ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM
Date: 12/9/2015
Should what constitutes acceptable forms of "proof of ownership" be defined in #P200-1.l, #P-400-a.7, and #P-500-a.7 to provide clarity for CPW customers and staff?
DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):
#P-200-1.l, #P-400-a.7, and #P-500-a.7 state that a person applying for a registration must provide
"proof of ownership or valid transfer registration certificate". Titling is generally used to establish proof of
ownership of motor vehicles however boats are not titled in Colorado. There was no requirement or
ability to title snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles until recently with the passage of Senate Bill 13-280
which became effective July 1, 2014. However there are still a vast number of snowmobiles and off
highway vehicles without titles. SB 13-280 only requires title for dealer purchases/trades. Obtaining title
is optional for private party to private party sales. Along with the absence of titling, there is lack of
clarifying "definition" in CPW regulations as to what constitutes acceptable forms of "proof of ownership"
to meet the requirements of these regulations. Due to the lack of definition, there are differing staff
interpretations of what constitutes acceptable forms of "proof of ownership" which in turn has led to
inconsistencies in registration business practices across CPW offices. These inconsistent business
practices are cause for both internal and external confusion/frustration during the registration process.
ISSUE:
Internal confusion/frustration comes from inconsistencies in what constitutes acceptable forms of "proof
of ownership". Interpretations of the "proof of ownership" regulations have led some CPW staff to accept
the signed perjury statement (I/We hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the
lawful owner(s) of the vessel/vehicle described above, and that the information given herein is true and
correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief) located at the bottom of a registration application as
"proof of ownership". (Note: The signed perjury statement is accepted as "proof of ownership" on all
mail-in registration forms. Most registration applications throughout the state are submitted through use
of the mail-in registration form.) Other interpretations have lead some CPW staff to not accept the
signed perjury statement and require "proof of ownership" in the form of a bill of sale, a registration from
another state that lists applicant as registered owner, a certificate of origin, a title, a court document
proofing ownership, or something similar.
Lack of titling in Colorado makes it relatively easy to purchase, sell, trade, transfer and/or steal boats,
snowmobiles, and off highway vehicles while making it problematic to establish legal ownership. There
are law enforcement concerns with accepting only the signed perjury statement in lieu of actual "proof of
ownership" documentation. Under current business practices, if a customer cannot provide acceptable
"proof of ownership" or the information submitted on the registration application is incorrect
(identification numbers don't contain enough digits, don't follow established identification number
formats, etc), then a physical inspection of the vessel/vehicle can be conducted by a CPW agent to
complete the registration. The physical inspection is used to verify and confirm vessel/vehicle
information, locate and ensure the identification number (if any) has not been
modified/damaged/destroyed, and lastly to ensure that the vessel/vehicle has not been reported as
stolen.
External confusion/frustration comes from applicants not knowing what constitutes acceptable "proof of
ownership" documentation. As described above, CPW regulations do not specify and/or clarify. Adding
definition to regulations would assist applicants in determining what acceptable "proof of ownership" to
provide. Additional frustration comes from customers calling one CPW office who tells them their
interpretation of what is acceptable only to arrive at another CPW office who tells them the information
they received from the other office is incorrect and that additional "proof of ownership" documentation
and/or a physical inspection of the vessel/vehicle is required.
1
WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS
OCCURRED?
This issue paper was circulated among the SE Region Park Managers and Area Wildlife Managers for
review and comment.
ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):
1. * Preferred Alternative *: Provide downloadable "Bill of Sale" template for public use (draft
attached) and across all three regulation chapters change "Proof of ownership or valid transfer
registration certificate" to read:
"Proof of ownership. Acceptable proof of ownership forms include:
 Bill of sale that includes both the seller and buyer's printed names and signatures; the
vessel/vehicle identification number (if any); the vessel/vehicle make, model and year (if
known); and the date of the sale.
 Previous registration certificate issued by a governmental entity that lists the applicant as
registered owner.
 Manufacturers Certificate of Origin (MCO)/Manufacturer Statement of Origin (MSO).
 Certificate of Title.
 Any court issued document proving ownership.
 A collection of personal property by affidavit form pursuant to C.R.S. 15-12-1201.
 A physical inspection form completed by a CPW agent."
2. Status Quo
Issue Raised by:
Brad Henley, SE Deputy Region Manager
Author of the issue paper
(if different than person raising the
N/A
issue):
CC:
APPROVED FOR FURTHER
Dan Prenzlow, SE Region Manager
CONSIDERATION BY:
REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE?
ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP?
RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA?
2
N/A
Yes
No
VESSEL/OHV/SNOWMOBILE VEHICLE BILL OF SALE
I/we do hereby bargain, sell and deliver unto
the following vessel/OHV/snowmobile
(year)
(make)
(model)
HIN/VIN Number:
Date of Purchase:
Seller’s Printed Name:
Seller’s Signature:
Buyer’s Printed Name:
Buyer’s Signature:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM
Date: 12/09/15
ISSUE:
Should regulated waterfowl hunting be allowed on James M. Robb-Colorado River
State Park 34 Road section located in Mesa County Colorado?
DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):
In 2000, Colorado State Parks acquired property located adjacent to Clifton Water Conservancy District.
This property was acquired as a potential link for the continued expansion of the Riverfront Trail. The
closest intersection is 34 Rd. and E ¼ Rd. Park management is interested in improving the overall
condition of the property and opening it to limited public use. With these goals in mind, we were able to
secure funding for wetland and riparian habitat restoration; however that funding is contingent on allowing
waterfowl hunting on the property. Adjacent landowners have expressed reservations about allowing
waterfowl hunting on the property. In order to address their concerns, Park management proposes a
regulation allowing waterfowl hunting on the property, but only from two designated blinds. Additionally,
blinds must be reserved and hunting would only be allowed on weekends during established waterfowl
seasons.
WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS
OCCURRED?
1. Clifton Water Conservancy District: Park management has met with staff and the board of
directors. Currently we are in the process of establishing a lease for a parking lot on Clifton
Water Conservancy District Property.
2. Mike McGuire: Adjacent landowner. Park management has met with Mr. McGuire and expressed
our interest in improving habitat and opening the property to limited public access. Mr. McGuire
is supportive of habitat improvement but currently is opposed to public access.
ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):
1. *Preferred Alternative*- Establish a regulation that will allow waterfowl hunting on this CPW
property provided that hunting occurs during established waterfowl seasons, is restricted to weekends
only and a maximum number of two blinds occupied by two hunters per blind. Similar regulations will
occur in both Chapters W-5 and P-1.
2. Property will be managed status quo. Hunting will not be allowed and habitat restoration efforts
will be postponed.
Issue Raised by:
Pete Firmin
Author of the issue paper
(if different than person raising the
issue):
CC:
Ron Velarde
APPROVED FOR FURTHER
RON VELARDE
CONSIDERATION BY:
REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE?
YES
ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP?
YES
RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA?
NO
1
ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM
Date: 12/09/15
ISSUE:
Should Highline Lake be opened up to small game hunting on weekdays?
DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):
Regulations currently allow hunting at Highline Lake from the Tuesday after Labor Day and continuing
through the Friday prior to Memorial day. Currently, the only hunting allowed at Highline Lake is
waterfowl hunting Monday through Friday with the only exception being that waterfowl hunting is allowed
for youth weekend in the Pacific flyway. Due to the weekend hunting closure on Highline Lake, staff is
also proposing to not allow small game hunting on weekends either. Opening Highline Lake up to small
game hunting on weekdays would create a new opportunity for hunters. Hunting would take place North
of the buoy line on Highline Lake where waterfowl hunting is currently allowed. Park staff would create a
hunting boundary line from the East Lake shore where the north buoy line currently exists to the east
property boundary and a north/south boundary line east of Mack Mesa Lake.
WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS
OCCURRED?
Small game hunters, Highline Lake park visitors and staff, Area 7 field staff.
Internal discussions.
ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):
1. * Preferred Alternative: Open Highline Lake to small game hunting Monday through Friday
beginning the Tuesday after Labor Day through the Friday prior to Memorial Day in the designated
hunting zone in the northeast side of the park.
2. Status quo: Keep Highline Lake closed to small game hunting.
Issue Raised by:
Alan Martinez
Author of the issue paper
(if different than person raising the
issue):
CC:
Ron Velarde
APPROVED FOR FURTHER
RON VELARDE
CONSIDERATION BY:
REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE?
ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP?
RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA?
2
YES
YES
NO
3
ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM
Date: 12/09/15
Should the Division add park-specific restrictions to Chapter P-1, Article I of Parks
Regulations regarding the newly-constructed archery range at Trinidad Lake State
Park?
DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):
ISSUE:
In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife constructed a public archery range at Trinidad Lake State Park. The
following park-specific restrictions pertaining to the archery range are recommended in the interest of
public safety:
 No dogs or other pets shall be permitted on the grounds of the archery range.
 Smoking shall not be permitted on the grounds of the archery range.
 Any person 16 years of age or younger entering the archery range must be under direct
supervision of an adult at all times.
 Broadheads, crossbows, alcoholic beverages, and firearms, including but not limited to, BB guns,
pellet guns, and air rifles, are prohibited on the archery range.
 Public access is restricted to times between sunrise and sunset.
WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS
OCCURRED?
External Public includes archery range users.
Internal Public includes CPW field personnel.
In developing the above restrictions, the park managers of various state parks in Colorado with active
archery ranges were consulted. Park staff at Trinidad Lake State Park was consulted in the development
of the above restrictions. A draft of the above the restrictions were shared with the local archery club, and
club members were supportive/did not voice concerns.
ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
The park-specific restrictions above are adopted for Trinidad Lake State Park and added to Chapter P-1,
Article I of CPW Park Regulations.
Alternative 2
Status Quo
Issue Raised by:
Crystal Dreiling – Park Manager
Author of the issue paper
(if different than person raising the
Crystal Dreiling – Park Manager
issue):
CC:
APPROVED FOR FURTHER
DAN PRENZLOW
CONSIDERATION BY:
REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE?
ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP?
RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA?
4
YES
YES
NO