a meeting between Gordon and Tom Burke of Grand Junction, current chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission.
"Taylor called and said I had to do something," Burke said. "I met Gordon in Vail and heard what he had to say. I told him he had been convicted in a court of law and there's nothing I can do about that."
Commissioners set wildlife management policy under specified guidelines. They do not make laws and have no special standing in court proceedings.
While it's inconceivable Taylor's bill will find its way into law, the intention smacks of pure malice. If approved, it would allow a willful, perhaps wealthy, violator not only to poach animals on private property, but to shoot several animals while continuing a search for a larger one. The only real punishment would be payment of fines, again without fear of being charged with a felony as with the existing statute.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife vigorously opposes the measure. In Thursday's committee hearing, representatives of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Outfitters Association, Colorado Bowhunters and Colorado Sportsman's Advisory Group spoke against the measure. Only Gordon and his attorney testified in support.
What happens next isn't certain. But the action thus far has been a waste of taxpayer money and a travesty.
Charlie Meyers: 303-954-1609 orcmeyers@denverpost.com
Taylor-made bill leaves wildlife in rough
By Charlie Meyers
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/09/2008 10:36:29 PM MST
The official name of a bill that remains alive and kicking in the Colorado General Assembly is SB 69.
Critics derisively call it the Poacher Protection Act, which might seem a flippant title until one considers the source and the circumstances.
In its current form, the bill authored by Sen. Jack Taylor of Steamboat Springs effectively allows wildlife miscreants to commit various heinous acts with only a fraction of the current penalty, a relative slap on the wrist.
Among the provisions:
• As long as a person has a license for the proper date and unit, he can possess and keep a trophy-sized big-game animal taken on private property without permission. Anyone willing to risk a trespass fee and absorb the 20-point assessment against a license — for example, a nonresident who doesn't intend to hunt here again — can hop the fence, bag his prize and be gone.
• A person who has said license for the proper place and time can retain certain parts of the animal — i.e., head, horns or hide — without facing a felony charge of willful destruction of wildlife for wasting the meat, as is the case under the current statute.
• A license holder can possess an animal even if he used a motor vehicle or aircraft in the process of take.
On Thursday, Jim Isgar, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee, held the bill over until the next week. He instructed Taylor and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to work out their differences on the measure — which, of course, means just about everything.
It's difficult to perceive how Taylor's bill — which has no other sponsors in either house — might gain much support, let alone assembly approval. But it illustrates the extremes to which he'll go to promote special interests. More on that later.
In posting this bill, Taylor in his own bizarre way might have achieved something previously not thought possible, which is to grievously offend both landowners and sportsmen in one fell swoop.
That such a measure might emanate from Taylor isn't surprising. In an extended and cantankerous legislative career, he has made something of a fetish of bullying the Colorado Division of Wildlife with absurd measures that often reek of pure vindictiveness.
This one takes the cake, in part because of the apparent motive behind it. Taylor's bill appears to be in response to a 2003 case in which Jim Gordon of Evergreen was charged with willful destruction of a big-game animal.
According to the official record, Gordon shot a Rocky Mountain goat while hunting in Chaffee County, taking the head and cape while leaving the carcass in violation of Colorado wildlife law. When Gordon refused to pay the fine and surrender the head, the district attorney filed felony charges as provided by statute.
Gordon was convicted in court, a decision upheld on appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court refused to entertain a further appeal.
It isn't certain how Gordon gained Taylor's ear, but what happened next throws some light upon the senator's methods as it involves influence peddling. Taylor arranged a meeting between Gordon and Tom Burke of Grand Junction, current chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission.
"Taylor called and said I had to do something," Burke said. "I met Gordon in Vail and heard what he had to say. I told him he had been convicted in a court of law and there's nothing I can do about that."
Commissioners set wildlife management policy under specified guidelines. They do not make laws and have no special standing in court proceedings.
While it's inconceivable Taylor's bill will find its way into law, the intention smacks of pure malice. If approved, it would allow a willful, perhaps wealthy, violator not only to poach animals on private property, but to shoot several animals while continuing a search for a larger one. The only real punishment would be payment of fines, again without fear of being charged with a felony as with the existing statute.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife vigorously opposes the measure. In Thursday's committee hearing, representatives of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Outfitters Association, Colorado Bowhunters and Colorado Sportsman's Advisory Group spoke against the measure. Only Gordon and his attorney testified in support.
What happens next isn't certain. But the action thus far has been a waste of taxpayer money and a travesty.
Charlie Meyers: 303-954-1609 or
1,425
There aslo was a bill which is currently in limbo I believe. It would all hunting in Colorado behind a fence regardless of the height of fence or the size of the land inside the fence. Basicly it ban all hunting on any land that has a fence for any reason. The bill will surely die eventually as hopefully this one will too.