By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
Colorado’s Outdoors Strategy
CPW recently released “Colorado’s Outdoors Strategy.” The first link below takes you to their landing page from which you can download the report itself.
Covering this in detail is not feasible here, as the executive summary of the strategy (see the second link below) is 16 pages long.
What I wanted to aim for, then, is to give you a jumping off point along with a nodding familiarity with what the report is intended to do, who participated, and the process by which it was made. This will also tie into the second post today: this strategy is reflective of a larger push to rewire our state wildlife and land use policy.
If I had to do a one-sentence summary of the Strategy, it would be to say that it is the Colorado’s version of a corporate vision document for the outdoors. It’s an attempt (see the report itself on p 12) to help align the various groups and plans in Colorado with regard to the outdoors, to get everyone pulling in the same direction.
This report is not legally binding (again, see p 12), it is rather a series of broad goals and hopes for the state, as envisioned by those who wrote it.
The goals are probably best summarized by the table from the executive summary that I attach as screenshot 1.
Screenshot 2 (also from the executive summary) is a good one to flesh out what the authors hope different groups will actually do. I personally find this one a bit more illuminating than the broad vision; it’s closer to tangible actions.
Since reports are often a reflection of those involved in writing them, let’s have a look at the groups who worked on this Strategy.
The big players were Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and the Governor’s Office, but there was a host of advisors involved too. Screenshots 3a and 3b show those groups respectively.
We’ll talk in a little more detail on this soon, but I want you to take a quick note now of who’s on the list and who isn’t.
Lastly, I want to look at process: how was this strategy was developed? In keeping with everything up to now, I will summarize. Should you want it, more information can be found in Appendix G of the full report, starting on p 131.
Returning to the groups from above, I cobbled together some bits of text from various spots in Appendix G. That’s screenshot 4.
In keeping with the maxim that all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others, it’s worth noting that some groups/interests got special attention, what the report calls “targeted engagement”. Those groups are shown in screenshot 5.
From what I can tell, the final step before finalizing and making this strategy public was to shop it around to various groups and also put it up on CPW’s page for comment. Those with this final look (excepting individuals that wrote in comment on CPW’s page) are shown in screenshot 6.
What to make of this? I don’t think you can reasonably say that the hopes of the report’s authors are small. Hopes sometimes come apart like wet tissue paper when they meet reality, however.
The reason I focus on who is involved and process here is because I think that is one good way (among many) to assess someone’s report.* When I go back over the lists of those involved, I have to say that I’m not so sure that this will sell well outside the government and/or the (by and large) environmental groups deeply involved.
Look at the steering and technical committees. One seat was held by the Colorado Cattleman’s Association. That’s it. No reps from business interest. No reps for landowners. What positions were held by those outside the government were almost entirely occupied by environmental and conservation groups.
This report was produced in an echo chamber.
The authors were, as it seems the government and activists seem to be more an more, quite careful to say the right things about Ag and respecting Colorado’s heritage, but that’s an old tune in Colorado–one that few are willing to dance to anymore.
Regardless of their words and whether policy ultimately matches, this report is reflective of a broader shift in Colorado. This Strategy is not effecting that change, it’s a symptom of it. As things here have changed both politically and demographically, there are many who want what used to be its core values to shift.**
Note those shifts, you will see them popping up in other places. This is largely the focus of the second post today. See you there.
*That and any inclusion of a Tribal Land Acknowledgement or an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Acknowledgement. They’re right there on p 7. Pretty big tip of the hat. Also, did they go and switch the letters on DEI to throw us all off the scent?
**See “Related” below for a copy of the executive order which signaled a reorientation of the state not too long after Polis took office for the first time as governor.
https://cpw.state.co.us/coloradosoutdoorsstrategy
https://cpw.widen.net/s/wjcwvnqprn/final-cos-executivesummary-2025-04-18
Related:
Dr. Niemiec and how “Focusing on Values is Key for Transforming Wildlife Management”
In the previous post today, I shared the recently-released Colorado Outdoors Strategy. After covering some important details, I opined at the end of that post that the Strategy is reflective of a larger movement in Colorado.
This movement, begun with the sweeping political and demographic changes coincident with Polis and the Democrat’s takeover of the state is one which intends to rewrite the state in the image of those that hold power.
If this newer movement follows the pattern we’ve seen prior to it, older and more traditional concerns will have (at best) a subsidiary role to play in our state’s policy: Front Range, urban, liberal values will be pushed down on those that live far away from the I-25 corridor and our state will (at least) turn its back on one of the largest industries in Colorado.
Dr. Niemiec is one of Governor Polis’ recent appointees to the CPW commission. Her appointment followed the State Senate’s refusal to okay his other appointees this past legislative session. As you might well imagine, the new batch was appointed in such a way that Dr. Niemiec can be on the commission while the legislature is out of session.
This is not a post about Dr. Niemiec herself. There is plenty about her out there already and likely more to come. Instead of focusing on the doctor herself, I want to focus on her work and how her words help illuminate what I said at the end of the previous post.
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.