Future of Vouchers?

B

BUCKSPY

Very Active Member
Messages
2,070
The Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Commision members meet today to decide on regulation changes for the upcoming seasons of 2007. In the big game regulations there are red-lined changes to the landowner voucher program.

Specifically and briefly the regs state that third party brokering of vouchers is prohibited and doing so invalidates the license purchased from brokered voucher. The landowner would also be removed from the voucher program for a period up to five years in length.

One thing to ponder is if these rules were circumvented and a license purchased from a broker the hunter then kills a trophy buck on an invalid hunting license and transports it across state lines would potentially put that hunter in violation of the Lacey Act which is a felony. If the buck was trophy class and fit the criteria of the Samson Violation, it would be another felony. That could be quite a punishment for the hunter unaware of the potential violations.

It doesn't specify any punishment whatsoever for the voucher broker though.
 
I think your interpretation of the law is accurate, Buckspy. A hunter hunting with a licence transfered more than once would essentially be hunting with an invalid license. It's a broad regulation that's used frequently for a variety of violations.

I think the license broker would likely be charged with unlawful transfer of a license:

33-6-107-(7) It is unlawful to alter, transfer, sell, loan, or assign a lawfully acquired license to another person, or to use another person's lawfully acquired license. A person who violates this subsection (7) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points, and licenses so used are void.
 
So the commission has to ratify this ? or is it a done deal ?

Sounds like Garth Carter might have to refund the $500- deposits he's collecting for vouchers.
 
My guess is this will make no difference, although I agree it is a step in the right direction. There is nothing to say a "broker" cannot make a deal with a landowner for his vouchers. The landowner can sign the vouchers and hand them over to the "broker". The "broker" can then simply hand over the signed voucher to the paying client. The broker does not have to reassign the voucher into his name, so he never shows up in the transaction.

The only difference now is that the paying client can see the ranch from which the voucher originated.
 
Buckspy,

I just re-read the voucher language the Commission will act on today, and I think you are correct--they effectively plugged the loophole. My first impression was that this was "window dressing" that eventually would be circumvented, but the language they used has teeth. It definitely puts the onus on the hunter to avoid the broker though. The hunter using the tag is most at risk and could really get into a pickle over this, especially if he takes a big buck.

I just checked with a DWM on the statute Oak mentioned above, and he is correct. The broker would be slapped with the unlawful transfer law, which is only a misdemeanor, but if he gets caught in more than one transaction, things escalate quickly.
 
I wonder if landowners will sell tags and have the purchaser sign a waiver that says they can't hunt on his property? There seems like there is still room for a lot of "shadey" stuff! I still say put most of these tags in a private land only draw to eliminate the corruption that is going on!
 
Buckspy, I believe you have it right, could make it a risky deal if you aren't directly dealing with the landowner.

From the proposed regs:
"4. The transfer of any license voucher by a landowner must include permission, without
restriction other than manner of access (foot, horseback, vehicular) restrictions
reasonably necessary to prevent damage to property and without discrimination
between hunters accessing the property, to access and hunt all lands registered
under Section 33-4-103(3) or applied for under section 33-4-103(1) and (2) for which
the license voucher was awarded for the entire season in question. to the license
holder to hunt on the land for which the voucher was awarded."

Sounds to me like this will provide access to the land for which the tag was issued. Am I missing something?
 
So how do you know if the guy selling you the voucher is the actual land owner.What if a guy is leasing a ranch that has LO vouchers? Can he legally issue the voucher, or does it have to be the actual person on the property deed. What is there to stop a broker from being hired as an agent by the LO? He could represent several different LO's and get paid a comission. I think vouchers will initally go down in price, however, if the brokers were getting top dollar for their vouchers, whats to stop the LO from getting top dollar.
I think it's wrong to place all the liability on the unsuspecting hunter who buys a voucher from someone who claims to be the LO. It's like buying a stolen car, only the guy that stole it walks free, and they throw the book at the unsuspecting guy that bought it.
 
"if the brokers were getting top dollar for their vouchers, whats to stop the LO from getting top dollar."

Nothing. The landowners will actually need to do the work themselves to get rid of the vouchers. Many probably wont advertise them like the brokers do to get top dollar. The broker buys the voucher and jacks the price up to whatever he wants. Who's to say he's not giving the landowner $500 for a voucher he sells for $4,000? If the landowner wants the money, he needs to work for it.





It's Bush's fault!!!
 
>My guess is this will make
>no difference, although I agree
>it is a step in
>the right direction. There is
>nothing to say a "broker"
>cannot make a deal with
>a landowner for his vouchers.
>The landowner can sign the
>vouchers and hand them over
>to the "broker". The "broker"
>can then simply hand over
>the signed voucher to the
>paying client. The broker does
>not have to reassign the
>voucher into his name, so
>he never shows up in
>the transaction.

I disagree. I think the wording is very clear:

5. Landowner vouchers may be transferred one time only, and shall only be transferred by the landowner to the hunter that will use the voucher to purchase the license.
Third-party brokering of landowner vouchers is not permitted. Violation of this
subsection shall invalidate the applicable landowner voucher and any license
purchased with it.


The part that says "shall only be transferred by the landowner to the hunter that will use the voucher" would seem to cut out any shenanigans that the brokers can come up with to obtain the vouchers and re-distribute them. I doesn't keep the brokers from putting buyers and sellers in contact with one another, but the transfer still has to be directly from landowner to hunter.
 
You know that kid who works down at the drugstore part time in Eagle, who picked up the matched 267" non typical sheds last year? He said he can get me a unit 44 4th season voucher if he can hunt with me. I have to supply the camp, food and liquor and he will help out with chores. I'am sure he knows how to glass,gut and gamble but, is he considered a broker? How about a guide?
 
screamin, Id rather see the LO get the money even if it requires more work on his part, but I really don't think thats the issue. As long as the prices stay out of reach of the average joe, we will be crying "our public resource shouldn't be up for sale to the highest bidder". If Lo vouchers were $200 and the broker was getting $100 and the LO was getting $100 we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hunters who can afford vouchers and no where to buy them seem to be in favor of the program and guys who can't are against the program. Where were all these voucher feuds 5 years ago when vouchers were affordable. I hope by cutting out 3 party transactions that the prices will come down, but I think the damage has been done.
 
I don't see that there will be much difference. My wife is a real estate agent... she gets a listing, advertizes for the seller, gets call from an interested buyer, they make an offer, offer is accepted buy seller. At closing, all papers are signed transferring ownership directly from seller to buyer and the agent gets a commission. What is stopping tag brokers from becoming "listing agents"?


oakbrush
 
The LO's should be supporting this idea. The pimps are making all the $$$ and the LO is doing all the work on his/her land,paying the property taxes, insurance, etc. The LO's could sell their tags on EBAY or set up their own website and make 100% of the profit.

Now, when is Colorado gonna do what is right and make the tag good for the deeded property only and not unit wide?
 
I have bought landowner permits before in other states but, was I surprised when I heard that you could hunt unit wide with one of CO LO tags. Hell yes I bought one. Do I think it's right? Chit no! LO tags are a good thing for their property only! How in the Sam Hill did the G&F ever buy into this fiasco?
 
This subject is one of my few "soap box" subjects.

I don't care how much money the landowner or the "broker" makes, so long as the tag is ONLY VALID for the LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY.

I know landowners that get vouchers every year who don't even have deer and elk on their land!! That's like giving anybody who owns a house (on a lot) in the city a tag to sell....

If the tags were good ONLY for the landowner's property, these guys with no game on their property wouldn't get anything for their LO tags. Pretty soon, they would quit applying for them.

If the landowner's that HAVE game on their property wanted to keep making big $$$ for vouchers, they would have to manage their property for wildlife. That's good for the game, good for the landowner ($$$) and good for the guys trying to draw tags (landowners would have to limit tags given out on their land to manage for quality, thus allocating more tags for public land).

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now!!!
 
CO. Landowners need to lock up there land and tell all you cry babies to take a hike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they want to use a broker to sell there vouchers then so what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
So, is it a done deal? Anyone know? Did they approve the regs. and the rule to outlaw brokers?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
The regulation changes were adopted to "outlaw brokers" as you said. There was also talk of statutory change in the state legislature to restrict them to the land they were issued.

With a new democratic majority in the state legislature, these changes(private land only) might have a better chance of becoming law than in a republican dominated group of lawmakers.

This is very unlikely to take place this year but certain representatives already have a open ear for this subject from the talk I have heard.

The changes that have taken place regarding brokering of vouchers are in my opinion, an acknowledgement that the system is broken and needs fixing. If these changes are shown to just be window dressing, then it would lend further credence to statutory change restricting vouchers to private land only.

I talked to a DOW game warden yesterday in regards to a brokered voucher becoming "invalid" and the subsequent taking of a deer on that license. He said it would be an illegal harvest and be subject to appropriate penalties such as Samson Law Felony if its a big enough buck or bull and Lacey Act Felony violation if transported across state lines. Thats his interpretation not mine.

Hey Skunkterd. Want some Kleenex.
 
No brokers. Guess one can be a booking agent for the landowners tell the land owners there worth $5,000 and for a 50% commision he will find the hunter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
And the landowner will say f--- off to the broker and take the $5,000 for himself by finding the hunter himself. With a little effort, the landowner will not have trouble ridding himself of vouchers.






It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Ya, I kind of figured it would remain. I would agree with the game warden, the penalties will be hard if someone is found to have purchased from a broker. I think that will get people thinking twice about who they're buying a voucher from and how that person is involved. Buyers need to be VERY aware.

I would guess this year there will be a few vouchers to be had for a reasonable price.

I'm guessing this will be the last year of unitwide vouchers in Colorado. I agree that the system IS broken. Whether they continue unitwide vouchers or not, it needs to be fixed. I like the idea of rewarding landowners, but the current system is broken.

Hopefully if you all do get rid of unitwide vouchers you can still find a way to reward landowners for supporting our wildlife. I think we do need them on our side.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
sremim - I think most landowners will be hard pressed to get anywhere near the money for vouchers as they did by using a broker. Reaching the guys who can pay $5000.00 a pop for an unguided, public land hunt is tough. It costs money to advertise. I don't think they can do it "with a little effort". It'll take lots of effort.

If landowners could reach those people, they already would have. Landowners were not forced to use brokers, they did so because the brokers offer more money than everyone else. The brokers could find the folks who would pay top dollar.

I've been involved with speaking to landowners a little about vouchers. Most of them get plenty of calls from local folks and cheap guys like myself offering them $500.00, then a broker calls offering $3500.00.

Landowners will now need to be more involved, more educated, and will need to spend the money on advertising to move their vouchers. The broker did all that for them in the past.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I just had another thought as far as the ability to police and enforce these changes. Its hypothetical but might hold some water in theory.

Colorado has the ability to issue a "like license" to those who turn in poachers. If you catch someone whacking a big buck that is an illegal harvest, you are eligible to get that license next year as a reward. From what I have gathered, killing a buck on a brokered voucher is illegal harvest and might give some one the ability to get that license if they turn in someone who bought a voucher through a brokered deal. This policing of hunters by hunters might be enough to make some think twice. Now someone has an incentive to rat you out for buying a late season Gunnison tag for your Grandma and get the tag themselves next year.
 
You guys missed the bigger news from the meeting, BGAP was approved!

We have 3 varieties of "landowner preference", we now have "sportsmens preference".
 
I feel that these are great changes but will barely have an effect on the brokers. There is nothing stopping these brokers from becoming a landowner agent and charging a percentage of what he gets for the vouchers. The landowner then signs the vouchers over to the hunter who buys it directly from the landowner. Just as someone mention above about a real estate agent. Am I missing something the would prevent this?

I believe that the vouchers should not be valid on public land but they shouldn't be restricted to the land it was issued for, just valid only on private land only. Restricting it to just the land it was issued for prevents a landowner from hunting his neighbors land or vice versa.

Here's a copy of an email Garth Carter was sending his previous landowner tag purchasers. It was posted on the bowsite.

"Colorado wildlife officials are continually eliminating non-resident big game hunting opportunities. First they took away our opportunity to draw the ?Ranching for Wildlife? permits, last year they reduced the percentage of deer and elk tags non-residents could draw, and now they are proposing changes to the landowner tag system that will hurt the non-resident hunter. Under the new proposed Colorado regulations, that will be finalized January 11, 2007, they will require hunters to purchase the vouchers directly from the landowner. This means you and only you can contact the landowner to purchase vouchers. Since the Colorado Division of Wildlife refuses to give out a list of landowners who receive vouchers, it makes it almost impossible for non-residents to obtain these highly sought after deer, elk, and antelope vouchers. Prior to this proposed regulation change, we could contact the landowner in your behalf and purchase landowner vouchers for you. If this proposal goes though, only local resident hunters will benefit.

If you are like us and think landowners should be able to market their landowner vouchers to whomever they chose, it's time to speak up. Colorado officials claim they have not heard from a single person in favor of retaining the current landowner voucher system. The current system is fair and it is working. Time is of the essence to voice your opinion or the system will change! Tell the Colorado Wildlife Commissioners that Colorado landowners should be able to sell their vouchers to whomever they chose.

If you interested in reading about the proposed changes you can find them at the following link on page 8: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/201FC398-3961-4C2E-AA22-2A2F1781FB1A/0/Ch2BigGame.pdf Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested.


Comments should be directed toward the Wildlife Commission:

[email protected]


Jeff Crawford [email protected]

Ph 303-777-9000 Fax 303-777-3200


Tom Burke [email protected]

Ph 970-243-0564 Fax 970-245-9378


Ken Torres [email protected]


Roy McAnally [email protected]


Robert Bray [email protected]


Rick Enstrom [email protected]

Ph 303-322-1005 Fax 303-989-9266


Claire O?Neal [email protected]


Brad Coors [email protected]


Richard Ray [email protected]

Ph 970-264-5546


Keith King [email protected]

Ph 303-866-2191


Dept. of Agriculture


Don Ament [email protected]

Fax 303-239-4176


Dept. of Natural Resources


Russell George [email protected]
 
Grasshopper,

That's excellent! What a great start to a better program. I follwed your efforts over on the bowsite. Thanks for all you did to get this program off the ground.

cowhitey.
 
IMHO
The problem was that Garth was pricing the voucher (his cut included in the price), not the landowner. As soon as landowners and hunters build relationships and learn who each other are, there will be no need for brokers. Imagine that landowners and sportmen/women getting together and communicating.
 
My opinion is that in a year or so vouchers will be avoided like a plague after a few high status individuals get nailed with a felony after trying to circumvent the systems laws........
Then it will be back to only private land only tags avalable to landowners.
Hopefully the voucher alotment will go back into normal draw allocations.
Let us pray.
Best,
Jerry
44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
I would be concerned that the vouchers will not go into the draw?

Anyway, this is/was my first year coming up to obtain a voucher. I will adapt and do what it takes. I personally would rather forge a relationship with a landowner. I would certainly want a relationship that everyone involved wins.

I cannot blame the brokers though. They are providing a service that is in demand. Many people used brokers and they played within the rules. If this whole voucher/broker system got abused then many of us are to blame. I still cannot see any problem with the broker "selling information" to the hunter? I am I wrong to presume this? From what I can see this is not illegal?
 
There is a lot more to this broker issue than actually meets
the eye! In the past, brokers could contact LO and offer (absolutely
free money) from the highest bidder for tags! The LO didn't have to
have any contact whatsoever with the tag buyer, allow NO access to
his property, nothing at all just collect money! Probably many acres
used to qualify weren't even legitmate! THANK GOODNESS FOR THE
CHANGES Now if the LO wants the money (and in many cases there will still be good profit) that's fine IMO but he has to live up to
the agreement! THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE

BUD
 
I guess the brokers are still in business.

From our local paper: http://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2007/01/14/1_14_OUT_Sunday_coumn_WWW.html

"The wildlife commission also attempted to tackle the controversial topic of landowner license vouchers, those coveted hunting tags set aside for private landowners who then can sell, trade or barter said tags.

Long a topic guaranteed to raise blood pressure among the program?s opponents, the current spate of gas pains is caused by news that some, if not many, of the private-land tags are being sold by license brokers who then rake in big bucks from deep-pocketed hunters.

This not only may be construed as commercializing the state?s wildlife ? which a cynic may view as simply another attempt at this in a long series of similar attempts ? but also a violation of the primary idea behind the landowner vouchers: Simply, to give a landowner or his family the opportunity to recoup some of the expense of harboring big game on their property without going through the state?s generous game-damage program.

Now, though, it seems some of these brokered tags (many of which reportedly are sold through the Internet auction Web site eBay) are coming with the addendum saying whoever eventually ends up with the license in one hand and rifle in the other isn't allowed to hunt on the private land to which the tag originally was attached.

What commissioner Brad Coors called ?profiteering? and commissioner Tom Burke of Grand Junction referred to as ?third-party brokering? obviously raised the panel?s collective ire, but what made the red faces redder was the revelation that there is nothing the DOW or the wildlife commission can do to stop most of the abuses in the landowner-license program.

Oh, sure, the commission passed a regulation limiting to two the number of times a voucher can change hands, which may reduce some of the outrageous bidding, but since the landowner program is a Legislative act ? not a commission regulation ? only the Legislature can tighten the program.

And as several onlookers pointed out, as long as the state Agricultural Committee continues to ramrod the operation of the DOW, it's likely there won't be anything changing if the cowboys in the Legislature don't like it.

It wasn?t always this way. In the early 1970s, the cowboy Legislature, tired of not getting its way when it came to wildlife-related decisions, decided to do away with what then was the Game, Fish and Parks committee and put the DOW under the thumb of the Ag Committee, with its obvious conflicts of interest.

Since then, the aggies have slowly nitpicked away many of the responsibilities the DOW originally had. Although you'll never hear the politically sensitive DOW leadership say this, the landowner voucher program is hell in a handbasket.

And the wildlife commissioners know this.

?We can't fix the abuses with the authority we have,? said commissioner Claire O?Neal of Holyoke to the general approval of the other commissioners. ?We need a legislative fix.?

Coors called the current oversight a ?legislative stranglehold? on DOW policies and blamed that stranglehold for preventing the commission to control landowner vouchers.

?We can limit transferability, but the situation is very cumbersome,? Coors said in a grotesque understatement.

The only hope in the immediate future is the abrupt political change sweeping the statehouse. Perhaps a member of the resurgent party will tackle the oversight problems strangling the DOW and someday sportsmen will see the wildlife agency again working under a committee that puts the enhancement and protection of the state?s wildlife at the forefront."
 
jrb,

I am not privy to Colorado wildlife laws and legislature stuff. I also do not comprehend well.;-)

In short, they limited the transfers, but the DOW has no authority to alter the LO program?

I plan to take advantage of the vouchers, because if I do not someone else will, however, I hope this gets worked out to a fair program for sportsman and ranchers?

Good luck this year on whatever you plan. WARBIRDUM, SaddleSore, and I plan to be back! Maybe twice this year?
 
KTC,

That is how I read it. Also, there is the sentence that says they limited the number of times a tag can change hands to 2. Sounds to me like it can go to some middleman between the landowner nd hunter.

Yea, I hope WARBIRDUM finally gets his tag. I am not going anywhere this year. I just plan on hunting above my house with my kids.
 
How ya doing jrb?Thanks for the update on the vouchers.ktc we are still in the game now it looks like.
 
The only thing I can think of is that they are considering the transfer of the tag from the DOW to the landowner as the 1st transfer.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

0D56803E-8134-41C5-81B7-39BD83B4D5F6.jpeg
New Mexico Muzzleloader Bull for Osprey
IMG_1045.JPG
AD82DCC6-962F-4881-B72B-7CEDF39A1004.jpeg
Screenshot_20231013_165128_Gallery.jpg
5D4E69DA-BBA3-42BC-9C94-F4AE709A90BB.jpeg
Deep-Forked, Tall 5x5 Stud
efce1e7f49a3fef88e1629f1c6f53ded.jpg
0A78C590-E18D-4178-966B-AD067F967BBE.jpeg
IMG_2291sat.jpg
CD65BFCE-FE58-4F4A-B68E-5CD4054480FF.jpeg
IMG-0026.jpg
Back
Top Bottom