CO Code § 33-1-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 33 - Parks and Wildlife|Article 1 - Wildlife- General Provisions|§ 33-1-101. Legislative Declaration

  It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. It is further declared to be the policy of this state that there shall be provided a comprehensive program designed to offer the greatest possible variety of wildlife-related recreational opportunity to the people of this state and its visitors and that, to carry out such program and policy, there shall be a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife-related opportunities.    All wildlife within this state not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of this state. Right, title, interest, acquisition, transfer, sale, importation, exportation, release, donation, or possession of wildlife is permitted only as provided in articles 1 to 6 of this title or in any rule of the parks and wildlife commission.    In order to foster the welfare of the inhabitants of the state of Colorado, it is further declared to be the policy of this state to protect and encourage full development of absolute and conditional water rights created under state law and to develop and maximize the beneficial use of the waters to which Colorado and its citizens are entitled under interstate compacts. (3.5)   The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that it supports the recommendation of the Lower Arkansas river commission in its plan dated March 25, 1993, to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources at the Great Plains Reservoirs, and further finds that a joint funding effort, which includes funds appropriated from the wildlife cash fund created in section 33-1-112 to carry out such recommendation, would further the public interest by establishing recreational opportunities in southeastern Colorado.    The general assembly further declares that the joint funding effort described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (3.5) shall not be solely a division responsibility and that the appropriation from the wildlife cash fund shall be used to maximize matching funds from other sources to ensure full implementation of the recommendation.       The state shall utilize hunting, trapping, and fishing as the primary methods of effecting necessary wildlife harvests.    The general assembly declares that it is the policy of the state to prosecute persons who violate multiple provisions of this title 33 for each violation that contains unique elements.      History. Source: L. 84: Entire article R&RE, p. 848, § 1, effective January 1, 1985. L. 93: (3.5) added, p. 2116, § 1, effective June 11. L. 2003: (5) added, p. 1028, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2012: (2) amended,(HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1207, § 14, effective June 4. L. 2020: (5) amended,(HB 20-1087), ch. 49, p. 167, § 1, effective March 20.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former §§ 33-1-101 and 33-1-104 as they existed prior to 1984.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For note, “Are Colorado Game Preserve Laws Local Legislation?”, see 1 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 136 (1929).   Ownership of wild game is in state for use of all people, and the exercise of police power to protect game for the benefit of its citizens is not only the right, but the duty of the state. Maitland v. People, 93 Colo. 59 , 23 P.2d 116 (1933).   But state not liable for crop damage by wild geese. Landowners unquestionably possess cognizable property interest in their crops and residues but it does not follow that mere state ownership of wild game exposes it to liability for crop losses caused by wild geese. Collopy v. Wildlife Comm'n, 625 P.2d 994 (Colo. 1981).   Right to hunt wild game upon one's own land is not property right enforceable against state under § 15 of art. II, Colo. Const.Collopy v. Wildlife Comm'n, 625 P.2d 994 (Colo. 1981).   Commission authorized to close hunting season. There is no doubt that the wildlife commission possesses the statutory authority to close the hunting season on a species of game in a specific locality to assure maintenance of an adequate supply, and to protect and enhance the game population for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of residents and visitors; these objectives are with the purview of the state's police power. Collopy v. Wildlife Comm'n, 625 P.2d 994 (Colo. 1981).   Right to capture or kill exists only as permitted by statute. The statutes of Colorado vest the ownership of game in the state as a proprietor, and take away the “right to capture and kill unless prohibited” as it existed at common law, leaving under these statutes no right to capture and kill, except as permitted. Hornbeke v. White, 20 Colo. App. 13, 76 P. 926 (1904); Hartman v. Tresise, 36 Colo. 146 , 84 P. 685, 4 L.R.A. (n.s.) 872 (1906) concurring opinion; People v. Johnson, 38 Colo. 78 , 88 P. 184 (1906); People v. Williams, 61 Colo. 11 , 155 P. 323 (1916).   Applied in Atkinson v. City & County of Denver, 118 Colo. 322 , 195 P.2d 977 (1948); Farmers Irrigation Co. v. Game & Fish Comm'n, 149 Colo. 318 , 369 P.2d 557 (1962).