Colorado Public Hearings on Big Game License Allocation

W

walltenthunter

Member
Messages
9
If you have read posts in the deer and elk forums, you may be aware the Colorado Division of Wildlife is right now conducting public meetings to obtain the public perspective on big game license allocation. I have served on the License Allocation Committee as Sportsman, one of 15 folks on that Committee. I very much encourage all resident and non-resident hunters to pull up the Colorado Division of Wildlife website and then pull down the big game license allocation sub site. They need to hear back from the public by early August, 2005.

Essentially there are about 14 issues the Colorado Wildlife Commission would like public perspective on, issues from Landowner Preference, to the Resident/Non-Resident General Draw Split, Preference Points, Outfitter allocations, youth hunting tags, etc. I would tell you the two most important issues as I have seen them representing you (sportsmen) is Landowner Preference and the Resident/Non-Resident Split. These are not easy issues, nor ones with no consequences for change, though change may happen in some fashion. Important to understand as a basic is that Landowner Preference tags come off the top, and Landowners presently have 15% of tags for all hunt codes for deer and antelope, as well as hunt codes for elk in units limited for all rifle seasons. If you want some background on Landowner Preference you can pull up a good deal of information under the Colorado Wildlife Federation website. I wrote much of that 'working paper' on Landowner Preference.

Representing sportsmen, my conclusion was one in minority that Landowner Preference remain at 15% and that the Resident/Non-Resident Split move very moderately from present level 60% Resident/40% Non-Resident to a 65/35 or as high as 70/30. Colorado hunter levels are up about 10% on both Deer and Elk over the past 4 years and Non-resident hunters are down about 7% on both species. Colorado also is one of the faster growing states, plus our present allocation is far higher for NR hunters than any other western states. Additionally Colorado uniquely offers Over The Counter tags, so basically anyone can hunt if they have the desire. You all might find it interesting others on the Committee favored in majority (13 of 15) more landowner tags (up from 15% to as high as 35% for eastern plains and 25% in 1,2,10/201 units, and 18% elsewhere in Colorado, plus the resident allocation after Landowner Preference as as high as 85% on the plains, though the net to residents on a per 100 licenses was only about 4 licences. If you are confused now, it is normal. The 'compromise' solution split the state into three zones, and the % allocation to non-residents under that solution would be as lowest on the plains, then followed by the 4 'premier units 1,2,10,201, then least affected the other statewide units. Overall my perspective was that any decrease in NR hunter opportunity ought to be minimal, and as income neutral as possible. We very much value every hunter's hunting opportunity.

I will post the exact %s and how they sort out per 100 licenses issued in a follow-up post.

I would also be pleased to answer any questions you fellow hunters might have, as we all are on a learning curve.

Thanks and let me (and the Colorado Division of Wildlife) know your perspectives.

Kent Ingram
Colorado Wildlife Federation
 
Please attend. I attended the Colorado Springs meeting and we're about to get the shaft(again).
The DOW will put out 85%, 75% & 67% for Residents, but no matter what percentage, it comes out about 54-56% of limited licenses. They are pushing for a "HUGE" landowner givaway
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 08:04AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 08:02?AM (MST)

WTH-I read many of the documents concerning the LIcense Allocation Group(LAG) meetings and came away feeling that the squeaky wheels are getting the grease. Apparently there is a substantial consensus that wildlife is here to ensure financial and economic welfare for those who have chosen to make their living off hunting and the marketing of hunting.

I understand that there are large ranch property owners on who's property, deer and elk reside much of the year and compete with cattle, but that is an entirely different situation than a landowner getting buck or bull tags for a premium draw area and selling them for many thousands of dollars. The original intent of landowner licenses has been bastardized into a preference point bartering system. Sportsmen and women who wait patiently for years, accumulating preference points and hope to draw are being cheated of opportunity by a flaw in the system that has allowed a brokering of tags that most likely will NOT be used on the landowners property for which they were issued.

Making these tags good for only the property owned by the person to which they were issued makes them worth pennies on the dollar. Big difference in a $5,000 dollar landowner tag when it is confined to a ranch that they deer migrated off weeks before.
Then there is the idea that ranch borders are somewhat obscure and often don't account for topography, like a fenceline cutting sidehill across a canyon with BLM border. Well the RFW guys have been able to adapt to that(atleast the ones who play by the rules and don't get busted by the DOW because a digruntled guide blew them in!)but then again, these quality area landowner buck tags are being sold for more than a fully guided RFW hunt. Why? Because they are good unit wide. If the landowners want more tags, great. Make them good for the land that they were issued to and give them all they want.

While the public comment meetings are taking place and are a real value in intent. Some of the language that I have read in the meeting minutes lends me to believe some consensus has already been achieved and these public comment meetings only serve to patronize the "Average Joe" sportsmen.

I'm offering my .02 after years of watching these type of processes including going way back to the "Stakeholders" meetings back in the early-mid 90's when many spent a great deal of their time off and had sand kicked in their faces after it was said and done.

(Sorry about the edits, proof-reading, eh?)
 
The email I received about the upcoming meetings said that if you can't attend a meeting there was a survey on the DOW web site that you could send in. If you can't make it to a meeting, please take the time to fill out a survey. Resident hunters are about to get stuck with higher license costs and less opportunity.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/hunt/BigGame/License_Allocation/index.asp

I'm not at all surprised by the push for more landowner tags. Money controls hunting in Colorado - period. The big game in this state belongs to everyone and it time we stop exploiting them for the almighty dollar.
 
There definitely needs to be a rule that landowners MUST allow any hunters to hunt their land if they are going to receive landowner vouchers.

I also hate to see a cut in non-resident tags and a raise in landowner tags, especially on the western side of the state where most of the deer habitat is on federal and state land.

As a non-resident, I hate to see my opportunity to draw a good tag lessoned by a cut in non-resident tags. Obviously, because I like to hunt Colorado, I'd like to see the number remain the same. Of course that probably won't happen.

Landowners already get a fair share of tags. IMO, 15% is already a few too many, atleast in the West.

I guess I would recommend 50% for residents, 35% for non-resident, and 15% for landowners.
IMO, if landowners were forced to allos all hunters who want to access their land, to do so, in order to receive landowner vouchers, far fewer would participate.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Yikes Founder !!!!
Would you find those same percentages you want acceptable in Utah? Especially in your hard to draw area's?

I do agree about the Landowner vouchers, if they accept them, then they need to make their land accessable to the public.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]Can you imagine the collective public outcry if Utah's limited premium elk, deer and desert sheep units were changed to offer 35% to non-residents. The sportsmen of Utah would storm the Capitol steps and riot in the streets. That's no joke!

For those of you that would like to look at the License Allocation Group's meeting summery/minutes, I'll get the link and post it.

Here it is............click on the the last meeting "draft" at the bottom of this page for a PDF of the latest as they have it on this page.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/hunt/biggame/license_allocation/related.asp#Summaries
 
Just because Utah's system is bad doesn't mean you should make your system bad for non-residents too. It bothers me that non-residents get such a low number in many states; Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and others.

I guess I'm a real minority in the hunting world because I like hunting several states each year. I expect Colorado to cut non-resident tags, but I'm surely not going to push for it.

When all is said and done, guys like myself (non-residents) who don't want to see our opportunity decreased in Colorado, hope that the Wildlife Commission wants our money. I have no problem spending it in Colorado. The lost revenue from non-resident tag sales is really our only hope.

In this world, most people are looking out for what's in their best interest. I hate to say it, but I can't send a letter saying, "please take my tag away and give it to someone else". Can't do it.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
The way Utah's bonus system is, I'll be lucky to ever hunt another premium unit in my life (as a resident) and to be honest, I couldn't care less if they upped the non-resident tags. It's true that Utahn's are diehard hunters and I'd dare say, compared to states with a similar number of residents, Utahn's go out of state to hunt more than any other states' residents. I've been hunting CO since 1991, and plan on doing the same as long as I'm physically able. I spend about ten times as much money to go hunting there than the residents and I don't mind doing it, because of the opportunity. I will be voting for status quo or asking for fewer landowner tags. With all of the talk about the changes for the 5 year plan, they still came back with the status quo, basically. Actually with the new season dates, comes more opportunity. I hope the later season dates don't come back to bite them in the rear. Anyway, after all the public comment, it probably won't be changed much at all. I really like the idea of forcing people to hunt the state when they apply, to keep their preference points. And, after 3 years of not applying, yank their points. I hope that kind of stuff goes through. I guess we'll just deal with whatever changes they go with...Steve
 
There is a big difference in my mind in Utah and Colorado. Just look at the total number of tags in each state. Colorado has many, many, many more tags. So I don't think that is comparing apples to apples.

However, on very limited units in Colorado, then the numbers are comparabale. Therefore, for those very limited units, go to a 80/20 split, I have no problem with that.

Just don't get really restrictive on the units/areas with lots of tags that are fairly easy to draw. The muzzleloading season is a good example of something that works fairly well. Residents can draw with 0 points and it takes 1 to 2 points for a nonresident to draw. Seems pretty fair to me, but I would hate to see it get even worse for nonresidents. Can't see how residents can complain much about drawings like that.

Landowner tags should be limited to hunting on the ranch and should only be raised above 15% in places like the eastern plains that are 90% private anyway.

The first post mentions that Resident hunters are up 10% and nonresident numbers are down 7%. over last 4 years. Sounds like the increase nonresident tag prices and 60/40% are already working for residents advantage to me.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Take a look how these #s play out. It is the current system of allocation, then the new 'compromise' solution, both in terms of % of licenses issued, as well as numbers


Current System

Landowners 15% and 15 tags out of 100 issued

Residents 60% and 51 tags out of 100 issued

Non-Residents 40% and 34 tags out of 100 issued


NEW COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS

(A) 4 Premier Units (1,2,10,201)


Landowners 25% and 25 tags out of 100 issued

Residents 75% and 56 tags out of 100 issued

Non-Residents 25% and 19 tags out of 100 issued


(B) Eastern Plains Units

Landowners 35% and 35 tags out of 100 issued

Residents 85% and 55 tags out of 100 issued

Non-Residents 15% and 10 tags out of 100 issued


(C) The rest of Colorado units

Landowners 18% and 18 tags out of 100 issued

Residents 67% and 55 tags out of 100 issued

Non-Residents 33% and 27 tags out of 100 issued

You decide hunters if this flies. I contend, representing sportsmen on the LAG Committee that landowners and residents license allocation gains are too much, at the expense of non-resident hunter opportunity. Also, what about increased privatization of hunting that landowner vouchers bring. If you hunt under those tags, you will likely pay dearly to do so, range of $1,000 to $5,000 on buck tags and $1,500 to $10,000 for bull elk vouchers. How much landowner preference is enough, or the very limit of what we ordinary sportsmen can tolerate or at least justify. Remember, landowner tags come off the top of the quotas set, and the other hunters (residents and non-residents then get their formula allocation (60/40 or 85/15 or 67/33 off of what is left.

Let me and especially the COlorado Wildlife Commission know your opinions hunters.


Kent Ingram
Sportsman (LAG Committee)
 
When addressing the landowner vouchers in premium draw areas, there is talk that the landowner needs this opportunity to have and broker vouchers in order to keep his head above water and make money for the ranch to keep it out of development and subdivision. There is plenty of competition for these vouchers even in the landowner draws and virtually no assurance of getting these vouchers two years in a row. If these vouchers are the only things standing in the way of turning Grandpa's ranch into a subdivision for millionaire estates, than we had better give these landowners all the tags they need. Otherwise this system is gone awry and these are nothing but a nice chunk of spending change for some enterprising landowners. An altruistic intention of giving landowners incentive has evolved into a cash cow for not all, but many landowners, and the tag brokers.

Residents deserve in the neighborhood of 50 plus percent of the licenses and realistically, far more than that. While these landowner vouchers are handy for those with enough money to buy them in the event that they are not drawn for a tag, its obvious that they reduce overall non-resident opportunity based on the allocation examples posted by Kent. Many can afford a non-res tag but the percentage drops dramatically when vouchers have a price tag in the thousands. Timmy needs braces, the car has 200,000 miles on it and dad wants to spend $4,000 on a tag because he won't draw a tag for 3 more years. Far more folks are in this situation than those that fall into the catagory to price bid for 15% of ALL available licenses. 15% OF TAGS TO THOSE WITH ADEQUATE CHECKBOOKS?? If that is not privitization of wildlife, then tell me what is.

This is an organized system of brokering preference points and average hunter opportunity in favor of putting a few extra bucks in a landowner's pocket.

Making these tags valid for the land in which they were issued can go a long ways towards minimizing this out-of-control scenario. Non-residents want to keep their opportunity percentages and also have the option of purchasing landowner vouchers in the event of no-draw. Can we have it both ways?
 
I might add that there are far more "premium" units than just the few elk units highlighted by the DOW. Ask anyone who got into a bidding war for their Unit 54 or 55 buck license. Maybe the DOW should check the prices garnered for landowner tags in the "Huntin' Fool" to gauge market value.
 
I think it important to note the LAG recommendations were not from DOW, but rather the LAG Committee. Actually the idea for these four 'quality' units to go to 25% was advanced by the landowners, yet part of the 'compromise' solution that had the three differing allocations statewide.

Landowner preference could increase in some fashion if the licenses issued thereunder were Private Lands Only. This is a key I and my organization sees needing be changed to insure private lands licenses (i.e. Landowner Vouchers) end up only being private lands hunting. We already have a large displacement of our deer and elk onto private lands when the hunting on public lands begins. The two, (private and public lands hunting) should work for each other, not against or not disproportionately one way (public lands over hunted). Moreover, some greater kind of measurable public access needs be in place than the current "reasonable" access now set forth. I think sportsmen could define what we see as 'reasonable' yet it would likely not equate to that level of public assess the landowners would desire.

Example: At the Colo. Spgs. public hearing on LAG just last week a landowner came up to me afterwards asking how he could sell his vouchers. I referred him to Allen Pennington whom in the brief time I have known him have a good deal of respect for. He advertises on this website. I asked him though whether hunters could hunt his land though in buying his vouchers. He said " I hope not, as I really would like to avoid that". We talked for about 10 minutes, yet folks I can tell you his intent was to sell the vouchers and not have any hunting on his lands (which have deer and elk). I even mentioned he could likely get conservation organization volunteers to assist the process. He was not interested in such, lest he changed his mind later. Ouch, case in point.

Indeed some Landowners want the cash from vouchers, yet fewer would champion solid levels of public access. If the guy whom buys the voucher could not get access, what chance does the hunter with simply a PLO (Private Lands Only) tag going to have for access or hunting privileges, or for that matter a public lands hunter simply trying to access remote public lands via private property. This is fellow hunters the disconnect I see between landowners and sportsmen. Years ago when my late granddad lived in rural Wray, CO. everyone gave everyone permission to hunt. I think they had it more right than is now happening in too many cases.

Thanks for the comments. Keep them coming. We all are hunters, and in this case I think we speak as one (residents and non-residents).
 
I think its evident that the market will dictate what the value of a commodity is. This is shown in the fact that landowner voucher prices have gone through the roof. Many are selling for more than a fully guided hunt and one that a friend of mine checked on was being offered for more than a fully guided dall sheep hunt. Thats for an area with a five day season! No guide, no access to private, a five day buck season and the tag is being put out there with an $8,000 dollar price tag on it.

If landowners have high quality hunting available on their lands, it obvious people will pay just about whatever it takes.
Now, they are just essentialy getting free licenses to highly coveted draw areas and a free-for-all to the entire unit and selling the opportunity to hunt the public lands just to pocket the money.

The landowner voucher system has evolved from a system to assist landowners who actively promote hunting on their property, in getting licenses for their hunters into a cash cow for those who are looking to make a few easy bucks at the expense of hunter opportunity for those involved in the general draw system. Quite evidenced by Kent's anecdotal example in the conversation he had with the landowner in the last post.
 
seen stuff like this happen back in the old soil-bank days in South Dakota, where farmers got into a program to get paid for for not farming land (just like the CRP program of toady)Because of farmer saying that if they couldn't make money this way the would go under, Well alot of farmers went under but they went under due to bad mangement after the program run it course all it did was keep some farmers in the busineess that should of never be in the farming business.. I think you are looking at the same thing here, If you as a rancher that is cross all the "T" and dotting all the "I" you will still be making money(Not getting rich but making a living) those that don't take the time or spend the effort to make it work will be the first on the band wagon saying I need this to stay afloat. Those that don't change from the old ways of ranching (farming) will get left behind and fall to the way side, Exp: in So Dak the days of farming 160 ac. is dead and gone to be able to make it in farming you have to farm land that in the thousands of ac. less then 25 year is all it took for this change to happen, I think you are just starting to see the change in Colo. ranching. I don't think letting ranchers have 25% of the tags to sale will be a good thing for CO. I'm pro-rancher/farmer but if you CAN'T hunt the land you are getting the tag for there is a problem, Because it wouldn't stop at 25% because the ranchers will keep trying to build up their cash-cow( I know I woudl) for more and more tags because all they have to do is sell them to a tag broker and not worry about if there is really deer or elk on the land during the season, It a little harder looking some-one in the eye and telling them that the tag they brought wasn't too good of a deal because the majoratory of deer and elk had moved off the ranch 3 weeks before the season starts, how long will it take before those ranches can't sell those tags.If you have property that runs for top of the mountain to the valley (say 20 miles long x 10 mile wide) and there are 5 ranches in this belt and they all get landowner tags aren't they all claiming the same bunch of elk/deer that travel down the mountain, 4th season landowner tag might not be a good thing for the guy at the top of the mountain but the guy at the bottom can sell his tags for $10,000 a pc. because all the deer/elk have been pushed down to his ranch, I don't think just upping the tags % will help the over all mangement of the herds BUT will line a few more pockets. Just a couple of cents worth take it or leave it
 
Just like what I wrote on my notes at the end of the questionaire. These landowners that are not willing to let hunters on their land, should not be allowed in the application process. I'd imagine a good number of these landowners have leased their hunting rights to outfitters and given or sold the vouchers to the outfitter. I guess in that sense they are allowing a "resonable" number of public hunters on their land. But, all landowners making money off of these tags should be forced to allow hunters on their land, even if the hunters did not buy vouchers from them. It probably wouldn't be that difficult to enforce once you found that probably less than 10% of them would go along with it. The landowners have more than enough vouchers at 15% guaranteed. I sure hope they don't get more, at least not in the west....Steve
 
As an update, Colorado has now had a number of public meetings around the state on big game license allocation. The numbers I hear is that 500 or so public responded in with questionaire answers, plus completion of the public input form on the DOW website. DOW also opted, as we (Colorado Wildlife Federation) asked for, to schedule in an additional License Allocation Committee meeting, this one set for 8/27. In between now and then the Colorado Wildlife Commission has a workshop set forth later this week to discuss amongst other things big game license allocation.

If you responded, good for you. If you didn't then you should have. My usbsequent thoughts about all these matters are that sportsmen are right not to automatically say yes to a higher landowner preference. A license to landowners is now tantamount to money, and money interests are seldom satisfied. Also, residents as well as non=residents need our license allocations off the top, off the "quota", not percentages after landowner preference. The 60/40 split at present is not that at all, but rather 51/34. I pointed out the new 'Compromise' solution supported all but 2 in the LAG Committee (me and a veterinarian named ##### Steele dissented) would strip down non-resident hunting opportunity from the present 34 tags per 100 issued to 19, 10, and 27, depending on which geograhpical area of Colorado you might choose to hunt. I have told you all (non-residents) some adjustment is likely to happen in favor of residents, yet the adjustment must be reasonable. I favor all tags off the quota where $s would be the same as #s of licenses issued. Take the smok and mirors out of understanding license allocations. In this vein my solution is 15/60/25, all of these off the quota. If we were protect a full 25% of licenses to non-residents, I think you all would understand and live with it.

Important for all hunters to understand is that for landowner preference to increase, the general pool of licenses to residents and non-residents has to decrease. That hunters is bad news for hunting opportunity for the mass of hunters, and giant steps toward privatization and the european model of hunting. Here the real battle for ordinary hunters is simply protecting affordability in hunting, unbridled access to hunting licenses, and getting more access (both to private lands and more importantly public lands) now controlled by private lands ownership. Hunters need to speak as one, not a splintered, "my interest is only what counts kind of constituency" of hunters. 75 years ago anyone could hunt anyone's property. These days a change of state of being is happening in hunting, hunting conditional upon lots of money, hunting they want you to think is conditional on hiring a turn key everything is provided kind of package, yes this being the commercialization and privatization of our sport. Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave seeing what the sport has been evolving into.

My point.... Get involved. Write letters, make your opinions known. Also, don't buy that 5th piece of hunting gear that really is not needed, and instead support a worthy conservation organization. Organized and focused, hunters are a powerful voice. Teddy started the process, and he simply handed off the baton to each successive generation. What will you do for the sport of hunting?

Working for you as a sportsman,

Kent Ingram
 
Kent Ingram & Mr. Steele,
I appreciate you taken of your time to attend these meeting and committees to represent "the average joe" hunter. I attended the meeting at DOW and especially appreciate Kent standing up and explaining these issues to us. We as hunters must write letters to the powers that be and express our concerns, while we have time. Colorado hunting as well as all hunting is only going to stay the common mans sport as the common man Fights to protects it. Otherwise we will continue to lose our sport and heritage to greedy groups and individuals who will yell, scream and write letters until they get their way.
McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
It's ok to lower NR tag percents down to 20% or so. I hope the resident get more tags and they would also get to fund more of the budget for Fish & Game. It looks great on paper for everyone to want more tags for the resident BUT how is the Dept. going to get their funding if you cut out a few million dollars worth of revnue, WHO is going to pick up that cost, I know we will just raise the NR fees up so we don't lose any money just tags. Pretty soon you have just the rich hunting Colo. and they are the one's who fly in and hunt for a day or two,(guess they need Co SFW) they don't spend alot of money on motels,food,gas,shells hunting gear,like a blue-collar hunter who stays all week for the hunting.
 
I attended the 7/27 Denver public input meeting... along w/ a few other frustrated CO residents. I subsequently filled out my survey and sent it in before the 8/4 deadline. Just thought I would share the comments I provided the Commission and get some thoughts from MM members...

> I feel strongly that Colorado needs to take steps to
> address the Resident to Non-Resident license
> allocation percentages to be more in-line w/ other
> western states (e.g. WY, MT, UT, AZ, etc.) and/or
> apply pressure on other western states to make their
> license allocation percentates more 'fair'. either
> by raising allocation percentages to the 90% (Res) -
> 10% (NR) used by other western states or by using a
> 'reciprocity system' (Colorado would use the same
> allocation percentages for other western states that
> they have in place for non-residents, but not to
> exceed 40%). The 'reciprocity system' is an idea
> being considered by MN, and one that makes a lot of
> sense. I personally would rather see a 60/40 or
> 70/30 allocation in all states (slight preference to
> resident hunters but welcome non-resident hunters),
> but CO is currently the only western state w/ this
> approach and therefore there is no pressure on other
> western states to change their position. So, it is
> the CO resident hunter that is the 'looser', both
> from a perspective of having very limited
> opportunities to hunt other western states and from
> CO giving away a large % of their/resident hunter
> hunting opportunities in their own state.
>
> This is the first year that I attempted to apply for
> multiple big game licenses in other western states
> and found it very frustrating/angering to find out
> that most western states have a 90% (Res) - 10% (NR)
> hunting license allocation while Colorado gives our
> tags away using a soft 60% (Res) - 40% (NR)
> allocation percentage. This inequality is WRONG.
> particularly from a perspective of a Colorado
> resident hunter attempting to hunt other western
> states and/or wanting to maximize the opportunities
> to hunt their own state. I understand that this
> seems perfectly fine to CO special interests
> (landowners, outfitters, small mountain town Depts.
> of Commerce/small businesses) that have a
> $/financial stake in keeping the status quo or
> pushing things even further in their direction.
> But this is also WRONG. wildlife and resident
> hunters DO NOT owe a living to landowners,
> outfitters, small businesses (I can not stress this
> concept enough!). And I find it particularly
> frustrating/angering thinking that the other western
> states were faced with EXACTLY this same
> dilemma/tough decision and decided to side w/ the
> resident hunters of their own state vs. caving to
> the special interests. Why is this? Why did WY,
> MT, UT, AZ and other western states say "we side w/
> our resident hunters and will implement a 90/10
> license allocation even though we know this will
> have a negative impact on those special interests in
> our state that have a $/financial stake in
> exploiting wildlife for financial gain"? I am
> trying very hard to get an answer to this question
> and so far have heard nothing that satisfies me.
>
> I attended the Denver public input meeting and did
> not hear this addressed. I decided to hold my
> tongue since there were plenty of upset resident
> hunters and didn't want to make it even more
> difficult for the 'messengers' presenting the output
> from the LAWG meetings.
>
> I obviously don't support the 'package' of
> recommendations that came out of the LAWG meetings.
> There were some very good recommendations and some
> very bad recommendations. But, as a whole, the
> 'package' leans way too far toward the special
> interest positions and too far away from the common
> CO resident hunter's position. Please, try again!


Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation, INCREASED and NOT IMPAIRED in value."
logo_pub.jpg
 
>
>My point.... Get involved. Write
>letters, make your opinions known.
> Also, don't buy that
>5th piece of hunting gear
>that really is not needed,
>and instead support a worthy
>conservation organization. Organized
>and focused, hunters are a
>powerful voice. Teddy
>started the process, and he
>simply handed off the baton
>to each successive generation.
> What will you do
>for the sport of hunting?
>
>
>Working for you as a sportsman,
>
>
>Kent Ingram


No one could have said it better. Let your voices be heard.

As a Veterinarian, I am glad to hear that a fellow vet has some good sense too (person who dissented with you)!

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I agree with the 2 previous posts. I went to
the Montrose meeting Aug 2. MONEY is driving
these decisions and I dont entirely mean
DOW. Private interests (money) are by far
the most important factors in how all this
will come out and NOT the res sportsmen of
Colo. Please tell me why Colo res cannot be
treated like res of other states. They have
rights that only us Colo res can dream about.
Down and out in Montrose Roy.Lets manage wildlife
and NOT businesses.
 
Thanks TxHunter. You can share my elk camp anytime. To some they would think that harboring big game for part of a year would allow them a preference. Colorado did reward landowners as such in the 1980s. Then something came along where preference changed from licenses to vouchers. I said in my working paper on landowner preference that to average hunters, the hunting license, while merely a piece of paper... was something very close to the core of hunting heritate. Hunters are hunters, be they residents or non-residents. We need to deliver the message to the Wildlife Commission that enough is enough in landowner preference, and enough is the 15%. The truth is in landowner preference there are two sytems, one the 'traditional' (licenses) and the other deemed 'priority' the voucher draw. Guess which one has the advantage in the landowner preference draw. Yes it is vouchers. Talk about unfairness to the rancher whom simply wants to hunt his own property, or to procure tags for a few close hunting friends.

I, like most of you, am passsionate about hunting. These years it is though about giving back. Sportsmen need to get involved, whether singularly in writing to the Wildlife Departments in the states they hunt, or by getting involved in some conservation organization. Hunting is not the sport is was when my late grand dad hunted from the 20s to the 60s. It isn't the same as when my late dad hunted from the 20s into the 90s. These years money has arisen to be far to important than it should be. My hunting years will have been the 50s on the 410 shotgun onto the 70s hunting literally all the Alaskan big game (unguided), and now back to my home state of Colorado since about 1980. Horns these years aren't that important, yet hunting is. What some never comprehend is how important the opportunity is to hunt... own your own. I think I need to invite a landowner and a guide to my elk camp, on public grounds. Nothing would be guaranteed except fatigue, wondering if the bull or buck is anywhere withing 5 miles, and yes sharing the experience with my best hunting buddies. Money is nowhere factored in. Money can buy some of you vouchers, yet not admission into our hunting camp. We are all in the together hunters. Get involved.
 
I tried to post the results of the survey, but when I copy and pasted it to the reply here, it gets all jacked up. But anywho, the results are the same as always, Residents want more Licenses and want "NO" increases to the Landowners.

But as most already know with the Colorado Wildlife Commission, "NO" means "YES"
 
COHunter- I feel as if there is compelling evidence to the Wildlife Commission that residents deserve some net increase in big game license allocation. As to where that increase lies depends in part on the financial impact to DOW. I think we (LAG Committee) will receive more detail on options and impacts to DOW at our next 8/27 meeting. Even is slightly income negative, however, Colorado needs to make the correction of course in more favor of residents. One option is less of an overall increase, say 70% of the 85% now allowed after landowner preference (which amounts to 60 licenses out of 100 issued/i.e. 70% of 85%), and then say 80% of licenses in high demand hunt codes. You tell me what defines high demand hunt codes, yet for sake of discussion throw out 5 pts.

I do not share your pessimism excepting income impact to DOW. Alot of us lobbied for a license increase for DOW in HB 1266 that passed, so that residents would pay more to hunt and fish so as to (1) greater fund the strategic plan of DOW, and (2) end deficits caused in large part to Whirling Disease on trout and CWD costs for protecting our free ranging deer and elk herds.

Just my thoughts.
 
Walltenthunter
Your views of what residents should get are way off course as to what resident hunters want (read the survey results). We all know that the LAG Committee was nothing more than a dog & pony show who's members were hand picked by McCloskey because they lobbied for the fee increase, and they were to come up with a pre-determined solution for him. (with the exception of ##### Steele).

Next year Colorado will become one of the more expensive states for Resident hunting license fees, we dont need to remain the state with the most restrictive resident hunter opportunity. The DOW has a budget of over $106+ million (2X's that of other western states), but could only find $3 million for deer and elk management.

The DOW should stick to wildlife management, and not get involved with everyone elses money management, thats what the local Chamber of Commerce is for.
 
I can already see where this is going....... and it's not good. DOW is going to do what they want to do in the end. When they tried to make a few N. Gunnison, Aspen and San Juan units quality elk units they got overwheling approval, even from local outfitters. Board shot it down because those units were cash cows and are some of the most heavily hunted OTC's in the state. Some of the questions they have asked has lead me to beleive that they are obviously trying to emulate other western states and will in a short time.

The most preference points gets the tag needs to be reworked to a 90% allocation to those with max points, and then 10% random draw. And buying a hunting license to get a point is a sh*tty idea borrowed from other corrupt states. All in all I was disturbed by the questions asked and some of the narrow minded responses by the hunting public. Maybe they are just putting out feelers to see what the response is but I don't think that is the case. The CDOW board needs to be overhauled. Bill Owens shouldn't get to decide who is on it. He is not a pro hunting Governor and the majority of the board is made up of non hunting politicians with financing first and foremost on their minds. Sorry to vent but I have a daughter and a son that I would like to see hunt in another 20 years.
 
I agree. Why does Colo. feel they have to be like all the other western states? Do it right and do it in a way that is good for Colo.

Phantom Hunter
 

Similar threads

HntHrdr
Last minute meeting to change Co tag allocation
Replies
12
Views
2k
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

95AC0DCD-B911-4ECF-BBD9-B846C8D91BE7.jpeg
100C6CCE-556C-41A0-8FF6-C69B16E329AF.jpeg
IMG_4441.jpeg
IMG_3511.JPG
IMG_9618.jpeg
IMG_9620.jpeg
Couple Monster Muleys
039A246A-3646-4766-AD09-C5C9C2E437DD.jpeg
Screenshot_20240117_040735_Instagram.jpg
IMG_5864.jpeg
IMG_0432.JPG
Huge Muley
Back
Top Bottom