Help Fight with Proposed Ordinance
03-24-2017, 08:28 AM
#1
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Help Fight with Proposed Ordinance
Need everyone to read and then write the Larimer County Planning Department to stop this proposed ordinance. Wildlife Protection ordinance. They vote Monday 3/27.
http://www.larimer.org/bcc/bccmin/BC170213.htm
In short, it is a city ordinance that a few people in the city (anti hunters) are pushing through to only a few areas close to the city. Not the entire county. It is the first step in trying to stop hunting and stop shooting. I personally feel it is unconstitutional. They are using trash removal as a way, but I took them by surprise when I mentioned hunting coyotes. This alone will not allowing baiting of coyotes.
The address to send email to all three Commissioners is [email protected] AND copy
Michael Whitley, AICP
Planner II
P.O. Box 1190
200 W. Oak Street, Suite 3100
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
[email protected]
(970) 498-7720 Direct
(970) 498-7711 Fax
http://www.larimer.org/bcc/bccmin/BC170213.htm
In short, it is a city ordinance that a few people in the city (anti hunters) are pushing through to only a few areas close to the city. Not the entire county. It is the first step in trying to stop hunting and stop shooting. I personally feel it is unconstitutional. They are using trash removal as a way, but I took them by surprise when I mentioned hunting coyotes. This alone will not allowing baiting of coyotes.
The address to send email to all three Commissioners is [email protected] AND copy
Michael Whitley, AICP
Planner II
P.O. Box 1190
200 W. Oak Street, Suite 3100
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
[email protected]
(970) 498-7720 Direct
(970) 498-7711 Fax
03-24-2017, 10:21 AM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
What problem do you have with requiring better trash containers to keep bears and other animals out? I see nothing about anti hunting and IMHO your hypothesis that it's a first step to ban hunting and shooting isn't accurate. You've also violated the website rules by making your first three posts on this site the exact same thing in different Forums!
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 03-24-2017 at 10:24 AM. Reason: Add On
03-24-2017, 10:48 AM
#3
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,436
I also see no threat to hunting, what I see is an attempt to protect neighborhoods from bears and other wildlife that can be dangerous to humans by specifying that residents use a certain kind of trash receptacle that would preclude animals from using trash cans etc as a place to find food. Sounds reasonable to me and if I was a sportsman in that area I would fully support it. In my state no municipality or city may pass any ordnance that is designed to prevent hunting, any laws regarding hunting and trapping is solely the province of the Commonwealth and its wildlife agency.
03-24-2017, 12:30 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,903
1) The issue presented is a county-local issue, not a national concern, therefore input from those of us who are NOT part of the 325,000 people who live within Larimer County have no right to input.
2) This proposal is a trash mitigation effort, which would ONLY, by extension, prohibit baiting of coyotes or other game, as reflected that bait would qualify as abandoned waste. This proposal does NOT, in any language, restrict the right to hunt or shoot on these areas, but ONLY prohibits baiting by extension of abandoned waste prevention.
3) This proposal ONLY states to regulate activities on unincorporated areas of the county WITHIN THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA, and ONLY for industrial sites smaller than 10 acres AND not on agricultural zoned areas. I would argue it's very common for incorporated areas to prohibit hunting activities, and further argue, it's common to prevent hunting activities on unincorporated industrial zoned parcels, regardless of size. Not much hunting or shooting can really happen on an industrial site smaller than 10 acres anyway, and agricultural zones are not touched by this proposal.
4) Based on reviewing the 7 sub-areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area, there appear to be somewhere between 10-25% of these areas which MIGHT apply as "huntable areas" which would then become NOT "baitable" based on the proposal. The agricultural areas would remain huntable AND baitable. The only thing you're really losing access to, by the langauge I'm seeing, is that 10-25% of the "unimproved residental" acres, and potentially "forest" areas. And if HUNTING is not prohibited on these areas, it would remain to NOT be prohibited, ONLY baiting would be prohibited, by extension of the definition of abandoned waste. I cannot comment as to the distribution of that 10-25% of acres, these may well not be safely huntable due to proximity already. The open spaces, large industrial and agricultural, remain to be huntable AND baitable. For perspective, the Agricultural zones make up about 10% of the acres within each planning area - and these will remain to be huntable AND baitable.
Pick your battles my friend. This one just seems silly as an overall issue, but further, starting a membership on a forum and posting 3 times about the same LOCAL ISSUE in the same day doesn't really seem pertinent to this forum.
2) This proposal is a trash mitigation effort, which would ONLY, by extension, prohibit baiting of coyotes or other game, as reflected that bait would qualify as abandoned waste. This proposal does NOT, in any language, restrict the right to hunt or shoot on these areas, but ONLY prohibits baiting by extension of abandoned waste prevention.
3) This proposal ONLY states to regulate activities on unincorporated areas of the county WITHIN THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA, and ONLY for industrial sites smaller than 10 acres AND not on agricultural zoned areas. I would argue it's very common for incorporated areas to prohibit hunting activities, and further argue, it's common to prevent hunting activities on unincorporated industrial zoned parcels, regardless of size. Not much hunting or shooting can really happen on an industrial site smaller than 10 acres anyway, and agricultural zones are not touched by this proposal.
4) Based on reviewing the 7 sub-areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area, there appear to be somewhere between 10-25% of these areas which MIGHT apply as "huntable areas" which would then become NOT "baitable" based on the proposal. The agricultural areas would remain huntable AND baitable. The only thing you're really losing access to, by the langauge I'm seeing, is that 10-25% of the "unimproved residental" acres, and potentially "forest" areas. And if HUNTING is not prohibited on these areas, it would remain to NOT be prohibited, ONLY baiting would be prohibited, by extension of the definition of abandoned waste. I cannot comment as to the distribution of that 10-25% of acres, these may well not be safely huntable due to proximity already. The open spaces, large industrial and agricultural, remain to be huntable AND baitable. For perspective, the Agricultural zones make up about 10% of the acres within each planning area - and these will remain to be huntable AND baitable.
Pick your battles my friend. This one just seems silly as an overall issue, but further, starting a membership on a forum and posting 3 times about the same LOCAL ISSUE in the same day doesn't really seem pertinent to this forum.
