# Brown's Canyon National Monument



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Obama to declare Browns Canyon in Colorado a national monument - The Denver Post

In today's Denver Post. I don't think a thread has been started yet. Discuss.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

You beat me to it. Great news. Thank you to all who have supported the local, grass roots efforts of Friends of Browns Canyon to accomplish the goal of permanent protection...it only took 20+ years...


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

I love the news! My only concern is that one day the BLM and NF will want to make drastic changes. This is the Government we are talking about and they don't always keep their word. There is no doubt that the economic benefit will be amazing for Chaffee County. I think this may also help turn around the slump that the Ark is having with Clear Creek. Many people are going to be interested in seeing this new Monument. Great day for all those people who worked hard in getting this to happen. I remember hearing talk about this when I first guided on the Ark in the late 90's. Let's get it on!


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Old guy Schutzie recalls discussion of Brown's canyon when we were fighting McPhee; the consensus then was that Dolores deserved wild and scenic river designation before Browns was protected. But, we all agreed they needed protection, along with the Yampa.

Glad to see at least one area get protection, to late for the Dolores (RIP); now onto Yampa!


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Will lift a glass at the Leftover Salmon show tonight!*

Yes, eternal vigilance will be needed to help the good folks inside government to protect the Browns Canyon National Monument against the type of government evildoers who caged the Dolores.

Shutzie, RIP is premature for the Dolores. She ain't dead, yet, but is being held hostage and tortured daily by the Wrecked Bureau and its evildoing allies. Wild & Scenic is still on the table, along with Wilderness and other special public land protections and, of course, the inevitable invasion of the exotic clams that could damn all dams.

The Browns Canyon victory provides me hope that the Dolores can be returned to its pre-McPhee grandeur by determined, organized, caring people who engage our government. Thank you to all involved.


----------



## peakone (Apr 5, 2008)

In my opinion, there is too much uncertainty to wholeheartedly agree that this is (was) a good idea.


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm confused as why the Government will not release the information that Obama has for the Monument until it's signed and law. Chaffee County said today the know no info and will not no anything until it becomes law. They are saying it's similar to the bill that was in Congress. Is this normal or a back handed way to get something else done? Please tell me your opinions on this.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

peakone said:


> In my opinion, there is too much uncertainty to wholeheartedly agree that this is (was) a good idea.


First, it takes a lot of work and organizing to get a President to designate a Monument so I can honestly say congratulations to those years of hard work. It sounds like a lifetime of commitment for some folks.

But I agree with the above. Obama is designating three monuments today and only two of them sound like they fit within the actual intent of the Antiquities Act. I am all for protecting historical or archaeological sites by Presidential action. That said, Brown's wasn't qualified for a "scientific" justification, neither the terrain or river really satisfy any modern need for science. There is something unseemly and unjust about continuing to expand the power of the Executive, even when it happens to align with ideals I have. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of broad interpretations of the Antiquities Act but that is once again about law not justice. 

As an environmentalist I fully recognize the importance of protecting river and riparian corridors from extractive industry, at least some. We have lost and degraded the vast majority of riparian corridors in the west which affects every level of ecology. That said, this seems to be about end game politics and not about a "just" form of governance and designation. I come from a school of environmental law that believes the long term benefits of protection can easily and readily be compromised by HOW we choose to protect our lands. There are a ton of examples in the West in which unilateral presidential action has led to decades of increased social tension and often the degradation of lands.

And to be honest....something totally rubs me the wrong way about the primary reason for this being economic. Its honestly covered in the vast majority of press. I recognize AW is working towards access and environmental protection but the designation required aligning with an economic imperative that isn't really aligned with most modern ecological concepts. More people along the Arkansas River Valley is not consistent with increased protection, plain and simple. Recreational tourism can be better for the land but this "more is better" mentality rarely is. 

Could be wrong. 

Phillip


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm glad the land is protected but I don't see what the economic benefit is. Can you actually drive into the monument? Is there something to actually see for the typical tourist? Hopefully the answer is no and the place doesn't turned into a industrial tourism site (other than the river which is already a shit show).


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

The economic benefit will be huge for Chaffee county. More people coming to the monument means more money being poured in to gas stations, restaurants, liquor stores, hotels, bars etc. The rafting companies will really stand to do a lot more business. I don't think they actually met the monument will bring money itself but the secondary benefit of having people see the monument will bring more cash into the local economy. 
That's only my opinion.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## BeaterBoater (Sep 29, 2014)

DesertRatonIce said:


> The economic benefit will be huge for Chaffee county. More people coming to the monument means more money being poured in to gas stations, restaurants, liquor stores, hotels, bars etc. The rafting companies will really stand to do a lot more business. I don't think they actually met the monument will bring money itself but the secondary benefit of having people see the monument will bring more cash into the local economy.
> That's only my opinion.
> 
> 
> Woke up this morning at 10:13.



and what is this "monument" you speak of? It's a canyon with no access other than the river?


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm not for sure what it is yet, the Government hasn't released the information concerning the "monument". I just know being a river guide on the Ark for 20 seasons, that this will bring lots of interest and with that comes money. I'm not totally for this "monument" but nobody can say it won't bring money. I think we may have sold our souls. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Obama was supposed to announce all three and a kids in the parks program (4th graders and families get free passes) today at the Pullman National Monument site he was also designating. Not sure what happened as nothing is popping up news outlets or AP. I know these things get rescheduled all of the time. Here is the WhiteHouse announcement:

FACT SHEET: Launching the Every Kid in a Park Initiative and Designating New National Monuments | The White House

Phillip


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Its the area proposed by Udall. The river is the most common access by far, but there are trailheads at Ruby Mountain (with map kiosk), and Turret,as well as access at Hecla if you wade or float across the river, and multiple access points near Aspen Ridge.

I have no doubt commercial rafting will increase, and hiking will increase...but I don't think more hikers is a bad thing. The area is very rugged with few trails and exploring is very difficult. A few more trails would be nice.

Beyond that I'm done arguing it with people, it seems like all the haters came out of the woodwork when this got announced (not here, FB, etc..).


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

I think discussions without people getting out of line is healthy and it allows people to get other point of views. 
I just read that the designation for the monument is similar to the proposal that udall had. We will see how it all works. Chaffee County is a huge agricultural area with cattle and such. I just hope that grazing and water rights will be grandfathered in and cannot be taken out after a set amount of time. 
One thing that this does show that you can get things done, they just might take 20 years or so to do it. 


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## Missouri Boater (Dec 13, 2003)

My question is: How is this going to effect river access, permits, fees, flows, etc.? Will the state of Colorado still have jurisdiction over the waterway itself? Federalization of public lands isn't always a good thing. I believe we could possibly see higher user fees, more restrictions on the number of boaters, especially privates, and no camping or picnicking on river-left, which is within the designated wilderness area.

And lets not forget that the Feds can shut things down on a political whim as they did in the fall of 2013. Here in the Ozarks, the Current, Jacks Fork, and Buffalo National Riverways were closed to boating & camping for two weeks for no good reason.

I would have to have more info before I decided whether this is a good or bad thing for boaters. :?

Terry Prater


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

DesertRatonIce said:


> I think discussions without people getting out of line is healthy and it allows people to get other point of views.
> I just read that the designation for the monument is similar to the proposal that udall had. We will see how it all works. Chaffee County is a huge agricultural area with cattle and such. I just hope that grazing and water rights will be grandfathered in and cannot be taken out after a set amount of time.
> One thing that this does show that you can get things done, they just might take 20 years or so to do it.
> 
> ...


I obviously agree with this philosophy of discussion. While I constructively criticize the process I in no way endorse the vitriolic remarks by some on the opposition side. Calling this a "land grab" is ridiculous and inaccurate and some of the comments about Obama are beyond despicable (a 7 year trend). Luckily this is one of the few places I am active and no longer see the worst of internet and political behavior. 

I firmly believe I can recognize the hard work and positive intentions of all of the people who made this happen while also being against several aspects of it. I don't believe in the classic binaries so many conversations fall into.

Phillip


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Missouri Boater said:


> My question is: How is this going to effect river access, permits, fees, flows, etc.? Will the state of Colorado still have jurisdiction over the waterway itself? Federalization of public lands isn't always a good thing. I believe we could possibly see higher user fees, more restrictions on the number of boaters, especially privates, and no camping or picnicking on river-left, which is within the designated wilderness area.
> 
> And lets not forget that the Feds can shut things down on a political whim as they did in the fall of 2013. Here in the Ozarks, the Current, Jacks Fork, and Buffalo National Riverways were closed to boating & camping for two weeks for no good reason.
> 
> ...


This seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions about the new monument. The river itself is not included. In fact there is a 50' easement for the railroad before the monument boundary starts. The river, its access points, and riverside campsites will all remain under the jurisdiction of Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area. The management plan that has been in place since the state park was established will still regulate river travel. If there are any changes to river regulations it will be a public process including a scoping period.


----------



## Missouri Boater (Dec 13, 2003)

Imeyrs, thank you for clearing that up for me. I actually just heard about this on the news yesterday and was a little concerned. If the river itself is unaffected, then I believe this is a good thing. :grin:


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

BeaterBoater said:


> and what is this "monument" you speak of? It's a canyon with no access other than the river?


There is a road the whole length of that section of river......that could be used for accessing the canyon for hiking and fishing. You just need to remove the metal and timbers that take up the middle of the road. :mrgreen:


----------



## peakone (Apr 5, 2008)

According to this image, the previous (or current) wilderness area was entirely to the east of the river. Now the "monument" seems to include the river and area directly west.


Re: Regional Economic Multipliers. I would suspect there will be some economic spin off for chaffee county and surrounding areas. However, I'm not convinced this benefit will outweigh the cost.


Years ago, I was privy to a regional economic study pursuant to the designation of Sand Dunes National Monument. Acquiring the Red Star on Rand McNally maps was supposed to "transform" the Alamosa area economy.


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

Missouri Boater said:


> And lets not forget that the Feds can shut things down on a political whim as they did in the fall of 2013. Here in the Ozarks, the Current, Jacks Fork, and Buffalo National Riverways were closed to boating & camping for two weeks for no good reason.


 
Those shutdowns are a funny thing....I was actually in Colorado and @ Browns Canyon @ Ruby when this shutdown was going on. I didn't get to go into RMNP because it's gated/closed and that sucked (surely coulda snuck in somehow) but @ Ruby the only things it affected were that the bathrooms were locked (which didn't please the GF). I watched a group put their raft in right there. 

Most things aren't actually "closed" just that there is no staff, support or amenitites available. 

That and the river isn't included in the monument.

I SO hope we can get our Birthpplace of Rivers Monument designation over here....


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

caverdan said:


> There is a road the whole length of that section of river......that could be used for accessing the canyon for hiking and fishing. You just need to remove the metal and timbers that take up the middle of the road. :mrgreen:


That would be awesome, but unfortunately Union Pacific has been firm that they will not abandon the line. It is a "national security issue" that they want to have the rails to the Molybdenum mine at Leadville in case of war.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I can assure you Peakone, the monument does not include the river or the railroad. That map is outdated too. It is from 2012 before Udall's latest proposal which scaled the area back. I can't seem to find the new map though, all Udall's websites are gone...


----------



## peakone (Apr 5, 2008)

lmyers said:


> I can assure you Peakone, the monument does not include the river or the railroad. That map is outdated too. It is from 2012 before Udall's latest proposal which scaled the area back. I can't seem to find the new map though, all Udall's websites are gone...


Ok. If you are correct, that is a huge relief. Thank you. If you can dig up the current boundary map, I would like to see it.


----------



## Missouri Boater (Dec 13, 2003)

> Most things aren't actually "closed" just that there is no staff, support or amenitites available.


In October 2013, the only staff that were kept on the Buffalo National Riverways during the "shut-down" were the park rangers. And they WERE keeping folks off the river and out of the park. The whole thing just stunk! I also heard that Grand Canyon trips were canceled because of this. Really felt sorry for those people. Most had waited & planned several years for their trip. :sad:


----------



## peakone (Apr 5, 2008)

lmyers said:


> I can assure you Peakone, the monument does not include the river or the railroad. That map is outdated too. It is from 2012 before Udall's latest proposal which scaled the area back. I can't seem to find the new map though, all Udall's websites are gone...


Is this a current boundary map? If so, it looks like it does include the river and areas west (same as previous map I posted).


Source:


http://www.chaffeecountytimes.com/free_content/article_1be1fd86-b7cc-11e4-b78a-fb958a7b5993.html


Seems like sort of a vague plan.


----------



## rivervibe (Apr 24, 2007)

Missouri Boater said:


> In October 2013, the only staff that were kept on the Buffalo National Riverways during the "shut-down" were the park rangers. And they WERE keeping folks off the river and out of the park. The whole thing just stunk! I also heard that Grand Canyon trips were canceled because of this. Really felt sorry for those people. Most had waited & planned several years for their trip. :sad:



Yes. I'll chime in on this one. My permit was the first one to be turned away when the gov. shitdown in 2013. We camped out in the "Dirt Eddy" parking lot behind the Marble Lodge for a week and never got to run our real trip that year. So yes, it was more than some government folks not going to work. I personally lost several thousand dollars thanks to the asinine juvenile behavior of our elected officials. Not to mention the opportunity cost of lost time. I have some choice words for those idiots.

That said, the river is not actually part of the monument, so nothing should really change for that. The only thing that could close would be the official AHRA access points, but that could have happened already and would have nothing to do the with monument status.


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

peakone said:


> Ok. If you are correct, that is a huge relief. Thank you. If you can dig up the current boundary map, I would like to see it.


All RR companies are extrememly reluctant to give up their ROWs, even on abandoned lines in case they want to reopen. I've had to work with some around here trying to get them to convey some small little parcels of land so that we could build a bridge to secure a military base. They wouldn't budge.


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

Missouri Boater said:


> And they WERE keeping folks off the river and out of the park.





rivervibe said:


> So yes, it was more than some government folks not going to work.


...and that's why I said "most". That person was concerned about browns, and I let them know it was open last time. MOST waterways are not actively managed by federal agencies and even for the ones that are...most of those stayed open. Thats a fact. We experienced no federal waterways getting shutdown here...because most places it's impossible to regulate access that well. All I did during that shutdown was travel and most places just had locked visitors centers and no amentities.

Not saying the shutdowns don't suck...read mypost, I came all the way across the country and couldn't go to the RMNP (I'm an avid flyfisherman, That's the point!)...but not browns, as where the concern was....and still should not be a worry with the monument. Oh and I'm also a federal employee...so yeah I got kicked in the balls more than many from that crap. To dispel another myth, very few federal employees actually get backpay during those stupid political standoffs.

I too felt terrible for the GC groups and other permit holders who missed out. Rivervibe, I woulda lost my shit if that happened to me!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

peakone said:


> Is this a current boundary map? If so, it looks like it does include the river and areas west (same as previous map I posted).
> 
> 
> Source:
> ...


I guess that is a correct map, just not a good one. Here is a little better one:



An area of the canyon on the west side will be included in the monument, but the river itself and railroad are not. It will be a state park flowing through a national monument.

I am on the board of Friends of Browns and took part in some of the discussions regarding this part of it...at least with Udall's camp... I have also heard it directly from AHRA and BLM management more than once.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

You might be able to blow this one up better...


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Logan, please stop bringing facts to these conversations. Speculation, fear and hatred are so much more satisfying. The facebook stuff was particularly ridiculous.


----------



## Oarlock (Dec 16, 2014)

I heard that this will mean permits for private boaters, end to grazing rights for cattlemen, and higher fees over time to use the area. I know they said it wont, but why should we believe them?

Also, if they are telling the truth, and NOTHING is going to change, then what was the point of making it into a monument in the first place? How can it protect the area any more than it was already protected if there is going to be no changes in the future?

Riddle me that.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Oarlock said:


> I heard that this will mean permits for private boaters, end to grazing rights for cattlemen, and higher fees over time to use the area. I know they said it wont, but why should we believe them?
> 
> Also, if they are telling the truth, and NOTHING is going to change, then what was the point of making it into a monument in the first place? How can it protect the area any more than it was already protected if there is going to be no changes in the future?
> 
> Riddle me that.


The ObamaFloat plan was released this morning. Permits are $100 per day, but there are subsidies if you earn less than $12,000 per year. Applications are due 6 months in advance. Members of Congress who own summer homes in Chaffee County get first right of refusal on all commercial trips. John Kerry will be safety boating in The Numbers. Pine Creek is closed until further notice.


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

Randaddy
Too funny! My favorite part was that members of congress who own a home in Chaffee county get first right of refusal. I couldn't stop laughing for a bit. I appreciate good satire.

Victor


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Oarlock said:


> How can it protect the area any more than it was already protected if there is going to be no changes in the future?
> 
> Riddle me that.


 The biggest plus I see is it stops all mining interests and future road development.

Too funny Randaddy.....:mrgreen:


----------



## Missouri Boater (Dec 13, 2003)

"If you like your Ruby Mountain access, then you can keep your Ruby Mountain access."


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is some good info:

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/08/browns-canyon-national-monument-QA.pdf


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

On Feb.19, 2015, President Obama designated 21,586 acres of pristine canyons, rivers and backcountry forest in Colorado as the Browns Canyon National Monument.

“Conservation is a truly American idea,” the President said. “The naturalists and industrialists and politicians who dreamt up our system of public lands and waters did so in the hope that, by keeping these places, these special places in trust – places of incomparable beauty, places where our history was written – then future generations would value those places the same way as we did. It would teach us about ourselves, and keep us grounded and keep us connected to what it means to be American. And it’s one of our responsibilities, as Americans, to protect this inheritance and to strengthen it for the future.”

The President designated the monument using the Antiquities Act of 1906, which grants the President authority to designate national monuments in order to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest.” While most national monuments are established by the President, Congress has also established national monuments to protect natural and historic features.

On the same day, President also designated the Pullman National Monument in Illinois, the site of the nation’s first planned industrial town. That monument will be managed by the National Park Service.

Browns Canyon includes 11,836 acres of the San Isabel National Forest and 9,750 acres of Bureau of Land Management land. The monument will be jointly managed by the Forest Service and BLM. Browns Canyon National Monument is the 9th monument managed by the Forest Service and the 21st managed by the BLM. The two agencies also co-manage the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.

The area is unique, towering over the Arkansas River, itself a beacon to white water rafters and anglers. The granite walls of the canyon stand like a series of a natural cathedral spires that change hues as the light of day wanes.

Stretched between the communities of Buena Vista and Salida in Chaffee County, Colorado, Browns Canyon elevation ranges from 7,300 feet to 10,000 feet, offering a backdrop for and stunning views of the Arkansas Valley and the Sawatch Range of the Rocky Mountains. The range, formed more than 70 million years ago, is home to some of the highest peaks in the region, towering above 14,000 feet in elevation.
The distinctive environmental features consist of many mountains, canyons with glacial characteristics, giant moraines or ridges of mountain debris, and gulches. Drainages interlace the canyon and drain in to the Arkansas River.

Browns Canyon provides clean water, habitat for wildlife, biological diversity, outdoor recreational opportunities, scenic beauty and grazing and other permitted uses.

The natural resources star on the monument is the Arkansas River, which provides recreational activity on the river and along the shoreline. The monument area is a recreationist’s dream with plenty of opportunity to raft, kayak, bike, horseback ride, hike, nature watch, photography and stargazing. The river is named a gold medal river for its world-class wild trout fishing. The Arkansas has long been considered the most popular whitewater rafting destination in America and features rapids with names like Canyon Doors, Zoom Flume and Seidel’s Suckhole.

The land managed by the Forest Service within the monument is more remote and primitive, with rugged terrain and limited development. There are no developed camping sites, few roads, and dispersed camping opportunities are limited to those reached by hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding through scenic vistas There are about four miles of non-motorized trails on the San Isabel National Forest portion of the monument that provide access for those activities.
It’s also an area where some of Colorado’s most emblematic animal species call home. It’s winter range for big game such as elk and mule deer. In the 1980s, a small herd of bighorn sheep was introduced to the area and are thriving today. Other wildlife that reside in the area includes the American black bear, bobcat, mountain lion, coyote, red fox and American pine marten. The bighorn sheep and pine marten are considered by the Forest Service as sensitive species and are accorded agency protection through management decisions. A variety of important bats species inhabit the area.

Surveys of the area date the presence of American Indians for at least 13,000 years. There are archaeological sites with stone artifacts documented in the area that are attributed to the Paleo-Indian and early Archaic periods. The general area is traditionally significant to the Ute. Jicarilla Apache also claim traditional cultural ties to area.

Evidence of modern man is shown through the work of early explorers and, by the late 1800s, miners prospecting in the area. Historic cabins and other structures are generally outside of the monument area.

Other Forest Service-managed national monuments:

*Admiralty Island National Monument*, Tongass National Forest, *Alaska
Misty Fiords National Monument*, Tongass National Forest, Alaska
*Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument*, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, *Washington Newberry National Volcanic Monument*, Deschutes National Forest, *Oregon Giant Sequoia National Monument*, Sequoia National Forest, California, *Santa Rosa & San Jacinto Mountains National Monument*, San Bernardino National Forest, California (co-managed with the Bureau of Land Management) *Chimney Rock National Monument*, San Juan National Forest, Colorado, *San Gabriel National Monument*, Angeles and San Bernardino national forests, California


Photo credits - Tim Brown & John Fielder


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Does anyone know what the correct season pass will be this year- parking at Ruby mountain and Hecla. National Parks pass work??

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Colorado State Parks Pass should work.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Hoping to avoid buying that one again- you can't transfer it between vehicles. National Parks pass is a much better deal- 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

*Yeah well, it is not a National Park sooo.....*

You'll have to buy a State Parks pass.....


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Not gonna happen- one and done with those thieves. Much cheaper for us to pay as we go- given 2 cars and 2 motorcycles that will all see use at parks this year. It's a crappy policy- they should issue a card and require signature and ID, rather than requiring that the sticker be attached or they'll deny access.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

*Thieves are the problem indeed*



Osseous said:


> Not gonna happen- one and done with those thieves. Much cheaper for us to pay as we go- given 2 cars and 2 motorcycles that will all see use at parks this year. It's a crappy policy- they should issue a card and require signature and ID, rather than requiring that the sticker be attached or they'll deny access.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


Thieves indeed. What do we even get for that money we pay? 

Since I asked, I'll tell me..... We get cleaned, stocked restrooms up and down the river, awesome boat ramps and maintenance of said ramps, nice patrolled parking lots, rescue and evacuation services from the Rangers, and resource protection patrols of the river corridor. 


The ID card you propose would work fine in a park with a finite amount of manned entrance stations (Grand Canyon, Arches, e.g.), but not for a park like the Arkansas where the visitors come and go from multiple locations. 


Do you know why the passes must be permanently affixed to each vehicle instead of mirror hanger passes? It is because there were many people who would buy one pass for their group, then give the pass back and forth between friends so that they were not actually paying for the aforementioned services. 

Thieves indeed.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Thieves because they want a season pass for each vehicle, rather than each user. I happily pay for my use and appreciate the facilities. I can only drive one vehicle at a time. The feds realize this- the state does not. If the pass is required to be displayed in the vehicle, it is only being used by one user. The national parks pass works on the upper C/BLM land just fine. 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

*Yay Feds!*

Gotta love those guys.


Thanks Obama.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Osseous said:


> The national parks pass works on the upper C/BLM land just fine.


There are over 40 state parks that their pass is good at, and its not like you have to camp at a state park with your 20 vehicles...if you choose to, its going to cost more.

Could the system be improved? Of course!...but its extremely unlikely to happen because you complained about it on the Buzz. I would make the suggestion directly to Colorado State Parks.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

I fish. I ride my motorcycle often to go fish. I also use a (different, smaller) motorcycle to self shuttle when I float. I'm not looking to bring a gypsy caravan to the river on a single permit. I'm looking to use the permit I paid for, whether I'm in my car, my work car, or on my motorcycle. It's a bad policy when they expect one user to shell out $280 for season passes. 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Osseous said:


> I fish. I ride my motorcycle often to go fish. I also use a (different, smaller) motorcycle to self shuttle when I float. I'm not looking to bring a gypsy caravan to the river on a single permit. I'm looking to use the permit I paid for, whether I'm in my car, my work car, or on my motorcycle. It's a bad policy when they expect one user to shell out $280 for season passes.


Four vehicles to go recreate with. You've got serious First World Problems. 

They don't expect anyone to shell out $280 for 4 vehicles. If you  check out the CPW website, you'll see you buy the first vehicle pass for $70, then each additional vehicle pass is $35. This way, you can designate two of your vehicles to not be part of your fleet, and then pay a total of $105 for CPW passes this year.

If you insist on stickers for 4 vehicles, you'll top out at $175. 

Good luck with getting on the river,

-AH


----------

