Another Governor Polis Extreme Appointee: rewilding Advocate Nicole Rosmarino for State Land Board Director. WY ranch couple illustrates why we want limited government.
Another Governor Polis Extreme Appointee: Rewilding Advocate Nicole Rosmarino for State Land Board Director
Per the Fence Post article linked first below rewilding advocate Nicole Rosmarino is the sole finalist to take the Director job at the State Land Board.**
If that name is not familiar, I can give you some context. The second link below is to an earlier newsletter I wrote that details the rather swampy connections between the governor, his husband, Department of Natural Resources head Dan Gibba, Rosmarino, CPW commissioner Tutchon and the Southern Plains Land Trust.
Screenshot 1 is an extended quote from that three part newsletter, the bit relevant to Rosmarino's place in and among the movers and shakers of our state government.
Returning to the Fence Post article and Rosmarino, her appointment as director will be formalized at the upcoming June 11/12 meeting of the State Land Board. I'll be back to that in a bit.
Why is this important?
The State Land Board is the constitutionally-recognized body that arranges leases of state trust lands. Traditionally these leases have gone to mineral extraction (such as oil/gas), to grazing, and to recreation like hunting. The revenue the state gets from the leases helps to fund schools.
A couple of non-contiguous quotes from the FencePost article give some background:
"...Nicole Rosmarino is the sole finalist for the director of the State Land Board, which is the state’s second largest landowner with 2.8 million surface acres and 4 million mineral estate acres."
and
"The mission of the State Land Board is to generate reasonable and consistent income over time and protect and enhance the long-term productivity and sound stewardship of working trust lands, both for the financial support of Colorado public schools. The SLB does that through leasing their trust lands for agriculture, commercial real estate, ecosystem services, mining, oil and gas development, recreation, renewable energy, rights-of-way, tower sites and water. Part of the second goal of SLB is to support future generations of agriculture lessees."
Putting an avowed rewilding advocate, someone who has more than once advocated for taking land out of agricultural production, in charge of the state board is a slap in the face to Colorado farmers and ranchers--something of a piece with what those in production ag have come to expect from the Polis administration.
It gets worse, however. I wrote back in late April about a bill to form a group which would advise the State Land Board how to do their job. If you want or need the context, I linked to that newsletter third below.
The Sun article linked fourth below gives an update on that bill: about a week ago Gov Polis signed it nto law.
Why does this matter? How does it tie in here? Quoting the Sun:
"The working group’s [this is the group of political appointees created by the bill] recommendations could offer 'a way to grow investment and have other benefits to the people of Colorado, whether that’s something like promoting outdoor recreation or using state trust lands for housing for teachers,' said Colorado Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, a sponsor of House Bill 1332. 'The working group can take a holistic view of the potential benefits of state trust land whether its extractive industries or agriculture or some of the new demands of the state like outdoor recreation and affordable housing,' he said.'This is a really good opportunity to take a refreshed look at how to maximize state trust lands in a variety of ways.'"
I could be wrong, but this sounds llike so much political double talk from Senator Roberts (a master of appearing one way and voting another). It's a whole lot of verbiage about "holisitic" views and "refreshed" looks.
Put this with Rosmarino's appointment. I am not saying the two are related. I'm not alleging a conspiracy.
What I am saying is that I'm concerned about radical changes wrought by a radical advocate appointed director who is then backed up by political appointees who recommend things like "in-kind" contributions being considered "income" earned by public lands.
I am concerned about the State Land Board working against uses like grazing and moving more of the land we all own in common into uses they prefer.
If you share my concerns, there are a couple things to do:
1. Notify your State Senator (esp if you live in Dylan Robert's District) about your concerns.
2. Send in your thoughts to the State Land Board and/or sign up to speak at the June 11/12 meeting. The decision to appoint Rosmarino was made by Governor Polis and not the board, but this is a chance to get your thoughts on record.
I have already registered my thoughts with my state senator, so I will be trying to offer comment at the June meeting. When I know what the process is, I'll post on it so you can speak or email as well if you'd like.
**I would point you here to something a friend noted about her appointment: with it coming just after the end of the legislative session, Rosmarino could have a full year's worth of work prior to ever seeing Senate confirmation.
https://www.thefencepost.com/news/rewilding-advocate-hired-to-lead-colorado-state-land-board/
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/swampiness-in-wildlife-policy-and?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/hb25-1332s-state-trust-lands-conservation?utm_source=publication-search
https://coloradosun.com/2025/05/14/state-land-board-legislation/
One more reason for limited government
At the risk of overgeneralizing, I believe that one of the defining characteristics of a progressive political orientation is that of faith in government to solve problems. In other words, if there is an ill, a problem to be solved, it can best be handled by giving it to the government.
Obviously, If you don't share this orientation, you see problems with this approach. Government is often expensive, incompetent, and wasteful. Less often discussed is the problem of government control to run amok and the threat it presents to freedom.
I've written about the latter in the past, profiling a book by US Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch who writes of the ever-growing burden of laws and regulations in our country (one of his examples worth remembering is the poor magician and his rabbit) as well as a case that Rachel Gabel wrote about a Wyoming couple who ran afoul of the US Forest service.
Both of those topics are in an August 2024 newsletter linked first below.
The second link below is to a Rachel Gabel op ed updating the case of the Wyoming couple.
The Wyoming story is pretty remarkable. I'll leave it to you to read the current and/or past op ed, but the short version is that the landowners (5th generation ranchers) had a fence dating back to at least as far as 1950 that the Forest Service said encroached upon Forest Service land.
A strikingly active Forest Service agent apparently took it upon himself to get the situation in the justice system as quickly as possible, jumping over a settlement which was in the works to indict each member of the couple separately (resulting in lots of money spent for attorneys, lots of hassle, and threats of removing the couple's children).
The case has now (with the Trump administration stepping in**) been brought to a conclusion with no trial. The couple is free of the indictment.
As it should be. How this flagrant abuse went on as long as it did is beyond me.
This sort of thing is exactly why I get concerned over expansions of government. Put aside the extra tax burden. Put aside the incompetence. The more government we have, the more rules and regulations, the more chances there are for overly enthusiastic government agents to abuse their power.
Cases like that of the Wyoming ranchers show this to not just be a conspiracy theory. It has happened in the past, it happens now, and it will happen again in the future.
Adding more guardrails to government conduct is not nothing; it can help minimize the problem. The true solution, however, is to limit government as much as is possible, not to expand it.
**To anyone that marvels at Trump's popularity despite trials, despite how much those on the coast loathe him, I point you to this as one reason for it. Whether you agree with Trump or not, I hope you can appreciate how much respect he earns for stepping in between a government overreach and private citizens.
For clarification the couple was in South Dakota not Wyoming.