Colo Landowner Voucher Fiasco!

J

jims

Long Time Member
Messages
3,765
Nows your chance guys to take part and let your voice be heard in regard to the current Colo landowner vouncher program. If you are like me you believe this system is a big scam! Every big game tag that goes into this program is 1 less tag available to the public in the draw.

If you are tired of "tag pimps" selling tags for high dollar it's your time to complain and try to change this system. Currently hunters that purchase landowner vouchers can buy tags each year PLUS gain pref pts each year. The "average Joe" has to wait in line for tags in the drawing and it is getting tougher and tougher to draw high demand tags. Many units take 5 to 15+ years to draw. If you are like me, it is upsetting knowing tags are being taken away from the "average joe" and LO voucher guys currently get around the pref pt system by purchasing high demand tags every year.

What is even more upsetting is that landowner voucher hunters can purchase tags each year PLUS gain pref pts. I believe landowner voucher guys should at least burn their pts every year they buy LO vouchers.

Landowner vouchers can be used to hunt both public and private land in the unit they are issued. I really don't believe it is fair that LO tags should be available to hunt public land. The CDOW has been searching for ways to relieve hunting pressure on public land in Colorado and if voucher holders were only permitted to hunt private land this would relieve some of this pressure. I also don't think it is fair that LO hunters can hunt public land when they didn't wait in line for these tags like all the other public draw hunters. LO vouchers should be compensation to a rancher for wildlife on his own property....I am pretty sure that is what these tags were originally intended for?

I can understand landowner vouchers being available directly to landowners and their immediate family so they can hunt their own property. If LO vouchers were only available to family this would elieviate many of the problems with high dollar tag sales, lack of access issues to private land in which the tag was intended, tag pimp problems, and other issues.

Does any of this seem fair? If you believe the Colo LO voucher system is a joke and needs to be changed now is your chance to let the CDOW know. You can email, phone, attend a meeting etc. Make certain to clearly and rationally explain your recommendations for change. If enough of us are willing to do this the system will likely change for the better of everyone rather than the few that can afford high demand and high dollar LO vouchers!

Here is a website to get started: http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/LandownerVoucherReviewCommittee/
 
I have sent emails, filled out surveys, & attended SAG & WC meetings. The main problem I see is that the State Legislature created this mess and only the State Legislature can really change it. Unfortunatly all wildlife issues are handled through the Agriculture Committee which is dominated by members a little more in support of the status quo.

Vouchers have just about become an entitlement to landowners. A ballot measure would probably be our best shot at eliminating them or restricting they're use to the land they were issued to.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-10 AT 08:24AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-13-10 AT 08:24?AM (MST)

The last time this was brought before the CDOW and there was public input the CDOW changed the regs stating that landowners MUST allow LO tagholders access to their private land. This was a giant step in the right direction. If enough of us complain I am certain things will change again for the better! Please let your voice be heard!

If it is something as little as LO voucher guys burning their pref pts every time they purchase LO tags (rather than accumulating pref pts with the current system) it is another step in the right direction. This will allow that many more tags to be available to the guys that sit in line waiting to draw tags!

Again, if we stand together and there are enough complaints things will change for the better!
 
Although I think 15% is a large chunk to give to landowners, I do believe they deserve something for feeding our deer and elk all winter and should be able to sell the vouchers for as much, and to whomever, they want.

The argument for making vouchers good for only the private land for which they are issued is an old one. Those vouchers still exist. The reason for unitwide vouchers is because much of the private ground in many units is winter range, and deer don't show up until after hunt seasons. If you want them to be private land only, then how about letting the hunts take place when the deer and elk arrive....in late Nov. and Dec.????
(That would not be good in my opinion)

The unitwide vouchers exist as a method for landowners to financially benefit from tolerating and feeding our wildlife during winter months. Wildlife in Colorado, especially elk (but there are very few elk vouchers) compete for feed with ranchers livestock. They also destroy fences, etc. Landowners should get some benefit out of wildlife. We as sportsmen do. We get to hunt them, therefore we have a reason to see herds flourish and thrive. Landowners also need a reason to WANT to see more elk and deer.

You agrue that those who buy vouchers should loose their preference points. That would only bring the vouchers down in value, and give the landowner a smaller incentive to feed our wildlife all winter. Same with only allowing landowners to give them to family. It makes the vouchers near useless to many landowners.
I know for a FACT that there are lots of landowners who do not hunt, who own private ground in winter areas, who do grow tired of herds of elk and deer trampling their yards, eating their shrubs and trees and knocking down fences around the ranch. Unlike us sportsmen, if their are LESS deer and elk, they are very much OK with that, unless they are benefiting.
These non-hunting landowners like getting a few $$$$ for the tags, and in turn (and I know for a fact), they begin to want to see more deer and elk.

Obviously, I do think there should be some unitwide landowner vouchers, just as there should be conservation tags here in Utah. The money these tags raise does do some good I believe. Maybe there shouldn't be as many as there are, but there should be some.

Maybe rules do need to change a little. For example, I think there are many ranches that offer very little for wildlife, yet these landowners receive vouchers. I also would like to see increased public access on some of the ranches getting vouchers. Maybe not open them to everyone, but more than they do, maybe a handful of public hunters each year. Definitely things could be improved.

As a disclaimer, I have bought and used landowner vouchers and also been a tag pimp myself at one time. So......
BUT, my opinion would be the same either way. I think landowners deserve something for supporting our herds. The system could use some tweeking though.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-10 AT 10:07AM (MST)[p]Brian-
Not trying to start another pissing match but I do not think if you were a 100% public land regular draw hunter your opinion would be the same.
Would you feel the same if you lost out on a year or more to hunt because these tags caused it?
Think about how important hunting is to you....Wouldn't knowing some do not follow the same rules caused you to miss out on the tag you should have received kinda change your point of view in a big way?
Landowners can still get the same income from the monetarily and connected bunch if they put in like everyone else and drew a tag with outfitting and trespass fees on there land and that is a fact.
Best,
Jerry
44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
good points Jerry. And I'm one of the guys who hunts private on occasion.

Let's look at this a bit closer....no other state that I am aware of allows anywhere near this level or type of access or $$ scam with landowner tags. I believe that giving landowners advantages on a small percentage of the tags is enough compensation for feeding the wildlife. Now, allowing sale to anyone, then allowing access to the public portion of the unit, is nothing more than a $$/corporate scam. I couldn't believe this years ago when I first found out about it. Nothing against the brokers (huntinfool etc.) who are not breaking the law, but the whole system is a scam and it's getting worse. CoHunter and JimS have summarized this well above.

It's not even logical to use the "feeding wildlife" argument, Brian, because hunting with the private voucher is allowed on public, which drives more wildlife onto the private, eh?

And what about the image to the non-hunting public? A rich-man's trophy sport. Forget about real wildlife management or putting meat on the table. If the intent is only to benefit the landowners, then why aren't the tags just for does or cows, which represent 90% of the winter range private impact anyways?

I sent an email to the guy (Chapman?) at the DOW and did get an immediate, positive response. I'd suggest anyone who agrees do the same, if you need the email address, let me know.

doug
 
I guess you can believe what you want TheKnack. Here in Utah, I can't afford a landowner tag or conservation tag, yet I support landowners, conservation groups and UDWR selling tags to pay for wildlife, projects and the management. Same goes for New Mexico landowner tags, Idaho landowner tags, all statewide tags, etc. I can't afford any of those, yet still believe they should exist. Heck, even in Colorado I can't afford but the extremely low priced vouchers. If it weren't for my good looks, wonderful smile, and awesome personality I'd never get to go hunting over there. LOL
As for; Would you feel the same if you lost out on a year or more to hunt because these tags caused it?
[font size=+1]YES![/font] I already said that in the first post. Utah landowner and conservation tags make it more difficult for me, and many others, to draw tags here in Utah, but I believe they serve a good purpose.

DougW - Why would you want the tags to be for does and cows? Sportsmen want MORE wildlife, not less. Does and cows should only be killed when a herd is over objective. Sportsmen hunt bucks and bulls because removing them from the herd does not impact herd size like killing females.
AND, as I stated earlier, the reason the landowner tags are for public land is because the deer and elk often do not show up on the private ground until AFTER the hunts are over. What good is a voucher for private land if the animals aren't there until December. Would you want an above timberline rifle tag in unit 43 or 74 if the hunt took place in January? NO!!!

I, as much as anyone, envy guys who have boatloads of money and go on super hunts every year. I understand you guys don't think it's right. And, if there were a way to properly compensate landowners for feeding our wildlife, then I would be all for the elimination of landowner tags. I guess I feel that many of the people who are against landowner tags expect landowners to just deal with our wildlife, feed it all winter, repair the fences on their own dime, and support herd increases, so that we can show up for a week each year to shoot at them. In my opinion, landowners are important to sportsmen. If they grow tired of OUR wildlife in their yards, they'll be calling the game department and in the end, herd numbers will be reduced and tags will be reduced and it will snowball from there. Sportsmen need landowners to not only want the game on their land, but to also see sportsmen as more than just a bunch of people who show up for a week each year to shoot at stuff.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Jims,

I agree with your assessment. E-mail has been sent.

Brian - you need to broaden your view just a little. I am not anti-rancher / landowner. I don't believe Jims is either. Few states have a landowner tag system anything close to Colorado's. Populations and herds in those other states aren't magically failing due to lack of Landowner tags. There are appropriate ways to offer some compensation to landowners. Unit wide tags sold to the highest bidder is not the right answer. The intent is not to screw the landowner. As the system exists in CO today, it is pretty close to screw the average hunter. A better balance is being sought.

Bill
 
As I've stated before in prior post, why do folks think that landowners in Colorado cant survive or wont tolerate wildlife without vouchers? Why is a Colorado landowner differnt than a Ohio or Indiana landowner that have to deal with wildlife on their land? The Deer & Elk were here long before the ranchers & fences showed up a few generations back.

The problem is they've grown accustomed to the money and dont want to give it up. Kind of like anyone else on welfare. They own the land but not the wildlife. Only in Colorado could we come up with a program so stupid where you send the State $3 and we'll give you a piece of paper worth $6500+ no questions asked, and little to no enforcement of the weak rules regarding brokering or access to the property it came from.

The only way I could see supporting Landowner vouchers is if the landowners agree's to open their property to the public as some kind of access program.
 
Brian- 3 pts:

1. No one mentioned conservation or auction tags, until you did; that's a different story. Much of the $$ goes to the division, instead of to landowners and tag brokers, if i understand those tags correctly. I support it.

2. if the wildlife are overconsuming the private landowners' crops etc., and this is the primary problem as you and Founder are claiming, are the herds not not over-objective? (I know there are exceptions......but you know what I mean). Thus the herds could use some female culling. If the herd is above management objective, that also detracts from sportsmen's interest in the long run. This is Biology 101. Habitat.

You are avoiding the point: Colorado currently provides a system to funnel large amounts of $$ yearly to the large landowners and/or the tag brokers, and at the same time detracts from both the draw odds and hunt quality for everyday guys who have waited 10+ years to hunt a unit. It's beyond the cusp of fairness, by a long shot.

Maybe the solution is to cut down the winter herds a bit, if that's the real motivation (due to landowners involuntarily feeding) instead of just transferring money. Or maybe a combination of both.

But I suspect that in CO it's become way too much of a $$ issue rather than a winter crop damage issue.

3. be careful, you are doing the sport of hunting no favors by perpetuating the path towards a rich-man's only sport. Beware most other continents' hunting situation. I for one shudder to envision a situation where the primary determinent of my hunting success is the almighty dollar.

Don't you think there are enough opportunities already for the rich guys to take shortcuts to their trophies and meat, if that is their desire? Perhaps with a little boot leather and lone-glassing involved, god forbid, without perpetuating a system that undermines the draw odds for the vast majority of hunters (ie. those with salaries less than 6 figures)? Let's reach a happy medium; CO is skewed towards the high $$ approach WAY too much at this point.

Doug
 
PS COHunter's proposal regarding private access would be a huge step in the right direction, and might decrease the role of the almighty $$ here.
 
Being involved in the outfitting industry, I believe in the landowner voucher system. I also believe that the diy hunter deserves his fair chance as well, but the percentage of tags that go to the landowners is very very small - 2 quick points.

1.) The landowner has to still build up points to get the tags just like the general public - these are not a gimmy tag every year. The more landowners enrolled in the system per unit the longer it takes each landowner to get a tag - currently, in some units it takes landowners longer to draw a tag than the general public (fact - do your homework).

2.) Do you actually believe the landowners are just going to roll over after years of compensation and allow free access to their lands. Too many hunters have burned too many bridges with land owners by disrespecting their land, livestock and property. I/we face these chanllenges every year (and yes, its not just diy hunters causing the distrust issues - outfitters are guilty as well). We have worked very hard with our new and old land owners to mend these wounds by being better stuards of the land, but most landowners are too far gone and have lost all trust in most hunters (diy and outfitters).

It's going to take more than a few upset hunters that feel their chance too hunt is being underminded by the "rich" guy too change the system. It's going to take all parties working together to make a more useful system. Doing away with the voucher system is not going to give you more opportunities to hunt - thats for sure.

The meeting is in Limon, CO. today from 4 pm to 8 pm - be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Bring something to the table instead of complaints !!

Robert
www.atkinsonexpeditions.com
 
The main thing I disagree with is the use of vouchers unit-wide. Wyoming's system of HMA's and WIA areas seems to be flourishing, with landowners being compensated for granting access to their lands, albiet not nearly to the extent that they are in CO with the current system. But, they are compensated, the land is still theirs, and they can pull the plug at any time. Imagine the amount of country that could be opened up to the public land hunter with a similar system in CO. The landowner pilot tags are a step in the right direction, but currently are only offered on very small scale. Regarding most areas in the state, I don't buy the wildlife damage theory in allowing voucher holders access to the entire unit. Even if a few more critters are taken by voucher holders in the unit, large landowners are going to have wintering wildlife on their property, it's just the nature of where they live. As was said above, the wildlife was there long before they were. I'd argue that the money involved in the sale of these vouchers is much more of a motivating factor that the elimination of a few critters out of the heard. The fact that landowners/ranchers play a leading role in deciding these issues says a lot about how the current system works in favor of landowners. The general trend of point creep, coupled with the existence of the current voucher system, is continuing the trend of hunting in favor of those with deep pockets. Add to that the fact that regular tag prices continue to go up and the economy continues to stink, making it a work-around just to go hunting any more.
 
HiMntHntr :

I do agree with some of what you say, but the Landowner pilot program is not the diy savior. The Division of Wildlife had good intentions with this project but it has only given the landowners more fuel for the compensation issue. When the program started they offered the landowners unreal dollars - 1.00 to 1.50 and acre. $40,000 to $50,000 to 1 land owner for the access of his land and maybe a dozen people used it - are you kidding me - where is the budget for that coming from - the general public tag sales - I think tag revenues can be more wisely spent. I know land owners that pulled out of the program due to hunter disrespect and too many wounded animals. It has its good intents, but it needs more work than the voucher system.

Robert
 
Robert: how many pref. pts. for landowners to get the tags? a few? 15-20 like some of the public units now? I highly doubt it's more than a few. Let's see, comparing a 3 or 4-pt requirement to, say, a 10-15 pt unit (public lic) like 61. Apples to oranges.

Here's some table items (repeated for the 3rd time)
1. don't allow voucher holders access to the public land on the unit.
OR, 2. restrict the distribution of vouchers to family members. Haven't heard of a revolution of landowners up in Wyoming on this one.
OR, 3. again, require the landowner to allow public access to voucher holders. Work with the landowner on some basic access rules, similar to the Ranching for Wildlife ranches.

Maybe 1 out of 3 ain't bad?

What are your table items? Status quo?
 
That's an ridiculous amount of money to give to one landowner for a very low number of hunters to access the land. As noted, Wy landowners are compensated, which is also based on the amount of deeded acres they have. While I don't know the figure, it must be competitive as landowners could easily sell out to an outfitter. As far as disrespect to the land is concerned, it is a shame that will always be an issue. In some WIA and HMA that I have hunted, G&F maintains a pretty regular presence in these areas, as do landowners/managers in some cases. Landowners can pull the plug at anytime, so it's up to the G&F and hunters to maintain good relations. The G&F does a pretty good job of outlining and enforcing rules, and use of motorized vehicles is highly limited.


If I were a private landowner with a large chunck of country, I'd be applying for these vouchers as well, but the loophole allowing voucher holders to hunt the entire unit is outrageous. Tags should only be good for that ranch, and if a voucher for that ranch sells for 10 grand, so be it. Other smaller landowners would be inclined to accept compensation from the state to allow pubic access to their land. As it stands now, it's possible for a landowner with a relatively small property to charge a ton of money for a voucher.
 
Doug :

Here in lies the problem with the our discussion - western versus eastern. A 3 or 4 point draw for a public hunter in eastern Colorado means 5 to 7 for a eastern Colorado land owner. When you mention the western units - I will conseed to your point - that is a problem and I don't have the answers. The system is flawed to an extent, but to completely take it away would also be a travisty. Not all parts of the state are part public / part private - limiting access to public ground is just descrimination in the other direction.

There are millions of acres of public land in the state of Colorado. Some easily accessable and some not so easily accessible. Most private ground has more access than public ground from a hunter stand point, but to require a land owner to allow public hunting without compensation is also not fair.

Table items :

1.) Put a cap on the amount a voucher can be sold for ( try enforcing that one).

2.) Possibly have the land owner agree to letting a percentage of hunters access the land - what if the landowner only gets 1 tag due to poperty amounts enrolled. The maximum amount of tags that can be applied for for each spiecies each year is 6 - regardless of acres - doesn't take into account for any more than 6000 deeded acres / unless there is more than 1 owner and deeded seperately.

3.) The ranching for wildlife program is run by outfitters - the outfitter gets 10 tags to 1 public tag (not backed by facts, but general idea) - how is that any better than the current landowner voucher system - the outfitter gets to set the access dates for the public.

4.) I don't have the answers !! But taking the voucher system away from landowners creates more problems than just the rancher missing out on some additional yearly income - not all these ranchers are "Rich" - they may be "Land Rich" but dirt poor otherwise. To the root of it for me / us, we would loose out on clients that did not draw in the drawing - maybe 20% of our business - maybe 50% to 80% for someone else. These vouchers have a huge economic impact for not only outfitters but local economies and families.

I don't want anybody to miss out on an opportunity to hunt - DIY or Guided. The landowner voucher program is important to the way of life for some and the greedy have taken it too far. How do we fix it, I repeat - I don't have the answers. Status Quo is not an option either, but this program is vital to the hunting industry in Colorado and some ranching families of Colorado.

A final note - there are brokers on this site and they make a living off of this program. Even though the voucher can only go from the Landowners hands to the hunters hands, it crosses many paths and flows through many pockets before that hunter signs his name on it. The public knowledge of top trophy producing units has further increased these voucher costs - it's a different time and the value of information is exponetial.

I feel as if I'm in a tail spin so I'll take my leave.

Robert
 
Hello again Robert- I can see some of these points and hadn't thought of it that way. One thing- for RFW, seems that the DOW works pretty closely with the rancher/outfitter on ranch rules. Doesn't this reduce the slob hunter factor?

I can understand the "dirt poor" factor. Let me ask you this: approx. what percentage of $$ ends up in the landowner's pocket after the path of the voucher is complete, start-to-finish? Any ideas? Maybe if there was a way to guarantee that a certain % of the total $$ involved goes to habitat improvement/maintenance? Another one of those approaches that could be too expensive to monitor/enforce?
 
MuleyBuck009

As for your table issues

1)Landowners have it much easier for a lot of units to get their 6 tags plus leftovers. I know this for a fact becuase I enrolled a lady in the program and got her 3 for land size plus 2 leftover vouchers. This is possible in all but a few trophy GMU's. As for it taking landowners longer to draw in the voucher vs public draw, they have the option of applying to both draws. And again they own the land, not the wildlife

2) Landowners have the right to deny access to their land, but if they want vouchers they should have to open it up to the public. Why should they get something for nothing?

Your right about it taking more than a few hunters complaining to change the system, but thanks to the internet and other media sources more and more hunters are becoming aware of this screwed up program
 
Guess we will see who will feel the same when they lose there yearly stabbing of the majority hunter every year in Colorado and draw like the rest of us.
I have nothing against landowners trying to make a buck but they can still do it with trespass and guide fees as I stated. If they cannot then there land should have not been eligible in the first place for high dollar tags.
If it's made only available for the land it was meant for I bet less "handsome" grip and grin photo's of the same people abusing the system every year would appear.
Best,
Jerry


44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
This sounds like another "it's not fair that that guy has more money than me" rants.

Lets say that you put up the money to apply for elk and deer in 5-6 western states every year. You apply for the "trophy" units and it roughly cost you $1500 to $2000 every year to do so. Yeah, you get some back if you don't draw, but you still have to have the cash to put it up front.

So 10 years down the road you haven't drawn anything and got to stay home. If you would have put that same money toward a landowner voucher, you would have possibly 6 or 7 trophy's on your wall in that same 10 yr period. So maybe it's not that the other guy has more than you, maybe he just spends his money smarter. Whatever route you choose, don't be jealous of the guy that chose a different way.

Look on the bright side. You have a bunch of hunting licenses in other states that you will never use.

If you think it is unfair, maybe you should take advantage of what all this country has to offer and start a business, take risk, invest, etc. But that would require some ambition and most people are just comfortable living paycheck to paycheck, and say that is not fair that my nieghbor worked hard and has nice things.

By the way, I have never had the money to buy one, but to the guys that can, I say good for you.

oakbrush
 
I agree, good for the guys that can afford a voucher. They're not breaking the law. If I had lots of money I might buy one of those vouchers. But, wouldn't it be nice to know that a great big ranch was just opened up for public access, per an agreement between the landowner and the state that was mutually beneficial? If the current voucher system were modified, at least in some areas (ie: east vs. west) to allow vouchers only good for the ranch, more landowners might be inclined to lease hunting over to the state while still maintaining ownership of the land. As of now, many landowners don't have that incentive because they can sell a tag for gobbs of cash that some guys are willing to dish out. Allocating tags to landowners for use on their land is one thing, allowing the tag to be good for the entire unit is quite another. I realize all areas are different and there may be good arguments to be made for keeping some tags available for use unit-wide, but state-wide it's BS.

Jealously and logic don't go together very well. If you see this a jealously issue then you are missing the point.
 
Doug :

This is a tough issue and public debate makes it that much sweeter - thank you !!

As for what % of money ends up back in the landowners hand, I can only testify to how our landowners work. As far as I know our landowners charge between 500.00 to a 1000.00 for mule deer vouchers (never seen a client pay more than that), 250.00 to 500.00 for antelope vouchers and have never delt with elk vouchers. All of this money ends up in our landowners pocket - we do not step on or get involved with the transaction only the facilitation of putting the two persons in contact with one another. Our business is with taking the hunter hunting. As for the type of bucks being killed on those vouchers - I took a archery client in Eastern Colorado last November and we killed a 36 wide 230" non-typical with a landowner voucher (the hunter either paid 500.00 for the voucher or it was included in his hunt package - not sure). You don't have to pay 6,000.00 to 10,000.00 for a voucher to kill a giant - you just have to be in the game - Colorado gives you that ability.

The Ranching for Wildlife program does weed out a large portion of the undesireables and minimizes hunter / landowner conflict So does an outfitter operating on private ground - the difference is that we don't get a boat load of tags issued to us to manage the property, we have to find hunters with tags or find vouchers for the units we hunt.

Thanks for your time Doug - let me know if I can ever help you with anything. We / I will hope for better accountability from the brokers - everybody has to eat and our country was built on a free market. Good luck to all with tags in their pockets for this fall.

HiMntHntr :

I agree 100% on the state wide vs unit wide - keep the state wide tags to a minimum of 2 to 4 a year - mainly for raffles and auctions - that money does go to good causes and organizations that really need it !!

Best Regards,

Robert
www.atkinsonexpeditions.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-10 AT 09:05PM (MST)[p]Founder is right on and I say this as a hunter who can't afford a voucher over $500. Here are some facts from my personal Colorado landowner friend:

He manages a ranch in Eagle County. It's worth 8 million dollars (purchased in late 90's for 3 million.)

The ranch generates about 20 to 30 thousand per year from the vouchers. The ranch manager told me that was one incentive the landowner cited when he decided NOT to sell the ranch for the 5 million dollar profit he would've made if he'd accepted the 8 million offer in 2008.

The people that wanted the ranch wanted to subdivide and build million dollar homes which were selling like hotcakes at the time. It's still great winter range, in part because of the vouchers.

The Christian
 
Im average Joe hunter and believe the system works well and puts a little cash in the landowners hand.
 
I was unemployed for most of the summer in 09 and unsuccessful in the draw. It was looking like a depressing fall. Fortunately I found a rancher with some tags that let me work off the cost of one.($1000) Three weeks I worked my butt off doing whatever grunt work there was to do and was happy to do it. Averaged about $5 an hour. I would do it again in a second to have a chance to hunt.

Now that my son is 12, if he doesnt draw a tag, ill do whatever it takes to get him a voucher.

The system has some problems for sure, but while it may take away opportunity away in some respects, it also provides opportunity. I have had 5 vouchers over the years (2 last year,deer and antelope) only one of which I paid anything for, and 3 that were out right free.
 
The fact is Landowner vouchers make landowners way more willing to tolerate large amounts of wildlife or their property. I spend a large amount of time in NW Colorado and a huge percentage of wildlife that call CO home winter on private property.
The amount of vouchers a landowner recieves should be directly proportional to the benifit that wildlife and sportsmen reap from the landowner actions. Meaning landowners should get more chances at drawing vouchers for things like building wildlife friendly fences, water sources, habitat improvement, responsible grazing, and letting sportsmen hunt the property in question.
The percentage of vouchers should be proportional to the amount of private property in any given unit. A unit that is 90% private should recieve a larger amount of vouchers than a unit that is 90% public.
In Short Landowners should be rewarded for being good stewards to wildlife.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-14-10 AT 09:12AM (MST)[p]One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the DOW payouts that compensate land owners for lost crops, broken fences, etc. I couldn't dig up an exact number, but I believe it typically runs in the millions annually. This money comes out of the DOW budget which is mostly comprised of big game license sales. So anyone purchasing a license is already contributing to the support of wildlife on private land.

Here is an article by the late Charlie Meyers who was often the voice of reason when it came to wildlife issues in Colorado. He makes some good points concerning the reform of the voucher program.
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=46684
 
The DOW paid $1,657,252 for game dameage last year. An additional $396,036 was spent on "improving landowner relations"

The combined Deer & Elk management budget is $2,897,656.

Just a drop in the bucket of the DOW's $121,958,801 annual budget which is bigger than Utah & New Mexico's combined

Just incase you were curious
 
Robert-thanks for clearing that up, and presenting some facts that I was not aware of. Your system seems to work in some cases. I suspect though that the $$s paid in some other areas are much greater and a significant portion of the $$ is going to intermediaries, when it really should be going for something that benefits wildlife. After all, the wildlife present is the bottom line: without it, there are no 15-yr waits OR expensive vouchers.

More power to the guy who worked off the voucher tag cost by helping out the rancher. Again, I suspect this is rarely the case, but perhaps there is a way to encourage this type of setup. And thanks for the Meyers link/Denver post. It's too bad he's not there anymore. The Ritter thing is puzzling and I can't help but suspect that big $$s are playing a role there too. I'm open to other explanations.

I won't deny that jealousy runs in my blood (as it does everyone's) but I try to get beyond that when writing in a forum. There's got to be a good compromise and there have been several compromises mentioned in this forum over the last 2 days.
 
Why not have the Colorado landowner program fall more inline with New Mexico's. The landowner tags can either be for private land only or for Unit wide tags.
The private land only tags would probably cost less (not in all situations but in most). The private land only tags would ensure hunters access to the land for which the tag was given.
The unit wide tags would open more areas to all hunters (I think Co unit 40 would be a great example). The unit wide tags would probably sell for more money than the private land only tags giving landowners incentive to open the land s for hunters.
This would enable to landowners who are getting the tags to choose between more money (more access for all hunters) or more controlled hunt numbers (less hunters but more access control).
Just a thought but it would be a good way to open some new areas for all and still allow landowners compensation for their losses. JMO
 
Everytime these debates come up jealousy is raised as a reason many do not agree with the current system.
I guarantee I could play the game if I wanted to and I do know more landowners than most on these forums.....Yet if someone truely feels stongly one way or the other then they do not compromise there beliefs and opinions at the expense of others.
Hunting on public ground happens to be what I decide to pursue and I do not look down on all that hunt private land.
Feeling strongly that the system is broken and needs a major revamp is obvious and is the reason these reviews come up more and more frequently.
If I was in the minority in this then why are these landowner tags continually being scutinized and changed?
I enjoy the hunt and the effort I put into it whether successful or not has alot to do with why I hunt in the first place.
If you knew me, where I live and those I know you would see I could easily show up every year on these forums with a big buck.
When offered chances to hunt a deer that shows up like clockwork in a farmed field, winter grounds on private or late season tags when a buck is as dumb as a rock is just plain too easy. When I explain this to a landowner and how I enjoy trying to outwit a buck and actually hunt more than just shoot they actually shake my hand and say they respect my decision and are glad there are still guys like me around. Usually then they tell me hilarious stories about guys that do not know what real hunting is about "there words" that show up every year.... Horror stories of trespassers and those that will do anything at any expense for a deer rack abusing there land they work and pay for.
The system is more and more trying to be played by those that only care about posting grip and grin pictures to brag at all expense no matter the cost or ethics and that is the real problem.
Best,
Jerry






44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
I've been gone the past couple days since my original post and there are some great ideas on both sides of the fence.

Currently there is a fairly high percentage of total tags available in Colorado for hunting private land. Obviously RFW tags, landowner tags, and also not mentioned anywhere above....private land only tags.

I compliment the CDOW for offering private land only tags through the public draw. The hunter that draws PLO tags has the opportunity to hunt private land PLUS has the option of hiring a guide, paying a trespass fee, or getting permission directly from a rancher. Guides and ranchers are likely very happy with this "old fashion" scenerio that has worked in many states for over 100 years! Generally PLO tags are a lot easier to draw than general unit wide tags.

If you ask me, private land only tags solve a lot of problems and headaches. Tags aren't auctioned to the highest bidder, no access problems between ranchers/tag pimps and the hunters that purchase LO tags and want access to the property for which the LO tag was intended, none of the numerous tag pimp issues.

More important than anything else, private land only tags relieve hunting pressure on public land! If a higher percent of LO tags were switched over to private land owner tags in the public draw this would likely solve a lot of problems and headaches on all sides.
 
Making anyone who buys a landowner tag use their pref. points; it would help with points creep as well as reduce the ridiculous prices of these tags. Right now it's just a loophole for people to cut in line while they aquire enough points to draw.
 
>Everytime these debates come up jealousy
>is raised as a reason
>many do not agree with
>the current system.
>I guarantee I could play the
>game if I wanted to
>and I do know more
>landowners than most on these
>forums.....Yet if someone truely feels
>stongly one way or the
>other then they do not
>compromise there beliefs and opinions
>at the expense of others.
>
>Hunting on public ground happens to
>be what I decide to
>pursue and I do not
>look down on all that
>hunt private land.
>Feeling strongly that the system is
>broken and needs a major
>revamp is obvious and is
>the reason these reviews come
>up more and more frequently.
>
>If I was in the minority
>in this then why are
>these landowner tags continually being
>scutinized and changed?
>I enjoy the hunt and the
>effort I put into it
>whether successful or not has
>alot to do with why
>I hunt in the first
>place.
>If you knew me, where I
>live and those I know
>you would see I could
>easily show up every year
>on these forums with a
>big buck.
>When offered chances to hunt a
>deer that shows up like
>clockwork in a farmed field,
>winter grounds on private or
>late season tags when a
>buck is as dumb as
>a rock is just plain
>too easy. When I explain
>this to a landowner and
>how I enjoy trying to
>outwit a buck and actually
>hunt more than just shoot
>they actually shake my hand
>and say they respect my
>decision and are glad there
>are still guys like me
>around. Usually then they tell
>me hilarious stories about guys
>that do not know what
>real hunting is about "there
>words" that show up every
>year.... Horror stories of trespassers
>and those that will do
>anything at any expense for
>a deer rack abusing there
>land they work and pay
>for.
>The system is more and more
>trying to be played by
>those that only care about
>posting grip and grin pictures
>to brag at all expense
>no matter the cost or
>ethics and that is the
>real problem.
>Best,
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
44f4e09309b4a917.jpg



Geezus, spare us the BS.
 
I also believe landowner tags should be abolished! From a legal standpoint alone, it shouldn't be legal. There is a bias based on quantity of land. I own land in 44, but I get no preference.
How is it legal that someone that owns 160+ acres gets a license, that is for a state owned animal, and can be used on public owned land...but someone that owns 1 acre, doesn't have any rights, even though it is for the same state owned animal, and wants to hunt public land?

Also, the DOW gets $40 per tag regardless, so why should a landowner get to make $10k on a tag, for an animal that is owned by the state? Why can't I sell my tag? Seems like I should have the same right, especially if I have to wait 5+ years to get one.

I believe in WY, the landowner tags can only be transfered to blood relatives. If the CO DOW wants to keep landowner tags, it should only be valid on the private land where it originated, and should not be able to be sold for more than face value. Ticket scalping at concerts and sporting events is illegal, so why is this any different?

PS. I have no lost love for outfitters or landowners. Outfitters have done more damage to Colorado's herds than any wolf could ever dream.

And the poor landowners, same BS sob story everywhere you go. They complain about the animals destroying their land, but won't let you hunt. Hell, I wanted to go whack some hogs in TX, and even though they are "destroying ranchers livelyhoods" they want you to pay them to smoke a few. $$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Regardless whatever becomes of landowner tags, it would be nice to see more private ground opened up to hunting.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
>Nows your chance guys to take
>part and let your voice
>be heard in regard to
>the current Colo landowner vouncher
>program. If you are
>like me you believe this
>system is a big scam!
> Every big game tag
>that goes into this program
>is 1 less tag available
>to the public in the
>draw.
>
>Does any of this seem fair?
> If you believe the
>Colo LO voucher system is
>a joke and needs to
>be changed now is your
>chance to let the CDOW
>know. You can email,
>phone, attend a meeting etc.
> Make certain to clearly
>and rationally explain your recommendations
>for change. If enough
>of us are willing to
>do this the system will
>likely change for the better
>of everyone rather than the
>few that can afford high
>demand and high dollar LO
>vouchers!


Holy Cow! This sounds just like our wonderful socialist/communist administration. Lets all live together in misery, rather than someone have something that others don't.

"Does any of this seem fair", what is this, 3rd grade??? Of course its fair, its called free-Market Capitalism. Sorry you chose to work in a profession that does NOT enable you to afford the luxuries that others can, but that was YOUR CHOICE. Opportunity is what you make of it. Stop whining like a little girl and realize that landowners, gas stations, hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and many, many others, are every bit entitled to their ability to earn a living, and reap the benefits from the services and products they provide, including loads of private wildlife habitat. Habitat that in many cases provides greatly for YOUR precious wildlife, habitat that certainly pays many more millions in tax dollars each year, than you the individual hunter.

I honestly have never understood the narrow minded selfishness of some, simply because there is something out there that they can't have or get???

By the way, I can't afford most of the LO tags either. But I surely support our free market - capitalist society that gave EVERYONE of us the opportunity to live the great life we have here in the U.S.
 
The CDOW may have changed the regs to say that LO's must let tagholders access their land, but what I have found is that the LO's wont sell you a tag if you want to hunt their land!
 
Be careful what you wish for. Take away the landowner tag program and it will take away hunting oportunities for you.

Think about it..

Landowner tags being available to the guys with the cash is a good thing. It keeps them out of the running for the 2nd choice and leftover tags. If you take away the landowner tag option, you can kiss your leftover and 2nd choice hunts good by. Let the rich guys do thier thing. By keeping them out of the draw, it leaves some options for the rest of us.

oakbrush
 
That's funny! The lion's share of guys who buy these are not going to be participating in leftover or 2nd choice hunting areas. That's not how they roll.. too much time, effort and hunting ability required.. less of a sure thing.

Landowner vouchers and similar programs that take more tags for "public wildlife" from the public and give them to landownwers, outfitters, and fat-walleted safari clowns are going to be the ruin of hunting in the west. Goodbye Colorado.. Hello Texas! Some will be very happy about this, big big deer, big racks for their walls, and happy landowners and outfitters with a stack of cash from the clowns willing to pay.

The mule deer are eating the landowners out of house and home, ruining thier fences - and the landowners need to be "compensated".. what a bunch of crap!
 
I think that the Colorado System is the best of any State. I wish more State would follow. It compensates landowners so they actually want to help the wildlife and it gives opportunities for people who do not draw tags to still purchase a tag and hunt.
 
Going in a different direction. Is there a website or place to go to see what LO tags are issued, and to whom? CO and UT for that matter.
 
>I think that the Colorado System
>is the best of any
>State. I wish more
>State would follow. It
>compensates landowners so they actually
>want to help the wildlife
>and it gives opportunities for
>people who do not draw
>tags to still purchase a
>tag and hunt.


This isn't 1970. Most of the landowners in my area don't even live here, and wouldn't know the difference between an elk and a deer if it bit them on the ass.

How can someone claim this is capitalism? Making money off a government program through entitlements is not a free market!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-20-10 AT 03:35PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-20-10 AT 02:49?PM (MST)

>How can someone claim this is
>capitalism? Making money off a
>government program through entitlements is
>not a free market!

To claim anything else is nothing more than socialism!

Entitlement, your kidding right?? Probably not, so let's visit that thought for a minute as it pertains to this whole issue.

You actually think the landowners get vouchers for no other reason than entitlement?? Do you think they acquired their land by entitlement too?? Likely not, probably more like they PAID for it, with their own, after tax dollars! Land that they ALSO pay COLORADO STATE taxes on, land that often times supports "YOUR" precious wildlife, that only you should be ENTITLED to, apparently! Land that is often made better for wildlife use and conservation, because many of the landowners care for the big game, and want to see them prosper, etc, etc, etc.

The real ironic point of all this, at least to me anyway, is the fact that folks like you think that ONLY you, the "average" hunter, should be ENTITLED to the permits across the state of Colorado. You claim selfish greed on the part of landowners, and "rich" hunters, but yet your claim that ALL of the tags should be reserved for "you-public hunter", is nothing more than plain greed in reverse! Hypocrisy at its finest!!

What about places where the units are predominately Private Land, places like east of I-25 for example. Many units on the plains have hardly a stitch of public land, yet only 15% of the tags are set aside for landowners. In this case, LANDOWNERS are providing almost 100% of the wildlife habitat for the game that in-habits their land. Grazing that their cattle use, crops that they grow to earn a living, etc. All of which is used or consumed by the wildlife that lives there. If it weren't for landowners ALL ACROSS the state of Colorado, the habitat they provide, and their tolerance of the game on their land, likely the wildlife would be alot worse off. Yet your selfish minded mentality is that, NO ONE BUT THE PUBLIC HUNTER should be "entitled" to tags.

I don't claim that ALL the tags should go to the landowners either, I too want to draw a tag. But to be so selfish as to not think others who help provide the very reason that much of OUR wildlife is here in the first place, shouldn't also get their cut, is shameful. Not to mention all the other entities that benefit from hunting, and out-of-state hunters. Like I mentioned earlier, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, outfitters, sporting goods stores, etc. I suppose you say, "to hell with them, it should all be for me"???

By the way, did you know the current stats show that roughly 50% of the landowner vouchers were purchased by COLORADO RESIDENTS in 2009? Along with landowners, non-residents and rational people, a lot of the residents don't agree with you either!

Your ideas are just another example of SOCIALISM - We all should live in misery, rather than a few good men prosper.

You must have voted for Obama??????
 
Great post. This topic gives a lot of insight into how people feel in general. Many of those with strong feelings want the "rich" or those they perceive as rich to foot the bill for everything and get nothing out of it. Let the rich guy pay the taxes he can afford it. Let him risk his money on businesses and tax the heck out of him if he makes anything but by the way can I have a job and have him pay into unemployment for me so if I lose the job someone will still pay me and let my kids go to school even though someone else is paying the bulk of the taxes that provide the schools. Most dont want to take a hard look in the mirror and realize they could have more tomorrow if they gave up a little today instead they want to complain the system is unfair if they cant have everything their neighbor has even if their neighbor is working twice as hard. I would bet I could look at most peoples finances and see that they could afford landowner tags if they spent as much time working harder or planning financially and having some discipline as they do pissing and moaning about what they dont have!
 
Landowners ARE ENTITLED to do whatever they want with their property. However, the fact remains that they do not own the wildlife. Why is it so "unfair", "greedy" or considered "whining" to suggest that everybody should have equal chance at obtaining a license, whether it be a landowner, outfitter, average hunter, or a safari clown?

Do mule deer actually "compete" with livestock for feed? Do they tramatize fences?

Do you think Texas is the role model for wildlife management and quality hunting opportunities?
 
Also, pretty easy to see who makes their living off the safari clowns. You guys are like clones.. :D
 
As far as landowner tags go everyone who is eligible to hunt biggame in Colorado has the opportunity to purchase a landowner tag. I have never purchased a Colorado landowner tag but that seems pretty fair to me.
 
>Landowners ARE ENTITLED to do whatever
>they want with their property.
>However, the fact remains that
>they do not own the
>wildlife. Why is it
>so "unfair", "greedy" or considered
>"whining" to suggest that everybody
>should have equal chance at
>obtaining a license, whether it
>be a landowner, outfitter, average
>hunter, or a safari clown?
>
>
>Do mule deer actually "compete" with
>livestock for feed? Do they
>tramatize fences?
>
>Do you think Texas is the
>role model for wildlife management
>and quality hunting opportunities?


Who said anything about Texas????? That's like comparing Apples to Oranges!

Don't look now but you just made my point for me! When you say "everyone" should have an equal chance to get a tag. Aren't non-residents, landowners and outfitters, EVERYONE?? Yep, think so. So according to your theory, we should put all of the tags in each unit, into ONE big draw, valid for residents, non-residents, landowners and outfitters, and let the chips fall where they may. Sounds ok to me, and it would definitely quiet all of the "ITS NOT FAIR" critics as well. Now it would be totally fair to everyone. If all of them go to landowners & non-residents, so be it!! Now what do you think about your "fair to everyone theory"? Besides, "fair" is just another term invented by socialists, so they can reap the benefits of others hard work, by doing nothing!

I never said that deer "compete" for feed with livestock either. What I said was "wildlife is utilizing the same private land in which the landowner is using for his cattle (ie - his livelihood), they certainly eat crops when available, at some cost to the landowner, and all the while the landowner is expected to tolerate this, without any consideration at all for the role they play in helping the wildlife prosper.

And yes, wildlife do often times cause damage to landowner property! Come on man, get your head out of the sand.
 
Yup.. it sounds fair to me.. as a non-resident that would be great! :D But really, residents deserve a fair shake for the tags, whether they are landowners, outfitters or not... as the deer are owned by COLORADO.

Having grown up on a family "ranch" in my state, with deer, I think the whimper about "deer" eating the crops and destroying fences warrenting compensation is absolute CRAP!

Change your handle to anotheroutftr or anthertagpimp.
 
>Yup.. it sounds fair to me..
>as a non-resident that would
>be great! :D
>But really, residents deserve a
>fair shake for the tags,
>whether they are landowners, outfitters
>or not... as the deer
>are owned by COLORADO.
>
>Having grown up on a family
>"ranch" in my state, with
>deer, I think the whimper
>about "deer" eating the crops
>and destroying fences warrenting compensation
>is absolute CRAP!
>
>Change your handle to anotheroutftr or
>anthertagpimp.

What's a safari clown????

You seem to agree with most of what I said, based on your quote above. You're right, the game is owned by the "people of Colorado", landowners, resident hunters, and outfitters included. They all deserve a fair shake, we agree.

However, I NEVER said in my post that landowners deserve compensation for game damage!!! I said, game does "use" the land, and sometimes cause damage. My argument isn't about compensation for landowners, its against those on here that think ONLY the "Average Joe - Public Hunter", should be ENTITLED to all the tags, period! That's simply a small-minded, selfish mentality, that reminds me of a bunch of third graders that never learned to share!

What's a tag pimp??
 
I was the one who in an earlier post said that wildlife does damage to property. One of the landowners whom I have dealt with quite a lot has had the elk destroy many fences. My point IS NOT that landowners are SOLELY being compensated for that, but for all they offer and because they are a part of the system that will inprove wildlife quality.

Landowners are not required to allow wildlife on their land. I know for a fact that in many areas, landowners complain about deer and elk trampling yards and eating yard plants in the winter. Those complaints often lead to game agencies deciding to reduce herd sizes in an effort to "grease the squeaky wheel" (please complaining home owners). What that means is doe tags and overall tag increases happen and herd numbers are reduced and that means less tags for the general public. That's my point. Landowners are part of the team and I don't believe sportsmen should be asking landowners to tolerate OUR wildlife all year so that we can come shoot at them for a week each year. In my opinion, that is a selfish position.

As I've said, if there are other, better ways to give landowners a vested interest in wildlife herd increases, then I'm all for it.
Sportsmen and game agencies benefit from larger, higher quality herds, and the landowners who provide valuable winter/summer range should to.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-20-10 AT 10:41PM (MST)[p]Founder, Agreed. In my opinion there's better ways to do it than to carve out a chunk of available licenses give them to landowners/outfitters to resell. They should be given out fairly - landowners can choose to profit off the wildlife in other ways, access, outfitting, etc.
 
They have found a way to profit off the wildlife, landowner tags. Many have tried the options you listed...access, outfitting, etc. Like I have said before, winter range is rarely land that is worth a crap for hunting during the regular seasons. The whole point of unitwide vouchers is so that their vouchers allow them, or whomever they choose, to hunt some of the deer that they may support during the winter.
People keep bringing up the hunting of the private lands. Private land vouchers would have done the job if they worked for every landowner. They do not!!!! Therefore landowners worked towards these unitwide vouchers. They did just what you wanted them to do, find their own way to profit from the wildlife they tolerate and feed all winter. Maybe sportsmen should have come up with something before the unitwide vouchers came into existance, and there would be no such thing.

PS - They don't give them to outfitters. Landowners draw them out of pool (15%), then the landowner can either use the voucher or sell it. Some of the ones who hunt, use them. The ones that don't hunt, sell them. A guy like myself who has a couple hundred dollars extra to spend on a nice hunt, might buy one. A guy like myself (and I have always considered myself an "Average Joe") gets to go hunting. And the landowner, he gets to go do something he likes to do....maybe scuba diving or something. When winter rolls around and there are 20 head of deer raiding the landowners yard plants and trampling his grass, and 12-18 elk that jump his fence (some get hung up and tear it down sometimes) every night to get into the fields, he deals with it. He has a vested interest in those animals. Those animals, much like his small herd of cattle, supply him with the money he needs to feed the family or take a vacation. He wants those animals in his yard, rather than calling CDOW every month in the middle of the winter complaining about damaged fences and all the deer in his yard. The end result (I believe), the unit can support more deer for us "Average Joes" to go shoot at for a week each year. I believe that 15% that is given to landowners pays for itself in most places, and will in the long run in every place in Colorado.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Contact the Colorado DOW regarding this issue and the state elected officials with your views on this.
It is pointless arguing back and forth with each other since we are not going to change each others minds.
Besides some on here are posting double posts under fake sign in names trying to stir the pot anonymously like so many other discussions in the past...Notice the pattern.
Let's stop the fleecing of our hunting sport so our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. It's up to us the majority to get it done.
P.S.-A great way to show a landowner you care is to do something
for them without wanting anything in return. You may make life long friends and you will be respected more than the guy that only cares to get some money or tag each year.
Best,
Jerry
 
Founder, Understood, and appreciate the reply. But we'll probably just have to agree to disagree that the voucher process is the way to go. Good hunting.
 
I would definitely agree that getting involved is the way to steer things in the way that YOU think is right. But just saying, "do away with vouchers!!!", but not having other solutions, will not go far.

Has there ever been a worthy replacement program suggested? Or has the opponents to landowner vouchers always just wanted to "take them away" without any thought of a NEW program?

PS - I don't think these discussions are pointless TheKnack. I think it's important for people to hear all sides and arguments and then decide how they feel from there. That IS one of the purposes of this website. There are lots of people who read the threads here who don't want to post, but want to hear arguments FOR and AGAINST landowner vouchers, then adjust their opinions.

And TheKnack, are you volunteering to haul some junk out of some farmer yards this summer? LOL I'm sure there's some landowners who will be your friend if you can get that done. LOL

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
How about we keep them, but take them out of the Nonresident side of the drawing quota since they can be transfered to anyone?

Or make the vouchers transferable to Residents/Nonresidents the same 65/35 in general GMU's and 80/20 in the GMU's that require 5 points or more in the regular drawing?
 
According to CDOW numbers, about half of the landowner vouchers do go to residents of Colorado.

The problem with limiting "WHO" a landowner can sell the vouchers to or how they sell them, limits the value of the vouchers, which defeats the purpose in a way.

I don't know. I would definitely agree that the program has flaws and needs attention. For me, I would say that unless there is a replacement program to give landowners a vested interest in wildlife, then these unitwide vouchers are here to stay, so effort needs to be put towards how to reward the landowners who are providing the best winter habitat and weed out the guys who are getting vouchers for land that is worthless to wildlife.
A habitat audit or something needs to happen, then a landowners land would qualify based on what that land offers to wildlife. It shouldn't be based solely on acreage, as not all acreage is created equal or benefits the wildlife the same.
Another issue I see that seems wrong is that the value of vouchers to each landowner varies so much. A landowner in a great unit could sell one 3rd season voucher for $5000.00, while a guy across the highway in another unit can only get $600.00 for a 3rd season voucher, yet both landowners provide the same habitat, have the same number of wintering wildlife on their land, etc. The value of vouchers is ultimately determined by CDOW, based on how they manage a unit, and the quality of wildlife in the unit.

??????????????????????????

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Also according to DOW figures, about 60% of Buck Deer tags are being redeemed by Nonresidents.

Just keeping the info put out honest ;-)
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-10 AT 03:59PM (MST)[p]Brian,
Have you ever met me or the landowners surrounding me? Guess you would have a real basis to answer on then wouldn't you.
So far we know by your own words that you have sold tags, use landowner tags and have shot a buck in front of a kid and his dad that tried for the same deer....Not my words but your own.
The picture should already be clear as to who actually gives a dang about these tags or not.
There are givers and takers in this world.
We can let everyone on here decide for themselves and form there own opinion on who is who.
Best,
Jerry Knack- TheKnack



44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
I'm EVIL knack, [font size=+2]EVIL!!![/font] HA HA HA. And I take no prisoners and have no mercy. Old women, young children and everyone in between, look out, cause here I come!!! I'm a landowner voucher user, landowner voucher buyer, landowner voucher seller and shoot deer other people empty their guns on. I SHOULD BE LOCKED UP!!! LOL
Your funny.

Really buddy, I like you. I respect your opinion. If it's possible, I'm sure your even a better hunter and person that you have said you are. I'm very happy that you share your opinion. That's what the site is for. It's healthy. I think you're taking offense to what I've said. Good heck dude, I just have a different opinion. Who cares. I don't know what you're talking about when you mention the landowners that live around you. I was just joking about you hauling junk for landowners. Just playing with you because you were talking about what a great guy you are. Just messin' with ya.

Whatever you do though, don't put a good, cheap voucher in front of me, because I will buy it, and don't ask me to sell a good, cheap voucher, because I will sell it, and whatever you do, don't empty your gun on a big ole' buck, because I won't wait for you to reload. hehehehehe

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-10 AT 06:17AM (MST)[p]Does anyone not remember what happened in Colorado in the 90's when they went to 100% public draw thinking that landowners would allow the public to access their land. Didn't happen! Elk herds expolded because their was no harvest on private land. The herds found sanctuary on the private lands. THE DOW HAD TO GO BACK to a permit system in order to sustain harvest or risk disease over grazing on public lands when the animals moved back on. From a resource standpoint you have to have harvest goals and keep things in check or there won't be anything to hunt at some point. NM's system works fairly well with exception of the unit wide scenario. I do wish that could go away. I'd bet if Colorado got rid of the unit wide scenario that would help calm the storm. Personally, I like having the option of draw and if I strike out and happen to have the desire and money I can still go via private land. Best of both worlds.
 
JFWRC, I don't think you want to bring NM's screwy system into this....it is a joke..especially the rifle antelope system!

If you are a guide, outfitter, or rancher it is fine but if you are an average Joe that likes to draw tags and have the option of hiring a guide or hunting unit wide on public land you are totally screwed!

I know this is off the subject of Colo deer but I am having a hard time following your scenerio in regard to Colo elk explosion due to 100% public draw? Colo has had unlimited elk tags in 80%+ of the elk units since day 1.

It is pretty wild that landowners will complain about elk tearing down their fences and eating their hay when they don't allow cow elk hunters on their property? I'd have to say that is the landowners fault more than anything.

Obviously it is cow tags that keep elk numbers in check. The CDOW is going out of their way to offer additional private land only cow tags, extended cow seasons, etc. It really doesn't do much good if landowners don't allow access....whether it is in CO or NM!
 
I love How everyone is claiming their pulic wildlife, But the Landowner has to feed and water them. But shouldn't recieve any money for doing this. When was the last time you stopped by a farmers house and handed him a check for feeding your PUBLIC wildlife. LOL
Maybe you guys should drop off a few steers too and ask him to fatten them up for free too in case you don't get a deer this fall.
Landowner tags are just another resource for a landower to make money.
Now what needs changed if he get those tags the hunting should be his ranch that what they should only be used for that ranch, or open up his land for the public to hunt also, Kind of like NM unit wide or Ranch only type tags.
Maybe the DOW should be the tag pimp. LOL


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
If you return to the good ole days where everyone is equal for drawing tags and deciding whether they want to hunt on their own, hunt public or private land, hire a guide, or pay a trespass fee....this actually makes a lot of sense and solves a bunch of problems.

I have a feeling everyone would agree this is the simplest draw system available? With this system everyone pays the same price for a tag no matter whether you are average Joe hunter, millionaire Jim Bob hunter, rancher, guide, or landowner.

Current landowner voucher tags bi-passes the draw system and tags are only available to hunters that can afford them. To top things off hunters that can afford vouchers bi-pass the pref pt system, do not use points when tags are bought, and can potentially hunt a unit every year rather than waiting in line for high demand tags.

I am trying to make sense in regard to some of Founders statements and am a little be-wildered! If you think about it, with a simple draw system landowners do have a vested interest in wildlife and are rewarded for improving wildlife habitat. Landowners can directly charge what they want for access to hunt their property. If they manage their property for monster bucks and bulls they will likely benefit with higher $ for access to hunt their property.

The landowner is actually given the opportunity to manage his property closer with the simple draw system since he can allow access to as many hunters as he desires rather than a quota of landowner voucher tags/acreage that is determined by the CDOW. This solves some of the problems Founder mentioned in his post in regard to the number of vouchers handed out to each landowner via acreage, wintering wildlife numbers, and habitat. If the landowner chooses to manage wildlife well....he ultimately is rewarded. This is a pretty simple system that doesn't have the head-aches involved with the current voucher system.

Where I have a problem with the current voucher system is that most of these tags are sold for profit rather than being available in a fair draw system where everyone has the opportunity to draw aand can afford the tags. Anyone that draws tags should have the option of deciding whether they want to hunt public land, pay a landowner to hunt their property, or hire a guide to hunt public or private land.

The simple draw system also eliminates hunters being able to bi-pass the pref pt system and purchases high dollar tags every year rather than waiting in line like everyone else. Believe me, I am not jealous that the wealthy can bi-pass the draw system and purchase voucher tags every year...I do believe these tags should be available to everyone in the draw system and if the wealthy want to pay a trespass fee or hire an outfitter they can go ahead and draw a tag like everyone else!

I am definitely for landowner vouchers but they should be for what they were originally intended. Rewarding landowners and their immediate families tags to hunt their own property.
 
It sure sounds to me like you are jealous that the "wealthy" can bi pass the draw system and purchase landowner tags every year. Like founder said rewarding landowners with tags for their property if they do not hunt is giving them nothing. And as a hunter who has property in another state where I live I am not interested in hunting animals on my own property that I see all year long so I would assume some of the Colorado landowners are not interested in hunting their own property either. Adventure is one element that draws some to hunting and there is not much adventure hunting your own property which you intimately know!
 
One thing that always bothers me about these threads is the presumption by most that ALL hunters who buy landowner and auction tags are rich, wealthy, dude hunters. And so it automatically follows......that those with money are evil......and then.....they are stealing our hunting opportunities.

What about "Joe Average" who wants a quality hunt and therefore cowboys up and sacrifices and does without in order to satisfy his desire??? Is this even possible in your narrow minds?

Is it possible that a guy doesn't piss away his hard earned money on pizza and beer.......doesn't make costly babies (and they all are)........doesn't marry a loser woman who makes minimum wage but wants a much higher lifestyle (and they all do).... and drives an older pickup........is buying these few quality hunting opportunities.......cuz he REALLY likes big animals as well as a quality once-a-year vacation that he worked hard and sacrificed to earn??

Is this possible?
 
There is a fine line between "right and wrong" vs being jealous! I could actually care less who buys the landowner voucher. The thing that bothers me is that anyone, whether it is an "Average Joe" or "Wealthy Willy" currently steps in front of hundreds if not thousands of other hunters waiting in line for tags. Do you guys really think it is right that anyone that purchases vouchers doesn't use any pref pts, can purchase these every year, and even accumulate pref pts every year they buy vouchers....while the majority of hunters wait it out 4 to 15+ years to draw 1 tag?

Next time you are waiting in line at the grocery store go step in front of a little ole gray lady and see what she and everyone else thinks of you!

Does it stand to reason that if a particular hunter doesn't buy a landowner voucher he will likely purchase another tag or hunt somewhere else? I am pretty certain there are numerous options avialable elsewhere if landowner vouchers were eliminated in Colo. One thing for sure...if the vouchers were eliminated the guys currently buying them would have to stand in line just like everyone else!
 
Question: Do these tags mean that much financially to the landowners? The only justification in my mind for doing what they are currently doing is if issuing these tags keep 160+ acres from becoming a subdivision. Answer: probably not.

If it is really an area that is suitable for someone to come in and break the property up, it would probably be worth $5000/acre or more. That means they could sell the property for at least $800,000+. Don't think a couple of tags a year to sell is going to compensate them enough to stop that.

If that is not the case, then why are they doing it? Compensation for game damage? As stated, landowners can make plenty if they manage their property for hunting.

Someone with a lot of clout must have come up with the current system: Give them tags that they can sell and the people don't actually hunt their land! What a sweet deal, but it makes no sense.

And sure they HAVE to grant access to their property to hunt, but we all know that usually only happens on the bigger properties. If you have 160 acres, not much hunting there.

The only way that really makes sense to me is to issue tags to the landowners to sell for hunts ON THEIR PROPERTY. If game is really causing damage, then someone should be able to kill that animal on the property. Make it late damage control hunts if you want to.

So I am OK with the landowner being able to sell the tags to 3rd parties, just as long as it is only good for hunting their private property.

In my mind, it doesn't matter if you are rich, or if you are a scrimping, lonely, wifeless, childless, self sanctimonious redneck. You still should not be able to "buy" a hunt in a draw only unit every year.

As a compromise, I wonder if this proposal might fly:
1) Issue tags that can be sold to third parties, but these tags are only good for the property they were issued to.
2) Issue tags that can be used unit wide, but would only be good for the landowners themselves and immediate family. Max of 2 per property.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
TXHunter58, If there has to be a compromise I actually like your suggestions as long as pref pts would be used and not accumulated by anyone that purchases vouchers.

Your #1 proposal is acceptable because the CDOW is continually searching for ways to open up more hunt opportunity on private land and less hunting pressure on public land. This may solve the CDOW's nagging problem with the current system where hunters purchase vouchers and aren't allowed access to the property the tag was issued since they are unit wide tags..even though this isn't permitted.

I believe the landowner voucher system was originally designed for the property owner and his immediate family in mind. I am all for your #2 proposal. Landowners themselves should benefit directly from the program rather than tag pimps or anyone else making a profit off the landowners!

It would be really interesting to know how much landowners profit directly from voucher tags compared to 3rd parties that buy and sell these tags! I have a sneaking suspician that most landowners don't want to deal with the sale and distribution of these tags so they practically give them away and get very little compensation? I would also guess that the CDOW has no idea what is going on with these tags and it is nearly impossible to regulate what happens with them! There is definitely room for improvement to the current system!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-10 AT 10:36PM (MST)[p]Tex-a-rama, thought you agreed that you wouldn't read and respond to my posts any more?

This whole, entire thread is nothing more than whiners pissing-n-moaning about the choices they have made in life.....and the resulting consequences and repercussions. And then....trying to make the others feel their pain and sacrifice to make them unaccountable for their actions. Bottom line....this is it. Same thread.....x 1000.......different day. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa.

This thread has nothing to do with landowners or private land crop/range damage. It's about wannabe trophy hunters who think they deserve to be trophy hunters.......without the associated sacrifices and lifestyle preparation. More examples of the Entitlement Syndrome (we're all equal.....ain't we?) that permeates the minds of the citizens of this country. That's what this is.
 
txhunter58 - You are right that no landowner voucher is going to stop development.

As for the voucher being good ONLY for private land, they already have those vouchers, those are Private Land Only Vouchers and landowners can get them, in addition to the unitwide vouchers. As I have stated before, the reason landowners wanted unitwide vouchers was because the game is not typically on the private ground (which is typically winter range) during hunting seasons. I think if the vouchers were good for private land only, and the hunts took place in December when the game is on the private land, there would still be quite a lot of bickering about that too. I don't think having late-November and December hunts on winter range private ground is a better option than the current setup.

As for issuing the vouchers to landowners and immediate family only.....what if they don't hunt? What if none of their family hunts? Doing that makes no sense to me because then the landowners who don't hunt get nothing.

I guess I have a different point of view because there are already many options where a person can pay extra money and have either a better chance of drawing a tag, or buying one in the form of a voucher. Here in Utah we have unitwide conservation and landowners tags, Nevada has unitwide landowner tags, Idaho has unitwide landowner tags, Wyoming has a regular and a special draw that allows a guy to pay more money and have a better chance at a tag. Nevada, Arizona, and Utah all require people to buy a hunting license in order to get a point, which increases a persons chance at a tag in years to come.
My point is, just as I might buy a Colorado landowner tag and you or someone else might not think it's fair that I get to hunt every year, I feel the same about having to buy a license to get a point in Nevada. I choose not to spend that money and buy a license in Nevada or Arizona, therefore all the guys who do buy a license have a better chance of getting a tag in those states than I do.
You know what I mean?

Believe me, I'm not a huge fan of everything hunting has evolved into, but it is what it is. Many people are making money off wildlife......game agencies, gas stations, grocery stores, outfitters, magazine owners, Garth Carter, and many more. Landowners want their piece of the pie too, and since they provide something that our wildlife needs, I think they deserve it.

jims - I understand you think the unitwide vouchers are unfair and should go away. Fair enough, but beyond that, how would you deal with landowners? If you were King, would you just do away with vouchers and expect landowners to just continue tolerating wildlife that they do not see as valuable as we see it? Or do you compensate them in order to encourage them to value the wildlife? If so, how do you do it? What options would you bring to the table?
You and others have stated over and over how unfair the vouchers are, but I haven't heard any ideas on other ways to make it work for all parties involved. (Please remember, not all land has game on it during hunting seasons, so fill us in on how you would encourage those landowners to care about our wildlife that spends 4 months each year on their land)

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-10 AT 07:48AM (MST)[p]Jims: I agree that people should lose their points. That one change by itself would probably help a lot.

Founder said: "As for issuing the vouchers to landowners and immediate family only.....what if they don't hunt? What if none of their family hunts? Doing that makes no sense to me because then the landowners who don't hunt get nothing"

If the people who own land don't hunt, they are either going to value the wildlife or not. I don't think a tag or two to sell is going to change their minds. And it is quite a bit of trouble to apply for them and sell them. That is why there are tag brokers. And not all of the landowners that apply for these tags get them. If you are going to find a way to compensate landowners for damage or usage, them compensate all of them.

As far as ideas, why not have the DOW hold special drawings that is basically a raffle, say $20 a pop, for these tags. That way pretty much everyone could have a shot at one. That should raise more money total than selling the tags privately. As it is now, these special drawings only COST the DOW. With special drawings, they could recover their costs and the rest is paid out to landowners if they apply for it. In addition to that, they could still issue tags to be used by the landowners family only (good unit wide). Seems like a win win to me, they would get a shot at tags for personal use, and they get compensated for wildlife without the hassle of having to sell tags.

And with this system, you could still even offer private land only transferable tags so that true ranches could make even more money by having people pay to hunt ON their land. Maybe make it a choice: they can either apply for private only tags to sell or apply for the money without any transferable tags, but not both. But I would still allow them to apply for personal (immediate family) use only tags.

Founder also said: " Landowners want their piece of the pie too, and since they provide something that our wildlife needs, I think they deserve it."

I couldn't agree more. People who talk about "greedy landowners" do so because they aren't one and don't know what it takes to keep a ranch operational. I personally don't have ANY problem with the landowners making a buck in some way. I just want to find a way to keep this great sport we love from slipping farther into the "rich man" only column.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
2Dog, I kind of take your post personally. I guess in your eyes I'm a wannabe trophy hunter but I do an incredible amount of research, scouting, and hunt hard on public land....and actually do pretty well.

My moaning and whining is in regard to strong ethics! I believe every hunter should have the same consideration when it comes to drawing tags. I think it's great when guys will work their butt off to finance hunts but also believe everyone should be entitled to the same opportunity to draw tags no matter what their financial status. If a tag is drawn and someone wants to hire a guide or pay a trespass fee to hunt private land...that is his choice. It seems only fair to me that everyone has the same opportunity to draw tags and hunt.

2Dog and Founder I would like both of you to answer these 2 questions: 1) Why should some hunters be able to get around the draw system and purchase tags every year if they are not a landowner nor related to one? In other words, why should some hunters be able to step in front of the majority of hunters that have waited 5 to 15+ years to draw 1 tag?

2) Why should hunters that purchase vouchers be able to get around the pref pt system and hunt every year without using any pref pts and actually accumulate pref pts the years they purchase vouchers?

I am dying to see your next post with your answers!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-24-10 AT 01:27PM (MST)[p]jims, I guess my answer would be the same as if you were to ask me why some hunters get to hunt out-of-state while others can't afford it or have strong ethics like yourself and don't feel it's fair. There's a lot in the world of hunting, and the world in general, that we all think is "unfair". You may have a valid argument. Maybe there should be restrictions on vouchers..????
I would guess that the landowner vouchers don't have the restrictions you would like to see because that would reduce their value.

I'm not arguing that the current system or setup is perfect, or even the best option out there, but I am arguing that landowners deserve something. Many aspects of the system, IMO, need changing. I have stated a couple in previous posts.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
JIMS-We are actually working on the antelope system right now to allow for more public opportunity, mostly the way you want it, with more opportunity to do it on your own. There still may be the current system as well but you will have an opportunity to access lands not signed up in the system and hunt your heart out as long as there is legal access to it, and there is quite a bit of that as long as you do your homework. I am optimistic about it working to be a win win for sportsman and landowner. As far as our elk system, it works fine with the exception of unit wide. I am not for it, don't think its right and that's all I'll say about that. The good thing about it that if I don't draw, I get another chance by purchasing a LO permit, which have gone down a bunch due to supply. The antelope situation is a different monster. There are few tag period. Supply is low, demand is high. Your a professor figure that one out.

If you think that going 100% draw is a solution your wrong. You WILL NOT MEET HARVEST GOALS ON PRIVATE LAND. If you think that trespass fee will go down to where you can go Jims it won't happen.....didn't a few years ago and a system other than Ranching for Wildlife had to be put back in. Most of your larger landowners won't allow just anyone their land. Do you let just anyone in your house? IF YOU THINK YOU CAN FORCE THEM TO LET YOU ON, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A WAR.

This is all about the socialization of wildlife. Its a tough issue but you best keep biology and herd management in the mix to get the herd reduced to sustainable numbers or you will have more than just Chronic Wasting Disease.
 
Nothing in the United States of America is fair to ever person. That is just the way it is. I have never bought a landowner tag for myself and have killed some great bucks on public land. I don't however feel that the system is all that bad. What is the landowner that has low land winter range supposed to do when he sells a voucher that is only for private and no deer are down that low until later than the season runs?? That is why they offer the unit wide tags. Private property supports more elk and deer than the public land due to sheep and cattle grazing on public land. Are these landowners supposed to graze the wildlife for nothing. I know what these guys will do if they don't get money some way. It is where the term farmer season came from. Thats what they did before they could get some help from voucher sales to help compensate for the cost of everything. The other option is for the DOW to compensate the landowner with money and fence and fertilizer, well all of that comes out of the money they would use for habitat improvements. I think it is better for the money to come from some wealthy hunters.
Just my thoughts! We are all sportsmen and conservationists. Lets focus more on habitat improvement and making sure our children can enjoy what we do today rather than bicker about ridiculous nonsense. We should be more concerned about season dates and rut hunts and tag numbers than this crap.
Jerad

Colorado Hunting Consultants LLC
www.cohunthelp.com
 
jims :

" 1) Why should some hunters be able to get around the draw system and purchase tags every year if they are not a landowner nor related to one? In other words, why should some hunters be able to step in front of the majority of hunters that have waited 5 to 15+ years to draw 1 tag?

2) Why should hunters that purchase vouchers be able to get around the pref pt system and hunt every year without using any pref pts and actually accumulate pref pts the years they purchase vouchers? "

The answer to both your questions is the same - we are Capitalists and live in a Capitalistic system, that is why it is fair. If you want fair move to a socialist or dictatorship system and see what's fair. Unbelievable - it's our way of life that makes us all want to do better and have more - it's what makes our world go round. I want what he has, so I better figure out how to get it cause no one is going to give it to me.
Entitlement is what has got our country into the mess we have now - it's black and white. Why can't people see that.

Robert
 
Every hunter has the same chance to draw or buy landowner tags, nobody is left out. Some choose to and some do not. That's life and you live with your choices.

some people choose to buy nice cars or trucks and others ride a bike everywhere they go. Just because the bike rider has "strong Ethics" and feels it is unfair and everyone should ride a bike so it takes the same amount of time for everyone to travel.

I think the landowner tags a good thing! if you dont want to spend the money for a tag, then just wait to draw. If your like me and want to go on good hunts then work hard and make it happen.

Why do we have to have it only one way?
 
I am pretty sure I'm hearing the same old story about who can and who can not afford voucher tags and this is not what I am asking....and still haven't gotten an answers!

#1) Can you honestly say that it is ok for hunters to bi-pass the draw system and purchase vouchers each and every year rather than go through the drawing system like the hundreds if not thousands of other hunters in Colorado?

#2) Can you honestly say that it is ok that pref pts are not used by hunters that purchase vouchers and they still can accumulate and not use any pref pts each year?

I fully understand that some guys can afford vouchers, guided hunts, or pay trespass fees but that is not my 2 questions. I fully understand that everyone has a choice...it is the draw and pref pt system that I am concerned about with the current voucher system....I could care less who or who can not afford these tags! The voucher system allows hunters to bi-pass the draw and pref pt system...is this fair to everyone else that is waiting in line for extremely tough to draw tags?

Someone please answer my 2 questions!
 
Jims-
Truth is they can't. They want there cake and eat it to no matter who they need to step over to do it.
They don't care that they cost a twelve year old kid a tag, anyone in between or an old man with one year left to hunt in his life. Now who is selfish and one sided?
That's the facts and it is really sad.

Arguing with these guys is pointless. Action by contacting DOW and officials and explaining this to them is the only way.
I have already done so and so should everyone else.
Nuff said.
Best,
Jerry Knack
44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
Depends on where you are standing when you look over the fence. Maybe the draw system is not fair since allows you to bi-pass the Landowner tag system.

Colorado has a set of rules. I can elect to not hunt Colorado. If I was a resident, I could even move to a state I personally felt was fairer.

Colorado has taken several steps to punish the nonresident in the past decade. That is my side of the fence. The resident on the other side might say thank goodness the resident is getting a fairer shake.

All in all, I tolerate the game as Colorado plays it. I do not expect everyone will share my views and frankly would scare me to find agreement among hunters that have such varied cultureal backgrounds, personal value systems and financial resources.
 
What about the twelve year old that doesnt draw a tag... Voucher!

Anyone can choose to buy one or not. How is that not fair? They are not restricted to who buys them in any way.

If someone hands you guys a voucher for unit 21 deer or 61 elk for free and you rip it up, I will listen to your arguements. Until then, there is no reason why everyone cant "have their cake and eat it too"
 
Founder: "The problem with limiting "WHO" a landowner can sell the vouchers to or how they sell them, limits the value of the vouchers, which defeats the purpose in a way."

False, the landowner tags were not issued so that the DOW could put money in a landowner's pockets. The system was implemented so a landowner could get access to hunt his own property.

One thing you forget, a lot of the private ranches in my unit, do not even have a deer on them, until the migration starts. So how can people claim the landowner is feeding and watering wildlife? If they really didn't want the wildlife, why not open the land to all hunters?

On a side note, an elk knocks down 20' of fence, yet somehow the rancher claims it is $30k in damages.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-10 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]See what I mean.
Circle of BS.
DKMULEYBUCK- not only does it cost them a tag once when someone uses a voucher but it then costs them again when a voucher user draws with the points they do not lose when they used a voucher.
So we all actually get skewered twice.

Also when an out of state hunter uses a voucher it skews the % out of state hunters allowed by DOW definition as well for each unit...basically taking away tags from resident hunters even more. Colorado already has the most leniant % of tags available to out of state hunters than anywhere else.

I knew a comment like yours was coming.
You guys sure put up a false front that sounds good to others that do no research.
Hand me a voucher and I will tear it up in front of you and we can post pics on here for all to see....
Ok, hopefully now I can let her lay here.
Best,
Jerry Knack


44f4e09309b4a917.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-10 AT 06:45PM (MST)[p]

4000 said: False, the landowner tags were not issued so that the DOW could put money in a landowner's pockets. The system was implemented so a landowner could get access to hunt his own property.

Actually, no, there have been private land only tags that landowners were able to apply for for as long as I remember. It was only recently that they have issued UNIT WIDE tags. These TRANSFERABLE tags were issued specifically with the intent that landowners could use them or sell them for profit as an incentive to keep them providing wildlife habitat.

And Outdoors, as far as "thems is the rules, love it or leave it", that is the purpose of this thread, to get support for pressure on the DOW to change the rules. THAT is what America stands for too. If enough people disagree with something and they put enough pressure to bear, things can change.

At this point, I think it would be a realistic goal to change it where people at least have to use their points to use a voucher. Probably a whole lot less people opposed to that.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>jims :
>
>" 1) Why should some hunters
>be able to get around
>the draw system and purchase
>tags every year if they
>are not a landowner nor
>related to one? In other
>words, why should some hunters
>be able to step in
>front of the majority of
>hunters that have waited 5
>to 15+ years to draw
>1 tag?
>
>2) Why should hunters that purchase
>vouchers be able to get
>around the pref pt system
>and hunt every year without
>using any pref pts and
>actually accumulate pref pts the
>years they purchase vouchers? "
>
>
>The answer to both your questions
>is the same - we
>are Capitalists and live in
>a Capitalistic system, that is
>why it is fair.
>If you want fair move
>to a socialist or dictatorship
>system and see what's fair.
>Unbelievable - it's our way
>of life that makes us
>all want to do better
>and have more - it's
>what makes our world go
>round. I want what
>he has, so I better
>figure out how to get
>it cause no one is
>going to give it to
>me.
>Entitlement is what has got our
>country into the mess we
>have now - it's black
>and white. Why can't people
>see that.
>
>Robert


Exactly!!! Robert, a man of selfless reason.

jims - First off, landowners DON'T get to side-step the draw as you seem to indicate. Take unit 61, 4th season buck tag as an example. They issue ONLY 1 landowner voucher for this hunt code, in 2009 there were 17 applications submitted for the ONE permit available. That means it will YEARS for all the current applications to draw a single permit. Doesn't sound much different that the public draw system to me, except they only have access to 15% of the tags, not 85% like the "PUBLIC HUNTER"??

Let me know when we are done with the "FAIR" issue. Like I said before, "FAIR", is a dirty four-letter word created by socialists, so they can get something from those that earned it, by doing NOTHING!!

Besides, those of you that claim it should be "Fair" to all, since when are landowners, non-residents, and outfitters not considered ALL??? Or is it really that you just want it ALL for yourself???
 
All I have to say is I cant wait to hunt colorado this coming season, for the 3rd year in a row. Should be a great year :) And Im a "below average Joe"
 
I understand the opposition to the LO tags but think about this. Long before the LO tags got popular and ranchers were being invaded by wildlife in the winter, LO's would make a call to the DWR and someone would come out and try and scare them off. If that didn't work, the DWR would eliminate them (shoot them). Nobody benefited from the tags. You money would go to compensate the ranchers for torn up fences, destroyed haystacks etc. Now at least guys get to hunt them instead of a state employee going on a shooting spree. One could argue, that they should just let hunters in to begin with. That would be OK but how many of those hunters would be willing to repair fences, build high fences around hay stacks, or even help out on the farm to compensate the LO for his loss. Even though people get to hunt them now, there is still loss. Just a thought.

By the way, I have only bought one LO voucher in my life and I thought it was crap that you couldn't hunt the private land. That's where all the deer were on 3rd season. But I am still for the LO vouchers and believe there needs to be some change. I do 100% agree that they should eliminate organizations that get involved with the sale of these vouchers. The LO's should be able to advertise any way they see fit but if someone other than the LO is getting a kickback, it should be illegal. JMO for what it's worth.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Jims, Jimbo, Jimbob......I'll engage you a bit.

If I spent $8,500 of my hard earned money that I sacrificed and saved for because my 12 pref points won't get me an early bull tag for the CO Big 3 of 2/201/10......then I made a large financial sacrifice. If someone saves enough pref points and draws one of the BIG 3 tags.......then he looses his points and therefore sacrifices due to the length of time it took him to save those. Huge sacrifices are made by the hunter in each of these scenarios. Given this.......why are you suggesting that the cash landowner voucher purchaser get hit TWICE.......once by losing the cash PLUS the many years of sacrifice it took to earn his points??? That's double dipping.....and completely unfair.

The Dog
 
2Dog, I swore to myself I wasn't going to add any more posts but when I read your last one...I got a big chuckle and couldn't resist! I think you just shot yourself in the foot!

The last time I checked public draw hunters loose all their pref pts, pay a $339 nonres tag fee, plus wait 1 to 15+ years for tags! If draw hunters want to hunt private land they may actually get hit 4 times if you add on guide/trespass fees...to make it a quadruple whammy! Which is more of a sacrifice?

By the way, you still haven't answered my 2 questions...this is getting pretty dull in a hurry.
 

Similar threads

urge2hunt
Updated Mule Deer & Bull Elk Hunts for 2024
Replies
0
Views
1k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt
urge2hunt
Mule Deer Hunts Available for 2024
Replies
7
Views
2k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt
urge2hunt
Book Cliffs Deer Hunt - Limited Spots
Replies
0
Views
886
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

A Whole Wall Full of Trophy Bucks!
07F9C35C-3CD9-470E-BF38-ABD9D77A5A7A.jpeg
9E735869-F4E9-4C4C-A531-5FF269CE423F.jpeg
621BC62C-B1B5-49C0-B9C2-B001F2A7EAFF.png
E5DB8C47-59DA-4E81-BD0E-9A6995E91C73.jpeg
Good Lookin' Buck for geno
B01B1B22-096E-4ACA-967A-10AD41F44784.png
IMG_9436.jpeg
Winter Range 2.jpg
2021 Big Bucks
IMG_9109.jpeg
Sqiggely Book Cliffs Buck.jpg
Back
Top Bottom