BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[swollen tongue]

would like to get everybodys opinion and comments on outfitter sponsored licenses for elk in Colorado for limited draw units. Montana and New Mexico has such a program. Also whats your opinion on "counter tags" for elk in Colorado, is this a good thing or should there be a change to this 50 year old policy?????

[bitmasher]

Montana's program, as I understand works like this:

- Registered outfitters get premium tags at premium prices.
- Revenue generated from outfitter sponsored tags sales go to fund their public access program on private land. Basically their DOW pays landowners to allow public hunting.

In principle I think it is a good idea, since it opens up private land that public hunters would not otherwise have access too. On the other hand it basically allows those with the $$$ to circumvent the general draw.

This is similar to CO's ranching for wildlife system.

I'm also ok with over the counter tags in some units.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2003-07-05 23:23 ]

[swollen tongue]

Bitmasher, glad to know that someone out there knows about the program. that is what Montana does with the revenue they collect with outfitter sponsored tags. I initiated a outfitter sponsored tag to the wildlife commissioners last year in Colorado, but with little success. I suggested the revenue should go to CWD and whirling disease studies and prevention, including access to get to locked-in public lands surrounded by private lands. only a limited amount of tags would be set aside for outfitter sponsored tags out of the total tags available(10%)to everyone applying. This would help an outfitter- business in a limited draw unit offer a limited amount of guaranteed tags to clients, plus supply revenue to wildlife issues such as CWD in big game herds, etc. I think this would be a win-win situation. Thanks for your comments. Anybody else???

[donmillion]

Well, I'll have to give the idea of tags specifically for outfitters some thought. My first reaction is that this is NOT the same as Ranching for Wildlife, because of the difference as to landowner vs. outfitter.

As for over-the-counter tags, here is what I think... The DOW should determine quotas for each unit based simply and exclusively on the science of game management. Then they should issue enough tags to hit the quotas. If there is big demand for certain units, limited draw would be a requirement. If there is not big demand then OTC tags should be issued to increase the number of hunters.

If certain units want to be reserved as "trophy" units, I don't have a problem with that. Then tags need to be issued to achieve those goals.

In other words, whether or not tags are issued OTC should be based on the goals for the unit and not on whether or not OTC tags are--in and of themselves--a good or bad thing. They are neither good nor bad, they are just a means to achieve other goals.

[swollen tongue]

I agree with you on OTC tags and what you have said. BUT, what happens when the general public majority wants less hunters just to have less hunters in a certain game unit and the DOW goes along with it saying it is a social issue and not a biological issue.i.e., the elk herd will not be affected either way. I saw this happen to a certain OTC game unit from imput of anti-hunters and non-hunters to make a game unit by draw and reducing the tags by 50%. Also the outfitter sponsored tags is not ranching for wildlife, but to raise extra money for programs and keep an established outfitter in a draw unit from going broke with a few gauranteed tags. Landowner tags is basically the same thing but land barons are doing all of the commercial hunting as of now to line their pocket books in draw unit areas with no extra fees going to the DOW.

[bitmasher]

Let me clarify what I meant by saying ranching for wildlife (RFW) is similar to outfitter sponsored tags (OST).

The stated objective of RFW and OST is to open up more private land to public hunters. Both programs end up compensating the private land holder with $$$; but how that money is passed is different.

RFW gives tags at zero (low) cost to the ranchers in their group. These tags are then sold at premium prices to hunters of the RFW groups choosing. Thus for those in an RFW group the tags are money. The catch is that the RFW group must let in a certain number of public hunters (by draw in that unit) every year at no charge.

OST takes a different path. Montana's program sells about 5000 or so tags under OST and last I heard each tag goes for around $1000 a pop. This money is then used to lease plots of private land from land holders explicitly to let public hunters (with tag by draw) on said private land at no charge.

A Chevy is not a Ford, but they both are vehicles to get from point A to point B.

I'm not sure that I would support OST if it was used simply to fund disease research. Rather I think the bulk if not all the funds should go to opening up private land to public hunters.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2003-07-07 22:12 ]

[swollen tongue]

OST could be funding any program that the public wanted, with DOW approval. The program in Montana actually buys access thru private lands so you can hunt locked in public lands on the back side of private lands. This is the way I understand it. This would really help in Colorado.
Good comments!!

[donmillion]

Well, if the DOW bows to political pressure, instead of making decisions based on good wildlife management science, then it's a bad situation no matter how they sell tags or to whom. Unfortunately, that is a potential problem with any government agency.

[bitmasher]

I agree with Don, the DOW is about rigourous game management, not politics. Unfortunately though I think they get pulled in to it.

OTC is as susceptible to politcal pressure as draw tags.

[swollen tongue]

its a fact....... the DOW in Colorado bows to public comments to manage wildlife rather than actual biologist's recommendations. They go with the majority rule at those meetings they have around the State every year.

[swollen tongue]

lets hear from others out there about this subject...........

[cowgal]

I wouldn't mind hearing from folks in Montana and New Mexico, both outfitters & hunters to see how the program is working for them in those states. If other states offer similar, would love to hear from them as well.

I have a suspicion that public pressure is probably an issue with most DOWs/DNRs, they end up caving to what they perceive as being a majority, rather than making decisions in the best interest of the wildlife.

Am also curious how the program works in Canada. If you are not a resident you must hunt with an outfitter and buy your license through an outfitter. But then we do have states that do not allow you to hunt unless you are with an outfitter or a resident of that state, Wyoming & Alaska come to mind.

[swollen tongue]

cowgal
thanks for the comments. Anybody out there from Montana that can add to the subject?????????? how about Wyoming?????

[ This Message was edited by: swollen tongue on 2003-07-16 15:37 ]

[swollen tongue]

all you viewers need to comment on this subject.lets hear your opinions!!!!!