12 replies [Last post]
elkkill06's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fruita Colorado
Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 1934
Colorado Landowner Voucher Allocation

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=251612

Everyone (at least from Colorado) should write everyone on the list.

Quinton

Offline
Joined: 08/01/2012
Posts: 4
Thanks Quinton, I was just

Thanks Quinton,

I was just about to write about it.  In case any of you are wondering, the Landowner Voucher Program Committee has recommended that the CPW increase landowner tags by 5%-10% statewide. That would mean that units west of I25 would allocate 20% of the tags directly to landowners and I believe 25% east of I25. This will affect the draw and your ability to hunt in the future.  Because there are more knowledgable people out there, you can read more information here:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=251379

and here (as Quinton posted)

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=251612

In these you will be able to contact state representatives and committee members to share your opinion of the tag allocation. For the "John Doe" public land hunter, it is important that your voice is heard.

I usually never post anything, but this is an issue that (I feel) does not represent the everyday, average hunter- like me. And I find it discouraging that MOST of the members of the committee will benefit because they own land, or hunting operations, or BOTH. It presents a conflict of interest. I simply want to maintain my waiting process for my tag, rather than wait a few more years while landowners offer these tags to those who have the most money.

If you would like to see the proposal, you can view it here:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Hunting/BigGame/...

Thank you for your time.

Rich

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1746
Consider

It done! Thanks for the info guys. It's a real shame the direction this could be headed, hunting as an activity only the very wealthy can enjoy. Pay your 7,500 get your bull play pool and watch the game on the bigscreen in the evening with a drink after a hot shower. I know my hunts have never been like that and more importantly wouldn't want em to be.

Offline
Location: Southeast Colorado
Joined: 01/07/2007
Posts: 93
Guys, there are two sides to

Guys, there are two sides to this coin. About 98.5% of the real estate east of I25 is privately owned. Ranchers and Farmers--like me--provide nearly all of the wildlife habitat in eastern Colorado. Now, when we provide almost all the habitat, pay the taxes and care for the land, how do you think we feel when 85% of the licenses go to anybody who has enough points to draw one?

Landowner vouchers aren't easy to draw either. We have the same sort of point-creep in that system as in the general license draw.

I agree that the current system isn't perfect---and probably never will be---but if you disenfranchise the landowners from a preference in the draw, the results will be pretty predictable. Speaking strictly for myself, I have never denied access to anyone who appeared responsible and asked permission to hunt. However, if I can't hunt on my own place, then it is highly unlikely that anyone else will be able to either---and in that sentiment I am not alone.

So, be careful what you ask for---it might have unintended consequences.

Offline
Joined: 08/01/2012
Posts: 4
Plainview, I understand that

Plainview,

I understand that you are frustrated.  It would be lousy not to be able to hunt your own land.  But, you are also allowed to participate in the regular draw as well- so you are entitled to more tags than any of us.  For the regular, public land hunter, it will have a profound effect on deer (state wide), and the other wildife in limited units.

Do you hunt elk or deer in the West?  Unless you are wealthy (to buy a voucher), have land, or have special friends who give you tags, then you are at the mercy of the draw- just like us public land hunters.  This population is much higher than the amount of landowners.  And they want to strip those tags away. It will now take YEARS to catch up to the point creep.

You're correct that you provide most of the habitat for wildlife in Eastern Colorado.  Maybe the change is good for Eastern Colorado.  And, I'm o.k. that landowners charge whatever fees to access their property- it is their land.  But, it is not their deer.  The wildlife belong to the state- the public.  And why should greedy landowners be allowed to use our public resource to make a buck?  If they can do it, why can't I draw a desert bighorn sheep tag and auction it?  So, maybe the rule should be: you can't sell your vouchers for more than they are worth (what you paid CPW), or that tags are only good on YOUR property, etc...  If you are a landowner who uses the tags for yourself and family- without worrying about how much money you could bring at the auction, hunt your own land, and allow public hunters for a minimal fee (under $500 to receive game damage), then you are WAY better than most.

Even if we agree with the Eastern Slope section, this proposal reduces our opportunity to hunt on public land in the West. This simply DOES NOT represent the vast majority of hunters in Colorado.  The proposal is severly flawed and NEEDS TO BE REVISED.

What this proposal will do is give more money to the wealthy landowners, outfitters, and third-party brokers while reducing access to tags for public land hunters.  This will increase the amount of years to get a tag.  Look at the Landowner Committee and tell me that they haven't recommended this to benefit themselves. 

I live in the West.  I am 6th generation born in Colorado- been here before Colorado was a state. I remember when I could get a deer tag over the counter.  I remember when I could ask to hunt a property, and they would let me.  Now, it is all about MONEY.  Currently, I hunt deer every 3-4 years.  Who knows how long it will take if this passes?  

I do wish the Eastern CO landowners opportunity to hunt their land, but I WISH the Western Public hunters opportunities even more so!  But, the proposal, as it stands, does not do both. Again, it is NO GOOD and NEEDS TO BE REVISED...

Offline
Location: Southeast Colorado
Joined: 01/07/2007
Posts: 93
Outdooraddict, I share your

Outdooraddict,

I share your frustration because I hunt public lands as well as private ones.

My personal opinion is that the problems with CP&W are far deeper than the Landowner Voucher System. CPW has based the majority of their budgetary goals on Non-Resident hunters at the expense of state residents.

Compare neighboring Kansas--any resident can buy an over-the-counter deer license, any landowner can receive a "hunt-your-own-land permit. Nonresidents get a tiny fraction of the licenses available. I realize that this is an "apples & oranges" comparison because of the vast differences in landownership in the two states---but I don't see why licenses per unit should not be prorated on a public/private landownership basis. A unit that is largely public land should have few if any Landowner vouchers, conversely, a private unit should have only landowner vouchers.

That would be too fair and simple. Personally, I would like to see a statistic on how many vouchers are actually sold or traded. I suspect it is a tiny percentage of the total. I know a lot of landowners and I don't know of any who have sold a voucher. In 15 years of applying, I have sold exactly one--because the family member who was to use it was unable to hunt.

I'd be fine with an outright ban on sales of vouchers.

Offline
Joined: 08/01/2012
Posts: 4
"My personal opinion is that

"My personal opinion is that the problems with CP&W are far deeper than the Landowner Voucher System"

You bet.  But a lot of them, from the general population (both public and private), are personal prefereces. For example:

One thing that bugs me is how they facilitate the 65%-35% allocation of tags.  I wish CPW allowed residents an opportunity to draw a 2nd choice tag (up to 65%) before they give them all to nonresident 1st choices.  For instance, a unit in W. Colorado has 200 tags.  50 residents apply for the tag 1st choice and 150 nonresidents 1st choice.  They will give all 150 nonresidents 1st choice.  So, what once was a 65%-35% split now becomes a 25%-75% swing the other way.  I say, fill the 35% for nonresidents, allow 2nd choice for residents, then let them have at it.  It really won't affect elk tags, but it will deer.  And, I would love to hunt deer AT LEAST once every other year.

It may be selfish, but I feel I should have a better opportunity to hunt in my own state.  This would allow residents to hunt while saving points for that "once-every-ten-years" tag.

But, right now, the landowner proposal has the highest threat to the opportunity of hunting in the West.  Public hunters need to share their voice, and shoot this down.  If any of you think that this proposal won't hurt your odds and the point creep, you are sorely mistaken.

I am lucky for the fact that I can hunt in Eastern Colorado.  But, I apply in the public draw.  It would be a little upsetting taking all tags from the public, just like it would be taking all tags from the landowners. On the issue of selling vouchers- I believe a landowner can sell his/her tags to anyone- but only at the cost of the tag (and they can charge whatever they want for tresspass).  A lot of different opinions out there, but the proposal sucks.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 06/08/2005
Posts: 79
I have already wrote the

I have already wrote the commissioners and plan too again this weekend. One of my biggest complaints is that hunters can still apply for the regular draws and then go buy a landowner permt, and still not loose their preference points. Secondly, these tags should be allowed for private land only, not unit wide. And I think the majority of them should be for antlerless only, since they are designed to limit agricultural impacts to private lands.

Offline
Joined: 08/01/2012
Posts: 4
I'm curious, wondering how

I'm curious, wondering how many people have contacted our representatives/committee members? I think too many of us (me included) wait until they take things away before we share our voice.  A gentleman from GJ, and others, has been warning most of us (on other websites) that this would happen.  It has been proposed- and apparently, the CPW Director, Rick Cables, is actively promoting these recommendations.  

1jaycoolman's picture
Offline
Location: Illinois
Joined: 07/10/2009
Posts: 21
Landowner voucher?

Here in Illinois we get a "landowner permit" for deer. We are entitled one either sex and one antlerless permit for gun and one either sex and one antlerless permit for archery. Our relatives that live on the property can apply for these permits too.
These permits must be used by the person it is issued to. These permits must be used on the landowners property.
These permits cannot be sold or transfered to another hunter.
I believe this is the only way to achieve harvest control. Selling this permit and using it on another property, or better yet, public property belonging partly to yours truely allways seemed "political" to me.
I don't believe you need any more of our permits!
I hope you understand that I am what you could say as "outside the box", I don't know how it is to own property in Colorado. I only know what it looks like from here.

Why should a landowner be able to profit from a game permit?

Esteshunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/04/2008
Posts: 60
I know of a landowner that

I know of a landowner that gets landowner vouchers every year, and raises the cost for them every year. This person has told me themselves that they often don't sell many deer and elk tags, because no one wants to cough up that kind of money! What a waste! Robs other hunters of opportunities IMO. I think somehow there should be a cap on the amount landowners can charge for tags.